Chapter 1

The Origins of Money and Banking

‘Usury’ is today defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as . . . “The action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.”

However, one of the most subtle forms of deception is the Orwellian re-defining of words or concepts to benefit those who rule over us and decide what we should and should not believe. Originally, ‘usury’ was actually ‘The action or practice of lending money at interest,’ but it now appears to be expedient to add the four key, highlighted words above to that definition in order to maintain the desired illusion and to distract anyone seeking the truth from the actual reality.

In the beginning . . .

The term by which I will refer to those who control our everyday existence, the ‘banksters,’ is not a new one by any means. Even prior to all the public outrage of ‘the too big to fail banks’ of recent years, way back in the early 1930s an American immigrant, a Sicilian-born lawyer named Ferdinand Pecora, seems to be the original ‘coiner’ of the word. At the time he was the chief counsel to the US Senate Committee on Banking, probing the Wall Street Crash of 1929. The name ‘banksters’ caught on, particularly with ‘anti-bankster’ economists and combining the definition of a banker with that of a gangster is not only quite inspired, but totally accurate, at least for usage in polite company and for the purposes of this work. Despite the derogatory nickname, the crimes of even the most notorious bank robbers and murderers such as Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, any serial killers you can mention and the infamous New York and Chicago gangsters of the 1920s, compared to those of the banksters are all absolutely trivial.

It is perhaps also important before we go any further to define more precisely who or what is meant by the term, ‘bankster.’ I do not mean to imply for example, that the lady next door who works as a senior clerk at the local HSBC branch is a ‘bankster’ and nor even do I mean the legions of middle management who tend to proliferate in great numbers in the banking industry. Similarly, the expensively ‘suited and booted,’ Aston Martin-driving senior banking executive who earns more in one week than most people earn in a year, but who nevertheless still takes his orders from on high, neither is he a ‘bankster.’ A ‘banker’ yes, but a ‘bankster’ — most definitely not.

No, by this term I mean the usually faceless, major shareholders of the giant banking conglomerates, who often take no active part in the day-to-day running of the business, but remain anonymous, hidden in the shadows, whilst controlling and directing the banks’ many insidious policies and taking-part in the ongoing deceptions and evil machinations about to be laid-bare in these pages. The self-styled, hereditary yet secret rulers of us all, who desire to control our every movement and our every thought in order to prevent us discovering their real agendas and despicable intentions for the entire human race, these are the ‘banksters.’ They control not only the ‘strings’ of the banks, but also either directly — or by proxy — most other corporations too.

It is a truism to state that the banksters are in a class all of their own. All the evil perpetrated by the so-called underworld, the Jewish Mob, the Sicilian/Italian Mafia, the Mexican/Columbian drug cartels, even the Stalinist, Maoist and Cambodian, Khmer Rouge purges of the twentieth century and various infamous individual mass-murderers or serial killers cannot even come close to matching the multitude of crimes against humanity committed by the banksters.

And it is not just simply financial fraud, foreclosures, artificially induced inflation, booms and depressions and stock-market crashes for their own materialistic ends, of which they stand accused. Amongst their many heinous crimes are also; mass murder, genocide . . . literally hundreds of millions if not billions of deaths. There also happens to be the far from trivial matters such as the brainwashing, deception, bribery and corruption of politicians, judges, law enforcement, military, scientists, educators, medical professionals, the covert ‘ownership’ of our governments, household-name corporations, the entire popular media and the enslavement of us all through illegally-created debt. These are just some of the charges and we should also consider the never-ending wars, conflicts, famines, routine assassinations of opponents, the poisoning of our food, artificially-induced diseases, the too-many-to-mention, deadly pharmaceutical drugs and the destruction of the environment and so on ad nauseum, in any complete list of the charges against the banksters.

Economists and all the financial ‘talking heads’ on TV and radio and the media in general, continually try and sell the public the idea that recessions or depressions (boom and bust) are a natural part of what they call the ‘business, or economic cycle.’ However, this is demonstrably NOT the case. Recessions and depressions only occur because the Central Bankers constantly manipulate the money supply upwards and downwards artificially and by design, in order to ensure that more and more ends-up in their hands and less and less in the hands of ‘the people.’

Central Banks (the banksters) developed from the ancient ‘money changers’ and it is with these people that the indictment of modern day banksters begins . . .

In 48BCE (Before the Christian Era) Julius Caesar rescinded the power to create coinage from the money changers and instead minted coins for the benefit of all the citizens of Rome and its burgeoning empire. With this new, now plentiful supply of money, he established many publicly beneficial projects and institutions and built many new houses and public buildings. By making money more plentiful and using it for the benefit of all instead of just a small exclusive clique, he thereby won the love and respect of the ordinary Roman people.

But unfortunately for him, the money changers despised him and swore bloody revenge on him and this eventually culminated in Caesar’s assassination, ostensibly by Brutus and his senatorial co-conspirators, but whom in reality, were themselves in thrall to the money-changers. Then, immediately after the assassination the Roman money supply was reduced by 90 per cent, which immediately resulted in increased taxation and eventually in the loss of individuals’ savings, lands and homes. Echoes of today in fact.

In the final year of the life of Jesus Christ around 33AD it is recorded in the bible that he utilised actual physical force to eject the ‘money changers’ from the temple.

When the Jews arrived in Jerusalem to pay their Temple tax, they were only allowed to pay it with a specific coin, a half-shekel and this was a small coin consisting of a half-ounce of pure silver. It was the only coin at that time which was pure silver and of assured weight, without the image of a pagan Emperor and therefore in the logic of the Jews at that time, it was the only coin acceptable to God.

Unfortunately, these coins were very scarce as the money changers had completely ‘cornered the market’ on them and so they were able to raise the price of them at will, to whatever value they deemed acceptable to themselves. They took advantage of the monopoly that they had on these coins to yield outrageous profits, thus forcing the Jewish populace to pay exorbitant prices for them.

In anger at this practice, Jesus then allegedly bodily ejected the money changers from the Temple as their monopoly on these coins totally violated the sanctity of God’s house and its morality. But literally only days later, those money changers used their extreme wealth and thus power to demand the death of Jesus from Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Jerusalem at that time. We all know exactly what happened next.

By around 1000 AD, the money changers had gradually acquired control of medieval England’s money supply and at this time they had become known, a little more respectably perhaps, as goldsmiths.

But, the story of our modern money really began in Renaissance Europe, around five hundred years ago. At that time the currency consisted mainly of gold and silver coinage, with no paper money. Gold coins of course were very durable and had intrinsic value in themselves (unlike paper currency,) but they were heavy, difficult to transport in large quantities and they were open to theft if not stored securely. As a result of this, the general population therefore deposited their coins with goldsmiths who had strong-rooms and safes in which to store the coins securely and without fear of theft. These goldsmiths issued paper receipts which could be redeemed at any time for the stated amount of gold and eventually these convenient receipts began to be traded themselves instead of the less than convenient, bulky coins they represented.

With the passage of time, the goldsmiths realised that only around 10% of these receipts were ever redeemed in gold at any one time and they could quite comfortably lend the gold in their possession, at interest, time after time as long as they ensured that they retained the 10% of the value of their outstanding loans in actual physical gold to meet any possible demand. By this process, paper money (notes/bills) which were in reality receipts for loans of gold, was born. Notes could now be issued and loans made in amounts that were up to ten times their actual gold holdings. At interest rates of 20%, the same gold could be lent 10 times over yielding a 200% return every year and this was backed by gold that did not even exist! Of course, the goldsmiths were careful not to over-extend themselves and thus became very wealthy at the expense of the rest of the populace without producing anything of intrinsic value.

Since only the principal was lent into the money supply, more money was eventually owed back in principal plus interest than the people as a whole, possessed. They had to continually take-out loans of new paper money to cover the shortfall, causing the wealth of the villages and towns and eventually that of the entire country to be diverted into the vaults of the goldsmiths, whose identity had by this time now become ‘bankers,’ whilst the country began to systematically drown in debt.

This then was the birth of the insidious system we now know as ‘Fractional Reserve Banking’ which then as now, meant that the goldsmiths/banksters were able to make astronomical amounts of money by loaning-out what were essentially fraudulent receipts, as they represented gold that the goldsmiths did not even possess. As they gradually became more confident that their insidious ‘game’ would never be discovered, they would then loan-out up to ten times the amount they held in their depositories.

The goldsmiths also soon discovered that their control of this fraudulent money supply gave them total control over the economy and the assets of the people. They exacted their control by switching the economy between high and low volumes of ‘currency’ in circulation at any given time. The way they achieved this was to make money ‘easier’ to borrow thereby increasing the amount of money in circulation and then suddenly, without warning, limiting the money supply again, removing it from circulation by making loans more difficult to obtain or suspending the issuance of loans altogether.

Why did they do this? Simply because they knew that the result would be that a large percentage of their debtors would be unable to repay their loans and being denied the facility to take out new ones, they would then become ‘bankrupt’ and be forced to transfer their meagre assets to the goldsmiths for a small fraction of their true worth. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly what is happening in the world economy of today, but is deceptively referred to with such euphemisms as ‘the economic cycle,’ ‘boom and bust,’ ‘recession,’ and ‘depression,’ in order to bestow respectability upon and attribute pseudo, ‘natural causes’ to what is nothing more than a complete scam.

In the year 1100, King Henry I succeeded King William II to the throne of England. During his reign he decided to eradicate the power that the goldsmiths had over the people and this he achieved by creating a completely new form of money that took the form of a wooden stick. This stick was referred to as a ‘tally stick,’ and became the longest-lasting form of currency ever, lasting for more than 700 years until 1826 (even though other currencies came and went in that same period and sat alongside the tally sticks.)

Tally sticks

The tallies were sticks of polished wood around eight inches (20cm) long and had various sizes of notches cut into them, these cuts according to depth, angle and width indicated different currency amounts in pounds, shillings and pence, (£sd) the standard English currency of the day. The tally stick was then split lengthwise, providing each party with an identical transaction record and thus being counterfeit-proof because only the grain from the same stick would match the other half, providing a matched grain ‘signature.’ The King kept one half to protect against counterfeiting and the other half was introduced into the economy and circulated as money. This ‘signature’ was accepted as legal proof in courts for several hundred years.

It was also one of the most successful money systems in history as the King demanded that all taxes had to be paid in tally sticks too, so this increased their circulation and acceptance as a legitimate form of money. As a result, for many years, this system would be instrumental in keeping the power away from the ‘money changers’ in England.

England, from approximately the 13th to the late 17th century was a ‘usury-free zone.’ This was largely due to the fact that the economic system was based on the tally stick exchanges that ensured, more than anything else during this time period, a relatively prosperous society with full rights to self-determination. Economic prosperity depends very much upon a stable and plentiful supply of currency and what history has demonstrated repeatedly is that usury destroys economies, despite making the usurers themselves, extremely rich in the process. The Magna Carta (‘Great Charter’ of 1215AD) had its roots in a much older body of law that predates modern history and that body of law, both secular and ecclesiastical in nature, dealt in great detail with the problems, punishments and restrictions on usury.

Although coinage was in circulation during this period, it was totally inadequate as a means of exchange simply because there was simply not enough of it. The basis of the entire economy was the tally sticks that were the principal means of exchange from the 12th century onwards.

It is interesting to note that the tally sticks underwrote part of the stock of the Bank of England in 1694 and they were still in circulation in the early 19th century.

The name ‘Guy Fawkes’ is still infamous in Britain more than four centuries after the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, even though his alleged attempt to destroy the Houses of Parliament failed. But strange to say, almost no-one now remembers the Irishman Patrick Furlong who DID succeed in destroying the Houses of Parliament, albeit by accident.

There was no gunpowder involved on that occasion and no-one died. The agent of destruction was fire, started deliberately but innocently, in the furnaces beneath the House of Lords. But without intent to do so, Furlong and an accomplice achieved what Fawkes and his companions could not and thus by nightfall on 16th October 1834, the Palace of Westminster was left in ashes.

There were some important historical casualties besides the buildings themselves. Several ‘official’ measuring units, were completely destroyed including the imperial yard. Yet Furlong, ironically named after an imperial unit of measure himself, somehow escaped lasting opprobrium. Maybe his obscurity stems from the official embarrassment that surrounded the fire’s origins as it began after all, during the disposal of a centuries-old accumulation of tally sticks, from the early days of taxation. The tally sticks were taking up space in the cellars of the parliament buildings and although some had already been distributed to the poor for firewood, there was a degree of political sensitivity about their past, when they had, after all, been the de facto currency. So the disposal was kept secret and ‘in-house’ but with palpably disastrous results.

In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas the leading theologian of the Catholic Church argued that the charging of interest was wrong because it applies ‘double charging,’ i.e. charging for both the money and the use of the money. This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle that decreed that the purpose of money was to serve the members of society and to facilitate the exchange of goods needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest was contrary to reason and justice because it put an unnecessary burden on the use of money.

Thus, Christian law in Middle Ages Europe forbade the charging of interest on loans and even made a crime of what it referred to as ‘usury.’ (Note that this is the correct, original definition of usury and not the distorted, contrived, Orwellian one we use today.)

However this did not last too long as the tyrant, King Henry VIII eventually began to relax the laws regarding usury and true to form, the goldsmiths did not hesitate to re-assert themselves again as the de facto, unofficial controllers of the economy. It is interesting to note that under Henry VIII the Church of England had departed from Rome and Roman Catholicism, whose Church law at that time prevented the charging of interest on money and the goldsmiths soon took advantage of this fact and began taking steps to make their gold and silver coin system dominant once again.

After the death of Henry and his successor, his only son Edward VI who died before attaining the age of majority, the line of succession brought Edward’s elder half-sister Mary, the daughter of Henry and Katherine of Aragon to the English throne (apart from a brief nine-day sojourn where Lady Jane Grey had been crowned Queen Jane, largely against her will and then summarily executed for treason.) But throughout all the religious turbulence and persecutions of the 1530s, 1540s and 1550s, Mary had remained a staunch Roman Catholic in the face of great pressure to convert to the new ‘Protestant’ religion. However, once her reign had become established she began to re-introduce the usury laws again. The money changers of course were not at all impressed and in revenge they tightened the money supply by hoarding gold and silver coins thus causing the economy to plunge into a downward spiral, as was their intent.

Then Mary died childless, leaving her Protestant half — sister Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, as Queen. During her reign, Elizabeth decided that in order to maintain control of the money supply, she would have to issue her own gold and silver coins. This she achieved through the public treasury and successfully wrested control of the money supply back from the banksters. This would be a mere short-lived inconvenience for the goldsmiths / banksters however, albeit they had to wait around ninety years after Elizabeth’s death to see their long-term scheme come to permanent fruition.

Firstly, in 1609, six years after Elizabeth’s death, the banksters, for such they had now most definitely become, established the first central bank in history in Amsterdam in the Netherlands (Holland.) This was the beginning of their world financial takeover and although it began slowly the momentum would soon gather pace until the entire world (with a few small exceptions, as we will see) was completely under their influence.

Before we consider the next phase of the banksters’ plot, we firstly need to travel backwards in time once again, to 1290 and the ‘Edict of Expulsion’ issued by King Edward I, which expelled all Jews forever from England and decreed that any who remained after 1st November 1290, were to be executed. Indeed England was far from the first nor by any stretch the last, country to expel the Jews for reasons of their propensity for usury, the lending of money at interest and which at the time was totally contrary to the fundamental tenets of Christianity.

Here is a partial list of all the countries and provinces from which the Jews have been banished, sometimes on multiple occasions, over the last one thousand years.

The banishment of the Jews from England in 1290 remained in force for more than 350 years until a certain Oliver Cromwell appeared on the scene. Unknown to most and certainly not recorded in any mainstream histories, Cromwell was in fact bribed and financed by the Jewish banksters of Amsterdam for the purposes of fomenting a ‘revolution’ in England, and thus allowing them to take control of the money system in England.

“It was fated that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not yet finished.” Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin Disraeli, the future British Prime Minister, speaking in 1851.

In London in the latter years of the decade of the 1630s, immediately prior to the English Revolution now more expediently known as the ‘English Civil War,’ there were many minor, armed uprisings of the ‘people,’ usually involving the same ringleaders and ‘agents provocateurs,’ as is often the case today. These armed mobs caused panic and fear in the streets wherever they went, including the sometimes violent intimidation they inflicted upon members of both houses of Parliament. This in fact was a very similar modus operandus as that employed by the ‘Sacred Bands’ and the ‘Marseillaise’ of the French revolution 150 years later. Indeed, the striking similarities between the two events are most noteworthy.

Within the pages of works such as the ‘Jewish Encyclopaedia’ and ‘The Jews and Modern Capitalism,’ it is possible to discern that at this time, Oliver Cromwell, the prime-mover behind the English Civil War was in constant contact with and actually being financed by the powerful Jewish/Dutch banksters behind the Bank of Amsterdam scam that in effect usurped the control of currency issuance from the Dutch government in the early seventeenth century. Through such figures as Manasseh ben Israel and Fernandez Carvajal, both prominent Jews of the times, the whole of the English Revolution was funded. Carvajal himself was the paymaster of the entire ‘New Model Army’ or the ‘Roundheads,’ as Cromwell’s fighting forces were disparagingly named as a direct result of the round metal helmets they wore.

In January 1642, the attempted arrest of five Members of Parliament had led to even more extreme mob violence and subsequently to the King and the royal family leaving their palace at Whitehall for security reasons. The five MPs backed by the mobs returned in triumph to Westminster and thus was the stage now set for the Jews to make their moves using none other than Cromwell himself to front their movement.

“1643 brought a large contingent of Jews to England; their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador de Souza, a Marrano Jew. Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor.” Excerpt from ‘The Jews of England.’

The actual bloodshed and open warfare between the two factions began in earnest at the Battle of Edgehill, Warwickshire later that year in 1642 where a contingent of Royalist troops commanded by Prince Rupert, a nephew of King Charles, fought against a Parliamentary army commanded by Cromwell. The outcome of this battle was totally inconclusive, both sides subsequently claiming victory and over the course of the next several years, a series of major battles and minor skirmishes took place at such locations as for example, Marston Moor, Oxford, Worcester, Newbury and finally Naseby amidst much bloodshed in an ongoing conflict that often pitted father against son and brother against brother in an attempt to gain ultimate supremacy by each of the respective ‘sides.’

Eventually after years of attrition, it was Parliament who emerged as victors following the Battle of Naseby. King Charles I was taken prisoner and remained under house arrest at Holmby House in Oxfordshire awaiting a decision on his fate which at the time was fully expected to be no more serious than foreign exile, a fate befalling many a fallen ‘royal’ in the past. However in 1647, events were about to take a major turn against King Charles.

On 4th June 1647, Cornet Joyce, acting on secret orders from Cromwell himself and unknown even to General Fairfax, Cromwell’s army chief of staff, descended upon Holmby House with 500 hand-picked revolutionary troopers and seized the King.

According to Isaac Disraeli . . . “The plan was arranged on May 30th at a secret meeting held at Cromwell’s house, though later Cromwell pretended that it was without his concurrence.”

So, remaining in constant collusion with his Jewish benefactors throughout the duration of the war, Cromwell wrote to them again at Mulheim Synagogue in Holland in a letter received by them on the 16th June 1647 . . .

“In return for further financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial on adequate grounds which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.”

To which the following reply was sent to Cromwell on the 12th July 1647 . . .

“Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape. His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.”

The source of this dialogue was a weekly review, ‘Plain English’ published by the ‘North British Publishing Co.’ and edited by Lord Alfred Douglas, in 1921.

And so it duly came to pass that on 12th November 1647, Charles was ‘allowed’ an opportunity to escape in order to bring the plan to fruition and he duly absconded to the Isle of Wight, just off the south coast of England, to where he was followed and quickly recaptured by Cromwell’s men.

“Contemporary historians have decided that the King from the day of his deportation from Holmby to his escape to the Isle of Wight was throughout the dupe of Cromwell.” Isaac Disraeli.

Now all that remained to bring the plot to fruition was to stage the ‘show trial’ of Charles and sentence him to death, replace him with Cromwell as head of state and the Jews would have attained their goal of being allowed to officially set foot on English soil for the first time in almost four hundred years, despite protests by the masses (who were of course ignorant of all the background machinations) and by the sub-committee of the Council of State which declared them to be . . . “ . . . a grave menace to the State and the Christian religion.”

“The English Revolution under Charles I was unlike any preceding one . . . From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution.” Isaac Disraeli.

In fact this was actually just the beginning. The English revolution was followed by the American, French and Russian versions of the same ‘trick’ all at the behest of and funded by the same group of people. In 1897, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion surfaced and this document contains this noteworthy sentence . . . “Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was entirely the work of our hands.” Protocol No. 3 — 14. This statement could also have referred to all of the above named events.

However, the real objective of the revolution was realised around half a century later with the formation of the Bank of England in 1694 and the instigation of the ‘National Debt.’ The charter that provided for this, handed-over to an anonymous committee, the previously Royal prerogative of minting money and enabled the international banksters to secure their loans on the taxes of the country rather than simply upon a monarch’s personal undertaking, thus enslaving the people of Britain forever.

The Act of Union passed by Parliament shortly afterwards in 1706, was simply an expedient way of tying Scotland into the great scam in addition to England. Of course up until that point in time the two countries were distinctly separate, both politically and economically. This then had the effect of making the Scottish Mint redundant and also served to bring the Scottish economy under the umbrella of the English national debt as a whole. Thus was the grip of the banksters extended over England’s neighbours in one swift, decisive move.

To safeguard against a possible negative reaction from Parliament, the party system was then brought into being, frustrating true national reaction and enabling the puppeteers to divide and rule and using their newly-established financial power to ensure that their own placemen and their own policies would predominate.

This was also the beginning of the banksters’ highly dubious practice of fractional reserve banking whereby gold became the basis of loans, ten times the size of the amount deposited. In other words, £100 of gold would be legal security for a £1,000 loan. At 3% interest therefore, £100 in gold could earn £30 interest annually with no more trouble or inconvenience to the lender than the keeping of a few ledger entries. The owner of £100 worth of land however, still had to slave relentlessly, often around the clock, in order to make a subsistence living.

Thus the stage had been set for the instigation of the Bank of England in 1666, with the so-called, ‘Great Fire of London,’ which somewhat ‘fortuitously,’ cleared the land now occupied by the City of London. Throughout 1665 and early 1666 the ‘Black Death’ or the ‘Great Plague,’ as it was commonly known had taken hold in London and decimated the populace, thousands of whom died in misery but the ‘Great Fire’ in September 1666 destroyed the multitudes of filthy, rat-infested slums and thus prevented the spread of the disease carried by the fleas that lived upon the rats.

Mainstream history records that the fire which allegedly began in a bakers’ shop in Pudding Lane was an accident. This part of London was at the time named ‘Cheapside’ and was a slum area, of no particular concern to anyone and was certainly without any intrinsic ‘value’ to the ruling Elite of the day. If it was indeed an accident, then the fire was most convenient in its timing. The fire continued for several days and completely razed most of London to the ground, destroying almost everything in its path.

The Great Fire of London, September 1666

When the shocked populace took stock of the damage, they must have wondered if Armageddon had finally arrived. Fully 80% of the city was destroyed, including over 13,000 houses, 89 churches and 52 Company (Guild) Halls. The spiritual hub of the city, St. Paul’s Cathedral, was nothing but rubble and ashes. It was a disaster of unprecedented proportions.

But of course, one person’s disaster is always another’s opportunity. Within days of the fire being extinguished, the architect Christopher Wren had submitted plans to King Charles II for the complete rebuilding of the city. Wren’s grand scheme called for cutting wide avenues through the former warren of alleys and byways that had made up old London, opening up the city to light and air. King Charles approved of the scheme, but he realised that the expense and the necessity of rebuilding as fast as possible made it unfeasible. Instead, he appointed Wren to rebuild the city’s churches, including St. Paul’s Cathedral, a position the young architect filled with brilliance over the next fifty years.

Then in 1688 the banksters in England, following a series of disagreements with the Stuart Kings, Charles II (1660-1685) and his brother, James II (1685-1688), conspired with their far more ‘successful’ bankster counterparts in the Netherlands, who had already instigated a central bank there. They decided to finance an invasion by William of Orange of the Netherlands whom they had already approached and had pre-established that he would look more favourably upon their demands than his predecessors. The invasion was of course successful despite a small diversion now known to history as the Monmouth rebellion. James II fled to France to live out his remaining days in exile there and William duly ascended to the throne in England as King William III in 1689.

Now the scene was set to establish the English Central Bank. Following a costly series of wars through the previous 50 years, English Government officials pleaded with the banksters for loans in order to maintain the country’s rapidly deteriorating infrastructure and the banksters graciously agreed to resolve the problem in exchange for a government-sanctioned, privately-owned bank which of course would then be authorised to issue money created from nothing.

So, in 1694, the deceptively named, ‘Bank of England,’ was founded. I say ‘deceptively named’ because as with its modern-day American counterpart, the Federal Reserve Bank, its name gives the strong impression that it is controlled by the Government when in fact it is a private institution founded by Jewish banksters in order to make their fortunes from the ordinary English (and American) people, both rich and poor.

In his book, ‘The Breakdown of Money,’ published in 1934, Christopher Hollis explained the formation of the Bank of England as follows:

“In 1694, the Government of William III (who had come in from Holland with the Jews) was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 per cent on the condition that, ‘the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 (that is, double it), lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves.

Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money . . . In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or three hundred thousand pounds. By 1696 (ie. within two years) we find them circulating £1,750,000 worth of notes against a cash reserve of £36,000. That is with a, ‘backing,’ of only about 2 percent of what they issued and drew interest on.”

Despite that, the bank was duly chartered anyway and began loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest.

Furthermore the Bank of England would loan government officials as much of the new currency as they wished, as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the British people which has directly led to all the onerous taxation imposed upon us all today. (These taxes, of all kinds, do not contribute to the economy or towards maintaining the country’s infrastructure as we are deceitfully told, but go straight into the cavernous pockets of the banksters.) The Bank of England amounted to nothing less than the legalised counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain, and thus subsequently any country that would fall under the control of a private bank would amount to nothing more than a plutocracy.

Immediately following the formation of the Bank of England, it began an attack on the tally stick system, as it was currency outside of the control of the banksters, just as King Henry I had originally intended. The names of the controllers of the Bank have never been revealed, as is still the case even today, but one thing is certainly clear and that is that the British Royal family were also involved — as indeed they are also suspected to be to this day. However, whilst the covert controllers’ identities were withheld and protected, they may have wished they had chosen a more discreet front-man, after William Paterson stated that, “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”

The fact that Paterson chose to speak-out openly in this manner, may explain why he eventually died in poverty, outcast by his associates or maybe this ‘shabbez goy,’ (a non-Jew who clandestinely chooses to represent the interests of Jews) had merely outlived his usefulness to the Jews behind the scenes.

After four years of the Bank of England, by 1698, the Jewish control of the money supply had increased exponentially. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government and thus the people’s debt to the Bank had grown from the initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years, a staggering increase of 1,280% and that was just the beginning.

Why would they do this? Simple really . . .

Stage 1. If the money in circulation in a country is say, £5m and a Central Bank is created and prints another £15m, before injecting it into the economy through loans etc., this will then reduce the value of the original £5m in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5m now represents only 25% of the economy and it will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation, a percentage which obviously increases with every single new note printed. This is also the principal cause of inflation, which is the reduction in the value of money borne by the people, due to the economy being flooded with additional money. In effect a ‘hidden’ tax.

Stage 2. As an individual’s money is then worth less than previously, he has to request a loan from the banking system to help him survive. Then, when the Central Bank is satisfied that there is enough ‘debt’ in the economy, the bank will immediately restrict the money supply via the expedient of making loans unavailable.

Stage 3. The Bank will then wait for bankruptcies to commence, as they inevitably will. This enables them to seize the ‘real’ tangible wealth, businesses and property of both companies and individuals, all for a fraction of their true value. Inflation never affects a Central Bank negatively. In fact it is the only entity that can benefit from it as the more money that there is in circulation, the more interest they accrue in the form of the ‘National Debt.’

In 1757 Benjamin Franklin travelled to England from the American colonies and in fact spent the next 18 years of his life there until just before the start of the American Revolution. In 1764 he was asked by officials of the Bank of England to account for the prosperity of the colonies in America ( . . . as if they didn’t know.) His reply was succinct . . .

“That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay no-one [sic].”

As a result of Franklin’s statement, and under pressure from the Bank of England, the British Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. Referring to the situation after this act was passed, Franklin stated the following in his autobiography . . .

“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended and a depression set-in, to such an extent that the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed . . . The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The viability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.”

Just to clarify the above for the avoidance of doubt . . . A country or state that issues currency under governmental control is far more prosperous than one where a predatory Central Bank holds the purse strings, for obvious reasons. Central banksters lend currency to governments at interest and the only way that this interest can be paid is by the printing of more and more money, which in turn accrues more and more interest . . . and so the spiral continues on. This then is the sole reason for ‘national debts’ and NOT government inefficiency or overspending or even import-export imbalances. Those explanations (and indeed any others) of how National Debts arise are all a complete fabrication designed and propagated by the banksters themselves, to deflect any criticism of their despicable methods. Unfortunately most people, even including allegedly competent economists, are either duped or controlled by them.

The 18th Century

It is no under-statement nor exaggeration to make the claim that the Rothschilds are the richest family in the world, with the possible exception of the British royal family, the Windsors and depending also on exactly how absolute wealth is calculated. Please disregard the much-vaunted ‘rich-lists’ such as those that appear in Forbes magazine and from time to time, daily newspapers, these lists serve only to deflect us from the real truth of who controls the world’s purse=strings. The Rothschilds are without question multi-trillionaires.

As far as the Rothschilds are concerned, there are no such things as ethics, morality or conscience and indeed, acute psychopathy is the norm. They allow nothing and no-one to stand in their way . . . ever. All that matters to them is that their power and wealth continues to grow exponentially and as of now, they either own or control over 50% of the world’s wealth, equivalent to at least $200 trillion.

They are the very top of the pyramid, period. If you are maybe thinking, ‘why have I not heard of this before?’ or even ‘why are their names not on everything, their faces on TV?’ etc., it is simply because they deliberately intend it to be that way. They operate in secret, by proxy and by unseen hand. In fact, it is in order to keep their names firmly out of the news, that they began acquiring the media very early in their quest for total world domination. The news services such as Reuters International News Agency, based in London, Havas of France, and Wolf in Germany and latterly Associated Press are all firmly under their control. Considering the fact that it is these news agencies that distribute to ALL the western world’s individual news outlets, radio and TV stations etc., then it is not difficult to understand how they are able to easily manipulate and control all the information that reaches the masses, rendering it totally unsurprising that we know only what the Rothschilds want to us to know about their activities.

Carefully feeding us only certain information and plenty of subtle disinformation is one of the factors that has kept the Rothschilds extreme wealth and control a secret, for centuries. They are both the creators and the masters of all our so-called worldwide intelligence and security services. In essence, these entities are the Rothschilds’ personal security service as well as their chief assassins. Please do not believe, as we are constantly told, that MI-5/MI-6, the CIA, Mossad, KGB and all the other secret services, operate on behalf of their governments and therefore by default, the people. These entities exist solely to protect the real rulers of the world, the Rothschilds, the Royals and other affiliated bankster families from ‘we, the people.’

The Rothschild’s power-base from the very beginning was facilitated by use of the octopus-like methodology of slowly but surely spreading their deadly tentacles throughout the financial capitals of the world. Their story began 0n 23rd February 1744, in Frankfurt, Germany with the birth of Mayer Amschel Bauer . . .

He was the fourth son of Amschel Moses Bauer, a money-lender and counting-house proprietor. By 1760, Bauer was employed by a bank owned by the Oppenheimer family in Hanover, one of many disparate ‘German’ states at that time and being a bright and shrewd apprentice, he quickly rose through the ranks to become a junior partner. And so in the years following the death of his father, Mayer Amschel Bauer returned to Frankfurt with enough money to take over the family business.

Above the entrance door to the family counting-house was a red shield with a Roman eagle in the centre. There are far deeper, more esoteric aspects to this symbolism, but suffice to say for now, that Rothschild is German for ‘Red Shield’, ‘rot’ meaning red and ‘schild’ meaning shield. Bauer at this point in time then decided to change his name to Mayer Amschel Rothschild and thus an era of unimaginable evil began, an era that would give rise to the House of Rothschild, the root of all the bankster evil to follow.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild wasted no time with his ambitions for personal prominence and profit. He reacquainted himself with someone he met and with whom he had worked back in the days when he was employed by the Oppenheimers, a certain General von Estorff. The General was by this point in time, allied with the court of Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau (another German state) and Rothschild therefore, began with the help of the General, to conduct business with one of the richest royal houses in Europe, a house made wealthy by the hiring-out of its soldiers as mercenaries to fight in foreign wars. Indeed Britain would later use these troops in the American Revolutionary War, a hugely profitable deal brokered by Mayer Rothschild.

Rothschild immediately ingratiated himself with the Prince by selling him discounted rare coins and jewels, but it wasn’t long before he had won Prince William’s favour by loaning money to him and his court. By 1769, Rothschild had even become the court agent for Prince William who was the grandson of King George II of England; cousin to George III; nephew to the King of Denmark and brother-in-law to the King of Sweden. Rothschild clearly saw his future lay in associating with and doing business with the rich and powerful and he was even granted permission to use a new ‘logo’ advertising his services, one that read ‘M. A. Rothschild, by appointment court factor to his serene highness, Prince William of Hanau.’

Rothschild, having now instigated the ‘House of Rothschild’ and having realised that loaning money to governments and royalty is far more profitable and secure than loaning to individuals, because the loans are much larger and backed by their nations’ taxes, then began thinking along even more grandiose lines.

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

In 1770 Rothschild married Gutle Schnaper, the daughter of a prominent merchant and they produced five daughters and five sons. The first son, Amschel Mayer Rothschild junior was born in 1773 and one year later Salomon Mayer Rothschild entered the world. These two were closely followed in 1777 by Nathan Mayer Rothschild; in 1788 by Kalmann (Karl) Rothschild and finally in 1792, by Jacob (James) Rothschild.

In 1775, the American revolutionary war began in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since Benjamin Franklin’s ‘discussions’ with the British banksters and by this time, the colonies had now been almost totally deprived of silver and gold coins due to onerous British taxation and as a result of this, the continental government decided that it had no other option but to print their own money in order to finance the war.

At the commencement of the revolution the American money supply stood at $12m and by the end of the war it had reached nearly $500m and as a result the currency was virtually worthless due to the rampant inflation. This also neatly illustrates the inherent dangers of printing an excess of paper money. The reason Colonial Scrip had worked well was because the correct balance had been achieved thus facilitating successful trade. Too much money in the system would have caused runaway inflation and too little would have resulted in a recession.

As a result of the massive devaluation of the value of the currency towards the end of the American Revolution, the Continental Congress were so desperate for money that they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to establish a privately owned Central Bank in desperation and in the hope that this would ‘cure’ the financial problem. Morris was a wealthy man who had grown even wealthier during the revolution by trading in war materials.

This, the very first Central Bank in America was known as the ‘Bank of North America,’ which was created with a four year charter and was closely modelled upon the Bank of England. Significantly, as with all Central Banks, it was allowed to indulge in the highly dubious, if not downright fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking in order to enable the creation of money from nothing and then charge interest on it.

The bank’s charter called for private investors to put up $400,000 of initial capital, which Morris was himself unable to personally raise. Nevertheless he unashamedly used his political influence to arrange for gold to be deposited in the bank which had been loaned to America by France. Morris then acquired the money he needed to buy this bank from this deposit of gold that belonged to the government, or more specifically, the American people.

This ‘Bank of North America,’ again deceptively named in order that the people would believe it to be under governmental control, was then granted an absolute monopoly on the national currency of the newly formed United States.

However, despite the assurances from Robert Morris that his privately owned Bank of North America would solve the problem of the economy, by 1785, of course the value of the currency had continued to plummet, thereby forcing the Continental Congress into a decision not to renew the bank’s charter. The leader of the campaign to kill the Central Bank was William Findlay of Pennsylvania, who stated . . .

“This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in its objective . . . to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state.”

“The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will . . . They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres.” Gouverneur Morris, co-author of the U.S. Constitution in 1787.

James Madison was also vehemently opposed to a privately owned central bank after becoming aware of the exploitation of the people by the Bank of England. He is quoted as saying . . .

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Thomas Jefferson was also firmly against the Central Bank philosophy and made the following, famous pronouncement . . .

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

Sadly the words of wisdom of Gouverneur Morris and Thomas Jefferson all went unheeded. Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris and Thomas Willing convinced the bulk of the delegates to the decisive Constitutional convention, not to allow Congress the power to issue paper money and as a result, the Constitution was silent on the issuance of paper money by the Government for the citizens, leaving the door wide open for the banksters in the future.

Jefferson’s statement (above) turned out to be a very prophetic statement as within 3 years from the signing of the Constitution in 1790, the newly appointed First Secretary of the Treasury in President George Washington’s cabinet, the Rothschild agent Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to Congress calling for another new privately owned central bank. Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton’s first job subsequent to his graduation from law school in 1782 was as an aide to Robert Morris, a man to whom he had written in 1781 stating, “ . . . a national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing.”

So, the three main instigators behind the original Central Bank, the Bank of North America, Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton and the bank’s President, Thomas Willing never gave up their background scheming, despite the demise of the original bank and Alexander Hamilton, now Secretary of the Treasury, a man who described Robert Morris as his ‘mentor,’ somehow contrived to push the concept for another new, privately-owned central bank through the new Congress.

This new bank, the ‘First Bank of the United States,’ was founded after a year of intense debate and was granted a 20 year charter. It was also given an absolute monopoly on printing United States currency even though 80% of its stock was held by private investors and was to be run on exactly the same principle as the Bank of North America. Robert Morris controlled it and Thomas Willing was the bank’s President, only the name had changed. The other 20% of the stock was purchased by the United States government, but this was not in order to provide the country and its citizens with any form of stake-holding, but to the eternal shame of the US government, simply to provide the capital for the private investors to purchase the remaining 80%.

As was the case with the Bank of England and the now defunct Bank of North America, these private investors never paid the full amount agreed for their shares. In fact, it was through the fraudulent use of the fractional reserve banking methodology that the government’s 20% stake which was $2,000,000 in cash, was used to provide the loans to its private investors to purchase the other 80% stake. A total of $8,000,000, for this risk-free investment.

Again the name, ‘First Bank of the United States,’ was deliberately chosen to hide from the people the fact that it was totally privately owned. And as is always the situation, the names of the investors in this bank were never revealed but it is now widely known that the Rothschilds were instrumental in its foundation.

After the first five years of the First Bank of the United States being in control of the American money supply, the American Government had borrowed $8,200,000 and prices had increased by 72%. In relation to this, Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State stated . . . “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution, taking from the Federal Government their power of borrowing.”

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the Rothschild family was still busy plotting and scheming and in 1798, the now twenty-one year old Nathan Mayer Rothschild had left Frankfurt for England with a sum of money equivalent to £20,000, which he used to found his ubiquitous banking house, ‘N M Rothschild & Co.’ He was by far the most able of the five Rothschild brothers.

In 1800 Napoleon Bonaparte, established the ‘Bank of France,’ which was designed to be a true ‘bank of the people’ and enable the French government to be responsible for the control of their own economy and the issuance of currency. He declared openly that when a government is dependent on bankers for money, it is the bankers and not the government leaders that are in control.

His opinion of the European banksters was . . . “The hand that gives is among the hand that takes. Money has no motherland. Financiers are without patriotism and without decency. Their sole object is gain.”

A rare but true ‘man of the people,’ Napoleon established both the Bank of France and the French Bourse (stock exchange) as well as the National and Departmental Tax Boards, to ensure equitable taxation for all. Consequently, the income and standard of living of the French populace soared. He established awards such as the ‘Legion d’Honneur’ to reward those whose services to the nation merited special recognition. The recipient could be a scientist, composer, legislator, clergyman or writer, or indeed from any sector.

In the arena of public works, over 20,000 miles of imperial and 12,000 miles of regional roads were completed, almost a thousand miles of canals were built, the Great Cornice road was constructed along the Mediterranean coast, mountain roads were constructed across the Alps, for example the Simplon Pass and Mont Cenis and harbours were dredged and expanded at many ports, including Dunkirk and Cherbourg.

In addition, not only was Paris beautified with the construction of many new, wider boulevards, bridges and monuments, but the National Archives received a permanent home. Napoleon also saved the Louvre from closure. Monuments were constructed throughout the Empire and structures such as the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer, made famous by Luther, were preserved while work on the spires of the great cathedral of Cologne were continued on Napoleon’s orders. In fact, Napoleon’s architectural influences may be found scattered all across Europe, from Rome to Vienna.

Napoleon even ended the schism between the Protestant and Catholic churches and restored the Catholic religion to France via the ‘Concordat’ in 1801. Despite this, he ensured and guaranteed freedom of religion and equality to the Protestant sects and he even generously declared France the ‘homeland of the Jews,’ after it became obvious that their national home could not yet be established in Palestine.

The 19th Century

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson agreed a deal with Napoleon and France. The United States promised Napoleon $3,000,000 of gold in exchange for a large territory to the west of the Mississippi River. This was what came to be known as the ‘Louisiana Purchase’ and considerably extended the borders of the still fledgling United States.

However, Napoleon used this gold to raise a large army which he immediately engaged in the attempted conquest of most of Europe. But fearing that Napoleon may invade and capture England and thus threaten the Bank of England’s money monopoly (or should that be ‘monopoly money?’) the banksters united in opposition to Napoleon and financed every one of his intended adversaries, in order to protect their own substantial financial interests. Prussia, Austria and then finally Russia all became heavily indebted to the banksters in their attempts to halt Napoleon’s military juggernaut.

Then in 1810, the death of powerful banksters Sir Francis Baring and Abraham Goldsmid ensured that Nathan Mayer Rothschild became the senior bankster in England. But during the following year, the charter for the Rothschild-owned First Bank of the United States expired and a bill was immediately set before Congress to renew its charter. The legislatures of both Pennsylvania and Virginia passed resolutions demanding Congress kill the bank altogether and even the national press openly attacked the bank calling it variously . . . ‘a great swindle,’ ‘a vulture,’ ‘a viper’ and ‘a cobra.’

However, in the end, the ‘renewal’ bill was passed by a single vote in the house but was deadlocked in the Senate. America’s fourth President, James Madison was a staunch opponent of the bank and he instructed his Vice-President, George Clinton to break the tie in the Senate which was the final nail in the coffin of the bank.

Upon hearing of all this, Nathan Mayer Rothschild responded curtly and in typical fashion . . . “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” But Congress stood by their principles and this incited Rothschild to make good on his threat.

Although history records that the main reasons for the British to go to war with the United States for a second time in three decades, was that American ships were aiding their enemy Napoleon, by running a naval blockade, as well as ongoing disputes with Canada, it fails to mention that N M Rothschild and his vast family wealth and political connections were also a major factor in the British government’s decision to declare war on the USA once again.

The main opposition in Britain to the Rothschilds and their ‘revenge’ war with the Americans was the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, a devout Christian but he was soon disposed of at the hands of a ‘lone, deranged assassin,’ the first and absolutely definitely not the last of those who stand against the banksters to suffer a similar fate. He was recorded by history as the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated whilst in office. His assassin, John Bellingham, who was very quickly and very conveniently, tried, convicted and hanged, was strongly rumoured to be in the employ of the Rothschilds and this would also mark the first time that the Rothschilds would be associated with, or rather conveniently benefit from a political assassination. For the record, Perceval was murdered on the 11th May 1812, Bellingham was immediately arrested (he made no attempt to escape, but sat down and waited to be arrested. Where have we heard this story before?) tried on the 15th May and executed on the 18th, a small matter of one week from commission of the crime to execution.

The Rothschilds then assumed that the US would incur so much debt in fighting the British that they would have no choice but to eventually surrender and allow the new central bank charter to be ratified. Unfortunately for them though, the British due to their already ongoing war with Napoleon and France were hampered in their attempts to defeat the Americans although they did manage to burn down the capital city, Washington.

By early 1815 the war had ended in ignominious defeat for the British soon after their loss at the hands of Col. Andrew Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans.

But to backtrack slightly, it was in September of 1812 that the family patriarch Mayer Amschel Rothschild died, leaving a will that left his clear and unequivocal instructions as to how the House of Rothschild should proceed in future without him . . .

All key positions in the family business are only ever to be held by family members.
Only male members of the family are allowed to participate in the family business.
The family is to inter-marry with its first and second cousins to preserve the family fortune.
No public inventory of his estate is ever to be published.
No legal action is to be taken with regard to the value of the inheritance.
The eldest son of the eldest son is to become the head of the family.

So as per instruction no. 6, Nathan Mayer Rothschild succeeded his father, became ‘head’ of the family and immediately assumed control of their vast undertakings and Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild instigated the bank, ‘de Rothschild Freres,’ (Rothschild Brothers) in Paris, France.

Nathan Rothschild himself, now head of the family, personally assumed control of a plan to smuggle a vital shipment of gold through France to Spain in order to finance an attack by the Duke of Wellington on Napoleon in what was to become the ‘Peninsular Wars.’ He financed this enterprise through £3 million of gold which was entrusted to his late father by Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau and subsequently invested with the East India Company. Knowing that the Duke of Wellington would need precious gold in his Peninsula campaign against Napoleon, Nathan used this ‘stolen’ gold to make large profits for himself on the ensuing transactions.

By 1814, Wellington’s victories in Spain and Portugal had eventually forced Napoleon to abdicate and Louis XVIII was crowned King in a temporary restoration of the French monarchy and Napoleon was exiled to the tiny island of Elba, just off the coast of Italy.

However, Napoleon was not held captive for long. He soon escaped his exile and returned to Paris where Royal French troops were sent to re-capture him. But he used his powerful charisma and powers of persuasion to convince these soldiers to rally round him once more, and they subsequently hailed him as their Emperor once again. Then in March 1815, Napoleon assembled a great army in order to fight the Duke of Wellington’s forces once again in an attempt to secure one last, decisive victory.

All five of the Rothschild brothers were still very much active in the family business at this point in time and they continued to supply gold to both Wellington’s army (through Nathan in England) and to Napoleon’s army (through Jacob in France). As Napoleon had stated insightfully some years previously . . . “Financiers are without patriotism, without decency . . . ”

The funding of both sides in a war, was therefore now firmly established as a staple of bankster profiteering, a tradition which continues up to the present day. It is indeed through war that the banksters make their largest and most obscene profits, as war-debt is risk-free, guaranteed by a country’s government and backed by the taxes on its population. In addition, the policy of the victor honouring the debts of the losing country makes it even more lucrative.

It is also during this time period that the Rothschilds established their own exclusive courier network, one that also operated as an intelligence network. They utilised both carrier pigeons and fast dispatch riders who were allowed to travel freely between warring nations, unhindered by either side, in order that they may be kept abreast of any developments ahead of time and could thus profit extensively from this ‘foreknowledge’ of events.

Even though the outcome of a conflict is often predetermined, the banksters are not pre-disposed to any unnecessary risk and so it was therefore, that Nathan Rothschild despatched a trusted courier named Rothworth to the battlefield at Waterloo where he observed the events unfolding from a safe distance. Once the outcome of the battle had been decided, Rothworth immediately set-out for England and brought the news of Wellington’s decisive victory to Rothschild a full day ahead of Wellington’s own, official courier.

Then Rothschild made his bold move; he immediately gave instructions to his staff to begin selling his stocks and bonds. When the other traders noticed this, being aware of how the Rothschilds always seemed to have foreknowledge of events, they too began selling, panicked into believing that the British had lost the decisive battle. Thus the stock market plummeted and at which point Rothschild and his trustees began surreptitiously buying-up all the bonds they could. Subsequently when the news of the British victory over Napoleon at Waterloo, which effectively ended the ongoing war, eventually arrived and the value of the stock and bonds re-bounded exponentially, Nathan Mayer Rothschild had realised an immense profit of greater than twenty times his original investments.

At this time Nathan Rothschild openly boasted that during his time in England he had increased the initial £20,000 stake given to him by his father, 2500 times over, to £50,000,000. He also said this . . .

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets, the man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire . . . and I control the British money supply.”

Interestingly, around 100 years later, the New York Times ran a story stating that Nathan Rothschild’s grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book containing this, what we would call today an ‘insider trading’ story. The Rothschild family claimed that the story was untrue and libellous, but the court denied the Rothschild’s request for damages and ordered them to pay all the court costs.

And thus, stock market manipulation became another Rothschild bankster tradition. With their vast majority ownership of bonds, the Rothschilds now had control of not only the British economy, but the financial capital of the world itself, the ‘City of London.’ Indeed they used this advantageous position to infiltrate the ‘Bank of England’ and in addition, they advocated the discontinuance of the constant shipping of gold around the world, in favour of using their own five European banks for a system of issuing paper debits and credits. In fact the exact same system we use today, albeit now digitised for the new ‘age of information.’

It was also in 1815, during the Congress of Vienna that the Rothschilds attempted to set up a world government, using the debt of the European nations as leverage. The scheme actually failed, but they were at least successful in having Switzerland declared forever a neutral sovereignty in all future wars, in order that the funding of both sides could continue with impunity and unimpeded by the conflict. Even then, they could already visualise the millions of pound and dollar signs representing wars yet to come.

In fact, their ambitious one-world government plan only failed because Tsar Alexander I of Russia refused to be bullied by the Rothschilds. He immediately recognised their machinations as a devious plot to enslave not only his own country, but the world itself. Afterwards in a fit of anger, as is so typical of these people, Nathan Mayer Rothschild vowed that one day either he, or his descendants, would destroy the Tsar’s whole family or their descendants. How prophetic. It was in fact, just over a century later in 1917, that Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra and all their children were indeed brutally murdered by the Rothschild-sponsored Communist, Bolshevik thugs during the so-called Russian Revolution. These people are nothing if not patient in their seemingly never-ending quest for ultimate power.

It was not psychic powers that predicted the abundant wealth that lay in the future for the Rothschilds, it was the sheer confidence of their knowing that they alone held the power and influence to start or end wars, crash a stock market, contract or expand the world money supply and that they could do all this unopposed and with absolute impunity, any time they wished.

Some people may ask, ‘why do banksters want war anyway? How do they benefit?’ Simple answer; banksters always finance both sides in a war. They do this because war is the greatest debt-generating machine ever devised by man. A nation will borrow huge sums in the desperate hope of securing victory, even though unknown to their puppet politicians, the banksters will have already predetermined the outcome. The ultimate loser is loaned just enough money to be able to maintain a vain hope of victory and the ultimate winner is provided with enough to ensure that he does indeed emerge victorious.

But how do the banksters ensure then that they will always recoup all their loans with interest added? Simply that their loans are granted only on the promise that the victor will also honour the debts of the vanquished. Never a solitary thought is spared for the thousands and even millions of soldiers and civilians that forfeit their lives on the pretext that it is for the ultimate ‘good’ and / or the honour of their respective nations.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship or a parliamentary or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.” Herman Goering, speaking at the Nuremberg trials.

In fact, during the period between the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 and Wellington’s victory at Waterloo in 1815, England had, perhaps now unsurprisingly in the light of what we have just learned, been at war for 56 years out the 121 in total, with much of the remaining time spent in intense preparation for conflict. In other words, almost constantly operating under a ‘war-based economy.’

Back across the Atlantic, there was even more subterfuge ongoing a year later in 1816 as to no-one’s particular surprise, the American Congress passed a bill permitting yet another Rothschild privately-owned central bank. This bank was the ‘Second Bank of the United States’ and its 20 year charter was an exact copy of that of its predecessor, the ‘First Bank of the United States.’ The United States government would once again, allegedly ‘own 20%’ of the shares of the bank.

After their defeat at Waterloo and the extremely costly Napoleonic Wars, the French were by this time now massively in debt to the banksters as the Rothschilds continued to purchase as many government bonds as they could. In almost a repeat of the stock market manipulation that they had engineered in England, the Rothschilds sold all their French government bonds, depressing their value and instigating a huge panic. And then, right on cue when all seemed lost, they stepped manfully into the breach and negotiated the takeover the French economy and money supply.

In fact, the Rothschilds had already planted the seeds of this French economic collapse, when back in 1770 Mayer Amschel Rothschild formulated a cunning plan which was to be carried-out by his agent Adam Weishaupt and his associates. It was in fact the founding of a highly secretive and corrupting organisation known as the Bavarian ‘Illuminati,’ translated as ‘the enlightened ones.’

This group has been covered in extensive detail in many other works, so there is no point focussing here upon their many evil machinations at this juncture. Suffice to say, that one of their first outrages was to foment, provoke and finance the French Revolution and all purely for the benefit of the Rothschilds. Even Sir Walter Scott in volume two of his nine volume work, ‘The Life of Napoleon,’ acknowledged this important fact.

Several years later in 1825, the Rothschilds’ sworn enemy, Czar Alexander I of Russia, having already survived a kidnapping attempt whilst travelling in Europe, suddenly and mysteriously died from an unspecified illness. So-called ‘establishment’ historians claimed that he caught a cold that developed into typhus thus conveniently ignoring completely the many death threats made to him over the years by Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his cronies.

And so, after twelve years of its existence and during which period, the ‘Second Bank of the United States,’ ruthlessly manipulated the American economy to the detriment of the people but to the benefit of their own money-grabbing ends, the American people unsurprisingly were tired of all the deception. Opponents of the bank nominated Senator Andrew Jackson of Tennessee to run for President. He was no friend of the Rothschilds and he had no love of their central bank system either. Immediately upon his election to the highest office, he set about bringing-down the bank and eliminating all Rothschild’s many placemen in the government’s ‘service.’ In order to illustrate how deeply this ‘cancer’ was intertwined within government circles, he dismissed 2,000 of the 11,000 employees of the US Federal Government.

Another immensely lucrative income-stream for the Rothschilds was the drug trade. Their agent was David Sassoon and he controlled the opium-trade monopoly throughout the Far East. The huge Rothschild profits were shared with Queen Victoria and also with her government ministers.

The fact that the Rothschilds and British Royalty were the original drug-lords of this world (and still are) is yet another unpalatable truth that historians and the media alike usually conveniently airbrush from history. They converted China into a land of opium junkies and then spread this insidious epidemic far and wide to almost everywhere else. But in 1839, when Emperor Dao Guang tried to halt the opium trade, the British went to war with China as a result. Those deceitful Chinese eh? How dare they stop buying drugs from us? So just to be clear, Britain sent its army to China to fight them, simply because the Chinese wished to prevent the British Queen and her bankster friends, David Sassoon and the Rothschilds, from poisoning their people with opium. This was what has since become known as the ‘Opium Wars.’

What is more, in 1842, when the first Opium War ended with ‘The Treaty of Nanking,’ the mighty British bankster Empire managed to have its drug trade thoroughly institutionalised. It forced the Chinese to pay compensation for all the opium they had confiscated and also confirmed the island of Hong Kong as a British colony, before eventually and finally being returned to its rightful owners in 1999. And when the second Opium War ended in 1860, after the British had besieged Peking (now Beijing), the British commander, Lord Elgin ordered all Chinese temples and shrines burned to the ground as a demonstration of Britain’s utter contempt for the Chinese and this remember, was all because the Chinese did not want to be drugged by the banksters.

Other factors surrounding the Opium Wars were concerns over trade. China was happy to export its tea, silk and chinaware but it did not need to import the goods of the Europeans, in return. So, in a nutshell, China was becoming rich and the banksters, unacceptably to them, were not getting their share of the spoils. During the period when the Chinese were being forced to buy the opium (an import that saw over 1 million addicts at its height, from lowly workers in the fields to high-ranking government officials), in 1864 alone, the banksters made over £20m from their importation of over 58,000 chests of opium.

How easy it is to make a villain out of a nation, especially when you are in total control of what is and is not reported by the media and the history books.

But back to the USA again, and even after President Jackson’s purge of Rothschild’s minions, they still managed to gain undue influence with Congress and cajoled them to approve an early renewal of the Second Bank of the United States’ charter. Congress, as complicit as ever, sent the bill to President Jackson for signing but he refused their overtures and in his reply to them he stated the following . . .

“It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of the Bank are held by foreigners . . . Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? Controlling our currency, receiving our public monies, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence . . . would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower the favour alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.”

Congress was of course unable to override President Jackson’s veto who then stood for re-election and for the first time in American history he took his argument directly to the people by taking his re-election campaign ‘on the road.’ His campaign slogan was, “Jackson and No Bank!” Even though the banksters poured over $3 million into President Jackson’s opponent, the Republican Senator Henry Clay’s campaign, Jackson was re-elected by a landslide in November 1832.

President Jackson well knew that the battle was only beginning however and following his victory he stated, “The hydra of corruption is only scotched, not dead!”

He appointed Roger B. Taney as Secretary of State for the Treasury with instructions to commence the removal of the government’s deposits from the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson’s previous two Secretaries of State for the Treasury, William J. Duane and Louis McLane had both refused to comply with the President’s request and were dismissed as a result. However the President of the, Second Bank of the United States, Nicholas Biddle, used his massive influence to get the Senate to reject Roger B. Taney’s nomination and even threatened to cause a depression if the Bank was not re-chartered.

In retaliation, on 10th September 1833, with an executive order, President Andrew Jackson then removed all Federal funds from the Second Bank of the United States and placed them with various state banks. The Rothschild agent, Nicholas Biddle protested furiously along with all the many ‘Rothschild-owned’ politicians. Biddle defiantly stated that “Just because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned judges [does not mean] he is to have his way with the bank. He is mistaken.”

He then threatened Jackson and Congress with this statement . . .

“Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress . . . Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction — and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank.”

In simple terms he was in effect threatening to instigate a recession by withholding the printing of currency — as was his prerogative of course. After all, the Second Bank of the United States was responsible for the entire economy, totally free from any possible government intervention. This statement alone is proof enough to the world what central banks are really all about. He actually made good on his word and the Second Bank of the United States sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to issue new ones. Naturally a financial panic ensued, followed by the US being plunged into a deep recession.

Biddle then unashamedly blamed President Jackson for the crash, claiming that it was Jackson’s withdrawal of federal funds that had caused it. This crash decimated wages and prices and unemployment soared, along with business bankruptcies. The United States was in uproar and newspaper editors blasted the President in editorials. So, in 1834 Congress assembled what was known as the ‘Panic Session,’ and on the 28th March, President Jackson was officially censured by Congress for withdrawing funds from the Second Bank of the United States, in a vote which was passed by the Senate by 26 to 20. It was the first time a President had ever been censured by Congress.

Jackson, whose nickname was ‘Old Hickory’ because of his tough, uncompromising personality, responded to this latest bankster outrage with some powerful words . . .

“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”

But surprisingly and in a complete about-turn on the 4th April, the House of Representatives voted 134 to 82 against re-chartering the bank. This was followed by another vote which established a special committee to investigate whether the Bank had caused the crash. Then on 8th January 1835 after Congress had only a few months earlier censured President Andrew Jackson for his so-called ‘abuse of power’ in relieving the Second Bank of The United States of its Federal deposits, a large assembly of political figures gathered in Washington, a Senator rose to his feet and made a simple, brief announcement . . . “Gentlemen . . . the national debt . . . is paid!”

When Jackson took office the national debt of the United States was $58 million, six years of his Presidency later, the debt was zero. Jackson was the only American president to achieve this feat and this was the one and only time that the United States of America was debt-free.

Unfortunately, this debt-free America lasted a mere one year only. On 30th January 1835 President Jackson set another, this time unsought precedent, when he became the first American President to be targeted for assassination. Indeed, the unemployed housepainter Richard Lawrence was also setting a precedent in being the first of a long, long series of so-called ‘lone nut’ assassins. He approached Jackson outside the House Chamber of the Capitol with two Derringer pistols, taking his first shot at thirteen feet but fortunately for his intended target the percussion cap exploded but there was no discharge.

The outraged 67 year old President raised his cane ready to strike Lawrence as he fired the second pistol close up against Jackson’s chest, but it misfired yet again.

The attempted assassination of President Andrew Jackson — 30th January 1835

Jackson then beat his would-be assailant with his cane but was interrupted by none other than Senator Davey Crockett of Tennessee, who was to lose his life at the Battle of the Alamo in the following year. It must indeed have been divine intervention that saved the President from death, after ironically attending the funeral of South Carolina congressman Walter R. Davis. Jackson’s courage was legendary; he had stared death in the face on many occasions, both in battle and in numerous duels of honour.

Almost one hundred years later in 1930, the two pistols were tested by the Smithsonian Institute and both of them fired normally on the very first attempt. Lawrence was declared insane, as is the general way of things, and later died in an asylum. Jackson sincerely believed, and with good cause, that it was the Rothschilds who made use of this ‘useful idiot,’ lone-nut assassin.

Before his death in 1845, Jackson left clear instructions for the following inscription to be placed on his tombstone, ‘I Killed the Bank.’

Yet the last word, the last ironic insult, was the banksters’ ‘honouring’ of Jackson by featuring him on their $20 dollar bill many years later, after the creation of their highly criminal enterprise, the Federal Reserve Bank.

The Rothschilds did not take the loss of the charter lightly and so through their ownership of the Bank of England and other allied bankster friends, they contracted the money/credit supply of the United States and caused the infamous ‘Panic of 1837.’ The Bank of England then refused to accept or discount any bonds, securities or other financial documents from the United States. As a result of this, of the 850 state banks in the US at that time, 342 closed their doors forever and 62 temporarily. Remember, it was the state banks that received the Federal deposits when President Jackson removed them from the Rothschilds’ control.

In 1841 William Henry Harrison became the ninth President of the United States and unfortunately he was not at all a welcome appointment as far as the banksters were concerned. In fact, after just thirty-one days in situ, he became the first President to ever die in office. The official cause of death was given as pneumonia, but this was regarded as highly suspicious at the time and upon his death, Vice President John Tyler became the tenth President of the United States. He went on to veto the act to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States and as a result of this, received hundreds of death-threat letters, but of course none signed by a Rothschild. Tyler somehow contrived to complete his term of office but several other subsequent Presidents were not quite so fortunate . . .

Illegally disenfranchising voters and rigging the Diebold electronic voting machines, as happened in the more recent Bush elections, are just two ways of achieving the ends of the unscrupulous banksters but there is another equally effective strategy that has been regularly employed. However this strategy, assassination, is no ‘bloodless coup,’ unlike the mere fixing of elections.

Almost from the beginning of the American republic, assassination has been used as an integral tool of control by the banksters and their friends in high office, resulting in the appointment of men who are in effect unelected leaders but who look kindly upon the aims of their ‘benefactors,’ all at a price of course. It is a sad fact that the banksters’ agents poisoned and killed William Henry Harrison on 4th April 1841 and also Zachary Taylor on 9th July 1850. These two Presidents as well as being firmly ‘anti-bankster,’ had also opposed admitting Texas and California into the Union as slave-owning states and on the 3rd July 1850, Zachary Taylor threatened to hang those ‘taken in rebellion against the Union.’ The very next day, the President fell ill, vomited a ‘blackish’ substance and died within one week on the 9th July 1850. In fact Kentucky state authorities recently dug up Taylor’s body in a search for evidence of arsenic poisoning, however none was found — or so they said. Perhaps unsurprising after a decomposition period of more than one hundred and fifty years. James Buchanan was also similarly poisoned in 1857, but he fortunately survived against the odds.

“From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government itself was not to be a substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned.” William Gladstone, future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1852.

Shortly before her death, Gutle, the wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild made this profound yet chillingly accurate statement . . .

“If my sons did not want war, there would be none.”

And war, perpetual war was what the Rothschilds and indeed the banksters in general were desperate to promulgate. As if there were not already enough wars and conflicts ongoing in the world, the Rothschilds had for some considerable time been cunningly and surreptitiously guiding the still young United States towards its biggest war ever.

Already having lost their latest American central bank in 1836, their exclusive, extortionate scheme to enslave Americans as they already had the Europeans, the Rothschilds were now planning to exact their deadly revenge. Most scholars and historians glibly state that what brought about the American Civil War, was secession and slavery. They certainly never mention the power of the Rothschilds and the fact that the war was deliberately designed and instigated specifically to split the nation, to divide and conquer or to create massive debt on both sides. It was intended that the North would become a British colony annexed to Canada and controlled by Lionel Rothschild, whilst the South was to be given to Napoleon III of France, and controlled by James de Rothschild.

And so in 1857, the seeds for the new Rothschilds’ war were sown. Their well-trained lap-dog and banker for the North in New York was August Belmont, assisted by Jay Cooke who would help sell Union bonds in Europe, whilst Belmont would take care of the domestic financing. For the South, the Rothschilds and their other bankster friends, had wealthy slave-owner Judah P. Benjamin of the Louisiana law firm of Slidell, Benjamin and Conrad made Secretary of State for the Confederacy whilst his law partner John Slidell was the Confederate envoy to France. Slidell was the uncle of August Belmont’s wife and Slidell’s daughter was married to Baron Frederick d’Erlanger in Frankfurt, who was related to the Rothschilds. It was these connections that provided the financing for the Southern Confederacy, indeed Erlanger loaned over $7 million to the Southern States. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union on 29th December 1860 but a few weeks later, six other states joined them to form their own, new nation the ‘Confederate States of America’ with Jefferson Davis as their President. In all there were eventually eleven Confederate states.

In order to instigate the anger of the masses with rumours of secession, the Rothschilds enlisted and financed a secret society, The Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC) which they had formed a few years earlier, for the purpose of spreading racial tensions from state to state using slavery as an issue.

The KGC evolved from a Scottish secret society known as The Society of the Horseman’s Word, otherwise known as the Horse Whisperers. This fraternity recited passages from the Bible backwards and practiced folk magic as part of their rituals, in addition to swearing Masonic-style oaths. The KGC was originally conceived as a group to not simply just promote the interests of the South, but to also prepare the way for a ‘golden circle’ of territories that would include Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean nations, to be included as slave states within the United States.

At its zenith, during the war, the KGC claimed 200,000 members, including all of Lincoln’s war cabinet (except Lincoln himself,) the Confederate President Jefferson Davis, actor John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln’s assassin) and a teenager later to become the infamous ‘outlaw,’ Jesse James. As an aside, a very mysterious and controversial figure in the KGC and other secret societies such as the Freemasons, was someone who will attain more prominence as this story further unfolds, a certain Harvard College ‘gentleman’ by the name of Albert Pike.

So, British agents were despatched in great numbers to all parts of the South, whilst in the Northern states, industrialists and their bankster friends imposed trade tariffs to prevent the Southern states from buying the cheaper European goods. With the same bankster pressure applied in Europe and with Lincoln’s naval blockade taking effect, the South was unable to export its cotton to the British cotton mills, which was of course the major part of the South’s economy and an equally major element of the economy and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of cotton mill workers in the British cotton industry heartland of Lancashire in the North West of England.

As a result of this blockade, many British working families were literally at starvation level and the poor-houses and workhouses of major cities such as Manchester and Liverpool and their smaller ‘satellite’ towns such as Warrington, Wigan, Blackburn, Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Bury, were overflowing. Indeed the years 1861-65 saw many thousands of the poor of these areas, actually starve to death, all as a result of course of the banksters’ heartless, insatiable quest for power and wealth at whatever cost.

It was the bankster-dominated slave-trade that made the South’s cotton business possible. They controlled finance and they controlled the world’s shipping. But many so-called ‘old-money’ families in the North, also made and maintained their fortunes in the lucrative slave trade and by their ownership of slaves themselves, with Rhode Island being the centre of control. Indeed it is an absolute myth that the North was vigorously opposed to slavery, it was merely a convenient expedient for placing the blame for the war on the South and stirring-up sympathy for the North’s cause. It is true to say that the issue of slavery only seriously arose, two years into the conflict as a reason for the outbreak of war, following a conversation between Frederick Douglas, a prominent former slave himself, and Abraham Lincoln, following which the President thought it a great idea to ‘jump on the bandwagon’ of slavery.

Slavery has always been cited as and has been extensively believed to be the one real cause of the war but this was simply not the case. As Lincoln himself stated, “I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the state where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so . . . My paramount objective is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

As French novelist Honore de Balzac said so profoundly, “Behind every great fortune there lies, a great crime.” The American fortunes of the Baring, Biddle, Brown, Drexel, Dukes, Sturgis and many other high-society families, all derived from the misery and death involved in the slavery and drug trades. Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore and New York were all centres of trade, finance and institutionalised crime.

The American Civil War 1861-65

One month after Abraham Lincoln was sworn-in as the 16th President of the United States, the American Civil War officially began on the 12th April 1861, when Union troops were attacked by Confederate forces at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, after South Carolina had ‘illegally’ seceded from the Union.

To demonstrate how the banksters thrive on financing both sides in a war and how they utilise the Hegelian Dialectic (problem, reaction, solution) of opposing forces to advance their agenda for world domination, the Rothschild banksters loaned Napoleon III of France (the Napoleon of the battle of Waterloo fame’s nephew), 210 million francs to seize Mexico and then deploy troops along the Southern border of the United States, by taking advantage of the American Civil War to return Mexico to colonial rule.

This was in gross violation of the ‘Monroe Doctrine,’ which was issued by President James Monroe during his annual ‘State of the Union’ address to Congress, in 1823. This doctrine proclaimed the United States’ opinion that European powers should no longer colonise the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, and others. In return for which, the United States agreed to remain neutral in wars between European powers and in wars between a European power and its colonies. However, should the latter type of war occur in the Americas, then the U.S. would be entitled to view such action as being hostile toward itself.

Regardless of this, the banksters encouraged the British government to send 8,000 troops to Canada towards the end of 1861, in complete defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This was then followed in early 1862, by their sending even more British troops along with those from France and Spain, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, on the pretext of collecting debts from Mexico. This was exactly what the Russian Ambassador to America had warned his government . . . “England will take advantage of the first opportunity to recognise the seceded states and France will follow her.”

On 1stJanuary 1863, Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, thus ‘freeing’ the slaves, at least in principle if not exactly in practice.

Later in 1863, the French army of 30,000 troops was in complete control of Mexico and Czar Alexander II of Russia through his representatives in London and Paris, learned that the Confederacy had offered the states of Louisiana and Texas to Napoleon III of France, on condition that he would deploy his armies against the North. Alexander being no friend of the banksters or their ongoing schemes to establish one of their central banks in Russia, offered his support to President Lincoln and watched keenly for any new developments. He further declared that if Britain and France entered the conflict on the side of the South, then Russia would regard it as an act of war against its interests.

However, as with most actions of those in power, there was an ulterior motive. Lincoln was desperate for recruits for his army and was at this stage even cajoling Irish immigrants into service, directly from the ships. The real truth was that the black slaves were no more valued by the ‘North,’ than they were by the ‘South.’

On the 8th September 1863, at the request of President Lincoln and Secretary of state William H. Seward, Czar Alexander II deployed his Navy to San Francisco and New York and placed it directly under the command of Lincoln. This arrival of the Russians came at a most crucial time for the North and it is no exaggeration to state that it caused the British and French to hesitate and even make a ‘U-turn,’ on their proposed actions. Entirely contrary to his falsely engendered, saintly, iconic image, Abraham Lincoln certainly had a darker side to his character. He was indeed no friend to the slaves, as documented in detail by researchers and evidenced by personal statements such as quoted above and now repeated here for emphasis . . .

“I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so . . . My paramount objective is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

The truth is that Lincoln took the country to war WITHOUT the consent of Congress, completely ignoring the US Constitution, which he had taken an oath to defend. He suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned many people without trial. Furthermore he strictly enforced the draft whilst ensuring that his own draft-eligible son remained safe at college.

Was Lincoln doing the banksters’ bidding by promoting the war, or was he just anxious to save the Union from them? One thing is certain though and that is that what he did next, proved very costly indeed. Needing money to continue to finance the war, Lincoln travelled to New York with his Secretary of the Treasury, Salomon P. Chase, to borrow money but found the quoted, extremely high 24-36% interest rates that the banksters asked, absolutely out of the question. Of course the banksters knew that fact in advance. Their idea from the very beginning was that the North should lose the war and the country be divided.

So upon returning to Washington, Lincoln sent for his old friend, Colonel Edmund ‘Dick’ Taylor from Chicago and offered him the position of trying to save the Union’s precarious finances with a creative fiscal policy. As a solution, Taylor suggested the very same thing championed by the Rothschilds themselves and that was the creation of money ‘out of thin-air.’ This then was the birth of the Lincoln debt-free currency, the infamous ‘Greenback.’ It was in fact the first attempt by a US government to create a national currency in the United States, based upon paper money rather than gold and silver coins. Lincoln obtained the agreement of Congress as it was decreed to be only a ‘temporary, emergency measure’ and the ‘Greenbacks’ were duly instigated in July of 1862 with an initial printing of $150 million but this would later total $450 million.

However, Lincoln needed even more money to win the war, even after inaugurating the Federal Income Tax. Realising this fact and knowing that the President could continue printing his own money, the banksters proposed a National Bank Act. They exerted their power over Congress once again to see the act passed and from this point onwards the entire US money supply was to be created out of debt by the banksters buying US Government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The banksters by causing their trademark financial panics, had already destroyed many of their competitors in the form of 172 state banks, 177 private banks, 47 savings institutions, 13 loan and trust companies and 16 mortgage companies. With an election on the horizon however, Lincoln decided to wait until the following year and until he gained the necessary public support to reverse the National Bank Act, which he had been pressured into signing in the first place.

In the meantime, the banksters were constantly pressing for a gold standard, because gold was scarce and therefore easier to monopolise but Lincoln was as strongly opposed to this as he was to their demands for the re-establishment of a central bank.

Prior to the Lincoln administration, private commercial banks were able to issue paper money, ‘State Banknotes,’ but that all ended with the National Bank Act of 1863 which prohibited states from creating money and it began the movement to abolish redeemable currency. The Greenback was an emergency-issued currency that was not redeemable in silver until after the Civil War. In 1879 it became legal tender and the Greenbacks remained valid until they were discontinued in 1994.

But sadly, Lincoln was the last President to issue debt-free United States notes. In his own words, “We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.” The Rothschild/bankster controlled newspaper, ‘The Times’ of London responded, rather predictably and defiantly . . .

“If that mischievous policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilised governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

What the ‘voice’ of the British bankster Empire, was in effect saying, was that the head of state of another sovereign nation, the United States, President Abraham Lincoln had to be destroyed.

Despite the increased efforts of Rothschild agent August Belmont, who had already become Democratic Party Chairman and who backed General George McClellan as the Democratic nominee to run against him with the full support of the banksters, Lincoln was nevertheless re-elected to a second term in office. But two weeks later, Lincoln wrote to a friend . . .

“The money power preys upon the nations in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.”

And then, in a statement to Congress, Lincoln declared “I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”

Salomon P Chase, Lincoln’s Secretary to the Treasury, stated . . . “My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country.”

The statistics of this totally manufactured Rothschild/bankster war were staggering. It really was the first war of the modern industrialised age. It was a war that saw some 240 patented applications for military weapons, the first war to use telescopic gun-sights, the first to use land mines and the banksters profited greatly from all those arms sales too. This was also the first war to utilise the 200 rounds per minute unprecedented ‘killing-power’ of the Gatling gun. The world’s first ever ‘machine gun.’

The American Civil War cost the lives of over 600,000 men, with half of that total being from pneumonia and disease and a further 1 million were to die later from their injuries. There were 51,000 deaths alone, in the three days of the Battle of Gettysburg, 1st to 3rd July 1863, the bloodiest battle of the war. Staggeringly, more than 100,000 Union soldiers were under the age of 15 (drummer boys were often as young as 9.) Of the 60,000 documented surgeries of the war, most were amputations.

It is also staggering to report that twenty-five per cent of all military-aged men (18-45) in the South, died in the Civil War. The state of Mississippi in 1863 alone spent one-fifth of its annual budget on prosthetic limbs to accommodate its amputees from the war. The financial cost of the entire war, damages and pensions included, was estimated at close to $7 billion. A Union private was paid $13 per month, his Confederate counterpart, $11 per month. But in the North it was possible to legally buy yourself out of the draft for $300 (an extremely large sum in those days) and in the South you were exempt if you owned more than 20 slaves. Only one-in-five Southerners owned slaves and most of those usually just owned one or two.

In 1860, the US National Debt was $65 million. The Civil War saw this debt grow to $2.7 billion — a 40-fold increase. However, in 1789, the year George Washington took office, the US National Debt was $77 million. The only logical and reasonable conclusion to be drawn from those figures has to be that for this debt to actually decrease in those critical years for the young, growing United States from 1789 — 1860, that it must have been the direct result of the US Government rejecting the Rothschild created Second Bank of the United States in 1836 and its regaining control of its own money supply and hence its ability to repay the said debt.

Then, on the evening of 14th April 1865, forty-one days after his second inauguration and just five days after General Lee officially surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox court house, thus ending the four-year, bloody conflict, President Lincoln was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range by assassin and 33rd degree Freemason, John Wilkes Booth, at Ford’s Theatre, Washington DC. He died of his injuries early the next morning and less than two weeks after the final end of the Civil War.

And thus did Abraham Lincoln become the first American President to be ‘officially’ assassinated in office. ‘Officially,’ because the widely-held belief among researchers, is that President William Henry Harrison was the first in 1841, when instead of dying of pneumonia as reported, he was believed to have been poisoned for defying the banksters. His successor John Tyler was also poisoned, but he recovered and quickly re-thought his opposition to the money powers.

So much has been written about the assassination of Lincoln, but as with much of history, the ‘real truth’ never emerges. As with all political assassinations, it is the cover-up, maintaining an ‘official’ story no matter how unbelievable or contrary to the evidence, that our so-called ‘historians’ record for posterity.

In this case, it was always known that there was a plot, a conspiracy to kill Lincoln and his assassin John Wilkes Booth was a major part of it. But in reality, no-one knew exactly how widespread a conspiracy it was or indeed how it could all be connected to a much higher power than appeared to be the case. That is of course until 1974, when researchers found among the papers of Edwin M. Stanton, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, several letters describing the conspiracy cover-up that had been either communicated directly to Stanton or intercepted by him. It transpired that all three victims, Harrison, Tyler and Lincoln had been obstructing on-going bankster plans for the US Civil War (1861-1865.)

In fact, Booth was merely the ‘front-man’ for a much wider conspiracy, a fact that was widely acknowledged at the time but which has now been conveniently ignored and/or deleted from history. Four additional co-conspirators were hanged for the crime and two more received life sentences in jail. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, had just taken office as VP literally weeks before the assassination, replacing Hannibal Hamlin. Incidentally, Booth is commonly believed (according to official history) to have been silenced when he was killed whilst resisting arrest. But, according to an article by Mark Owen on the website henrymakow.com, Booth was actually killed by the ‘outlaw’ Jesse James a fellow high-ranking Freemason and member of the KGC, in 1903 for the heinous crime of breaking his masonic oath — a far more serious transgression of course for Freemasons, than assassinating the legally elected leader of a country.

It was also well known from the beginning, that in Booth’s trunk in his Washington hotel room they found coded messages and the key to that code was found in the Richmond office of Rothschild agent, Judah P. Benjamin. Benjamin had already fled to England where he established for himself a comfortable living as a Queen’s Counsel, a barrister at law. As a senior Rothschild agent, Benjamin through the Knights of the Golden Circle had laundered their gold and dollars through a Montreal bank. He had been running so many Confederate spies out of Montreal, that the city became known as the ‘second Richmond.’ Richmond itself of course being the capital of the Confederate States.

Furthermore, among Stanton’s papers, they found 18 pages that had been removed from John Wilkes Booth’s diary and which revealed the names of 70 people (some in code) who were directly or indirectly involved in the plot to kidnap or kill Lincoln. In addition to Stanton, other prominent names involved in the conspiracy were Charles A. Dana, Assistant Secretary of War, and Chief of the War Department’s Telegraph office.

Journals and coded papers by Colonel Lafayette C. Baker, Chief of the National Detective Police, the forerunner of the US Secret Service, detailed Lincoln’s kidnap and assassination conspiracy and subsequent cover-up. The plot included a group of Maryland farmers, a group of Confederates including Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederacy) and Judah P. Benjamin (the Confederate Secretary of War and Secretary of State), a group of Northern banking and industrial interests, including Rothschild agents Jay Cooke (Philadelphia financier) and Henry Cooke (Washington DC banker), Thurlow Weed (New York newspaper publisher) and a group of radical Republicans who did not want the South reunited with the North as states, but wanted to control them as military territories and these included among their number, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio, Senator Zechariah Chandler of Michigan and Senator John Conness of California.

All of the above groups, which were all connected to the Knights of the Golden Circle, pooled their efforts and it was then proposed to use the well-known actor and Confederate patriot John Wilkes Booth. The original plan called for the kidnapping of Lincoln, Vice-President Andrew Johnson, and Secretary of State William H. Seward but the National Detective Police discovered their plans and informed Stanton. The kidnap, which had been planned for January 18th, 1865, was thus foiled.

Captain James William Boyd, a secret agent for the Confederacy and a prisoner of war in the Old Capitol Prison, was used by the National Detective Police to report on the activities of the prisoners and to inform on crooked guards. He looked similar to Booth, aside from his red hair and moustache and coincidentally had the same initials.

Stanton had him released and Boyd took over the Northern end of the conspiracy which had been joined by the Police and the War Department. In other words, Boyd was being set-up as the ‘patsy,’ an essential part of any political assassination and he was what the intelligence community refers to as a ‘useful idiot,’ meaning in effect that he was unaware he was being used. The Northern group preferred to kill Lincoln outright while Booth was in favour of kidnapping him and using him as ransom to obtain the release of Confederate prisoners of war.

Booth failed in his kidnap quest on two occasions in March of 1865 and then eventually fatally shot Lincoln on 14th April at Ford’s Theatre. Boyd, warned that he could be implicated, planned to flee to Maryland and was blamed for attacking Seward, which by the way, he did not. Indeed, Boyd was actually the one shot at Garrett’s farm and deliberately misidentified as Booth. National Detective police agents Andrew and Luther Potter had been on his trail from the beginning and were called upon to identify the corpse. When the blanket over the face of the victim was removed they commented, “He sure grew a moustache in a hurry — red too.”

Contrary to reports, not a single friend of Booth was called to the inquest to identify the body. A Washington doctor named John May had removed a tumour from Booth’s neck several months prior to the Lincoln assassination and was summoned to view the corpse. On seeing it, he said “There is no resemblance in that corpse to Booth nor can I believe it to be him.” May later changed his statement (probably under extreme duress) to conform to the official proclamation that Booth had been captured and killed.

The police and Stanton discovered the body was really Boyd’s after it was announced to the nation that it was Booth, the only photograph taken of the body was found in Stanton’s collection. It was removed by Colonel Lafayette Baker to the old Arsenal Penitentiary where it was buried in an unknown place under the concrete floor. Each of the 26 detectives that worked on the case received several thousand dollars each after signing disclaimers stating that they had no further interest in the case. This of course is a common modus operandus (operating method) in such cases and is still used to this day. After all, why change a successful strategy?

Baker and detectives Luther and Andrew Potter knew the case was not yet closed and had to find Booth to prevent him from ‘talking.’ They followed his trail to New York and later to Canada, England and India.

So what happened to John Wilkes Booth? The Knights of the Golden Circle spirited Booth away to Granbury, Texas, where he lived and worked for many years as ‘John St. Helen.’ His own granddaughter Izola Forrester affirmed this in her 1937 book, ‘This One Mad Act’ and she further stated that it was common knowledge in the Booth family that he did not die as was claimed, in the barn. In 1872, St. Helen was operating a distillery in Glen Rose, Texas where he was pursued by revenue agents over whiskey taxes. He hired an attorney, Finis Bates to represent him and Bates, the grandfather of Hollywood actress Kathy Bates, later wrote his own book about St. Helen (Booth.)

One day, after contracting a dose of influenza, St. Helen was convinced that he was going to die and called Bates to his bedside where he confessed that his real identity was John Wilkes Booth and that he was the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. Bates was highly sceptical naturally, but St. Helen gave him a photograph of himself for future identification purposes and after making a full recovery from his ailment, St. Helen begged Bates to hold his confession in strict confidence.

Meanwhile, National Detective Police Chief Baker broke off relations with Stanton who was discharged from the Army and as head of the secret service in 1866. A year later, Baker in his book ‘The History of the U.S. Secret Service,’ admitted delivering Booth’s diary to Stanton and on another occasion testified that the diary was intact when it was in his possession. This in effect means that Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton who was actually Baker’s boss, as the National Detective Police came under the War Department of the Army, removed the pages to facilitate a cover-up of an assassination to which he was an accessory, because the pages were found in his collection. Col. Lafayette Baker, who directly reported to Stanton, but also to Lincoln, was totally devoted to the President and for that loyalty and therefore by definition being a threat to Stanton, he was slowly poisoned till he died in 1868.

In 1922, two Civil war veterans swore an affidavit stating that the body removed from the Garrett farm was not Booth. Joseph Zeigen and Wilson Kenzie said they had served with the cavalry troop that surrounded the barn and furthermore, that the man dragged from the barn wore a Confederate uniform and on his feet were yellow brogans, the service footwear of the Confederacy. Subsequently to this, the two were sworn to secrecy and again probably also subjected to threats.

But back to the main thrust of the story . . . In 1866 the banksters renewed their push for the re-institution of a central bank under their control and an American currency backed by gold. They chose gold as gold has always been relatively scarce and therefore a lot easier to monopolise, than, for example silver, which was plentiful in the United States and had been found in huge quantities with the opening of the American West.

So, on 12th April, Congress resumed work for the European central bankers. It passed the, “Contraction Act,” which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to contract the money supply by retiring some of the Greenbacks in circulation.

This money contraction and its disastrous results was explained by Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Walker, in their book, ‘The Truth in Money Book,’ in which they stated the following . . . “The hard times which occurred after the Civil War could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead there were a series of money panics, what we call recessions, which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralised control. Eventually the Federal Reserve Act was passed on 23rd December 1913.”

The ‘Contraction Act,’ passed by Congress affected the economy by decreasing the money supply as currency is being withdrawn. In addition, it was announced that the support of the Russian fleet cost the country about $7.2 million. Johnson did not have the constitutional authority to pay money to a foreign government for services, so arrangements were made instead, to purchase Alaska from the Russians in April 1867. This became known as ‘Seward’s Folly,’ but despite what the banksters’ historians and the bankster-owned Wikipedia tell us, the US possession of Alaska was nevertheless engineered as part of a compensation payment for the Russian Navy.

As for the Russian Czar, Alexander II, in 1866 he survived an assassination attempt but in 1881 he did not, when he was killed by an exploding bomb. The wrath of the Rothschilds upon the Russian monarchy lingered on as they continued to make good on their threat to systematically destroy every member of the Romanov dynasty.

In August 1867, the 17th President of the United States Andrew Johnson, failed in his attempt to remove Stanton from office and impeachment proceedings were begun against him in February, 1868 by Stanton and the Radical Republicans. Johnson was charged with attempting to fire Stanton without Senate approval, for treason against Congress and public language ‘indecent and unbecoming’ as the nation’s leader.

Senator Benjamin F. Wade, President pro tempore of the senate and next in line for Presidential succession, was so sure that Johnson would be impeached that he already had his cabinet picked and Stanton was named as his Secretary of the Treasury. However as it turned out, the 26th May vote was 35-19, one short of the necessary two-thirds majority needed to impeach Johnson.

Ernest Seyd was sent to America in 1872 on a mission from the Rothschild owned Bank of England. He was given $100,000 with which he was to bribe as many Congressmen as necessary, for the purposes of getting silver demonetised as it had been found in huge quantities in the American West, and would therefore cut into the Rothschild’s profits. He obviously spent his money wisely, as Congress passed the ‘Coinage Act,’ the very next year, which resulted in the immediate cessation of the minting of silver dollars. Furthermore, Representative Samuel Hooper, who introduced the bill in the House, even admitted that Ernest Seyd had actually drafted the legislation.

Even Seyd himself admitted that he was behind the demonetising of silver in America, when he made the following statement . . . “I went to America in the winter of 1872-1873, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interests of those I represented, the governors of the Bank of England, to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money.”

Due to the covert manipulation of the money supply in America, by 1876, one third of the workforce was unemployed and unrest was growing daily. There were even calls for a return to Greenback money or silver money and as a result, Congress created the, ‘United States Silver Commission,’ to investigate the problem.

The Commission clearly understood that the national and international bankers were the cause of the problem with their deliberately contrived contraction of the money supply. An excerpt of their report reads as follows, “The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices . . . Without money, civilisation could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish, and unless relieved, finally perish. At the start of the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,000,000. By the end of the 15th century it had shrunk to less than $200,000,000 . . . History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages . . . ”

Despite this damning report from the Commission, Congress took no action. However, rioting broke-out from Pittsburgh to Chicago. The bankers eventually decided to watch and wait as they knew that despite the violence, they were now firmly back in control. At the meeting of the American Bankers Association they urged their membership to do everything in their power to shout-down any suggestion of a return to Greenbacks.

The American Bankers Association secretary, James Buell, even wrote a letter to the members in which he blatantly called-on the banks to subvert both Congress and the press. In this letter he stated, “It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as well as oppose the Greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money . . . To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests that we may control legislation.”

Buell’s letter clearly had some effect, as although pressure mounted in Congress for change, the press tried to turn the general public away from the truth. An example of this was from the New York Tribune in their 10th January edition in which is stated in a banksters’ propaganda piece, “The capital of the country is organised at last and we will see whether Congress will dare to fly in its face.”

This early control of the media did not work entirely nevertheless, as on 28th February 1878 Congress passed the ‘Sherman Law,’ which allowed the minting of a limited number of silver dollars, ending the five year hiatus. However, this did not mean that anyone who brought silver to the United States Mint could have it struck into silver dollars, free of charge, as in the period prior to Ernest Seyd’s Coinage Act in 1873. Gold backing of the American currency also remained.

However, the Sherman Law did ensure that some money began to flow into the economy again, and coupled with the fact that the banksters now realised that they were still firmly in control, they started issuing loans again and thus the post-Civil War depression was finally ended.

Someone who did not much care for the banksters, but who knew all about silver, gold and American banking, was a certain Jesse Woodson James.

In addition to all you think you may know about him, further research that has surfaced in recent years, by writers such as Del Schrader with ‘Jesse James Was One Of His Names,’ Mark Owen writing for henrymakow.com and Warren Getler and Bob Brewer with their book ‘Rebel Gold,’ Ronald J. Pastore and John O’Melveny’s ‘Jesse James Secret Codes,’ the infamous outlaw and western legend Jesse James, did NOT die at the hand of his cousin Bob Ford in 1882 as is widely believed.

This may be even more difficult to accept, because the legend of Jesse James, the mythology and the books, the movies, the TV shows, have all instilled in us that he did die as ‘history’ tells us. But please consider the following . . .

It is now known for certain that Jesse James faked his death to escape the law and the Pinkerton detectives of the railroad barons. Remember that back in those days, fingerprint identification was still not perfected, photography was becoming popular but again was in its infancy, crime reporting tended towards ‘pulp fiction’ and law enforcement relied more on bounty hunters and private detectives to track-down their fugitives, especially if it was the banks, railroads and insurance companies putting-up the rewards. And as for trying to correctly identify someone, that was not so much a science as an art-form in itself. But, according to Bud Hardcastle (a Jesse James historian,) the man who was killed and identified as James, was in fact Charles Bigelow.

Bigelow had been claiming and bragging that he was Jesse James, in all the robberies in which he was involved and upon his death was then buried as Jesse James. It is further believed by Hardcastle and other historians, that Bigelow’s wife, a prostitute, was bribed and pretended to be Mrs. Jesse James when she identified the corpse.

Firstly, so much of what we know about Jesse James is a lie or a fabrication. As with many legends, it was born out of hyperbole and exploitation. Jesse James was an extraordinary individual, who if researchers are to be believed, and there is enough reasonable evidence to confirm this, lived a very long and fascinating life.

As stated earlier, Jesse James belonged to the Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC), a secret society that had a very powerful influence over the Confederacy. Other members included General Bedford Forrest and Captain William Quantrill. James rode with Quantrill and his infamous ‘raiders,’ a Confederate guerrilla outfit, during the Civil War. They became known more for being renegades, and bush-whackers because of their brutal, sadistic tactics whilst Jesse James became very proficient in subversive fighting and was an excellent spy for the Confederacy and certainly, patriotically believed it would eventually rise again. James was also involved in smuggling arms and ammunition to the Plains Indians, as well as training in guerrilla tactics against their common enemy, General George Armstrong Custer and the Union Army.

After the surrender of General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox court house, the Confederacy immediately went ‘underground’ and the KGC became even more determined and vowed to continue the fight, covertly. A force of 2,000 Missouri cavalry and a full regiment of Confederate-led Red Bone Indians from East Texas, commanded by General J.O. Shelby, journeyed to Mexico to join their ally, the Emperor Ferdinand Maximilian. When threatened by Mexican patriots under the leadership of Benito Juarez, an elite force led by Colonel William Quantrill and Colonel Jesse James was despatched to their aid.

While in Mexico, James was enlisted in an operation to smuggle Maximilian’s treasure out of Mexico but on their way back north, the James forces learned that Maximilian had apparently been executed by the Mexican patriots. He and several others had been shot by firing squad, then loaded into carts and carried away for burial.

But the gravesite ceremony was infiltrated by the Red Bone Indians, who noticed signs of life in Maximilian. The Indians talked the Mexicans into allowing them to give him a separate burial. Later he was nursed back to health and transported to East Texas.

According to writer Del Schrader, Maximilian changed his name to John Maxi and began living undercover in North America. For further services to Maxi (Maximilian,) the KGC was personally rewarded $12.5 million of which $5 million alone was given to Jesse James and who was able to gain even more favour by reuniting Maxi with his wife Carlota. With his new-found wealth, James was more than ready and able to transform his life by faking his own death and this completely fooled the authorities and indeed the whole world.

James then began living under the name of J. Frank Dalton. (The name Dalton was his mother’s maiden name, the initial ‘J’ for Jesse and ‘Frank’ was his brother’s name.) As Chief of the inner sanctum of the Knights of the Golden Circle, James was one of the most powerful men in America and exceptionally rich too.

It is now also believed that Jesse James was actually the comptroller of the Confederacy, in charge of all gold and silver bullion. Headquarters for the KGC was Nashville, Tennessee, the home of Jesse’s brother Frank and many years later, it became the Dixie Tabernacle, original home of the ‘Grand Ole Opry.’

The covert fight of the Confederacy through the efforts of the KGC continued on for 19 more years and the outlaw exploits of the James gang, his cousins the Dalton gang and also the Younger’s, in robbing banks and trains were all for the benefit of and coordinated by the KGC. It was said by some that Jesse James later used his own personal fortune to ‘buy into’ oil in the early days of the Texas oil boom and even that he invested in the Hughes Tool Company, owned by Howard Hughes Sr. This could well be true, as there is no doubt at all that Jesse lived to the ripe old age of 107, finally dying in 1942 in Lawton, Oklahoma.

Whatever happened to the ‘loot,’ the buried treasure of the KGC became the stuff of legends too. Both Jesse James and John Wilkes Booth were not only KGC members, they were also Freemasons. Having firstly used the alias John St. Helen, Booth then became David George but through his heavy drinking and laudanum dependency, he began to boast of who really was and what he did to Lincoln and also for the KGC. For many years he had been living-off a generous annual pension of $3,600, in return for keeping a low profile. And so for his indiscretions and after numerous warnings, it was decided to silence him forever and it was Jesse James who traced him to the Grand Hotel in Enid, Oklahoma, one winter evening in 1903. He offered Booth a glass of lemonade laced with arsenic and made sure this time that Booth would be clearly identified as being the real John Wilkes Booth. It was a massive scoop for the press, as scores of reporters descended on Enid for such a sensational story and Finis Bates, Booth’s attorney helped identify the corpse. The mortician W. B. Penniman later charged tourists 10 cents to view Booth’s corpse and following that it was Bates who profited even more, by renting out the mummified body to carnivals and sideshows.

It was bad enough that Booth had been so indiscreet about the Lincoln plot, but breaking the secret oaths of both the KGC and the Freemasons was the ‘last straw’ it would seem. As for Jesse James, this story appeared in the San Antonio Express on 21st January 1950 along with a picture from 1942 . . .

“Old Time Bandit Meets the Press — J. Frank Dalton, 107, in bed, who claims to be Jesse James, talks to reporters on his arrival in New York. With him are two of his witnesses, Bushy Bill Roberts, 90, who claims to be a member of the James gang, and Colonel James R. Davis, 109, who says he was a US Marshal for the Cherokee Indian Nation. Dalton says history incorrectly recorded his death in 1882, when the victim of Bob Ford’s gun was actually another man.”

Though his war against the South had been brutal and destructive, Lincoln’s post war policy towards the defeated states was to have been one of reconciliation and rebuilding. With his sudden death however, a radical faction within the Republican Party, known literally as the ‘Radical Republicans’ were free to abuse and punish the Southern states for their audacious secession.

During Reconstruction, many supporters of the old Confederacy were banned from voting, while newly-freed slaves were given the vote before they could even be educated. Smooth talking ‘carpetbaggers’ from the North flooded the South, promising to give the ex-slaves ‘40 acres and a mule’ in exchange for their votes but once installed in office, the carpetbaggers and their ex-slave allies raised heavy taxes on the conquered southerners. Criminal acts against southerners, as well as rapes of southern women, became commonplace.

So it was in this atmosphere of oppressive occupation that the Confederate Army veterans formed a secret society spin-off from the Knights of the Golden Circle known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK.) Klan members, clad in intimidating white robes and hoods, holding burning crosses, served as vigilante groups. They restored order, protected white women from being raped, lynched known criminals, attacked radicals and prevented the ex-slaves from voting for the carpetbaggers.

More so than the Civil War itself, it was the vindictive oppression of the South during Reconstruction that incited racial tensions and left lasting scars that took more than a century to heal. Meanwhile, in Europe . . . the Franco-Prussian War, a conflict between the French Empire of Napoleon III (nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte) and the Germanic Kingdom of Prussia began. Prussia was aided by a confederation of many smaller German states and its swift victory thwarted French ambitions in central Europe and brought about the end of Napoleon III’s rule.

True to form after the war, the Rothschilds of France stepped-in with a massive bail-out of the nearly bankrupted French government. The new government (The Third Republic) was again a ‘democracy,’ bought and paid for by the Rothschilds and is under their influence more so than it was under the at best only semi-controllable Napoleon III. This is yet another fine example indeed of the best democracy that money could buy.

The Prussian/German victory over France was the instigating factor in the unification of the all the disparate German states under Kaiser (King) Wilhelm I of Prussia. The establishment of the German Empire thus ended the ‘balance of power’ that had been created with the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and Germany suddenly became the main economic power in continental Europe with one of the most powerful and professional armies in the world.

But meanwhile, back in England, the Rothschilds plotted and schemed to check and control the new German nation. Although their friends, thee Jewish banksters were thriving in Germany, Germany (like Czar Alexander’s Russia) now had the capacity to shape its own destiny and thwart the ambitions of the ‘City of London,’ the bankster capital and power-base. But the Rothschilds now had a problem. Not only was German politics totally outside of their control, but the fact that several German Royals were intermarried with British nobility complicated the City’s ability to threaten Germany with British military might.

Otto Von Bismarck was installed as the Chancellor (political head) of the new German Reich under Kaiser Wilhelm I and through his skilled and energetic diplomacy, he kept Germany out of war and the rest of Europe at peace and soon after a united Germany was established, Bismarck’s government became the first European nation to grant full citizenship rights to its Jewish population. Even Rothschild’s England and France had yet to achieve this and the British, Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli held office only because he had ‘converted’ to Anglican Christianity. However, Jews then began to thrive in the new ‘liberal’ Germany.

The German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck then negotiated an agreement between the monarchs of Austria-Hungary (Emperor Franz Joseph,) Russia (Czar Alexander II) and Germany (Kaiser Wilhelm I.) The alliance, known as ‘The League of The Emperors,’ had three key stated purposes . . .

The League served as a mutual defence against the growing Red (Communist) movements, which had menaced Europe with violence since 1848.
The League worked to avoid war amongst each other when diplomacy can suffice to resolve differences.
The League opposed the expansion of French power and French/British schemes to threaten the internal order of their countries.

The military and financial power of these three great Empires formed a Central-Southern-Eastern European power-base that unfortunately for them as it was soon to transpire, the Rothschild banksters and their British and French ‘hit men’ could not control!

The British Empire from the very beginning was a creation of the Rothschilds. It was at its zenith during the iconic reign of Queen Victoria, but all along it was never about anything other than promoting and enforcing the policies of the Rothschilds and their bankster friends and opening-up new profit opportunities. It was Lionel de Rothschild, through his trusted agent and prime asset, the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli that controlled Queen Victoria. The Rothschilds used Disraeli to strengthen the British nation in order to fulfil their goals, to confront Russia, to promote democracy and reform as a ‘winning hearts and minds’ cover and to advance the newly established Zionist agenda for world power. In these ends, Benjamin Disraeli succeeded. Queen Victoria herself was greatly enriched from the Rothschild empire built on slavery, opium, exploitation and corruption and it was the British soldier, the ‘mercenary’ of the Rothschild’s vaulting ambition that eventually changed the complexion of the whole world.

In 1875, Khedive Said of Egypt was in financial difficulties and he therefore desperately needed to sell his controlling interest in the Suez Canal whilst the Rothschilds needed to control the Suez Canal themselves in order to protect and enhance their huge investments in the Middle East. So, Lionel de Rothschild directed Prime Minister Disraeli to buy-up Said’s shares for £4 million and even though Parliament was not even sitting at that time, he convinced Queen Victoria in a letter that this would be in the best interests of Britain, that he must hurry with the transaction and that the Rothschilds were the only available source of immediate funding.

Of course it was a huge lie and the Rothschilds thereby benefitted by £500,000 alone, whilst Disraeli and other political insiders such as Lord Derby, also collected their share.

The Rothschilds did not wish to own the canal themselves and as is the case with most of their business interests, they preferred to remain in the shadows. It was obviously preferable to them that a government that they control owned it, as the military would then protect it for them.

Then in 1877 the Russo-Turkish War began. Firstly, Russia desired to reclaim vital Black Sea territory lost in the Rothschild-promulgated Crimean War twenty years earlier and her other objective was to liberate the Orthodox Christian Slavic populations of the Balkan states, currently under Muslim Turkish rule. Russia’s Orthodox Christian and Slavic allies, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and Bulgaria, all rebelled against Turkey and fought alongside Russia whilst Turkish mistreatment of Bulgarian Christians, further angered the Russians. It was Russia that dominated the conflict, probably unsurprisingly due to her size, and began advancing towards the Turkish capital, Constantinople. Dismayed that Russia may capture Palestine from the beaten Turkish Empire, Disraeli pressured Russia to accept a truce offered by Turkey and he sent British ships to the area to intimidate Russia and to force a peace conference in Berlin, Germany.

Then, just days before the important international conference was due to take place in Berlin, two assassination attempts were made against German Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm I. On 11th May 1878 a Communist named Emil Max Hodel fired shots at the Emperor and his daughter as they travelled together in their carriage. Fortunately for them the ‘marksman’ was a poor shot and Hodel was captured and then executed in August that year.

Three weeks later, another ‘Communist sympathiser’ named Karl Nobiling fired a shot-gun at the Emperor. The 82 year old Kaiser was wounded, but he survived against the odds and Nobiling then shot himself and died of his wounds three months later. The banksters’ secret war against the Three Emperors League and all of Europe’s Christian Monarchs, was just beginning to be ‘ramped-up.’

Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli totally dominated the Berlin conference which was called into session in order to settle the Russo-Turkish war even though Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, Italy and Turkey were also all in attendance. The Ottoman Turks still controlled Palestine but Britain and its Rothschild masters were desperate to assume control themselves and this was their ultimate goal.

Just before the Congress opened, Disraeli had concluded a secret deal with Turkey against Russia, whereby Britain was allowed to occupy the strategic island of Cyprus. This gave Disraeli a distinct advantage during the Congress and led him to issue new threats of war with Russia if she refused to comply with the requests of the Turks (who lost the war!)

Another underhanded pre-conference deal had also been struck between the divisive Disraeli and Russia’s ally, Austria-Hungary whereby orthodox Christians, including the Serbian population of Bosnia, were to be placed under Austria-Hungary’s rule. Russia and its Slavic allies had won the war against Turkey but many of the Slavs were to be transferred from Turkish rule to Austro-Hungarian rule. This move caused deep resentment among the Slavic subjects of Austria-Hungry, especially the Serbians of Bosnia who were forbidden from uniting with the newly independent nation of Serbia. Court intriguers on all sides had now inserted a permanent wedge between Russia and Austria-Hungry.

The German Chancellor Bismarck tried to keep the Disraeli engineered controversies from breaking up the Three Emperors League, but the humiliation of Russia at the hands of Britain, Turkey and Austria-Hungary was too much for her to bear. Russia withdrew from the League in disgust and then instead of being allied with Germany (whom Disraeli also wanted to isolate), Russia was now isolated and placed in a position where it could be pitted against Germany’s ally, Austria-Hungary — a classic ‘divide and conquer’ strategy.

The foundations of The Great War of 1914-1918 (World War I) were actually built at the Congress of Berlin, through the pure-evil plotting of the Rothschild-Zionist asset, Benjamin Disraeli. Upon his return to England, the deceitful Disraeli boasted of how he had killed the League of the Three Emperors and with the League now disbanded, Rothschild and Disraeli escalated their assault on Russia.

Queen Victoria reigned over the British / bankster Empire from June 1837, until her death in January, 1901. During that 64 year period, Britain was involved in no less than 37 wars and conflicts. From the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion in China, to the Indian Mutiny, the Crimean and Boer Wars in Africa etc., none of which benefited the vast majority of British people who on the contrary, were themselves enslaved in poverty and misery. The wars were really about the capturing of trade markets and / or the securing of natural resources to benefit the banksters and capitalists (as are all wars) but of course they were sold to the masses as defending our rights and fighting for our ‘freedom.’ Echoes of today really, as the same modus operandi are still used even now. Why change a successful formula for deceiving the people, after all?

To demonstrate how much our present-day view of history is coloured by what we are told by complicit historians . . . how many people today realise how unpopular a monarch Queen Victoria was? In fact she survived no less than seven assassination attempts between 1840 and 1882. So much then for the widely disseminated view of her being adored by her loyal peoples. Nothing could be further from the truth. And of course, there was always the constant threat of assassination of any monarch or political figure that stood against the edicts of the banksters.

The Victorian era was the age of both industrial and political revolution, of economic extremes and allegedly of unabashed patriotism. Millions of mere children toiled in the bowels of the earth, the factory sweatshops and the stately homes of the elite and even on the fields of battle in order to benefit their bankster masters.

After four previous attempts, on 13th March 1881, Rothschild’s ‘Red’ terrorists finally succeeded in assassinating Czar Alexander II of Russia. In the presence of his son Alexander III and grandson Nicholas, the Communists hurled bombs at the Czar’s carriage, blowing-off Alexander’s legs and causing him to bleed to death. And so the Rothschild threat to utterly destroy the Russian monarchy continued apace.

Then America lost its second President in 16 years to an assassin’s bullet. James Garfield was an Ohio Republican who had only been in office for three months. He was a brilliant scholar, talented orator and a vocal advocate of interest-free ‘hard money’ (gold) as a national currency. He was outspoken in his mistrust of the banksters and issued this warning only two weeks before he was assassinated:

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce . . . and when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

So it was then that on the 2nd July 1881, the 20th President of the United States, James A. Garfield was shot at a railway station by ‘another’ ‘crazed, lone gunman’ Charles Guiteau. Garfield actually survived the attack and was slowly recovering, but his condition worsened after two months of doctors needlessly probing him to find the by-now harmless bullet. He finally died on the 19th of September, not from the bullet, but by infection caused by the probing of the very suspect, some may even say ‘criminally incompetent’ doctors.

Coincidentally maybe, ‘incompetent’ doctors also hastened the deaths of 9th President William Henry Harrison and 12th President, Zachary Taylor. Taylor only served as President for just sixteen months, from 4th March 1849 to 9th July 1850, and was best known as a former general in the Mexican-American War. Rumours persisted at the time and since, that his death was no accident and that indeed it was an assassination, a poisoning in fact.

On 4th July 1850, President Taylor became feverish. To alleviate his symptoms, he drank ‘a pitcher of milk’ and ate ‘a bowl of cherries and several pickles.’ Five days later he died and despite the rumours of poisoning, historians blamed various ailments for his passing, including cholera, typhoid fever and even food poisoning. Then in the late 1980s, an author by the name of Professor Clara Rising, decided to challenge established history.

Professor Rising theorised that unknown persons assassinated President Zachary Taylor via poison, specifically arsenic. On 17th June 1991, his lead coffin was removed from the ground and soon afterwards, Dr. George Nichols and Dr. William Maples discovered that Taylor’s remains were in remarkably good shape. They proceeded to gather tissue samples, where initial tests showed relatively high arsenic levels. However, they were proclaimed to be too low to indicate a deliberate poisoning. But the rumours did not end there. In 1999, Michael Parenti revisited the arsenic theory in his book ‘History as Mystery’ and reported numerous flaws in the autopsy. He also provided a convincing mass of circumstantial evidence that pointed to a poisoning. For example, Zachary Taylor’s hair showed a suspiciously large amount of antimony, which is poisonous. Also, the amount of arsenic revealed in a second analysis of his hair was found to be similar to that of other poison victims.

Then there was the case of the 15th President of the United States, James Buchanan. He was inaugurated on 4th March 1857, before the Civil War, but at a time when tensions over slavery and secession were still running high. Buchanan was known to be suffering from a serious illness at his inauguration and some very strange circumstances surrounding it, made it appear that the new President had also been poisoned.

An article in the New York Times on 2nd June 1857 made a case that the illness suffered by President Buchanan earlier that year was nothing ordinary. According to the newspaper article, president-elect Buchanan first arrived at the National Hotel in Washington, D.C. on 25th January 1857. The very next day, people at the hotel began complaining of symptoms of poisoning, which included inflammation of the intestines and a swollen tongue. Buchanan himself was affected and, feeling quite ill, returned to his farm in Pennsylvania. However, after Buchanan left the National Hotel, things quickly returned to normal and no new cases of the apparent poisoning were reported.

Presidential inaugurations in the 19th century always took place on the 4th March and on 2nd March 1857, Buchanan returned to Washington and again checked into the National Hotel. As Buchanan returned, so did reports of poisoning. In the days surrounding the inauguration more than 700 guests at the hotel, or guests at Buchanan’s inauguration parties, complained of illnesses. And as many as 30 people, including some of Buchanan’s relatives, died. James Buchanan was stricken and felt quite ill at his own inauguration, but he did survive. However, rumours of his death swept through Washington in the early days of his administration, and some newspapers even reported that the President had died.

The explanation offered for all the illness and apparent poisonings was that it was all a vermin extermination gone horribly wrong. Supposedly the National Hotel was infested with rats, and rat poison laid down for them somehow made its way into the hotel food. However, suspicions lingered throughout Buchanan’s term that some dark conspiracy had targeted him. Or, using the principle of ‘Occam’s Razor,’ could it simply be the fact, that none of these Presidents Buchanan included, were friendly to the banksters, or their aims?

Although the British-Rothschild agent Benjamin Disraeli had destroyed The Three Emperors League (Russia/Germany/Austria-Hungary,) the German Chancellor Bismarck continued to work for peace. To ‘reinsure’ the peace of Europe and to prevent British or French intrigue from starting more wars, Bismarck and Russia agree to a secret treaty known as ‘The Reinsurance Treaty.’ Under the terms of this agreement, Germany and Russia agreed to remain neutral should either of the other become involved in war with a third nation. However, neutrality would not apply if Russia attacked Germany’s ally, Austria-Hungary.

The two giants remained vulnerable to the Balkan controversy in Austria-Hungary (Russia was the protector of the minority Slavic/Orthodox community under Austrian rule and also of small Slavic states like Serbia.) Nonetheless, the ‘Reinsurance Treaty’ was regarded as a very good sign that Russia and Germany would be able to work out any future differences diplomatically. Then Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany passed away in March of 1888 at the age of 91. He was succeeded by his son Frederick I, who died of throat cancer after a reign of just 3 months. Frederick’s 29 year old son Wilhelm II then became Kaiser in June of 1888. Like so many young, ‘educated’ Europeans of the day, Wilhelm II (like his father Frederick) had been infected with the poison of ‘liberalism.’

Whereas the ‘Iron Chancellor’ Bismarck believed in strong leadership and in smashing the Reds, young Wilhelm hesitated to crush the Communists and Socialist agitators as he had come to believe that if Germany became more ‘democratic,’ it should pacify the Red agitators. He also wanted better relations with Great Britain, the enemy of Russia and to that end, Wilhelm, (possibly under the influence of NWO court intriguers) turned his back completely on Russia and refused repeated Russian requests to renew Bismarck’s Reinsurance Treaty with Russia.

These irreconcilable differences led Wilhelm to dismiss the legendary Bismarck in 1890. As the grandson of Britain’s Queen Victoria, Wilhelm naively believed that he could trust and befriend Britain, which unfortunately for him belonged to the Rothschilds, not Victoria. He also believed that he could solve any potential future problems with Russia (over the Balkan controversy with Austria-Hungary) simply by direct negotiation. But Russia now felt isolated from Germany and mistrusted Germany’s ally, Austria-Hungary. This left her very vulnerable to French and British intrigue.

By 1891 the banksters had spent the previous decade creating economic booms followed by depressions so that they could buy-up thousands of homes, businesses and farms for a fraction of their value. They were preparing to take the economy down again in the near future and in a shocking memo sent out by the American Bankers Association, which would appear in the Congressional Record more than twenty years later, the following was stated . . .

“On September 1st 1894 we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgages in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price . . . Then the farmers will become tenants as in England . . . ” 1891 American Bankers Association, as printed in the Congressional Record 29th April 1913.

Feeling isolated from Germany and suspicious of Austria-Hungary, in 1894, Russia fell into a clever trap set by France. ‘The Franco-Russian Alliance’ created an entangling military alliance between the two nations and the Russian giant could now be used to create a deadly second front in any future war with Germany. This is exactly what Bismarck had worked so hard to avoid. The popular French President at the time, Marie Francois Sadi Carnot had a reputation for honesty and was untouched by the massive Panama Canal scandal of 1892. He also established a friendship with the Russian Czar Alexander III, receiving the Order of St. Andrew from the Czar himself.

But Carnot’s popularity, immunity to blackmail and close friendship with the hated Czar made him difficult for the Rothschilds to control. At this point in history, it appears that the Zionists were removing some of their ‘eggs’ from the increasingly anti-Semitic French ‘basket’ and placing them in the increasingly Jewish-influenced German basket, (as suggested by Jewish-French Captain Dreyfus passing secrets to Germany). The one constant that remained was the Rothschild’s hatred for Russia.

This may explain why Carnot was stabbed to death by Italian Anarchist, Sante Geronimo Caserio, a murder which engendered horror and outrage throughout France. No King or President was safe it would seem, from the Communist radicals and their bankster masters.

The central issue in the 1896 US Presidential campaign was the issuance of silver money. Senator William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska, a Democrat aged only 36, made an emotional speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, entitled, ‘Crown of Thorns and Cross of Gold.’ Senator Bryan stated that, “We will answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, and you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

The bankers naturally supported the Republican candidate, William McKinley who in return favoured the gold standard. Furthermore those in the McKinley camp, cajoled manufacturers and industrialists to inform their employees that if Bryan were elected, all factories and plants would close and there would be no work. This tactic succeeded well. McKinley beat Bryan, albeit by a small margin.

One of the banksters’ great desires now was to destabilise Catholic Spain and turn it into a more controllable (by them) ‘democracy.’ Antonio Canovas was the conservative Prime Minister of Spain at the time and he was an advocate of a constitutional monarchy and a staunch supporter of the Catholic Church, making him a target of the Christian-hating Reds and their Rothschild masters.

Red terrorists had previously hurled a bomb at Canovas but the attempt on his life failed. While internal Red turmoil weakened Spain from within, external Globalist elements in the United States were agitating for war with Spain over control of its Cuban colony. Canovas however, did not live to see the disastrous Spanish-American War. He was shot dead by Italian ‘anarchist’ Michele Angiolillo, probably another Rothschild-sponsored ‘lone-nut,’ just months before the war with the US began.

The idea of a Jewish state being formed in Palestine had been mooted for decades and whenever Russia advanced its interests in the area, Rothschild’s Britain would respond vehemently. It was the banksters’ aim to seize Palestine as a base in the Middle East and they constantly plotted, and schemed and did anything they could, to get their hands on their prize. This had now become one of the fundamental tenets of the new creed of Zionism, the establishment of a Jewish base in Palestine and although that was the overt reason, the covert reason had more to do with establishing a country that they could use as a power-base to enable them to behave with the ‘legal’ protection and impunity of a nation-state.

The problem for the Zionists was that Palestine was 90-95% Arab and remained under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and unless the Turks voluntarily agreed to cede Palestine to the Jews of Europe, the Zionist dream would never be realised.

In 1901, the bankster-Zionists had offered to arrange a reduction of Turkey’s foreign debt (owed to Zionist bankers) in exchange for Palestine. The Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Hamid II bluntly refused the offer because he believed quite rightly, that giving away the Holy Land to the Jews of Europe would be a betrayal of Turkey’s and Palestine’s Muslim population. The Zionist leader, Theodor Herzl however, refused to concede defeat and the Zionist movement grew rapidly amongst both Jew and non-Jew alike.

The British then offered to the Jews, the African colony of Uganda but the Zionists refused, insisting upon Palestine. Prior to his death in 1904, Herzl predicted that a world body would one day give Palestine to the Jews and that he would go down in history as father of the Jewish State. For Herzl’s dream to come true, a European military power would have to be manipulated into taking Palestine away from the Turks by force.

By this time, Bismarck was now 83 years old and in poor health. Kaiser Wilhelm II visited the ex-Chancellor for the last time in the December of 1897 and again, the wise old man warned the Kaiser to beware of the intrigues of courtiers around him and of a European disaster that may yet still come. Subsequently, Bismarck made these accurate predictions . . .

“The crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this . . . One day, the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.”

Bismarck had always worried about a Balkan crisis turning into a World War and an internal Red uprising. With his ‘Three Emperor’s League’ and ‘Reinsurance Treaty’ with Russia now gone, he clearly saw that Germany was vulnerable to British and French intrigue as well as to Red revolutionaries. The ‘Iron Chancellor’ died the following July and his grim prophecy would be fulfilled as he predicted, almost to the month.

“On the one hand there is the party which holds the power because it holds the wealth, which has in its grasp all labour and all trade, which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is powerfully represented in the councils of State itself. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sore and suffering. Rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless under a different form but with the same guilt, still practiced by avaricious and grasping men . . . So that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself.” Pope Leo XIII.

This was the dawning of the era of so-called ‘yellow journalism,’ of false reporting, lies and whipped-up hysteria. This is a necessary state of affairs in order for a ‘false-flag’ event such as the one below to succeed. False flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, usually the enemy of those who commit them. The name is derived from the common military deception of flying false colours, that is, deceptively flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, as they are often used during peace-time too. (For a comprehensive list and report of false flag operations through the ages, please read ‘The Falsification of History,’ also by this author.)

15th February 1898 — America’s first ‘False-Flag Terrorist Event’ — the sinking of USS Maine

So, in an atmosphere of feverish warmongering against the Spanish, by the Hearst and Pulitzer press, the USS Maine was ‘strangely’ ordered to sail into Cuba’s Havana Harbour in January of 1898. Three weeks later, she ‘conveniently’ exploded and swiftly sank, killing 261 US sailors. The warmongers and yellow press quickly blamed the attack on a planted Spanish mine and demanded war against Spain. Spain denied any involvement of course, as it had absolutely nothing to do with the incident and many years later, even the US government acknowledged that Spain was wrongly accused, stating that the explosion was ‘an accident’ — which is about as far as any government will go towards admitting the truth when false flag operations are exposed.

The recently appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy was an up-and-coming bankster-controlled, Globalist warmonger named Theodore Roosevelt. It was Roosevelt who, unknown to McKinley and at the request of his bankster masters, ordered the USS Maine to sail to Havana in order to set-up this ‘false-flag’ operation. But then, when the pressure from Congressional warmongers and the yellow press became too intense for McKinley to resist, the US declared war on Spain in April of 1898.

The rallying cry of this blatant warmonger was “Remember the Maine and to hell with Spain!” The war with Spain was both brief and one-sided and although the US nevertheless suffered 3000 casualties, it gained control over Guam and the Philippines. Her heavy defeat also dealt a severe psychological blow to Spain and undermined its monarchy. It also marked the beginning of America’s gradual transition from a relatively peaceful, constitutional republic, to the violent, crazed ‘global bully’ we see today.

However even in those days, the Rothschilds and the banksters controlled the world media and the fact that it was the Spanish themselves who did their utmost to rescue the dead, dying and injured from the USS Maine, went largely unreported.

In order to guarantee the success of any false-flag operation, the controlled mainstream media has to ‘sell’ the lie to an ignorant, indifferent public. Pulitzer and Hearst’s reports went well beyond exaggeration; they outright fabricated stories of horrific conditions and atrocities under Spanish rule. Following the age-old newspaper maxim, ‘If it bleeds, it leads,’ their reporters were despatched to Cuba. However, upon their arrival they found a completely different situation to what they had been conditioned to believe was the case. The famous artist and correspondent, Frederick Remington wrote to Hearst . . . “There is no war. Request to be recalled.” Hearst’s famous reply was, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” And he certainly did.

“Mr. Roosevelt is the Tom Sawyer of the political world of the twentieth century; always showing off; always hunting for a chance to show off; in his frenzied imagination the Great Republic is a vast Barnum circus with him for a clown and the whole world for an audience; he would go to Halifax for half a chance to show off and he would go to hell for a whole one.” Mark Twain.

Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘progressive ideas,’ despite the patriotic hype and speeches, all emanated from the banksters and what most benefitted them. He proved his worth to them by greatly expanding the role of the US Government and exerting its muscle all around the globe. This indeed was the beginning of America’s role as the world’s first, greatest and now only, ‘super-power.’

Aware of the strategic need for a short-cut between the Atlantic and Pacific to facilitate corporate trade and reduce both delivery costs and shipping times, it was Roosevelt who promulgated the construction of the Panama Canal. His corollary to the Monroe Doctrine prevented the establishment of foreign bases in the Caribbean and arrogated the sole right of intervention in Latin America to the United States.

The Spanish-American War also had the effect of launching Theodore Roosevelt into the national spotlight as a ‘war hero.’ As soon as war began, Roosevelt resigned his position as Assistant Navy Secretary and joined a cavalry unit dubbed the ‘The Rough Riders.’ The lackeys of the Pulitzer and Hearst press brigade wildly exaggerated Roosevelt’s ‘heroic charge on horseback’ at the ‘decisive’ Battle of San Juan Hill which in reality was simply a minor skirmish in which the Americans, fighting on foot, outnumbered the Spaniards by fifteen to one. Roosevelt referred to the war of 1898 as ‘a splendid little war,’ which I believe tells us all we need to know about the odious little man. It was clear now that this insane warmonger, who had pushed hard for war with Spain and engineered the sinking of USS Maine, was being groomed for bigger and better things.

The Anglo-Boer War in Southern Africa, beginning in 1899, was destined to become the first, but not by a long stretch the last, major military clash of the 20th century. The Boers were the descendants of German, French and Dutch settlers who had arrived in South Africa in the 1600s. Hard working Boers (‘Boer’ is the Dutch word for farmer) had developed the virgin land and built prosperous and free republics for themselves. But the discovery of gold and diamonds in the 1800s attracts the banksters’ interest and so of course that was all about to change.

Rothschild agent Cecil Rhodes, for whom ‘Rhodesia’ and the ‘Rhodes Scholarship’ would later be named and former rival, rags-to-riches millionaire Barney Barnato, joined forces and made the DeBeers company, the world’s largest diamond producer and consortium. Today it is owned by the Oppenheimer bankster family.

On 29th December 1895, a band of 500 British adventurers attempted to seize control of South Africa in an ‘unofficial’ armed takeover. The failed raid was led by Rhodes’ personal friend, Leander Starr Jameson. Undaunted by the raid’s failure, the UK-Jewish bankster alliance continued to foment war against the Boers, with Jewish newspapers in the UK being the most vocal of all. The Boers asked Britain to withdraw its troops, the Brits refused and so the Boer War began in earnest in October 1899.

The Rothschild-UK armies waged a brutal and cruel war, starving women and children in disease-ridden concentration camps and destroying farms. (Concentration camps were not invented by the Nazis.) These camps were originally designed for refugees whose farms had been destroyed by the brutal British ‘scorched earth’ policy (the burning-down of all Boer homesteads and farms.) Then, following Kitchener’s new policy, many women and children were forcibly moved to prevent the Boers from re-supplying from their homes and more camps were built and converted to prisons.

Neither was this the first instance of concentration camps, however. The Spanish had used them in the Ten Years’ War that later led to the Spanish-American War and the United States used them to devastate guerrilla forces during the Philippine-American War. But the concentration camp system of the British was on a much larger scale, there being a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black African ones. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas. So, most Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children, but the native African ones held large numbers of men also.

The conditions in the camps were very unhealthy and the food rations were meagre and the wives and children of men who were still fighting were given smaller rations than others. The poor diet and inadequate hygiene led to endemic, contagious diseases such as measles, typhoid and dysentery. Coupled with a shortage of medical facilities, this led to large numbers of deaths.

A report after the war concluded that 27,927 Boers (of whom 22,074 were children under 16) and 14,154 black Africans had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the concentration camps. In all, about 25% of the Boer inmates and 12% of the black African ones died (although recent research suggests that the black African deaths were underestimated and may have actually been around 20,000).

When the British instigated and armed local black tribes to ‘kill the Boers’ (just as they had done with American Indian tribes against the rebellious American colonists of the 1770s,) the Boers finally submitted to British rule. This was yet another triumph for the banksters over a small self-sufficient, self-governing nation, now brought firmly under the banksters’ heel along with their multitude of natural resources, now fully ripe and ready to be turned into bankster profits.

But meanwhile, back in America on the 21st November 1899, there was another suspicious, political ‘sudden death.’ After the onset of a strange illness, Vice President Garret Hobart died of heart failure at the age of 55. Like his good friend President McKinley, Hobart was a genuine constitutional conservative. His untimely death conveniently created an opening for the Progressive-Globalist faction that had now seriously infiltrated the Republican Party.

Whilst running the US Navy, Theodore Roosevelt’s role in the false-flag destruction of the USS Maine conveniently positioned him for rapid 3-step career advancement:

Roosevelt’s military record was grossly exaggerated by the yellow press (the mythical charge of San Juan Hill).
The ‘war hero’ was then catapulted into the Governorship of New York in 1899.
When Vice President Hobart died unexpectedly (almost certainly poisoned,) the Globalist-Zionist wing of the Republican Party forced the ‘war hero’ upon a reluctant McKinley as his new VP.

The Globalists were now just one step away from having their first puppet installed in the White House and subsequent events suggested that Hobart’s oddly convenient death was part of a plan.

It is perhaps worthwhile now to summarise the modus operandi of the bankster plans for world domination . . .

The banksters overall plan, through their main entity the British Rothschild family, was to enslave the world with debt and to control all governments, finance, commerce and natural resources, until finally their hoped-for one-world totalitarian government was established.

To achieve this ultimate goal, they would instigate and prolong endless wars and conflicts, terrorist acts, assassinations and riots to further the indebtedness of nations, to divide and conquer peoples, to pit religions and political parties against each other. They would also create secret societies, capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, all to do their bidding and to provide ‘opposites’ which may be set at each other’s throats at will.

So, at the turn of the nineteenth century into the twentieth the banksters were busy reconfiguring the world and positioning it for their first global war. They were also preparing to re-establish and expand their control over America once again and in doing so, they would soon be ready to continue their long-term plans. They were only just getting started in fact . . .

Chapter 2

The Rise of the Banksters

So, now that the scene has been set, the roots of the banksters’ evil machinations have been covered in detail and the reason that the world is the way it is has been revealed, you are now hopefully somewhat better prepared to understand their further rise to ultimate power. Indeed, as we moved into the modern age, their crimes against humanity became even more horrific and much more brazen.

Given different circumstances, and with all the scientific advances of the past one hundred years or so, the 20th century should have been a ‘perfect age’ for mankind, a utopia if you will, that could so easily have been our reality. As different as we all are as human beings, we all have the same needs and desires, we share a common love for our families and for our countries. Most of us ask only to be left in peace to live our lives and to be prosperous enough to make a comfortable life for ourselves and our families without financial worry. How sad it is then that these are the very things that the majority are now denied by the banksters as they continue to ‘bleed us dry’ in every possible way they can.

But as we have already witnessed to a certain extent, the banksters never had any other plans for ‘we, the people.’ To them, we were and indeed still are, just another resource to be used and exploited. We are sheep to be fleeced and led to the slaughter. The banksters have corrupted our ideals and beliefs, set us against each other and all without most of us ever even suspecting it for a moment. They are the masters of deceit and deception and from the very beginning they have counted upon our collective ignorance, selfishness and our indifference to the plight of others. Our sense of right and wrong, our loyalties and trust, have all been turned upside-down and made us uncomprehending accomplices to their evil crimes. The banksters of course, could not have done any of this without our compliance, albeit unwittingly.

In stating categorically that the banksters are ‘Zionists,’ that they perpetrated all these wars, assassinations, frauds and depressions for some perverted political agenda called Zionism, for clarification, it should be clearly understood that the everyday use of the word ‘Zionism,’ has little to do with Judaism or the Jewish religion itself, despite the implications to the contrary.

The banksters are however without doubt, mostly of Jewish origin and their crimes against humanity are to a large extent protected by the term ‘anti-Semitism,’ which they scatter around like confetti at a wedding, whenever their serious indiscretions are in danger of being exposed. Their greatest defence, their perfect alibi, has always been our ignorance of this fact and of the crimes that they have committed down the centuries. In addition to that, we must also consider the general wholly contrived, continued ignorance of the fact that Zionism and Judaism are virtually total opposites. They are almost diametrically opposed to each other and indeed orthodox Jews more than any other single group, vehemently oppose Zionism.

But do not simply take my word for this dear reader, I shall allow an organisation with far more credibility than myself to explain the difference. No, not the bankster/Zionist controlled Wikipedia™ or any other ‘mainstream’ media source, but ‘Neturei Karta International — Jews United against Zionism,’ an organisation that has been in the forefront of the battle against Zionism for over a century . . .

“Judaism believes in One God who revealed the Torah. It affirms Divine Providence and, accordingly, views Jewish exile as a punishment for sin. Redemption may be achieved solely through prayer and penance. Judaism calls upon all Jews to obey the Torah in its entirety including the commandment to be patriotic citizens. Zionism rejects the Creator, His Revelation and reward and punishment. Among its fruits are the persecution of the Palestinian people and the spiritual and physical endangering of the Jewish people. It encourages treasonous, dual loyalty among unsuspecting Jews throughout the world. At its root Zionism sees reality as barren and de-sacralised. It is the antithesis of Torah Judaism.”

In simple terms, the Zionist political movement was the creation of a Hungarian-Jewish journalist named Theodor Herzl, amongst whose ideas was the founding of a Jewish state. Upon hearing of this, the banksters, or more precisely M.A. Rothschild & Fils of Paris, and N.M. Rothschild & Son of London, decided that here was a ‘useful idiot’ that could be manipulated to their own purposes. It was Edmond de Rothschild who worked closely with Herzl, financing the Jewish settlements in Palestine and as Rothschild himself once remarked, “Without me, Zionism would not have succeeded, but without Zionism my work would have been stuck to death.”

But to say that the banksters are Zionist in their beliefs is really untrue. Even though it has been the vehicle that has propagated their ideas AND protected them, banksters have merely used Zionism as a convenient front. Using it as a front, hiding behind the Jewish people, exaggerating and exploiting their ‘suffering,’ yet all the while promoting anti-Semitism to deflect and silence any and all debate and criticism of their actions, is how the banksters really utilise Zionism. Zionism is not confined simply to Jewish people, there are Christian-Zionists too and I shall cover this aspect later. Again, the banksters use everyone to their own advantage. They are for and against everything, depending on the circumstances of the moment and how it suits their purposes — or not, but their evil agenda is always slowly advanced, without the masses ever knowing it.

The ‘label’ of ‘anti-Semitism’ is actually utterly meaningless, yet it has been hijacked by a small group of people to inhibit us all from criticising their actions. To fully comprehend this point, it is firstly necessary for me to define three commonly misunderstood or even possibly unfamiliar terms.

Judaism — The Jewish religion. Jews can be split into two distinct sub-groups, Ashkenazi (Khazarian) Jews who comprise by far the majority (over 90%) and Sephardic Jews. These two sub-groups are racially as different as chalk and cheese and so, despite what you may believe or more accurately have been urged to believe; Judaism is a ‘religion’ and not a ‘race.’ In fact many people of Jewish background and parentage are not even religious and so their being described as ‘Jews’ is actually erroneous.

Zionism — a political movement that was originally established to lobby for a Jewish homeland and now exists to promote the superiority of Israel above all other countries, with the ultimate goal of a one-world government based in Tel Aviv. Zionism is comprised primarily of Jewish people, but many non-Jews are Zionists and indeed many Jews are anti-Zionist.

Semitism — Not the state of being Jewish as is generally believed and promoted by Zionism for its own ends but simply the racial group to which inhabitants of a small area of the Middle East belong. Semites may be Sephardic Jews or they may be Arabs, there is no racial difference between the two. However Ashkenazi Jews, despite their loud and raucous protestations to the contrary, are definitely not Semitic.

“It is important that you understand what Zionism really is. Zionist propaganda has led the American people to believe that Zionism and Judaism are one and the same and that they are religious in nature. This is a blatant lie.” Jack Bernstein, assassinated by the Mossad.

“The meaning of the term ‘anti-Semite’ has significantly changed in recent years. There was a time when this term referred to those who despised Jews. Later, the term referred to those who promoted myths about a global Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Today the term ‘anti-Semite’ is used by the ruling elite to lambast human rights activists who advocate equal rights between Jews, Christians and Muslims, the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the vision of a common, democratic state for both Palestinians and Israelis. The word ‘anti-Semite,’ which initially conveyed a negative and even sinister meaning, refers now to positive and highly commendable attitudes that can be carried with honour. One may lament this change of meaning, but one should remember that a word does not carry any particular meaning. It is merely a conventional symbol that refers to external contents. By convention, society could agree to name animosity towards Jews ‘xakaculca,’ democracy ‘zbzb’ and elephants ‘democracy.’ Inasmuch as the term ‘anti-Semite’ now refers to human rights advocates and radical democrats, I declare myself a radical anti-Semite.” Elias Davidsson, June 2011.

“Zionists from the beginning welcomed anti-Semitism as a means of undermining what Zionists believed was the sense of false security of Jews in western, liberal societies, and as the means by which Jews would be kept in a permanent state of neurosis. Large and powerful organizations such as the US-based Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith exist mainly for the purpose of exaggerating the extent of anti-Semitism in order to keep Jews under the Zionist heel and keep Israeli coffers filled.” Rabbi Silverstein, ‘The Lies of Zionism.’

“Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.” Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism in the 19th century.

“Anti-Semitism is no longer the hatred of and discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group; in the age of Zionism, we are told, anti-Semitism has metamorphosed into something that is more insidious. Today, Israel and its Western defenders insist genocidal anti-Semitism consists mainly of any attempt to take away and to refuse to uphold the absolute right of Israel to be a Jewish, racist state.” Professor Joseph Maddad, palestineremembered.com, 5th May 2007

It is important here to make the point that Zionists are not the friends of the Jews in any way, despite what many Jews believe. Jews worldwide have been and continue to be used, often unknowingly in the Zionists plotting and scheming for world domination.

Ashkenazi Jews originated from the plains of South-Eastern Europe / Western Asia and were originally a large, war-like, nomadic tribe, the Khazars, who inhabited those regions in the Dark and early Middle Ages. They converted en-masse to Judaism, not through faith but simply in order to bring respectability to their previously god-less reputations when integration with other societies became necessary, more than a thousand years ago. This was the group of ‘Jews’ who were discriminated against for centuries and expelled from many European nations for their usury, anti-social practices and their own discriminatory practices against non-Jews. I repeat that these people had no racial or genetic ties to the ‘Holy Land’ whatsoever and so the oft-repeated cries for a Jewish state in their ancestral ‘homeland’ in the early to mid-twentieth century, was simply Zionist propaganda and deception. Sephardic Jews however, are native to the Holy Land or Palestine and were the original biblical Jews.

So, in effect the Zionists have deliberately blurred the boundaries, between race, religion and politics to prevent criticism of their actions. They have hi-jacked the term ‘anti-Semitism,’ strictly speaking an accusation of racism and managed over time to associate this with discrimination against Jews in general by deceitful social engineering, whilst also turning the distinction between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’ into a grey area, to the same effect. How have they achieved this? Their almost total control of banking, media and the entertainment industries makes this task fairly straightforward via their vast propaganda machine. Many Hollywood movies subtly promote the superiority of the Jews and the weakness and immorality of non-Jews. Anyone who criticises or stands up to them in any way is subtly and sometimes unfortunately, not so subtly, destroyed. At the very least their detractors are accused of being, (shock-horror,) anti-Semitic with all the attendant stigma this terminology carries. Anti-Semitism is closely related and linked to Nazism in the minds of most people today. The immense power of propaganda, social engineering and mind control should be underestimated only at one’s peril.

“We must distinguish between political and racial anti-Semitism. It’s obvious that organised Jewry has a political program synonymous with the Rothschild satanic world government agenda.” Henry Makow, Jewish-born researcher and author of ‘A Cruel Hoax.’

Think about this for a moment. Political criticism is valid today (at least for now anyway) whilst racial criticism (racism) is totally frowned upon and even legislated against. In making their cause a racial rather than a political one and by rendering the two distinctly separate terms ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’ interchangeable, they have succeeded in duping the world and protecting their own insidious views and actions from any form of censure, on pain of being branded by them as an anti-Semite and therefore by implication, a Nazi.

So, an ‘anti-Semite’ strictly speaking, by definition is someone who discriminates against people of the area known as the ‘Holy Land,’ Palestinian Arabs and Sephardic Jew alike and not simply someone who is a ‘Jew-hater’ as it has been engineered to be construed.

Personally speaking, I am not anti-Semitic (or anti-Jewish, to be clear.) Jews have been duped and suffered at the hands of these wolves in sheep’s clothing more than any other group and in many ways still are. I believe strongly in the freedom of all to do as they choose as long as it harms no-one, but I am definitely anti-Zionist politically, as their actions and beliefs are calculated to cause maximum harm to those who do not share their extreme racist views. However, the views expounded herein will no doubt see me labelled as ‘anti-Semitic’ by the Zionist attack-dogs. If anti-Semitism did not exist, the Zionists would have to invent it. Actually, they already have done so.

Of course there are anti-Jewish people in the world. To deny that fact would be ridiculous. But there are also anti-British, anti-American, anti-Muslim and anti-almost-anything-you-can-name elements abounding throughout the world today, too. However, in my view it is highly significant that to be anti-anything-else, does not carry the same stigma as being ‘anti-Semitic.’ This has been successfully inured into our culture to become a heinous act far more serious than any other form of prejudice.

The Dreyfus Affair

Theodor Herzl had no idea of the role he was about to play in history, or how he was totally used in a diabolical plan that began in 1894. Alfred Dreyfus was a Jewish-French artillery captain who was framed by Edmund de Rothschild, for passing secrets to the Germans. It was a Rothschild plan all along to stir-up hatred of the Jewish people and to show them as a threat to the French way of life.

The broad facts of ‘l’Affaire’ are well known to history, but maybe not so much the real, hidden truth. In 1894, when France was still seeking revenge following her humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer from the ‘lost provinces’ of Alsace-Lorraine ceded to Germany after the defeat, was accused of passing military secrets to the German embassy in Paris. The only evidence against him was a slight resemblance between his handwriting and that on the bordereau, a torn up list of not very interesting items promised by a supposed traitor inside the French army that had been stolen from the Embassy’s wastepaper basket by a ‘cleaner,’ employed by the French counter-intelligence agency.

Despite the clear lack of evidence, Dreyfus was the perfect scapegoat. He was aloof, pushily ambitious and unpopular with his peers, spoke good German and regularly visited the newly German-acquired ‘lost provinces’ to see his family. Above all perhaps, at a time when ‘anti-Semitism’ was rife, he was Jewish. The fact that he was also intensely patriotic and fanatically devoted to France and the army counted for nothing with his superior officers however, as it was they who condemned him.

Dreyfus was swiftly convicted of high treason by court martial, publicly degraded before a baying mob and dispatched to Devil’s Island, the notorious penal colony off South America where he languished in misery for four years. Meanwhile his wealthy brother, Mathieu, campaigned tirelessly to re-open the case and to uncover the real traitor. After innumerable setbacks and several bribes paid to influential people, he succeeded in identifying another officer, the dissolute Major Charles Esterhazy, as the true author of the bordereau. As ever, though, it was not the original offence but the cover-up that was significant. A conspiracy of politicians, right-wing journalists, many of the Catholic clergy and the leading army generals had connived not only in convicting the innocent Dreyfus, but in using it as a vehicle to condemn France’s entire Jewish community, along with its Freemasons, Protestants and left-wingers, as potential traitors. Only after repeated re-trials and setbacks was the full extent of the plot exposed, involving lies, forgeries, the inter-suicide of the forger, duels, passionate quarrels, riots, Emile Zola’s immortal letter ‘J’Accuse!’ and the death of its recipient, France’s President Faure, in the Elysée Palace.

Carrying out complex, elaborate anti-Semitic schemes to confuse the authorities, the public and historians and ultimately to garner sympathy for the Jewish / Zionist cause which they of course were deceptively trying to render interchangeable, was to become a hallmark of the Rothschilds. The idea was to smear and humiliate the rival anti-Semitic, anti-Rothschild party. However in 1906, Dreyfus was fully vindicated and the real spy, the Rothschild agent, Esterhazy, fled to England. The army had known for some time that it was Esterhazy, but succeeded in covering it up. There was a deep loathing of Jews within the French army and this worked to the advantage of Baron Edmund Rothschild.

And so it was that the huge public outcry and rioting against Dreyfus, was the major factor that sparked Theodore Herzl and his Zionist beliefs. And just as with Dreyfus, Rothschild would make even greater use of Herzl, to the point where he helped to found the Zionist state that the banksters had wished-for all along. Ironically, Palestine was only sixth on the list for such a homeland at Theodor Herzl’s First Zionist Congress in 1897, behind countries including Argentina, Uganda and Turkey. It was in fact the Christian Zionists who were orchestrating the takeover of Palestine from the beginning.

The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland and was chaired by Theodor Herzl himself. Jewish delegates from across Europe soon agreed that Palestine should one day be given to them.

They adopted the former sign of the Rothschilds, the ‘red hexagram,’ the two interposed triangles, as the Zionist movement’s emblem.

Herzl also stated in his diaries, “It is essential that the sufferings of Jews . . . become worse . . . this will assist in realisation of our plans . . . I have an excellent idea . . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth . . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby, in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends.”

The death of President McKinley in the US in 1901 at the hands of an assassin launched the bankster puppet Theodore ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt into office, completing his amazing ascent from obscurity to the White House in just two years. McKinley’s ‘convenient’ death marked the beginning of ‘The Progressive Era,’ in which the Federal government greatly expanded its power and foreign involvement, all of course at the behest of and to the benefit of the banksters.

President McKinley had begun his attack against the banksters, with his ally and Secretary of State John Sherman, younger brother of Civil War hero, General William Tecumseh Sherman. The legal tool used by President McKinley and Sherman against the banksters was the law known as the ‘Sherman Anti-trust Act,’ which was first brought to bear against the Rothschild-supported and funded JP Morgan financial empire known as the ‘Northern Trust’ which by the late 19th century owned nearly all of America’s railway system.

But now let me introduce you to the one man who more than any other Zionist bankster, had the absolute greatest influence on not just American history, but also that of the entire World.

He was the foremost Jewish leader from 1880 to 1920 in what is now referred-to by Jewish-American historians as ‘The Schiff Era.’ He served as the Director of many important corporations, including the National City Bank of New York, Equitable Life Assurance Society, Wells Fargo & Company, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Schiff, who made his fortune from interest-bearing loans, was the main player behind the ‘Hebrew Free Loan Society’ in 1892, an organisation which issued interest-free loans only to Jews and which is still in operation today.

There are so many dimensions to the banksters, so many layers of complexity and interconnection. It may help in comprehending the sheer scale of it all, to think of the huge banking dynasties as a large criminal family, inter-married and constantly growing and evolving with the passage of time. These are the ultimate ‘movers and shakers,’ and money, power and immense, obscene wealth is everything to them.

Jacob Schiff was born in 1847 in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, to Moses and Clara Schiff, members of a distinguished Ashkenazi Jewish rabbinical family that traced its lineage in Frankfurt back to 1370 and his father, Moses Schiff, was a broker for the Rothschilds. Schiff was educated in the schools of Frankfurt and was first employed in the banking and brokerage business as an apprentice in 1861.

After the US Civil War had ended in April 1865, Schiff came to the United States, arriving in New York City on 6th August. He was licensed as a broker on 21st November 1866, and joined the firm of Budge, Schiff & Company in 1867, eventually becoming a naturalised citizen of the United States in September 1870. He had been sent to America by the Rothschilds with instructions and the finance necessary to buy into a banking house, the purpose of which was to carry out four specific assignments . . .

The most important task, was to help acquire control of America’s money system.
Find desirable men, who for a price would be willing to serve as stooges for the great conspiracy and promote them into high places in the Federal government, Congress, and the US Supreme Court and all Federal agencies.
Create strife throughout the nation, particularly between the whites and blacks.
Create a movement to destroy all religion in the United States, with Christianity the chief target.

Rothschild’s greatest agent of them all, Jacob Schiff, went on to spectacularly succeed in all four of these tasks, as you will see . . .

He went on to finance John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, Edward H. Harriman’s railroad empire that included Union Pacific and Southern Pacific and also the Wells Fargo Express Company and Schiff made Andrew Carnegie’s steel empire possible too.

However, Schiff’s most history-influencing accomplishment would have to be the role of ‘Trojan Horse,’ which he played in the late 1890s. At a time when Jewish influence in America was relatively minor and Jewish numbers were yet very small, it was Schiff’s cajoling of the outgoing US President and former New York Governor, Grover Cleveland that prevented the massive wave of Jewish immigration to America from being shut-down completely.

The proposed Immigration Bill of 1897 would have required immigrants to undergo a literacy test; something that the vast majority of Russian Jews would not have been able to pass, due to their inherent low levels of literacy. But after passing both Houses of Congress, Cleveland’s veto, induced by Schiff, saved the day for the incoming Communist-leaning and Zionist Jews of Russia.

The Jewish historian Lawrence J. Epstein wrote accurately . . . “It is staggering to consider the alternative course American Jewish history would have taken had this measure passed.”

As a good Rothschild protégé, Schiff hated Christian Russia with a passion and worked tirelessly to overthrow the Romanov Dynasty and replace it with Jewish Reds / Communists. Towards that end he personally financed and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War. As a result, the war ended with a Japanese victory.

Russia’s loss was also facilitated by Schiff’s puppet, Teddy Roosevelt, whose negotiating intervention clearly favoured Japan over Russia.

For his role in securing victory for Japan, Schiff was personally awarded a medal, the Order of the Rising Sun, by the Japanese Emperor. But unbeknown to the Emperor, Schiff, Roosevelt and their henchmen were at the time already plotting Japan’s ultimate demise, a process which started with Roosevelt’s escalating naval manoeuvres in the Pacific (Philippines, Midway, Guam, Pearl Harbor), and culminated with nephew Franklin’s war and atomic bombs of 1945 (actually dropped under Truman’s orders, four months after FDR’s death).

Schiff’s Jewish agents in Russia successfully used the humiliating loss of the Russo-Japanese war as an opportunity to plan and launch the first Communist Russian revolution in 1905. This bloody Revolution ultimately failed, but the Czar’s regime was left considerably weakened. Many of the returning Russian POWs from the war with Japan came home brainwashed after Schiff had arranged for them to be subjected to Communist propaganda, whilst in Japanese captivity. The final Bolshevik overthrow of Russia in 1917 in fact largely owed its success to the damage done to Russia by Jacob Schiff and Roosevelt in 1905.

Not content with flooding the North-eastern US with future Communists, Progressives and Zionists from Russia, Jacob Schiff founded and financed the ‘Galveston Movement,’ an attempt to settle Russian-Jewish immigrants in the south and west of the United States. Schiff himself described the effort in an article of 1914. He wrote . . .

“The committee placed itself promptly after its organization into communication with the Jewish Territorial Organization, of which Israel Zangwill is the head, and an arrangement was entered into between that organization and the Galveston Committee, under which the former undertook to make propaganda in Russia and Romania for acquainting intending emigrants with the advantages of going into the United States through Galveston (Texas), rather than to and through the overcrowded and congested North Atlantic ports.”

Instead of confining the arrival of Jews to just the New York, New England, Pennsylvania and New Jersey areas, Schiff’s clever scheme facilitated the spread of the liberal/progressive plague to even the most conservative parts of the country.

As was also the case during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the chaos of World War I enabled the Jewish-dominated Communists (Bolsheviks) to stage another uprising in 1917. Leading the diabolical efforts was Jacob Schiff’s loyal agent, Leon Trotsky, newly re-established in Russia after having been in hiding in Brooklyn, New York throughout the previous decade. The Czar had been forced to abdicate earlier that same year and the provisional government was soon overthrown by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks.

The following year, Schiff’s Bolshevik henchmen murdered Czar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra and his entire family and the subsequent reign of genocidal terror that the Soviets then engendered, was a stain on humanity for decades to come. Scores of millions, mainly Christians, were brutally exterminated, as many as 100 million at some estimates, and none of it could ever have happened without the tireless chicanery of the Rothschilds, Schiff and their subordinates. Soon after the Revolution, Schiff removed Russia (by this time the Soviet Union) from his ‘do-not-lend-to’ list.

From all the stock and banking fraud, to the crash of 1907 and the founding of the Federal Reserve Bank, Jacob Schiff was either indirectly or more often than not, directly responsible.

The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) is the most well-known Black-American organisation. What is not widely known is that its founders were ALL Zionist Marxists. Its Jewish co-founders included Julius Rosenwald, Lillian Wald, and Rabbi Emil Hirsch, however a black Communist named W.E. Dubois was deceptively installed as the NAACP’s front man.

In 1914, Schiff became a Board member of the NAACP. With a ‘giant’ such as Schiff on board, the organisation was then ready to begin fulfilling its original shady objectives of undermining white superiority. Zionist money and influence has long dominated this ‘civil rights’ organisation, which did not elect its first non-Jewish President until 1975.

By design, Schiff’s Jewish-controlled NAACP drew Blacks away from the positive influence of the Black-American conservative patriot Booker T. Washington, a dominant black political leader who believed in America’s founding principles and genuinely sought to build bridges between whites and blacks. However, the liberal, Democrat NAACP represented the opposite of what B. T. Washington stood for, which was self-reliance. The NAACP was and is an anti-white Globalist-Marxist tool that serves to divide Americans whilst seducing radicalised black voters into the Leftist political camp. As a result of this policy, even today, 90-95% of black people blindly vote for Democrat candidates.

After carefully researching his options, Schiff bought a partnership in a firm that called itself Kuhn and Loeb. As was Schiff himself, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb were both immigrants from German-Jewish ghettos. They arrived in the US in the mid-1840s and both of them started their business careers as itinerant peddlers. In the early 1850s they pooled their resources and set-up a merchandise store in Lafayette, Indiana under the firm name of Kuhn and Loeb servicing the many covered-wagon settlers on their way west. In the years that followed they set up similar stores in Cincinnati and St. Louis and eventually added pawn-broking to their portfolio of interests. From that position to money-lending was a very short and simple step.

By the time Schiff arrived on the scene though, Kuhn and Loeb was a well-established private bank and this was the organisation into which he bought. Shortly after he became a partner in Kuhn and Loeb, Schiff married Loeb’s daughter Teresa and then he bought out Kuhn’s interests and moved the firm to New York and Kuhn and Loeb became Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, international bankers with Jacob Schiff, agent of the Rothschild’s, ostensibly the sole owner. And throughout his career, this hybrid of Judas and Machiavelli, the first hierarch of the bankster’s great conspiracy in America, posed as a generous philanthropist and a man of great virtue, which of course, was the cover-up policy promulgated by the banksters.

So, the first great step of the conspiracy was to be the hi-jacking of the entire American money system, but to achieve that objective, Schiff had to elicit the complete co-operation of the then big bankster elements in America and that was easier said than done. Even in those years, Wall Street was the heart of the American money markets and no less a figure than J.P. Morgan was its ultimate dictator.

John Pierpont Morgan was born in 1837, during the first money panic in the United States. Significantly, this had been caused by the House of Rothschild, with whom Morgan was later to become associated. J.P. Morgan Company began life as George Peabody and Company. George Peabody (1795-1869,) born in South Danvers, Massachusetts, began business in Georgetown, Washington D.C., in 1814 as Peabody, Riggs and Company, dealing in wholesale dry goods and in the operation of the Georgetown Slave Market.

But in 1815, to be closer to their source of supply, they moved to Baltimore, where they operated as Peabody and Riggs, from 1815 to 1835. Peabody found himself increasingly involved with business originating from London and so in 1835, he established the firm of George Peabody and Company in London. He had an excellent introduction into London business through another Baltimore firm established in Liverpool, Brown Brothers. Alexander Brown came to Baltimore in 1801, and established what is now known as the oldest banking house in the United States, still operating today as Brown Brothers Harriman of New York; Brown, Shipley and Company of England; and Alex Brown and Son of Baltimore.

Soon after he arrived in London, George Peabody was surprised to be summoned to an audience with the gruff, Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Without mincing words, Rothschild revealed to Peabody, that much of the London aristocracy openly disliked him (Rothschild) and refused his invitations. He proposed that Peabody, a man of modest means, be established as a lavish host whose entertainments would soon be the talk of London. Rothschild would, of course, pay all the considerable expenses involved. Peabody naturally accepted the offer and soon became known as the most popular host in London.

His annual ‘Fourth of July dinner,’ celebrating American Independence, became extremely popular with the English aristocracy, many of whom, while drinking Peabody’s wine, regaled each other with jokes about Rothschild’s crudities and bad manners, without realising that everything they ate and drank had been paid for by Rothschild. It is hardly surprising therefore that the most popular host in London would also become a very successful businessman, particularly with the House of Rothschild supporting him behind the scenes.

His American agent was the Boston firm of Beebe, Morgan and Company, headed by Junius S. Morgan, father of John Pierpont Morgan. Peabody, who never married and had no-one to succeed him, was very favourably impressed by Junius Morgan and persuaded him to join him in London as a partner in George Peabody and Company in 1854. In 1860, the 23 year old John Pierpont Morgan had been taken on as an apprentice by the firm of Duncan Sherman in New York but he was not very well-regarded and in 1864, Morgan’s father was outraged when Duncan Sherman refused to make his son a partner.

He promptly arranged for one of the chief employees of Duncan Sherman, Charles H. Dabney, to join John Pierpont Morgan in a new firm, Dabney, Morgan and Company. Bankers magazine of December 1864, noted that Peabody had withdrawn his account from Duncan Sherman and that other firms were expected to do so. The Peabody account, of course, went to Dabney, Morgan Company.

George Peabody found that he had chosen well in selecting Junius Morgan as his successor and Morgan agreed to continue the sub-rosa relationship with N.M. Rothschild Company, and soon expanded the firm’s activities by shipping large quantities of railroad iron to the United States. It was Peabody iron which was the foundation for much of America’s railroad tracks from 1860 to 1890.

In 1864, content to retire and leave his firm in the hands of Morgan, Peabody allowed the name to be changed to Junius S. Morgan Company. The Morgan firm then and since has always been directed from London whilst John Pierpont Morgan spent much of his time at his magnificent London mansion, ‘Prince’s Gate.’

The reason that the European Rothschilds preferred to operate anonymously in the United States behind the facade of J.P. Morgan and Company is that a considerable anti-Rothschild movement had developed in Europe and the United States which focussed on the highly-suspect banking activities of the Rothschild family. Even though they had a registered agent in the United States, August Schoenberg, who had changed his name to Belmont when he came to the United States as the representative of the Rothschilds in 1837, it was extremely advantageous for them to have an American representative who was not known as a Rothschild agent.

Although the London house of Junius S. Morgan and Company continued to be the dominant branch of the Morgan enterprises, with the death of the senior Morgan in 1890 in a carriage accident on the French Riviera, John Pierpont Morgan became the owner of the firm. After operating as the American representative of the London firm from 1864-1871 as Dabney Morgan Company, Morgan took on a new partner in 1871, Anthony Drexel of Philadelphia and operated as Drexel Morgan and Company until 1895, two years after Drexel’s death. Only then, did Morgan change the name of the American branch to J.P. Morgan and Company.

Next in line were the Drexels and the Biddles of Philadelphia. All the various other financiers, large or small, were subservient to those three major dynasties; but particularly to that of Morgan. They were all three, proud, haughty and arrogant ‘potentates.’

In the decades following the Civil War, America’s industries really began to burgeon. There were great railroads being built nationwide and the fledgling oil, mining, steel and textile industries were all just beginning to prosper. All of those growth industries needed huge investment and much of that would come from abroad, from the House of Rothschild no less and this was where Schiff’s machinations came into their own.

He played a very cute game indeed, financing John D. Rockefeller, Edward R. Harriman and Andrew Carnegie. He financed the Standard Oil Company for Rockefeller (the Rockefeller family are Rothschild descendants through a female bloodline,) the Railroad Empire for Harriman, and the Steel Empire for Carnegie. But instead of hogging all the other industries for Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, he opened the doors of the House of Rothschild to Morgan, Biddle, and Drexel. In turn, Rothschild arranged the instigation of London, Paris, European and other branches for those three, but always in partnership with Rothschild subordinates and Rothschild made it very clear to all those men that Jacob Schiff was the ultimate ‘controller,’ in New York.

Thus at the turn of the century, Schiff had secured control of the entire banking fraternity on Wall Street which by then, with Schiff’s help, included Lehman brothers, Goldman-Sachs, and other internationalist banks that were headed by Rothschilds’ place-men. This meant total control of the nation’s money powers and the time was now almost right for the biggest coup de grace of all — the entrapment of the entire United States national money system.

Under the US Constitution at that time, the responsibility for control of the money system was vested solely with Congress, but Schiff needed to find a method by which he could seduce Congress to betray that Constitutional edict and thereby surrender that control to the hierarchy of the banksters’ great conspiracy. In order to legalise that surrender and thus render ‘the people’ powerless to resist, it was necessary to entice Congress to enact special legislation.

In order to accomplish that, Schiff would have to install stooges into both houses of Congress, stooges powerful enough to influence Congress into passing the necessary legislation. Equally or even more importantly he would have to plant a stooge in the White House itself, a president that was totally without integrity or scruples and who would sign new legislation making the entire dastardly scheme possible.

So, he had to somehow gain control of either the Republican or the Democratic Party and the latter was the more vulnerable of the two options as it was desperate to gain power at this time. Except for one brief occasion, the Democrats had been out of office since before the Civil War. In the US at this period, there were considerably more Republican-minded voters than Democrats but Schiff was a smart and very shrewd man and his solution emphasised how very little the Jewish/Zionist internationalist banksters care about their own racial brethren.

In the late 1880s / early 1890s, a nationwide series of anti-Jewish ‘pogroms’ began to occur in Russia. The word ‘pogrom’ literally means ‘riot’ in Russian. Commonly, the term describes the semi-official persecution of Jews in the Russian Empire that began in the early 1880s and due to their situation in Russia becoming extremely uncomfortable, many Jewish families fled, the vast majority to America. Ultimately, almost two million people emigrated in the space of a few years.

These pogroms had originally begun after the Russian Empire (which previously had very few Jews) acquired territories with large Jewish populations during 1791-1835. These territories were designated ‘the Pale of Settlement’ by the Russian government within which Jews were reluctantly permitted to live and it was there that these pogroms largely occurred. Most Jews were forbidden from moving to other parts of the Empire, unless they converted to Orthodox Christianity.

Many, many thousands of innocent Jews, men, women and children were slaughtered by the Cossacks and other armed peasant groups whilst the slaughter of innocent Jews also broke out in Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria. All those pogroms were fomented by Rothschild agents and ultimately had the desired effect . . . Millions of terrified Jewish refugees from all of those nations converged upon the United States and this trend continued throughout the next two decades as the pogroms continued mercilessly. All refugees were of course aided by self-styled ‘humanitarian committees’ set up by Schiff, the Rothschilds and their affiliates.

Most of the refugees entered the country via New York, but the Schiff-Rothschild humanitarian committees calculatingly dispersed many of them into many other large cities such as Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit and Los Angeles, etc., and all of them without exception were rapidly made ‘naturalised citizens’ and brain-washed to support the Democratic party, ‘in their best interests’ of course. Thus most of the immigrants became Democratic voters in their respective communities, all controlled and manoeuvred by their ‘benefactors.’ And ultimately it was through the use of this methodology that Schiff installed men such as Nelson Aldrich into the Senate and Woodrow Wilson into the White House, as Rothschild puppets.

Another one of the important tasks assigned to Schiff when he was dispatched to America, was to instigate the destruction of the unity of the vast majority, white Christian American people by creating racial strife. By using the pogrom-driven Jewish refugees into America, Schiff created a ready-made minority group for that purpose but the Jewish people, as a whole a peaceful and non-aggressive group also made fearful by the pogroms, could not be depended upon to create the violence necessary to instigate racial violence and thereby destroy the unity of American people.

But this proved to be no real problem for Schiff and his controllers. Within America there was an already made-to-order, ‘sleeping’ yet large minority group, the Negroes, who could be sparked into demonstrations, rioting, looting, murder and every other type of lawlessness and all that was necessary to achieve this was to make them ‘aware’ of the injustices and oppression they suffered at the hands of ‘whitey.’ Schiff realised that together, those two minority groups, properly manipulated could be used to create exactly the mayhem in America that the banksters would need to accomplish their insidious objectives.

In 1904, the Russo-Japanese War began over disputes surrounding the control of Manchuria and Korea. In particular, Port Arthur on the Pacific coast was highly coveted by Russia and when negotiations stalled, war inevitably broke out. The Japanese stunned the world with their victory over Russia, but the result was maybe not that surprising considering that Japan’s victory had been achieved with considerable assistance from the banksters via Jacob Schiff and the European Rothschilds who provided massive amounts of finance for the Japanese military effort.

In fact, the banksters had consciously used the Japanese in order to weaken their arch-enemy Russia as a stepping-stone to the overthrow of the Czar by internal communist subversives (also financed by Schiff and Rothschild.) Schiff had even arranged for Marxist reading materials to be given to 50,000 Russian prisoners-of-war being held in Japan and later, many of these ‘re-educated’ soldiers turned against the Czar during the 1917 revolution. For all his efforts in helping them to defeat Russia, the Japanese government awarded Schiff with a medal.

Russia’s Grand Duke, Sergei Alexandrovich was the brother of the late Czar Alexander III. Their father, Alexander II had been murdered by the ‘Reds’ in 1881 and the Grand Duke met exactly the same fate as his father, when a Red terrorist named Kalyayev, hurled a bomb into the Duke’s carriage. The bomb landed in his lap and blew both the Duke and his carriage into very small pieces. Afterwards, Duchess Elizabeth, the Grand Duke’s wife withdrew from public life, founded a convent and dedicated herself to helping the poor, only to become yet another victim of the communists along with her maid in 1918. And thus the Rothschilds continued their deadly vendetta against the Romanov family, begun almost a century earlier after the Czar’s refusal to sanction the Rothschilds’ plans for one world government.

It was the Rothschild’s backing of German-Jewish philosopher, the ‘useful idiot,’ Karl Marx in 1848 that created organised Communism. Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’ was in reality the first stage of the banksters’ next plan for a one-world government. Marx’s grandparents were actually related to the Rothschild family through marriage.

Marx’s cult followers promoted violence, class envy and hostility towards free-markets, family, business, tradition and Christianity and in addition to the angry misfits and maladjusted criminals who followed Marx’s ‘teachings,’ there were many well-meaning idealists who fell for his poisonous promises of a better world with prosperity and equality for all. The combined influence of both Communists and anarchists (known collectively as ‘Reds’) along with the cancerous spread of ‘liberalism / progressivism’ had really taken root by the late 19th century.

The attempted Russian Revolution of 1905 was a wave of political uprisings, massive labour strikes and terrorist acts against the government of Russia. The Reds, under orders from their Rothschild / Schiff masters, used the discontent surrounding the lost war with Japan to foment the revolution during and after which, Red revolutionaries murdered 7,300 people and wounded about 8,000. Though the Jewish-inspired and led ‘Red Revolution’ was eventually suppressed, Czar Nicholas II was forced to make ‘democratic’ concessions which weakened his power and set-up the monarchy for a future attempt at revolution. Nicholas made a critical mistake by showing mercy to the Red leaders, Lenin and Trotsky, but instead of executing them, the Marxist leaders were merely deported.

Lenin eventually made his way to Switzerland and Trotsky fled to New York after escaping from prison. These exiled Communists would one day return, financed by gold from the banksters, to terrorise Russia once again.

But meanwhile, the Royal bloodbath in Europe continued as Red assassins murdered King Carlos of Portugal along with his son and heir, Prince Luis Filipe. The assassins, linked to the secret Carbonaria Society, also attempted to kill the Queen in the hope of provoking a revolution in Portugal. Despite the widespread panic these acts provoked, a revolution did not materialise and Prince Manuel (the younger son of the King) succeeded his father.

All the crowned-heads of Europe were horrified by these events, partly due to King Carlos’ popularity, as much as the manner in which the assassination was planned and orchestrated and not least because they now feared for their own safety too.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

This document has been the centre of controversy from its very beginning, but then that was the intention. It was a Russian professor named Sergei Nilus that published it originally, the Protocols being the minutes of a secret meeting of Jewish elites towards the end of the 19th century. Within its pages are a detailed Zionist 100-year master plan for world domination, complete with precise details of the Zionist take-over of all banking, commerce, the media and many other aspects of our daily lives.

“I feel sorry for the innocent people who think Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, that the media tells the truth and we live in a free country. We live in a world designed and controlled by Satanist central bankers according to the blueprint of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. We are being harassed by terrorism, war, financial crises and viruses just as the Protocols promised. The purpose is to make us throw up our hands and accept world government, which is a euphemism for banker tyranny. Whether it is climate change, wars, bank bailouts or ‘hate laws,’ there is less distinction everyday between the perversity of the Illuminati bankers and the actions of our government.” Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the all-female ‘Belizean Club’ which is the lesser-known, female equivalent of Bohemian Grove.

Today, the Protocols are widely claimed by the Zionist-controlled media as a huge ‘anti-Semitic hoax,’ but then this is unsurprising as we know that the banksters own the media too. And as you have already learned, they always strongly promote controversy as it distracts and divides and diverts attention from reality.

Below is a very brief synopsis of the contents of the Protocols:

Destroy the Church and all Christianity
Promote atheism
Wage class warfare by setting labour against management
Overthrow Czarist Russia
Corrupt the morals of the people
Promote meaningless, talentless ‘modern art’ and pornography
Use anti-Semitism to keep ‘lesser Jews’ cohesive
Manipulate women with ideas of ‘liberation’
Create economic depressions and inflations
Create ‘controlled opposition’ to themselves
Use national debt as a weapon to enslave countries
Subvert and control all existing governments
Install tainted politicians that can be easily blackmailed
Manipulate college students with phony idealism
Assassinate world leaders
Spread deadly diseases
Use balance of power politics to control nations
Commit ‘false flag’ acts of terrorism
Promote sports and games to divert people from seeking the truth
Start a world war which will include the USA
Set up world government after an economic crash

So, for a document written over a century ago, these so-called ‘fake’ Protocols were extremely accurate in their predictions.

But back to the main story; in the dawning, modern era of the 20th century, the flag-waving, ‘all-American hero,’ Theodore Roosevelt became the perfect prototype for political puppets controlled by the Zionist banksters. Theodore Roosevelt was groomed from a very young age. His father was an opium agent of the Rothschilds, using a plate-glass company as a ‘front’ for the operation. Indeed, all of the US opium and black slave agents of the Rothschilds used various business fronts such as tea importers and fur exporters.

Roosevelt was of Jewish ancestry, descended from Claes van Rosenvelt from Holland, who arrived in Boston in 1645 and eventually settled in New York. His even older ancestor, one Rossacampo was driven away from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition by the Alhambra decree in January 1492 and later settled in Holland. At this time, around 78,000 Jews were forced to leave Spain, a figure which somehow through the establishment media was inflated to 300,000 (no surprise there then — JH.) This had been instigated by the Catholic monarchs King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella acting upon a decree from the Pope -- also known as Papal bull — on 31st March 1492.

And so it was that 400 years later, the Rothschilds ‘avenged’ the Jews and punished Spain using their stooge in the USA, Theodore Roosevelt, by engineering the destruction of the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Empire was the first truly global empire, reaching its territorial zenith in the late 1700s. But by 1898, Spain was losing territories regularly. Cuba, 4000 miles away from Spain, was becoming increasingly more difficult to control and a minor revolution had broken out.

This was most unwelcome news to the Rothschilds as their US agents owned most of the Cuban sugar, tobacco and the clandestine drug cultivation (smuggled in huge Cuban cigars) and worth about $3bn today. In addition, the black slaves in Cuba were shipped-in by the Rothschilds using JP Morgan and many others as agents. Notably, on all Jewish holidays the slave trade was temporarily suspended.

So, on 15th February 1898 a US navy battleship the USS Maine was sabotaged and sunk in Havana Harbour, Cuba with terrible loss of American lives which was all stage-managed to perfection by the Rothschilds. There were 261 fatalities, 76 were seriously injured and only 19 uninjured.

Blaming Spain for committing this ‘unprovoked act of war’ was utterly ludicrous, nevertheless this did not stop the Americans from insisting that the only ‘atonement’ Spain could offer for the loss of the obsolete ship and hundreds of lives, was the granting of independence to Cuba and by transferring most of her colonies to the US for next to nothing. All the while encouraged by the ‘yellow press,’ who reported alleged Spanish atrocities in Cuba, the American public was driven almost to hysteria and Spain was certainly no match for the mighty military power of the United States.

Naturally the Cubans and the Spanish protested bitterly and loudly that they were not responsible for what had happened and there is no doubt that this was a false-flag operation, perpetrated by the Americans themselves in order to fulfil their agenda of destroying the Spanish Empire and taking-over Cuba.

National City Bank was America’s most powerful bank at this time, with a board including representatives of the Rockefeller, Morgan and Rothschild interests. To finance the war, Assistant Treasury Secretary Frank Vanderlip negotiated a $200 million loan from National City Bank and afterwards, the bank made Vanderlip its president in yet another example of the ‘rotating-door’ policy operated constantly between the higher echelons of government and industry / commerce.

A new tax was soon announced to fund the war (or practically speaking, to reimburse National City Bank.) Since the Supreme Court had ruled income tax to be unconstitutional in 1895, a Federal excise tax was levied on telephone services. This tax remained in force for over a century, contributing towards the funding of both WWI and WWII, Korea and Vietnam until it was repealed in 2006. But although the Spanish-American War ended in 1898, the ‘temporary tax,’ over its 107 year lifetime, generated almost $94 billion, more than 230 times the cost of the Spanish-American War.

Even today, many people still believe the bankster-created image of America’s youngest ever President, Theodore Roosevelt. In a famous letter written to the head of the American Defense Society on 3rd January 1919, three days before his death, Roosevelt expressed his views on immigration and immigrants. He felt that immigrants should assimilate, become loyal Americans and speak English . . .

“We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”

Unfortunately Theodore Roosevelt chose not to live up to those fine words and like so many other of our ‘revered’ leaders, simply sold his soul to the banksters for fame and fortune.

Our distorted history tells us that the faceless banksters were the true ‘Robber Barons,’ the powerful men responsible for all our financial woes, as indeed they were, but the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and men like Jacob Schiff are never spoken of in this respect. We never see their faces or even hear their names mentioned in connection with all the financial woes of the world brought to us courtesy of these banksters. Of course, this is exactly how it is meant to be. The banksters always have fronts and ‘fall guys.’ You are not supposed to know who the real puppet-masters, the real ‘organ-grinders’ are, only their monkeys. Most people believe that the Italian-Sicilian Mafia runs all the organised crime, the Columbian cartels the drug operations and so on. It is an illusion, a deliberate distraction from the ultimate criminals.

But in the first decade of the twentieth century, the Rothschilds and their bankster friends were finalising their plan to re-establish a central bank in the United States. First of all, certain events had to be engineered so that the masses would not only be easily duped into accepting it, but actually welcome it. It would be the same three-step process that the banksters frequently use; present the PROBLEM, wait for the REACTION then offer the SOLUTION. Otherwise known simply as the Hegelian Dialectic or ‘problem, reaction, solution.’

In January 1907, Jacob Schiff addressed the New York Chamber of Commerce and warned, some may even say threatened that . . .

“Unless we have a Central Bank with control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”

And sure enough, in October of that year, the banksters duly delivered their promised panic. JP Morgan was responsible for creating ‘The Panic of 1907,’ whereby the stock market fell nearly 50% from its peak in 1906. The economy went into massive recession and there were numerous ‘runs’ on banks and trust companies. The primary cause of the panic was as usual, a retraction of loans that began in New York and rapidly spread across the nation, leading to the wholesale closing of banks and businesses. However, total ruin of the national economy was ‘fortunately’ averted when JP Morgan personally intervened by organising a team of bank and trust executives who re-directed money between banks, secured further international lines of credit and bought-up the now plummeting stocks of healthy corporations.

The bankster-owned press, such as the New York Times, owned by Zionist, Adolph Ochs, openly promoted an increase in the panic through the pages of his newspaper and strongly advocated the creation of another American central bank in order to ‘prevent this panic from occurring again.’

JP Morgan also deliberately precipitated the panic by instigating and spreading wild rumours about the insolvency of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, one of the largest US banks. This mistrust soon spread throughout the industry and began to affect all the other banks and so by the use of these dubious tactics Morgan gained numerous large additions to his portfolio. Indeed it was he who was primarily responsible for generating a strong belief in the ordinary American people that a central bank would prevent another such panic in the banking system. Problem, reaction, solution, yet again.

The earlier financial crisis of 1893, had already been used by the banksters, especially the Rockefellers to literally monopolise the oil industry. As for JP Morgan, it enabled him to consolidate and expand his holdings in railways, electric power and the telephone industries but above all, it served to establish him as the most powerful bankster in the United States.

During 1908 the ‘bankster-owned’ President Theodore Roosevelt, appointed the ‘bankster-owned’ Senate Republican leader and ‘financial expert,’ Nelson Aldrich to head the National Monetary Commission set-up to investigate the causes of the panic which of course was all unnecessary as they already knew what had caused the panic. In fact Aldrich set up two commissions, one to study the American monetary system in depth and the other, headed by Aldrich himself, to study the already well-established European central-banking systems and submit a report on them.

Nelson Aldrich was a very powerful man indeed for he was the de facto leader of the small coterie of Senate Republicans who dominated the party caucus and who determined the action of the Senate on most issues between 1895 and 1910.

Initially, the concept of ‘centralised banking’ was met with much opposition from many politicians, who with knowledge of the previous failed attempts at this scheme were suspicious of a central bank-type scenario. There was also a small yet voluble group who asserted (correctly) that Aldrich was biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as Morgan and Rockefeller. However, later that same year, Teddy Roosevelt surprisingly decided not to run for re-election. He instead pledged his support to his close friend, William Howard Taft who was duly elected President, but whose policies of limited constitutional government went against Roosevelt’s ‘big government’ progressivism.

Taft irritated many with his policies but in all fairness, he always adhered to the law and the constitution. His administration continued Roosevelt’s anti-trust policies bringing as many as 90 suits under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. However, whilst his predecessor had subjectively differentiated between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ monopolies, Taft concentrated solely on enforcing the laws. As a result, Taft’s ‘trust-busting’ angered Theodore Roosevelt, big business, and the banksters themselves.

In 1911, the courts broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Taft also instigated a suit against JP Morgan’s US Steel. The company produced nearly 70% of worldwide steel and enjoyed a 90% market share in the United States. Despite the U.S. Steel dominance, the government lost the case.

Former President Roosevelt approved of the US Steel combination. In his view, the monopoly did not violate the spirit of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He did not believe that the company represented a ‘bad’ monopoly. In fact, Roosevelt felt US Steel benefited Americans. When Taft attempted to crush the monopoly, it angered the former president because he could not understand Taft’s motivations for attacking the institution. This action was one of many Taft policies which drove a wedge between the two presidents.

The antitrust suit angered the business community as well. As may be expected, big business opposed Taft’s actions. He threatened their profits and independence and the 90 lawsuits represented the greatest governmental assault on the business community ever, up to that point in time.

Ironically, Taft somehow contrived to anger enemies of big business too. The President only wished to enforce the law and his motivations were more esoteric than the progressives who wanted to punish evil. Taft’s conservative, legalistic rhetoric alienated him from the one group that should have rallied to his trust-busting. He firmly believed he was doing the ‘right thing’ by enforcing the law and busting monopolies but despite this, he managed to alienate almost everyone. Roosevelt was angered by Taft’s inability to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ monopolies and the wider business community felt betrayed by the conservative President. Those in favour of reform were also opposed to Taft because he did not understand their motivations. So, despite all his actual achievements in the trust-busting realm, President Taft suffered politically, indeed he may well have been better regarded politically, through inaction.

Even then, there was only ever the ‘illusion’ of choice.

In 1909, a ‘useful idiot’ by the name of Cyrus Scofield had been chosen for leadership of the Christian-Zionist Movement. However, you will certainly not hear the truthful story of Cyrus Scofield from Wikipedia™ or any other ‘establishment’ source. As a young con-artist in Kansas after the Civil War, he had met-up with John Ingalls, an aging lawyer who had been instructed by the banksters some thirty years previously, to work on behalf of the abolitionist (of slavery) cause. Pulling strings both in Kansas and with his powerful masters, Ingalls assisted Scofield in gaining admission to the Bar, and procured his appointment as Federal Attorney for Kansas. Ingalls and Scofield then became partners in a railway scam which led to Scofield being forced to resign in 1873, and also serving time for criminal forgery.

Upon his release from prison, Scofield deserted his first wife and his two daughters, Abigail and Helen and took as his mistress a young girl from the St. Louis Flower Mission. He later abandoned her too, for Helen van Ward, whom he eventually married. Then, following his Zionist bankster connections to New York, he settled at the Lotus Club, which he listed as his address for the next twenty years. It was here that he presented his ideas for a new Christian Bible and was taken under the wing of a prominent New York attorney and Zionist bankster agent, Samuel Untermyer who became Scofield’s ‘handler.’ Untermyer was also the man who played a similar role, keeping President Woodrow Wilson firmly in-line and under the tight control of the Zionist banksters.

Of course, Scofield’s new version of the Bible was completely ‘Zionised’ and it is this aspect that induces many Christians today to believe that Jesus will one day return to save his followers from the ‘end-times,’ (the Rapture) after Israel has been established, and that ‘God will bless those who bless Israel.’ Published by the bankster-owned Oxford University Press in England, the Scofield bible became a powerful weapon for the Zionists in making millions of ‘Evangelical’ Christians even more fanatical Christian-Zionists through politics and religious beliefs, than their Jewish counterparts.

So, as you may now begin to see, the Rothschilds, the banksters, the ruling Zionist elite were well-prepared for carrying out their evil plans of world domination and enslavement as the twentieth century progressed. As difficult and unimaginable as all this may be to digest, it is one of the many reasons that these arch-criminal psychopaths have managed to conceal their evil crimes for centuries. It is so easy to simply dismiss everything presented here as simply an unbelievable ‘conspiracy theory,’ but what came next may appear to be more akin to something out of a cheap horror movie.

The Banksters’ Secret Societies

On 1st May 1776, the very year that America ‘won’ its so-called ‘independence’ from British rule, a Crypto-Jew named Adam Weishaupt formed a secret society, the ‘Order of Perfectibilists,’ a name that was later changed to the ‘Illuminati’ meaning the ‘enlightened ones.’ As with numerous other societies and entities that were to follow, the sworn purpose of the Illuminati was and is to abolish Christianity, and overturn all civil government.

Weishaupt was the son of a Jewish rabbi but became a Jesuit priest prior to becoming an atheist and ultimately a Satanist. He studied in France where he met Maximilien de Robespierre, the future leader of the bloody, French Revolution. Weishaupt was also a student of the Eleusinian mysteries, Pythagoras, the Kabbalah, the Keys of Solomon and occult rituals. In 1773 he held a meeting with the bankster patriarch himself, the supreme master of usury and insider trading, Mayer Amschel Rothschild to discuss world revolution. The Rothschilds were already Freemasons and financially supported the Illuminati’s mission.

Weishaupt then infiltrated the Continental Order of Freemasons with his ‘Illuminati’ doctrine and established lodges of the Grand Orient to be their secret headquarters, in the process recruiting some 2,000 paid followers including the most prominent men in the field of arts, education, science, finance and industry and who were all instructed to follow a detailed master-plan.

Similarly to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion that would follow a hundred years later, the idea was to corrupt society using deception and subterfuge. Weishaupt laid-down the following goals for his loyal followers: 1) abolish all ordered government; 2) abolish private property; 3) abolish inheritance; 4) abolish patriotism; 5) abolish all religion; 6) abolish family and marriage; 7) encourage the creation of a ‘one-world government.’ In fact these goals were all an embryonic form of Communism. The reader should by now realise that all the preceding descriptions of banksters and their many crimes against humanity are in essence, unabashed and undiluted Communism.

Weishaupt instructed the Illuminati to act in secret and also took great satisfaction from deceiving Christians and other religions, into joining his order. Initiates were told that the Illuminati represented the highest ideals of the Church, that Christ himself was an Illuminist and that his secret mission was to restore people to the liberty that they lost in the Garden of Eden. Weishaupt also informed them that Christ despised riches and that they should prepare for the ‘abolition of property ownership and the sharing of all possessions.’ Where have we heard that one before?

Then in 1784, Weishaupt, issued a decree to the Illuminists in the form of a book, with instructions for the instigation of the French revolution by Maximilien de Robespierre. This book had been written by one of Weishaupt’s associates, Xavier Zwack and was being sent by courier from Frankfurt to Paris. However, en route the courier was unfortunately (or not, depending on your viewpoint) struck by lightning and killed and the book was discovered by the authorities.

As a consequence, the authorities ordered the raiding of Weishaupt’s Masonic Lodges of the Grand Orient and the homes of his most influential associates. Clearly, they were absolutely convinced that the book they discovered posed a very real threat to law and order and that it would promote complete anarchy and war. So as a result, the following year, the Bavarian government outlawed the Illuminati and closed-down all their Bavarian lodges of the Grand Orient and Mayer Amschel Rothschild moved his family to Frankfurt, to a house which he shared with the Schiff family.

In 1786 the Bavarian government published the details of the Illuminati plot in a document entitled, ‘The Original Writings of the Order and Sect of the Illuminati.’ They then distributed this to all the heads of church and state throughout Europe, who sadly ignored this dire warning, resulting in the fomenting of the French Revolution in 1789.

“The Illuminati, operating in the guise of the Jacobins, forced the regime-change that historians now call the French Revolution.” Andrew Smith, henrymakow.com

There is no doubt that the French Revolution, which utterly devastated France between 1787 and 1799, was inspired and instigated by Freemasonry and just as with the English Revolution, a century and a half earlier, things are not as portrayed by mainstream history. Although popularly believed to have begun due to a public uprising over widespread poverty and starvation and government representation, the real facts tell us that this starvation was instigated by cells of French Freemasonry and the German Illuminati.

In 1789, the Duke of Orleans purportedly bought-up much of the grain in France and either sold it abroad, secreted it away or destroyed it, thus engendering starvation amongst the French peasant classes. Galart de Montjoie, a contemporary, blamed the Revolution almost solely on the Duke of Orleans, writing that he “was moved by that invisible hand which seems to have created all the events of our revolution in order to lead us towards a goal that we do not see at present . . . ”

“If, then, it is said that the [French] Revolution was prepared in the lodges of Freemasons — and many French Masons have boasted of the fact — let it always be added that it was Illuminised Freemasonry that made the Revolution and that the Masons who acclaim it are Illuminised Masons, inheritors of the same tradition introduced into the lodges of France in 1787 by the disciples of Weishaupt, patriarch of the Jacobins.” Nesta Webster

In fact the revolution was a central banksters dream as it established a new constitution and passed laws that both forbade the Roman Church from levying taxes and also removed the Church’s exemption from taxation. This was a period of radical upheaval in France. Unlike America’s Revolution, which placed limits on governmental power, the atheistic radicals of France sought total power. Their rallying cries of ‘Liberty, Fraternity, Equality,’ were empty words that attracted gullible mobs and their associated thugs.

From 1793-1794, the so-called ‘Committee of Public Safety’ operated as the dictatorship in France. A ‘reign of terror’ was unleashed and King Louis XVI, Queen Marie Antoinette and 40,000 others were publicly executed, by ‘Madame Guillotine.’ In addition, the Jacobin mobs also targeted priests and nuns as well as the wealthy.

Freemasonry

Freemasonry is a subject that guarantees controversy as it continues to play a critical role in so much of the evil that has prevailed throughout history, as evidenced by the fact that so many of the powerful, influential people involved in historical (and present day) intrigue are Freemasons. Indeed, it is a secret society like so many others that has been co-opted by the banksters without the majority of well-intentioned, decent, lower-level Freemasons ever knowing it.

The movement has a pyramid structure, as with most other institutions, the highest level being the 33rd degree. Most Freemasons never progress beyond the 3rd degree (many are even now, unaware that there are any degrees above the 3rd) and provide a ‘cover’ for all the nefarious activities occurring at high-level, through their community and charitable activities. The very top of the pyramid, degrees 31 to 33 are Illuminati through and through, whilst the bottom levels consist of the law abiding debt-slaves, the ‘goyim’ (Hebrew for cattle — which is how the ‘common’ people such as you and I are regarded).

Freemasonry probably had its original roots in the mediaeval crafts, whereby each trade had its own ‘guild’ or ‘union’ in modern parlance, to protect the interests of its members. In return for this protective presence the craftsman had to submit to the most rigorous regulation. He had to serve as an apprentice, usually without pay, for two to ten years (depending on the trade,) live with and obey the master craftsman who tutored him, and then finally once this long induction process was complete, the apprentice was free to start out alone, frequently taking one of his master’s daughters as a wife.

With the expansion of economics, often came the need of the craftsman to borrow money to finance long-term undertakings and his willingness to pay interest for this benefit. The Christian Church condemned usury at this time and money-lending was permitted only by and to Jews, who were barred from guild membership by dint of their religious practices.

Stonemasons, by the very nature of their trade, were itinerant, constantly moving between villages and towns seeking employment. Their membership of the masonic craft guild was a reassurance to potential customers and employers that he was a bona fide craftsman who could be relied upon to provide a fair days work for a fair days pay. The insignia of their guild displayed representations of the tools of their trade and where language or literacy was a barrier to communication, served as a visual guarantee of ability. It was from these humble beginnings that secret symbols, restricted membership, oaths of secrecy and mutual aid evolved but eventually the guilds became entities that were no longer necessarily populated by those skilled in the crafts and trades their societies purported to represent, becoming almost entirely symbolic and totally unrepresentative of the craft or trade.

In 1645, the Royal Society, founded either in Oxford or in London depending on source, was created with the intention of promoting scientific enquiry rather than the simple, unthinking acceptance of received wisdom. Many facets of the society were based on the tenets of freemasonry and indeed many of the founders were freemasons — a state of affairs that still exists to this day. It was the brother-in-law of Oliver Cromwell, the future ‘Lord Protector’ of the Commonwealth of Great Britain who became its first chairman. Cromwell’s uncle, Thomas Cromwell during the reign of Henry VIII a century earlier had already severed the ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the English monarchy and Oliver himself had managed to continue the process, by engineering the severing of King Charles I’s head from his body.

In 1717, Freemasonry, now a new form of cult entirely distinct from the various existing creeds of Europe, spread rapidly to Paris, Florence, Rome and Berlin, where its deliberately syncretic rituals and décor, Solomon’s temple’s signs and symbols made it thoroughly cosmopolitan and religiously neutral. Nothing could better encapsulate the early spirit of the ‘enlightenment.’

Andrew Ramsay, a Scottish Jacobite exiled in France, who was Chancellor of the French Grand Lodge in the 1730s, claimed that the first Freemasons had been stonemasons in the crusader states who had learned the secret rituals and gained the special wisdom of the ancient world. According to the German Freemasons, the Grand Masters of the Order had learned the secrets and acquired the treasure of the Jewish Essenes.

Either way, Freemasonry had now escaped its earlier guise of stonemasonry and in its new incarnation appealed to the intellectuals and the nobility. The early membership of ‘free’ masonic lodges included merchants and financiers, notaries and lawyers, doctors, diplomats and gentry, in other words men of substance and sound reputation. By the middle of the eighteenth century these included members of the French royal family, Frederick the Great, Maria Theresa’s husband, Francis of Lorraine and her son, Joseph.

Freemasonry not only played an important role in the French Revolution, but also with regard to the American Revolution, in particular the lodges affiliated to the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Scottish Rite Freemasonry blossomed in North America and indeed Freemasonry could be found on both sides of the looming war between the colonists and the Crown and although there is no clear evidence of collusion amongst masons from opposing camps, the fact that the British made some extraordinary military errors arouses my suspicions in this regard.

Sir William Howe’s failure to pursue Washington after expelling him from New York and Sir Henry Clinton’s wilful failure to link up with Burgoyne’s army marching south from Montreal in 1777 are the two most conspicuous examples. In both cases, it would seem that the American forces were handed a massive advantage that greatly helped their cause.

The Grand Master for North America was Joseph Warren and the Green Dragon coffee house in Union Street, Boston, purchased by the Provincial Grand Lodge is generally considered to be the site where one of its offshoots ‘The Sons of Liberty’ plotted the Boston Tea Party and carried it out in the guise of ‘Red Indians,’ now re-branded for the sake of political correctness as ‘Native Americans.’ So already there was an infiltration of the ‘hidden hand,’ as a secret society is an ideal vehicle for covert control. It was however, an infiltration of which many of its members were unaware.

One of the little known and least advertised facts about Freemasonry and the Masonic Lodge is its Jewish origin and nature. The religion of Judaism is based on the Babylonian Talmud and the Jewish Kabbalah formed the basis for the Scottish rites 33 ritual degree ceremonies.

“Masonry is based on Judaism. Eliminate the teaching of Judaism from the Masonic ritual and what is left?” The Jewish Tribune of New York, 28th October 1927

“Freemasonry is a Jewish establishment, whose history, grades, official appointments, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.” Rabbi Isaac Wis

Undoubtedly already under Jewish influence, Judeo-masonry in Europe became popular with the rise to power of the House of Rothschild. Adam Weishaupt who formed the Illuminati in 1776, founded the Lodge of Theodore in Munich and was befriended and funded by Meyer Rothschild, whose clerk in his Frankfurt office, Sigmund Geisenheimer, had extensive Masonic contacts and was a member of the French Grand Orient Lodge, ‘l’Aurore Naissante.’ With the help of Daniel Itzig (Court Jew to Frederick William II) and the merchant, Isaac Hildesheim (who changed his name to Justus Hiller) he founded the ‘Judenloge’ (Jewish Lodge.)

In 1802 the old established Jewish families including the Adler, Speyer, Reiss, Sichel, Ellison, Hanau and the Goldsmid families became members of the Judenloge and in 1803 Nathan Rothschild joined the Lodge of Emulation in England whilst his brother James Rothschild became a 33rd degree Mason in France.

The book on the Masons ‘Morals and Dogma’, authored by the late Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish rite, Albert Pike, states that . . .

“Masonry conceals secrets from all except the adepts and sages and uses false explanations and myth interpretation of its symbols to mislead.”

The rise of Masons to political power in Israel dates back to the state’s origins in 1948. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, was a Freemason and indeed every Prime Minister since then has been a high level Mason, including Golda Meier who was a member of the women’s organisation, the Co-Masons. Most Israeli judges and religious figures are Masons and the Rothschild-supported Hebrew University in Israel erected an Egyptian obelisk, an overt symbol of Freemasonry, in its courtyard.

Today, it is virtually impossible to obtain a state of high office in any sphere in virtually any nation without membership of this all-pervasive body. From politicians to law-makers, to police and security agencies, they are all heavily populated at the upper echelons by high-ranking Freemasons. All of which makes claims of democracy for our society, almost laughable, were it not so serious a subject. Freemasons must always and under all circumstances put their ‘brethren’ first in all matters, regardless of a nation’s laws. How then can one conclude that any election, from political by-elections to the election of political party leaders to the appointment of public company directors and high-level civil servants, could possibly be fairly conducted?

The simple answer of course is that they cannot and thus we have as our default a system whereby exploitation and corruption is the norm and not the exception, whatever we may try to convince ourselves to the contrary.

In the 16th century, Sir Francis Bacon was the head of the secret societies in England and authored his famous book, The New Atlantis. Bacon’s book was the blueprint for colonising the United States, advocating that America . . .

“ . . . would become a paradise in which men would follow reason, become gods and work for a universal world republic that would then replicate the Utopian conditions of America throughout the known world.”

Secret knowledge would be passed on through the generations by Freemasons and other secret societies. As Chief of the Rosicrucians and the first Grand Master of modern Freemasonry, Bacon sent his followers to the new world. A 1910 Newfoundland stamp with his image upon it reads; “Lord Bacon: the Guiding Spirit in the Colonisation Scheme.”

Because of his influence, Francis Bacon is considered by some to be the real and true founder of America. For centuries, controversy has surrounded this figure who is believed by many to be the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth I, and secret author of the Shakespeare plays; the man whom Thomas Jefferson considered one of the three most influential men in history.

In 1733, Rosicrucian Freemasonry formally entered America when the St John’s Lodge was established in Boston. It subsequently became the Masonic capital of Britain’s colonies and by 1737 there were Lodges in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, all of which were totally committed to implementing the plan for Bacon’s Utopian ‘New Atlantis.’ In February 1731, Benjamin Franklin became a Rosicrucian Mason and in 1734, Provincial Grand Master of Pennsylvania.

Franklin returned to England from 1764 to 1775 and discovered Baconian English Freemasonry’s Secret Doctrine to create a New World or philosophical Atlantis in America and in 1775, Tom Paine, whom Franklin had sent to America to work on the Pennsylvania Magazine, argued that America should demand independence from England. Franklin returned to Philadelphia and printed Paine’s Common Sense propaganda booklet, advocating American independence from Britain.

In fact, the federalism that finally united the 13 colonies into states was identical to the federalism of the Grand Lodge system of Masonic government which had been created in Anderson’s Constitution of 1723.

One of the incidents in the prelude to the Revolution, the ‘Boston Tea Party,’ was an entirely Masonic-inspired event organised by the St Andrew’s Lodge in Boston, of which John Hancock and Paul Revere were members, and supported by Virginia Masons, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. At nightfall on 17th December 1773, at least 120 Masons from the St Andrew’s lodge, disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded British ships and threw their cargo of tea (an expensive commodity at the time) into the harbour, allegedly to protest numerous unfair taxes levied by King George III. However, the reality was that this act was just one small step on the road to engineering the revolution.

Of the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence, according to some sources, 53 were Freemasons. The first President, George Washington was a Freemason and was elected Grand Master of the Templar Alexandria Lodge no. 22 in Virginia. There are several paintings of Washington wearing his ceremonial masonic apron and full masonic regalia, so we know that that at least is a fact. In addition, 31 out of 33 military generals under George Washington were also Freemasons and significantly, the entire British military hierarchy was also Freemasonic. Sir William Howe, Brigadier General Augustine Prevost, and 34 senior Colonels were all Masons.

When the French joined the fray on the side of the Americans, the Freemason Marquis de Lafayette joined battle with the Freemason General Cornwallis, commander of the British forces at Yorktown. Some sources in Britain openly blamed Templar Freemasonry for the humiliating British defeat, suggesting that Cornwallis, Clinton, and the Howe brothers were all Templar Freemasons and had conspired together to deliberately hand victory to their fellow Freemasons. In 1781 General Howe and Admiral Howe were accused by ‘Cicero’ of betraying their country to Benjamin Franklin, but it whilst remaining a distinct possibility, the real truth will probably never be known.

The first President (although that was never his official title) George Washington, was from a British aristocratic background and was of course, a 33rd degree Freemason. His initiation ceremony was in effect a Freemasonic ritual attended by all the Masonic hierarchy of the country in full masonic regalia, aprons et al.

Washington chose a marshy swamp as the site for the new nation’s capital in 1790 and selected Freemason, Pierre Charles Enfant to design the new city, at that time named the ‘Territory of Columbia.’ In 1795 the Freemasonic Founding Fathers laid out the streets of Washington D.C. to form Masonic symbols: a compass, square, rule, pentagram and octagon.

On the 18th September 1793, Washington laid the foundation stone of the Capitol building in his full Masonic regalia and was surrounded by brother Masons. The foundation stones for the White House and other Federal buildings were also laid-down in a Masonic ceremony, designed to be the fulfilment of Bacon’s dream of the ‘New Atlantis.’

The Illuminati emblem, their Great Seal, designed by Adam Weishaupt, was later placed on the US one dollar bill by Freemason, President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin also adopted the Illuminati’s ideals whilst in France in 1784, to negotiate a treaty with France. Significant evidence reveals that Benjamin Franklin was a Satanist, a member of the Hellfire Club, a secret society that conducted black masses and orgies. In 1998, workmen restoring Franklin’s former London home, dug up the remains of six children and four adults hidden below the floor and the British Sunday Times reported that;

“Initial estimates are that the bones are about 200 years old and were buried at the time Franklin was living in the house, which was his home from 1757 to 1762 and from 1764 to 1775. Most of the bones show signs of having been dissected, sawn or cut. One skull has been drilled with several holes. Paul Knapman, the Westminster Coroner, said yesterday: ‘I cannot totally discount the possibility of a crime. There is still a possibility that I may have to hold an inquest.’”

In fact, completely in-line with Freemasonry, the ‘Founding Fathers’ rejected all organised religion in favour of Deism. They believed . . . 1) in a supreme being; 2) the need to worship that being; 3) that the best form of worship was to lead a virtuous life; 4) that one must repent; 5) that one would be rewarded and/or punished after death. Any religious view contrary to nature and reason, such as a virgin birth and divine intervention in the affairs of men, is rejected by Deism as may be seen in the Deist works by Voltaire and Rousseau all of which were studied in detail by Washington et al. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were all openly Deists whilst George Washington and many other Founders posed as Christians but were clearly Deists as evidenced by their personal writings.

The reason that the Founding Fathers kept their Deism secret and retained the façade of Christianity was to unify the Catholic, Anglican, and Puritan settlers into one new nation-state as specified by Bacon in his writings. They also wanted to be sure of having a nation of trusting and passive followers and so religion served a utilitarian, rather than spiritual purpose.

It may be surprising to some to learn that in actuality, the United States of America has never been a country in its own right. It was established by British Freemasonry in conjunction with American Freemasonry in order to perpetuate the deception of ‘freedom for the people,’ to enable covert control of the masses and facilitate huge, ongoing profits at the expense of those masses.

In 1830 a certain Guiseppe Mazzini travelled to Tuscany, where he became a member of the Carbonari, a secret association with covert political aims and on the 31st October of that year he was arrested at Genoa and interned at Savona and during his imprisonment he devised the outlines of a new patriotic movement aiming to replace the unsuccessful Carbonari. Although freed in early 1831, he chose exile to Geneva in Switzerland rather than life confined to the small hamlet, which was what was ordered by the authorities.

Mazzini’s ambition was to create a ‘United States of Europe,’ more than a century before the European Union came into existence. Globalism is Illuminism by another name after all and Mazzini was loyal to both. In 1860, he founded a group of revolutionaries by the name of Young Italy whose goal was to free Italy from the control of monarchy and the Pope. They succeeded and Mazzini was honoured as a patriot in Italy and in the process, the infamous Italian / Sicilian Mafia was born. The Young Italy revolutionaries needed money, and they supported themselves by robbing banks, looting or burning businesses if protection money was not paid and kidnapping for ransom. Throughout Italy the word spread that ‘Mazzini Autorizza Furti, Incendi e Attentati,’ meaning, ‘Mazzini authorises theft, arson and kidnapping.’ This phrase was later shortened to the acronym, MAFIA and thus organised crime was born.

Incidentally, Mazzini was also the founder of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in Italy.

Prior to his death in 1872, he made another revolutionary leader named Adrian Lemmy his successor. Lemmy was subsequently succeeded by Lenin and Trotsky, then by Stalin and the revolutionary activities of all these men were amply financed by the Rothschilds.

Mazzini was connected to numerous evil people, but none more deserving of that epithet than the always controversial and very shadowy Albert Pike. During his leadership, Mazzini enticed Pike into the by this time, formally disbanded but still covertly operating, Illuminati. Pike was fascinated by the idea of a one world government and when asked by Mazzini, readily agreed to write a ritual tome that outlined the transition from average-ranking Mason into a 33rd degree, Illuminati Mason. Since Mazzini also wanted Pike to head the Illuminati’s American chapter, he clearly felt that Pike was worthy of such a task. Mazzini’s intention was that once a Mason had made his way up the Freemasonic ladder and proven himself worthy, the highest ranking members would offer membership to the ‘secret society within a secret society.’

It is for this reason that most Freemasons vehemently deny the evil intentions of their fraternity. Since the vast majority of members never come anywhere remotely close to reaching the 30th degree, let alone the 33rd degree, they are unaware of the real purpose behind Freemasonry.

In fact, Albert Pike was the most influential and controversial Freemason in the history of American Freemasonry and personally designed 30 initiation rituals for the advanced degrees he created inside Freemasonry, turning the original three degrees into 33, and investing great ceremonial magic into the culture, which he soon dominated as its American ‘Grand Master.’

Pike was born on 20th December 1809, in Boston, Massachusetts, the son of an alcoholic father and a mother who tried to push him into the ministry. In 1825 he was sent to live with his uncle, who discovered that Pike had a photographic memory and was able to recall large volumes at will. He soon mastered several languages and passed his entrance exams for Harvard but unable to afford the tuition fees, he became a teacher in Gloucester, Massachusetts instead. In 1831 he moved to New Mexico and joined several expeditions there, finally settling in Fort Smith, Arkansas in 1833 and again taught in school for a year whilst he studied law. He opened his law practice in 1834.

Pike spent the next twenty or so years building his reputation before becoming politically active during the 1850s. He organised the Know-Nothing Party (Order of United Americans,) a reactionary political movement opposed to foreigners and believed strongly that the continuance of slavery was preferable to the practice of farmers importing cheap foreign labour. At the same time he was pro-Indian and as the representative of several tribes of Native Americans won some large settlements on their behalf, from the US government. At the beginning of the Civil War (1861) Pike, by this time living in New Orleans, was named Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Confederacy.

Eventually he was proclaimed a brigadier general and he organised several regiments from the Arkansas tribes but unfortunately, some of his ‘native’ soldiers mutilated Union soldiers during a battle in 1862, which caused massive controversy. As a result of that controversy, he came into conflict with his superiors and accused the Confederacy of neglecting its treaty obligations to the Indian tribes. He was arrested for treason, but released when the war came to an end but by now hated by both sides, he fled to the Ozark Mountains and later to Montreal, Canada.

Pike was very influential in George Bickley’s Knights of the Golden Circle, a Masonic front organisation for the Confederacy. The KGC immediately absorbed the Masonic operatives in Mazzini’s Young America and became the pre-military organisation of the Confederacy. The Knights of the Golden Circle soon expanded westwards across Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, then south along the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico and east into Maryland and Virginia whilst along the way they recruited many new members. It was envisioned that the ‘Golden Circle Empire,’ would spread-out from the Southern states and into Mexico, South America and the Caribbean. Albert Pike opened up a branch in New Orleans, through which Mazzini’s Mafia later entered the United States following the Civil War.

One of the initiates into the Knights of the Golden Circle was General and Freemason P.T. Beauregard, a West Point graduate and the brother-in-law of one of Louisiana’s political leaders, the Freemason, John Slidell. Beauregard was ‘credited’ with starting the Civil War with his surprise attack on Fort Sumter in 1861.

Long before Fort Sumter, however, Caleb Cushing realized that the anti-slavery north and the pro-slavery south were too far removed geographically to foment a civil war over slavery. A division between neighbours in close proximity had to be created before a war would break out nationally. Such a division was guaranteed by the first order of Congressional business during the Pierce Administration — the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act called for the Nebraska Territory to be divided into the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, whose residents would then determine whether slavery would be permitted or not. When the bill passed, the terrible aftermath was utterly predictable. Outrageous acts of murder and arson were committed on both sides, by both the pro-slavery Missourians, and the white ‘abolitionists’ under the command of John Brown.

What is little known about John Brown is that he spent much of his adult life in secret societies, including the Oddfellows, Sons of Temperance, and the Freemasons. Brown was made a Master Mason in Hudson, Ohio on 11th May 1824 and he served as junior deacon from 1825 to 1826. However he renounced Freemasonry in 1830, when an anti-Masonic fervour swept the nation. Caleb Cushing however, viewed John Brown as the perfect candidate to bring about the insurrection of the Southern states. As an anti-Mason, Brown would never be suspected as being an agent of Freemasonry, he reasoned. Brown had joined Mazzini’s Young America and was supported financially by the John Jacob Astor, Masonic interests in Boston and New York. After receiving his instructions from Caleb Cushing, John Brown deliberately set out to instigate civil war in America.

In January 1857, the Freemason James Buchanan was elected president to replace Franklin Pierce. John A. Quitman, the father of Mississippi Freemasonry and leader of the southern secessionists, was the representative from Mississippi in the House of Representatives. Quitman in fact was intended to be the next Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, but on 17th July 1858, he suddenly died — by poisoning, according to Masonic authority and a common fate for those who oppose them. Quitman’s close friend Albert Pike, the man groomed by Cushing to take over Southern Freemasonry, conducted a ‘lodge of sorrows’ in Quitman’s memory and a year later was elected to fill the post that Quitman would have held. As a result, Albert Pike then found himself the leader of the Southern secessionists.

After Buchanan was elected president, he appointed to government posts only those who fanatically supported the Southern cause and who were therefore more likely to favour direct action against the North. Buchanan appointed Freemason Edwin M. Stanton of Pennsylvania to the post of Attorney General, and he would later be strongly implicated in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan also appointed Freemason Howell Cobb of Georgia as Secretary of the Treasury and in March 1860, Cobb was elevated to the 33rd degree and appointed by Albert Pike as leader of the secessionists in Georgia and chairman of the convention which organised the Confederacy in Montgomery, Alabama.

Buchanan’s vice president was Freemason John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky. Breckinridge was in attendance at the 1860 national convention of the Democratic Party held at Charleston, South Carolina, the headquarters of the Southern Jurisdiction of Freemasonry. Presiding over the convention was Northern Jurisdiction Freemason Caleb Cushing and under his supervision, the Gulf States delegation staged a walkout, formed their own convention, and elected Cushing as its chairman. The secessionists then nominated Breckinridge as their candidate for president, while campaigning in Kentucky, and Breckinridge received his 33rd degree from Albert Pike.

Meanwhile, the newly-formed Republican Party, nominated Abraham Lincoln as its presidential candidate and Lincoln, although significantly not a Mason, duly won the election.

That same year Breckinridge was elected US Senator from Kentucky. At the beginning of the Civil War, he had defended the South in the Senate and entered the Confederate’s service, for which act he was expelled from the Senate in December 1861. Freemason Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, then duly appointed Breckinridge as his Secretary of War.

It seems highly likely that Albert Pike had instigated the process of secession immediately after Lincoln’s election. Significantly, on 20th December 1860, the state of South Carolina, headquarters of the Southern Jurisdiction of Freemasonry, was the first state to secede from the Union.

On that same day, the state of Mississippi, whose secessionist organisation had been created by the late Scottish Rite leader, John A. Quitman, followed South Carolina’s lead and again on that very same day, the Freemason John Floyd, Secretary of War under the still-presiding, yet outgoing President Buchanan, performed another act of treason by ordering the Allegheny arsenal at Pittsburgh to send 113 heavy cannons and eleven 32-pound cannons to the unfinished, undefended Union forts at Ship Island, Mississippi, and Galveston, Texas, where they could easily be seized by the insurrectionists.

On 22nd December 1860, the state of Florida seceded from the Union, led by US Senator David Levy Yulee, member of the Freemasonic Hayward Lodge, Gainesville, Florida. The state of Alabama also seceded on 24th December 1860. Then on 2nd January 1861, Georgia’s secession was led by two Freemasons, Howell Cobb, President Buchanan’s Secretary of the Treasury, and Robert Toombs, who became the first Secretary of State of the Confederacy. Both men received the honorary 33rd degree after the Civil War — how unsurprising. Louisiana then seceded next on 7th January 1861, led also by two Freemasons, John Slidell and Pierre Soule. Soule also received the honorary 33rd degree after the Civil War. Thousands of armed paramilitary Knights of the Golden Circle forced Governor of Texas and Freemason, Sam Houston to secede in February, 1861 and finally on the 12th April 1861, the Freemason, General P.T. Beauregard was ordered to attack Fort Sumter, South Carolina, thus instigating four years of horrific carnage and bloodshed. The bankster-created and backed American Civil War had finally begun.

After Lincoln unexpectedly ordered a national mobilisation to crush the rebellion, the Knights of the Golden Circle engaged in paramilitary and espionage operations in the North, along with parallel and successor groups under different names, none of which however, publicly carried their proper name, the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

In total, only eleven Southern states seceded from the Union, yet the Confederate flag bore 13 stars, which is a sacred Masonic number, covertly signalling to those who knew the truth, that the secession of the Southern states was motivated by the Knights Templar’s Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

President Lincoln’s inauguration was held on the 4th March 1861 but of all the appointments to his cabinet, he made one fatal error of judgement. He appointed the Freemason Edwin Stanton, Buchanan’s former Attorney General, as his Secretary of War. When Lincoln arrived at Washington to assume the Presidency, Freemasonry’s armed Knights of the Golden Circle were foiled by General Winfield Scott in their first of two attempts to assassinate Lincoln but Stanton would be implicated in the second and fatal attempt.

Albert Pike was also a part of the Ku Klux Klan, being the leader (or Grand Dragon) in Arkansas. After Lincoln’s assassination, in one of his first acts as President, fellow Freemason Andrew Johnson awarded the Supreme Master Mason a complete pardon for all his ‘war crimes.’ Pike went from hiding-out in Canada in fear for his life, to being accorded full Masonic rites in the White House, recognising his prowess in the occult. Johnson was, after all, a committed and enthusiastic Freemason and as such, he considered Albert Pike as his mentor in all things Freemasonic.

Pike was also said to be a Satanist who indulged in the occult and he allegedly possessed a bracelet which he used to summon Lucifer, with whom it was said, he had constant communication. He was the Grand Master of a Luciferian group known as the Order of the Palladium (or Sovereign Council of Wisdom,) which had been founded in Paris in 1737. ‘Palladism,’ as it was known, had been brought to Greece from Egypt by Pythagoras in the fifth century BC, and it was this cult of Satan that was introduced to the inner circle of the Masonic lodges. It was aligned with the Palladium of the Templars. In 1801, Hyman Isaac Long brought a statue of Baphomet (Satan) to Charleston, South Carolina, where he helped to establish the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Long apparently chose Charleston because it was geographically located on the 33rd parallel of latitude (33 being a sacred masonic number) and this council is considered to be the Mother Supreme Council of all Masonic Lodges of the World.

Albert Pike made his mark before the war in Arkansas as a lawyer and writer, but as a Confederate Brigadier General, he was, according to the Arkansas Democrat of 31st July 1978, a complete ‘wash-out,’ not a hero. Yet, Pike is the only Confederate general with a statue on Federal property in Washington, DC. He was honoured, not as a military commander or even as a lawyer, but as the Southern regional leader of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. His statue stands on a pedestal near the foot of Capitol Hill between the ‘Department of Labor’ building and the Municipal Building, between 3rd and 4th Streets, on D Street. As for Pike’s mentor, Guiseppe Mazzini, the founder of the ‘Mafia’ amongst all his other crimes against humanity, he has a bust statue in Central Park, New York City. Well, why not?

In 1871 Pike designed a plan for world conquest and wrote of it in a letter to Mazzini dated 15th August. In this letter he stated plainly that three future ‘world wars’ (a concept never considered before) would be instigated to prepare the people of the world for the New World Order. Albert Pike’s plan for the bankster-Illuminati was simple and effective. He wrote that Communism, National Socialism, Political Zionism and other International political movements would be organised and used to foment the three global wars and three major revolutions. How prophetic.

World War I was to be fought so as to enable the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and turn that country into a stronghold of atheistic Communism whilst the Bolshevik / Jewish, ‘Red’ forces attempted to destroy Christianity by murdering upwards of 50 million of its adherents. The differences stirred-up by the agents of the Illuminati between the British and German Empires were to be used to instigate this bloody war.

World War II was to be engendered using the differences between Fascists and political Zionists to great effect. It was a war to destroy Fascism, the deadly enemy of the Communist banksters and the power of political Zionism increased to enable the sovereign state of Israel to be established in Palestine. During World War II International Communism was to be bolstered until it equalled the strength of united Christendom at which point it was to be contained and kept in check until required for the final societal cataclysm to come. Can any informed person deny that Roosevelt and Churchill put this policy into effect thus resulting in the 45 years-long ‘Cold War’?

So according to Pike’s letter of 1871, World War III is yet to come before the banksters’ long-awaited and much-vaunted New World Order can come to pass. This is to be brought about by using the ‘differences’ between political Zionists and the leaders of the Muslim world. The war is to be directed in such a manner that Islam (the Arab World) and political Zionism (including the State of Israel) will destroy each other, whilst at the same time the remaining nations, once more divided against each other on this issue will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete physical, mental, spiritual and economical exhaustion.

Some may sanitise Pike’s ‘accomplishments’ and strongly deny and ridicule all this as absurd ‘conspiracy theory,’ in which case I would ask that they simply look at what is happening in the world right now. Those who aspire to undisputed world domination intend to provoke the greatest social cataclysm the world has ever known. I will let Pike’s words speak for themselves . . .

“We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most, bloody turmoil.”

Only the banksters plan their crimes decades in advance. Only the banksters, have the means, motive and opportunity to carry out these crimes and only the banksters can cover their own tracks afterwards.

I sincerely hope that we can all wake-up soon too these nefarious crimes . . . Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists alike, but more than anyone, the Jewish people, the ones in whose name this atrocity is being perpetrated . . .

Indeed, we ALL have to wake-up to the crimes against humanity of the Zionist banksters.

Chapter 3

The Bank that Robbed the World

The Mechanics of Bank and Mortgage Fraud

The premise of all bank/building society loans should be that the bank has a sum of money in reserve and therefore available to loan and assuming you qualify as a borrower, then the bank will loan you money as long as you contract to repay it plus a fee (interest.) In order to ensure that the bank does not lose its money, the banksters will ask for beneficial interest (ie. ownership) in your property which is used as collateral for the loan, until the contract is fulfilled (the loan is fully repaid.)

This is how most of us are led to believe that any bank loan/mortgage transaction works, but unfortunately this is untrue. It is pure fantasy in fact.

Firstly, the bank does not much care if you qualify, when you can offer tangible property as collateral because they know that they can simply foreclose on the property without having actually risked anything to acquire it, and this adds significantly to their ‘bottom line.’ But they promote and maintain the illusion that the borrower ‘qualifying’ for credit is important, because this conceals their real activities.

Secondly, once a potential borrower has been approved, nothing then happens until he signs a ‘promissory note,’ usual in the form of a loan application form and returns it to the bank/building society.

But, how does the bank actually reflect this ‘loan transaction’ in its books? The borrower’s note is deposited as an asset of the bank and is credited to the bank’s asset base but according to the rules of double-entry bookkeeping, the bank must now also enter a debit entry to offset its credit entry thus ‘zero-ising’ the transaction. The account being debited is the bank’s own ‘chequing account,’ or demand deposit account and in bookkeeping terms a debit is a liability. (Remember this important point, I will return to it shortly.)

Then, what the bank actually does is to deposit this ‘promissory note’ as ‘money’ on its books and they then transfer this ‘money’ into the bank’s own account as if it were their own and they do so without the customer’s permission. It is from this chequing (demand deposit) account that the bank then transfers the loan to the borrower. This is palpably fraud and common criminal conversion.

As stated before, a debit is a liability and the ‘money’ deposited into the bank’s chequing account was a debit and therefore a liability and yet the bank then credits the borrower from that account. But if a debit is a liability and the borrowers account is credited from that debit account, then what the bank actually loaned them is a liability from the debit side of the double-entry ledger, and not an asset! This is all facilitated by the creation of money from nothing.

The next thing to recognise, is the fact that the bank deposits the borrowers’ note as ‘money’ on its books. They transfer that same ‘money’ to another account and then return it to the borrower in the form of a bank transfer.

But, when we borrow money, do we not assume that we are borrowing the bank’s money and not our own? We do indeed, but we are wrong, very wrong. We are being deceived. Not only are we being hoodwinked with deceptive and misleading advertising . . . ‘Mortgages available here,’ but they are also accruing interest from loaning a borrower his own money and forcing him to risk his own collateral for the privilege!

But, I hear you exclaim, ‘ . . . this cannot be true. Our governments would never allow this fraud to continue.’ Unfortunately you would be wrong. This scam has been perpetuated for centuries, with no legal or governmental interference whatsoever.

In fact, the Federal Reserve, representative of ALL banksters, tells us bluntly and unashamedly how this fraud works in their own publication entitled, ‘Modern Money Mechanics,’ which is still (at the time of writing,) available online, here . . .

http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

They have no shame at all about their banking practices, knowing that not even the badly mis-informed or complicit, professional economists will question their methods, as is exhibited by the following excerpts from that publication . . .

“What Makes Money Valuable? In the United States, neither paper currency nor checking and savings deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal but generally far less than their face value.

What then makes these instruments — checks, paper money, and coins acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary use? Mainly it’s the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and for real goods and services wherever they choose to do so.”

And it gets even worse . . .

“Who Creates Money? Bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promise to pay (liability in the form of a check [cheque] from a debit ‘DDA’ account) or bank notes (Federal Reserve Note) to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.”

Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes and it was a small step only from the printing of notes to making book entries crediting the deposits of borrowers to the bank’s own accounts and which in turn could be ‘lent’ back to the borrowers, thereby in effect, printing their own money.

So, the Federal Reserve admits openly that the borrower creates his own money by depositing his note with the bank, so they are in effect lending money that does not belong to them and indeed does not exist. That ‘money’ or ‘credit’ is actually only ‘created’ by the signature of the borrower on his / her loan agreement.

The Federal Reserve (on behalf of all banksters, everywhere,) also informs us that the banksters make loans by giving their promise to the borrower (liability.) But this promise can never be paid.

The banksters make a transfer or write a cheque to the ‘borrower’ which can only be cashed in their own, worthless paper money, but paper money, one-dollar bills, five-pound notes etc. is nothing more than a promise to pay, in effect meaning that a bankster’s promise to pay is only redeemable by the bankster’s promises to pay. Paper money is no longer redeemable in anything of value by any bank so all we can expect from them is a promise to pay — which of course never does get paid — a liability that is passed-on but never settled.

The borrower assigns his property, a tangible asset of value as collateral to the banksters and signs a contract to pay the banksters back in assets, the hard earned fruits of his labour over many years, and all he receives in return is a liability. The banksters never had any money to loan the borrower in the first place, but instead loaned him money that he, himself had created . . . his own money! And then, in the case of a 30 year mortgage, the borrower is committed to paying the banksters three times the amount he loaned to himself. Where is the banksters’ risk? What did the bankster do to earn 30 years of his labour? What did the bankster do to earn the right to steal the house from his family if he is made redundant, after making the ‘loan’ repayments faithfully for twenty years but is now temporarily unable to continue? Nothing at all.

Now let’s examine this quote from ‘Modern Money Mechanics’ . . . “ . . . only a portion of those notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time.”

This is absolutely false and misleading. The banksters now are dealing in banknotes which are non-redeemable, period. If you do not believe this, try taking one into any bank anywhere and ask them to redeem your £10 note / $10 biII. All you will be offered in exchange is more notes/bills or equally worthless coins representing the same value. Originally ‘one pound’ represented one pound of silver (sterling) but now one pound is only worth whatever the banksters themselves, deem it to be worth.

Ever thought you may be in the wrong business? The banksters have perfectly ‘legal’ liens on everyone’s property, homes, cars, incomes etc., without ever having to risk a penny of their own and better still they know that their worthless bank notes can never be redeemed for anything of substance either! You or I would quickly be behind bars, sewing mailbags if we tried to promulgate this scam of all scams

And this one . . . “ . . . it was a small step from printing notes to making book entries.” Money is nothing more than bookkeeping entries made by the banksters after they lock-in the borrower’s collateral and promise to pay. They know that since they only created the principal amount of the loan in new ‘money’ and the money to pay the interest on all of their loans is never created. Then, by simple mathematics some people are guaranteed to renege on loan repayments and thereby will they acquire their collateral, the borrower’s property, free and clear through foreclosure.

Since the borrower is, in effect printing (figuratively speaking) and borrowing his own money, the banksters are nothing more than paper-shufflers who will collect their collateral without risk on their part.

So, if a borrower actually creates money via his promissory note, that is, his signature on a mortgage agreement, could he not discharge his liability with another note, which is the current medium of exchange? In fact, this has been done in a few instances, but the banksters in collusion with their friends in the court and legal systems, have now put steps in place to counter this in every possible way, using their immense wealth to facilitate the blocking of these activities as per my comments in the ‘Foreword’ to this book.

To couch this in simplistic terms, as I know that when this information is encountered for the first time, it can be difficult to grasp, imagine firstly that the bank has a ‘pot’ of £10,000,000 available to ‘lend’ as mortgages.

Upon the customer signing a mortgage agreement for say, a loan of £100,000, one would assume that this sum is deducted from the pot total, leaving a balance of £9,900,000. Correct?

Wrong. That £100,000 is actually added to the total using their creative, fraudulent bookkeeping methods whilst also taking advantage of the fact that they are able to ‘create’ money at will in this manner. So, the bottom line is that not only is bank enriched by the capital sum of £100,000, they are also made considerably more rich by the accrual of all the interest pertaining to the ‘loan’ of that capital sum which usually amounts to at least three times the original sum.

Not only does the bank benefit to the tune of around £400,000, even if you fail to pay it cannot lose, because it also has a lien on your property and would not hesitate to use the bought-and-paid-for court system to ‘steal’ that property, should any individual renege on his payments at any time during the term.

Put another even more simple way, this process requires exactly the same set of bookkeeping entries that would occur in the event of a burglar stealing your property and then returning that stolen property back to you, and claiming it to be a ‘loan’ and you then being legally obligated to repay both the principal and interest accrued, to the thief.

All banksters should be charged, arrested and tried for these crimes; and banks’ boards of directors should be the co-defendants in a civil, class-action suit brought by every homeowner that has ever been drawn into this fraudulent financial trap.

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centres has owned the government of the US since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written 21st November 1933 to Colonel E. Mandel House

But it gets even worse, much worse. The above is only the platform upon which the real, heinous crimes can begin . . .

The Kingdom of the Banksters

The banksters continue to view humanity as just another natural resource to be exploited. What we are spoon-fed by our educational and legal institutions, what we are shown on TV and in the newspapers, that no one is above the law, that good always triumphs over evil — well, this simply does not apply to the banksters. Through their immense, unlimited wealth, they own the law. They appoint the judges, the prosecutors AND defenders, they even own the police AND they get to lie about it all in the history books.

The Rothschilds and their bankster friends waited, albeit impatiently, a long time to permanently re-establish a central bank in the United States. It took decades to install their ‘friendly’ politicians and key figures in place, in order to create the right circumstances for the banksters to really start making obscene profits from the people, the trusting, ignorant masses, whom they hold in such high contempt. Having totally engineered earlier stock market collapses, and bank panics such as the one in 1907, the banksters firstly created the PROBLEM, they watched the public and political REACTION and subtly instigated the call for banking reform and regulation, and then they were in position to present the SOLUTION, their desired solution. Another example of the Hegelian Dialectic used to perfection once again. Why change a successful formula?

On the evening of 22nd November 1910, a group of newspaper reporters stood disconsolately in the persistent rain at the railway station at Hoboken, New Jersey. They had just watched a delegation of the nation’s leading financiers leave the station on a secret mission but it would be several years before they discovered what that mission was, and even then they would not understand that the history of the United States had undergone such a dramatic change after that miserable night in Hoboken. Many, the majority in fact, still do not.

The delegation had left in a sealed, private railway carriage, with blinds drawn, for an undisclosed destination, led by the Republican Senator for Rhode Island, Nelson Aldrich, head of the National Monetary Commission.

The banksters’ ‘puppet,’ President Theodore Roosevelt as directed, had signed into law the bill creating the National Monetary Commission in 1908, after the tragic Panic of 1907 had resulted in a bankster-induced public outcry that the nation’s monetary system be ‘stabilised.’ Aldrich had led the members of the Commission on a two-year tour of Europe, spending some three hundred thousand dollars of public money but he had not yet made a report on the results of this trip, nor had he proffered any plan for banking reform.

Accompanying Senator Aldrich at the Hoboken train station were his private secretary, Shelton, A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and Special Assistant of the National Monetary Commission, Frank Vanderlip, Rockefeller’s personal representative and president of the Rockefeller’s National City Bank of New York, Henry P. Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company and generally regarded as Morgan’s personal emissary, and Charles D. Norton, president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York. Joining the group just before the train left the station were Benjamin Strong, also known to be a ‘lieutenant’ of J.P. Morgan and Paul Warburg, a recent immigrant from Germany who had joined the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, representing the Rothschilds of Europe.

The Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and the J.P. Morgan bankster-interests, although they competed with each other, often acted in unison when it was in their best and certainly most profitable interest to do so.

Six years later, a financial writer named Bertie Charles Forbes (who later founded Forbes Magazine), wrote:

“Picture a party of the nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hurrying hundreds of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written . . .

The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set, New York’s ubiquitous reporters had been foiled . . . Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry . . . Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man, has made the system possible as a working reality.”

Aldrich’s private carriage, which had left Hoboken station with its shades drawn, had actually taken the financiers to Jekyll Island, Georgia which some years earlier, a very exclusive group of millionaires, led by JP Morgan, had purchased as a winter retreat.

They called themselves the Jekyll Island Hunt Club and at first the island was used only for hunting expeditions, until the millionaires realised that its pleasant climate offered a warm retreat from the rigours of New York winters and began to build huge mansions which they euphemistically referred to as ‘cottages,’ for their families’ winter vacations. The club building itself, being quite isolated, was sometimes in demand for parties and certain other secret pursuits unrelated to hunting. On such occasions, the club members who were not invited to these specific events were asked not to attend for a certain number of days. Before Nelson Aldrich’s party had left New York, the club’s members had been notified that the club would be ‘occupied’ and therefore ‘out of bounds’ for the next two weeks.The Jekyll Island Club was chosen as the place to draft the plan for the banksters’ usurpation of the control of the money and credit of the United States not simply because of its idyllic isolation and climate, but also because it was the private preserve of the people who were drafting the plan.

The New York Times later noted, on 3rd May 1931, in commenting on the death of George F. Baker, one of JP Morgan’s closest associates that “The Jekyll Island Club has lost one of its most distinguished members. One-sixth of the total wealth of the world is represented by the members of the Jekyll Island Club.” Membership was strictly by inheritance only.

However, the Aldrich group had no interest whatsoever in hunting, on this particular occasion. Jekyll Island was chosen for the site of the preparation of the proposed new Central bank because it offered complete privacy and also because there were no snooping journalists within fifty miles. Such was the need for secrecy that the members of the party agreed before arriving at Jekyll Island, that no last names would be used at any time during their two week stay. The group later referred to themselves as the First Name Club, as the names Warburg, Strong, Vanderlip and the others were prohibited during their stay as being instantly recognisable. The regular club attendees had been given two-week vacations from the club and servants who did not know the names of any of those present were shipped-in from the mainland for the duration. Even had they been interrogated after the Aldrich party departed back to New York, they could not have given their names to any nosy reporters.

So why all the secrecy? Why the two thousand mile round trip in a secluded carriage to a remote hunting club? Ostensibly, it was to initiate a programme of public service, to prepare banking reform which would be a blessing to the people of the United States, as ordered by the National Monetary Commission. The participants were no strangers to public benefaction and usually, their names were inscribed on brass plaques, or on the exteriors of buildings which they had sponsored. This was all contrary to the procedure they followed at Jekyll Island. No brass plaque was ever erected to mark the ‘selfless’ actions of those who met at their private hunting club in 1910 to ostensibly, ‘improve the lot of every citizen of the United States.’

In fact, nothing beneficial to the nation or its people took place at Jekyll Island, whatsoever. The Aldrich group journeyed there in private to compose the banking and currency legislation which the National Monetary Commission had been ordered to prepare in public. At stake was the future control of the money and credit of the United States and if any genuine monetary reform had been prepared and presented to Congress, it would have immediately ended the power of the elitist one-world money-creators — the banksters. But in fact, the Jekyll Island meeting ensured that a central bank would be established in the United States and thus provide the banksters with everything they had always wanted.

As the most technically proficient of those present, Paul Warburg was charged with the actual drafting of the plan. His work would then be discussed and reviewed by the rest of the group. Senator Nelson Aldrich was present to ensure that the completed plan would appear in a form that would be guaranteed to be approved by Congress and the other bankers were there to include whatever details would be needed to make certain that they got their share of everything they wanted too, in a finished draft composed during a one-off stay. They well knew that after they returned to New York, there would be no further opportunity to rework their plan and they could not hope to obtain such secrecy of action on a second trip to Jekyll Island.

The infamous ‘Federal Reserve room’ Jekyll Island Hotel

The Jekyll Island group remained at the club for nine full days, working furiously to complete their dirty task. Despite the common interests of those present, the work did not proceed without friction. Senator Aldrich, a domineering character, became the self-appointed leader of the group and could not restrain himself from ordering the others around. Aldrich also felt somewhat out of place as the only member of the group who was not a professional banker. He had enjoyed substantial banking interests throughout his career, but only as an individual who had profited from the ownership of bank stocks. He knew very little about the technical aspects of financial operations.

His opposite number, Paul Warburg, believed that every question raised by the group demanded, not merely an answer, but a lecture. He rarely lost an opportunity to give the members a long discourse designed to impress them with the extent of his knowledge of banking. This was much resented by the others and often drew barbed remarks from Aldrich. It was only the natural diplomacy of Henry P. Davison that proved to be the catalyst which kept them cohesive. Warburg’s strong German accent irritated them intensely but they knew they had to accept his presence if a central bank plan was to be devised which would guarantee them their riches beyond all wildest dreams. Warburg himself made little effort to assuage their prejudices and confronted them on every possible occasion on technical banking questions, which he considered his private preserve.

The ‘Monetary Reform Plan,’ later to become the ‘Aldrich Plan,’ prepared at Jekyll Island was to be presented to Congress as the completed work of the National Monetary Commission. It was imperative that the real authors of the bill remain hidden.

So great was popular resentment against bankers since the Panic of 1907 that no Congressman would dare to vote for a bill with any connection whatsoever to the banking industry, so the Jekyll Island plan was a central bank plan disguised as a government initiative due also to the fact that in America there was a long tradition of opposition to the imposing of a central bank on the American people. This had all begun with Thomas Jefferson’s fight against Alexander Hamilton’s scheme for the First Bank of the United States, backed by James Rothschild and had continued with Andrew Jackson’s successful war against Alexander Hamilton’s scheme for the Second Bank of the United States, in which Nicholas Biddle was acting as the agent for James Rothschild of Paris. The result of that struggle was the creation of the Independent Sub-Treasury System, which supposedly had served to keep the funds of the United States (and its people,) well away from the clutches of the banksters.

A serious study of the panics of 1873, 1893 and 1907 indicated that these panics were the result of the international banksters’ machinations in London. The public was demanding in 1908 that Congress enact legislation to prevent the recurrence of artificially induced money panics and such monetary reform now seemed inevitable. It was in order to control such reform that the National Monetary Commission had been set-up with Nelson Aldrich at its head, since he was majority leader of the Senate.

However, the main problem, as Paul Warburg informed his colleagues, was to avoid the label of ‘central bank,’ which would no doubt raise the suspicions and antagonisms of the public and politicians alike. For that very reason, he had decided upon the designation of ‘Federal Reserve System’ which ought to be sufficient to deceive the people into thinking it was not a central bank, but one under the absolute control of the Federal authorities. But regardless of this, the Jekyll Island plan certainly would be a central bank in all but name, fulfilling all the usual functions of a central bank and would also be owned by private individuals who would profit from ownership of shares. Finally, as an ‘issuing’ bank, it would also control all the nation’s money and credit.

Although a major player in German finance, after frequent business trips to New York, Warburg settled there in 1902 as a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co., where the influential Jacob Schiff, his wife’s brother-in-law, was senior partner. Warburg remained a partner in the family firm in Hamburg, but he became a naturalised American citizen in 1911. His salary was purportedly $500,000 per annum from the Rothschild-owned Kuhn, Loeb & Co, where his primary function was to lobby for the creation of the central bank.

Paul’s brother, Max was the financial advisor to Kaiser Wilhelm prior to World War I and was also director of the Reichsbank, the central bank of Germany.

So, in order to impose the so-called Aldrich Plan upon a highly sceptical public, the banksters centred on the Rockefeller-Morgan-Rothschild nexus and mobilised their considerable combined resources in order to inculcate it into the American consciousness. Leading this propaganda onslaught were the national banks, which collectively contributed five million dollars to a ‘fighting fund’ to be used to persuade the American public that the plan for a central bank was in their best interests and should definitely be enacted into law by Congress.

Moreover, three of the leading American universities, Princeton, Harvard plus the University of Chicago and certain academics of standing, teaching therein, were used as the rallying points and apologists for this propaganda. Most notable of them all perhaps, was Woodrow Wilson, former president of Princeton University, governor of New Jersey and future President of the United States. The plotters used a large portion of the five million dollar ‘slush fund’ in their lobby group known as the National Citizens’ League and composed of college professors of whom Professor O.M. Sprague of Harvard and J. Laurence Laughlin of the University of Chicago proved the most tireless propagandists for the insidious Aldrich Plan.

Further emphasis was placed upon the spurious assertion in the Plan that it contained a reform of the nation’s monetary system as well as providing stability for the US currency by taking control of it away from the banksters. Of course, the reality was quite the reverse. The Aldrich Plan was written by the banksters, for the banksters, whose primary aim was the consolidation of their control over US currency and credit and the gargantuan, obscene profits that that would realise. But this reality was carefully concealed from the public and unwary politicians, and those who were perceived as a threat in any way to the Plan’s enactment into law were berated, threatened, blackmailed or maybe worst of all, simply ignored.

There were many dissenting voices raised against the plan and its grave implications for America and her people. For instance, Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., the father of the famous flyer and Congressman for 6th District of Minnesota (1907-1917), who also opposed the US entry into World War I, was an arch opponent of the Federal Reserve System.

In his testimony before the Committee on Rules on 15th December 1911, after the Aldrich Plan had been introduced in Congress, Lindbergh stated . . .

“Our financial system is a false one and a huge burden on the people . . . I have alleged that there is a Money Trust. The Aldrich plan is a scheme plainly in the interest of the Trust . . . Why does the Money Trust press so hard for the Aldrich Plan now, before the people know what the money trust has been doing? . . . The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It is a broad challenge to the Government by the champion of the Money Trust. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the Government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead. It was by a very clever move that the National Monetary Commission was created. In 1907 nature responded most beautifully and gave this country the most bountiful crop it had ever had.

Other industries were busy too, and from a natural standpoint all the conditions were right for a most prosperous year. Instead, a panic entailed enormous losses upon us. Wall Street knew the American people were demanding a remedy against the recurrence of such a ridiculously unnatural condition. Most Senators and Representatives fell into the Wall Street trap and passed the Aldrich Vreeland Emergency Currency Bill. But the real purpose was to get a monetary commission which would frame a proposition for amendments to our currency and banking laws which would suit the Money Trust. The interests are now busy everywhere educating the people in favour of the Aldrich Plan. It is reported that a large sum of money has been raised for this purpose. Wall Street speculation brought on the Panic of 1907. The depositors’ funds were loaned to gamblers and anybody the Money Trust wanted to favour. Then when the depositors wanted their money, the banks did not have it. That made the panic.”

Strong criticism of the Aldrich Bill was also evident in testimony given during the House Banking and Currency Committee of the American Bankers Association under the chairmanship of Carter Glass. Glass was a lifelong Democrat and served in the US House of Representatives (1902 — 18,) where his most notable contribution was helping to compose and sponsor the Federal Reserve Act via his chairmanship of said House Banking and Currency Committee. For example, Andrew Frame who represented a group of Western bankers who opposed the Aldrich Plan, testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee of the American Bankers Association, having exposed the connivance of the schemers and plotters behind the Aldrich Plan, to have it scurrilously endorsed in 1911 by the American Bankers Association but which in 1912 did not even dare to have the Association “reiterate its endorsement of the plan of the National Monetary Commission” for fear of an honest and open discussion exposing its patently treasonous nature.

Another dissenting voice giving testimony to this committee was Leslie Shaw, a banker from Philadelphia. Shaw was especially aggrieved by the question of the supposed ‘decentralisation’ of the proposed System . . .

“Under the Aldrich Plan the bankers are to have local associations and district associations, and when you have a local organisation, the centred control is assured. Suppose we have a local association in Indianapolis; can you not name the three men who will dominate that association? And then can you not name the one man everywhere else. When you have hooked the banks together, they can have the biggest influence of anything in this country, with the exception of the newspapers.”

Chairman Carter Glass’s House Report in 1913 was not only critical of Aldrich and the Bill bearing his name but of the process involved in its supposed drafting and the role (or lack of one) played by the National Monetary Commission.

Glass’s dismay is obvious in this statement . . .

“Senator MacVeagh fixes the cost of the National Monetary Commission to May 12, 1911 at $207,130. They have since spent another hundred thousand dollars of the taxpayer’s money. The work done at such cost cannot be ignored, but, having examined the extensive literature published by the Commission, the Banking and Currency Committee finds little that bears upon the present state of the credit market of the United States. We object to the Aldrich Bill on the following points: Its entire lack of adequate government or public control of the banking mechanism it sets up; It’s tendency to throw voting control into the hands of the large banks of the system; The extreme danger of inflation of currency inherent in the system; The insincerity of the bond-funding plan provided for by the measure, there being a bare-faced pretence that this system was to cost the government nothing; The dangerous monopolistic aspects of the bill; Our Committee at the outset of its work was met by a well-defined sentiment in favour of a central bank which was the manifest outgrowth of the work that had been done by the National Monetary Commission.”

The Aldrich Plan was never voted upon in Congress because its sponsors, Aldrich and his Republicans lost control of the House in 1910, then the Senate and ultimately the Presidency in 1912. However, although the animosity of Glass and his committee towards the Aldrich Plan was predicated upon their professed dislike of central banking and all it involves, Glass was all the while promulgating his own Bill, the Federal Reserve Act. This was an Act that would not only satisfy all Aldrich and his secret backers’ requirements but also give such powers to a centralised authority that would fulfil all the functions of a central bank. Thus, although Congress had rejected Aldrich it would consent to Glass’s Federal Reserve Act and thereby condemn America and its people to the consequences of the whims and scheming of international financiers, via their control of the central bank of United States.

However, there were a number of other powerful men who were also not in favour of the proposed Aldrich / Glass bankster Federal Reserve Banking System. Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus and John Jacob Astor were the most prominent among those who opposed the formation of this abomination. They were amongst the richest men in the world, but their money was accrued through industrial, retail and leisure interests, rather than through the financial sector and they stood firmly in the way of Glass and Aldrich.

Benjamin Guggenheim (1865-1912) was born in Philadelphia as the fifth of the seven sons of the wealthy Meyer Guggenheim. When Benjamin was twenty, he began managing the family’s silver-mining operation in Leadville, Colorado, where he acquired his nickname the ‘Silver Prince.’ Whilst in Leadville, Guggenheim first saw the great potential of the smelting industry and with his family’s backing, built the first smelting plant in Pueblo, Colorado and established the Philadelphia Smelting and Refining Company.

Benjamin Guggenheim John Jacob Astor IV Isidor Straus and wife, Ida

Following the first plant’s enormous success, several more plants were built in locations around the United States. The company’s mining and smelting silver, lead, and copper proved profitable and became the focus of the Guggenheim family’s business. He and the rest of his family were made incredibly wealthy by the success of the company and at the time of his death, Guggenheim was estimated to be worth around $95,000,000.

Isidor Straus (1845-1912) was a German born, prominent New York businessman. During the American Civil War he worked in his father Lazarus’ store for about 18 months whilst his father’s business partner served in the Confederate, 4th Georgia Regiment. When his father’s partner returned from the war, discharged owing to physical disability, Straus became the secretary to a foreign group whose intention was to import cotton to Europe. It was proposed that the proceeds would be used to build blockade-running ships but although Straus travelled to Europe, the enterprise never really got off the ground. In fact he remained in Europe for the remainder of the war and returned to the United States with $12,000 in gold he’d earned, trading in Confederate bonds.

Following the war, the Straus family moved to New York City where Lazarus and Isidor formed L. Straus & Son, importers of crockery, china and porcelain. In 1874 his brother Nathan, who by then had completed his education and joined the family firm, convinced Rowland Hussey Macy to allow L. Straus & Sons to open a crockery department in the basement of his store under licence. In 1895, the Strauss brothers purchased R.H. Macy & Co, and renamed it simply, ‘Macy’s.’

John Jacob Astor IV (1866-1912) was the great-grandson of the John Jacob Astor who came to New York in the 18th century and made a fortune in beaver pelts and opium. Astor IV (commonly known as ‘Jack’) was a talented writer, writing amongst other things, A Journey in Other Worlds, an 1894 science fiction novel about life in the year 2000 on the planets Saturn and Jupiter.

Astor was also a lieutenant-colonel during the Spanish-American War and a prolific inventor. He patented several inventions, including a bicycle brake in 1898, a ‘vibratory disintegrator’ used to produce gas from peat moss, a pneumatic ‘road — improver’ and helped develop a turbine engine. In addition, Astor made millions in real estate and in 1897, built the Astoria Hotel which adjoined Astor’s cousin, William Waldorf Astor’s, Waldorf Hotel in New York City. The complex subsequently became known as the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. He was also the creator of the Astor Theater.

With a net worth of well over $85 million, three times that of JP Morgan, Astor was commonly regarded as ‘the wealthiest man in the world,’ thanks to the Rothschilds and their bankster cohorts always ensuring that their wealth is NEVER, ever disclosed on any rich list, or even having their names mentioned.

Whilst at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago, John Jacob Astor met a fellow exhibitor and inventor by the name of Nikola Tesla. For those not familiar with the name, Tesla was the absolute genius where electricity was concerned. He was the inventor of the alternating current, power system in use all over the world today and his discovery of the rotating magnetic field was almost as revolutionary as the Morse telegraph. He truly electrified the world.

Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

In 1884, as a poor Serbian immigrant, he arrived in the United States and although he was poor in terms of money and possessions he was certainly rich in ideas. Ideas that would eventually light up the United States . . . and indeed the entire world.

At this time, the most famous inventor in the world was Thomas Alva Edison—the so-called ‘Wizard of Menlo Park.’ Edison was credited with the invention of the DC dynamo and the electric light bulb, but the only thing he ever really invented was the electric chair. Edison was fixed firmly in the direct current (DC) camp and would not consider any other system at all. DC had very severe limitations and was totally impractical for long distance electrical transmission.

Almost immediately after entering the US, Tesla went to work for Edison. Edison was totally unaware of the great benefits of AC until Tesla showed him plans for his induction motor. Edison’s DC system was extremely unwieldy and only worked over very short distances but Edison and his boss JP Morgan (yes, the banksters control technology too,) completely rejected this revolutionary invention.

Edison set him to work fixing the many problems with DC dynamos. Tesla had remarkable mechanical and electrical ability, and Edison promised him $50,000 if he could fix a particularly perplexing problem with his dynamo. Tesla worked for many months and finally the problem was solved but Edison reneged on his promise to pay him for all his hard work, resulting in Tesla leaving the Edison Company in anger and disgust.

“For a paltry few thousand dollars they lost not only a man who would have saved them many times that amount each year, but they also lost an opportunity to obtain world control of the greatest and most profitable electrical invention ever made.” O’ Neill, Prodigal Genius, p. 58

After leaving the Edison Company, Tesla had to work as a manual labourer for a year, ironically digging the streets of New York to lay Edison’s cables. This was the worst time of his life as a poor man in a strange land but he was befriended by the foreman of his work-gang who persuaded him to form his own company. In spite of all the advantages of the AC system, Edison still refused to acknowledge its superiority and eventually inventor George Westinghouse of Pittsburgh came to Tesla’s rescue. At this time, Edison and his boss Morgan sulked like spoilt children and began what became known in history as the War of the Currents or the battles between AC and DC.

George Westinghouse (1846-1914)

By 1886, the Westinghouse Company was one of the biggest and most successful in the entire world. Westinghouse was a Protestant, Christian gentleman and totally dissimilar to the robber barons of that era. His employees shared in the success of his company and he believed in doing his good works in secret and many charities throughout the country were helped by his generosity.

He offered to buy all the AC patents from Tesla for the staggering sum of $1m and royalties of $1.00 per horsepower of electricity produced. Unlike Edison, George Westinghouse was a man of his word and paid Tesla this staggering sum for all his AC patents. So favourably impressed was Westinghouse that he decided to act quickly. The story was related to author and close friend John O’Neill by Tesla . . .

“‘I will give you one million dollars cash for your alternating current patents, plus royalty,’ Westinghouse blurted at the startled Tesla. This tall, suave gentleman, however, gave no outward sign that he had almost been bowled over by surprise.

‘If you will make the royalty one dollar per horsepower, I will accept the offer,’ Tesla replied. ‘A million cash, a dollar a horsepower royalty,’ Westinghouse repeated.

‘That is acceptable,’ said Tesla.

‘Sold,’ said Westinghouse.

‘You will receive a check and a contract in a few days.’ Here was a case of two great men, each possessed with the power of seeing visions of the future on a gigantic panorama, and each with complete faith in the other, arranging a tremendous transaction with utter disregard of details.” O’Neill, Prodigal Genius, pp. 74-75

Edison’s decision to inflict alternating current upon the world put George Westinghouse and Tesla on a collision course with both Morgan and Edison and no dirty trick was beneath that pair in their attempts to ruin Westinghouse and Tesla.

Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

In 1895, the Westinghouse Company and Nicola Tesla built the first hydro-electric alternating current system at Niagara Falls. Tesla was determined that the awesome power of the falls should be harnessed to the awesome power of poly-phase alternating current and without using a single drawing, Tesla was able to work out the whole plan of electrification in his head. Everything worked perfectly the first time, but Tesla was determined to take it one dramatic step further and transmit electricity without cumbersome and unsightly wires.

It was also that year Tesla’s laboratory in New York City was very suspiciously, totally destroyed by fire and a lifetime of priceless inventions were destroyed. Tesla usually worked through the night, but that particular night he was not in his office and so miraculously escaped death.

By 1897, the War of the Currents between Westinghouse and Edison had continued to escalate. Mergers had taken place between JP Morgan and Rockefeller-controlled companies such as Thomson-Houston and Edison General Electric to form the present day General Electric Company. This new General Electric Company tried to take-over Westinghouse and force them to abandon AC. They also insisted that Westinghouse stop paying royalties to Tesla.

“One of the requirements was that Westinghouse, get rid of the contract with Tesla calling for royalty payments of $1.00 per horsepower on all alternating current articles sold under his patents. Financial advisers pointed out that if the business which Westinghouse expected the company would do under the Tesla patents in the ensuing year was anywhere near as great as estimated, the amount to be paid out under this contract would be tremendous, totalling millions of dollars; and this, at the time of reorganisation, appeared a dangerous burden, imperilling the ability which they were trying to attain for the new organization. Westinghouse strenuously objected to the procedure. This patent-royalty payment, he insisted, was in accordance with usual procedures and would not be a burden on the company, as it was included in costs of production, was paid for by the customers, and did not come out of the company’s earnings. Westinghouse, himself an inventor of first magnitude, had a strong sense of justice in his dealings with inventors.” O’Neill, Prodigal Genius, p. 79

By cheating him out of millions in royalty payments, Morgan and Rockefeller placed a financial ‘squeeze’ on the great inventor. Tesla had already lost a fortune because of the arson to his laboratory and now he was too short of cash to perfect his latest inventions. The arsonists could certainly hamper him financially, but they could never stop the torrent of new inventions that kept-on flowing from his fertile brain.

At the beginning of 1900, Tesla was extremely optimistic that he would be able to give the world wireless transmission of electricity and data. Unfortunately, that was not to be the case, Tesla was virtually penniless from losing his royalties on his AC patents and he had to approach his arch enemy JP Morgan for funding.

“Morgan made inquiries of Tesla concerning his financial structure. There were, in those days, a limited number of strong financial groups who were playing a terrestrial game of chess with the world’s economic resources; the discoveries of a genius like Tesla might well have a profound effect on the destinies of one or more of these groups, and it would be well for an operator in this field to know more of the inventor’s commitments. Undoubtedly, it was a source of surprise and satisfaction to Morgan when he learned that Tesla was a lone operator and now entirely without funds needed to carry on his researches.” O’Neill, Prodigal Genius, p. 197

Morgan and his Rothschild backers at the Bank of England realised the deadly military possibilities of using electricity as a weapon and Tesla had already discussed the possibility of using electricity to bring rainfall to the desert areas of the planet. A ‘weather weapon’ is the most diabolically clever of all methods of warfare because no-one can ever prove that the weather is not a natural phenomenon. Meanwhile, Tesla lived at the Waldorf Astoria hotel and commuted daily to his laboratory in Manhattan. The hotel was owned by millionaire John Jacob Astor IV who was also a close friend and financier of Tesla.

The Waldorf-Astoria was the tallest hotel in the world and it was the permanent or temporary residence of some of the wealthiest and most eminent citizens of the day. Making his home there became a goal to which Tesla aspired and this he achieved in 1898 and he lived there for the next two decades.

“Col. John Jacob Astor, owner of the Waldorf Astoria, held his famous dining-room guest in the highest esteem as a personal friend, and kept in close touch with the progress of his investigations. When he heard that his researches were being halted through lack of funds, he made available to Tesla the $30,000 he needed in order to take advantage of Curtis’ offer and build a temporary plant at Colorado Springs. Tesla arrived in Colorado in May 1899, bringing with him some of his laboratory workers, and accompanied by an engineering associate, Fritz Lowenstein.” O’Neill, Prodigal Genius, p. 176

In 1899 in Pike’s Peak, Colorado, Tesla demonstrated the feasibility of safely transmitting electricity through the Earth without the use of wires (wireless electricity.) He chose Pike’s Peak because of its remote location and the availability of electricity from a local power station, however he was also to discover that tremendously destructive forces could be unleashed upon the Earth by means of uncontrolled electrical resonance.

According to the establishment/bankster-controlled history books, it was Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937) who discovered radio transmission. However in reality, it was Nikola Tesla’s patents and research that Marconi was using. Marconi was one of JP Morgan’s ‘stable’ of inventors, his company was the British Marconi Company and was financed and controlled totally by Morgan.

Marconi was deeply connected with the powerful dark forces of the British establishment, whereas Tesla was a dedicated, down-to-earth, honest and decent man who only wished to benefit mankind with his inventions. It was the Marconi Company that gained an exclusive contract, through bribery and insider-trading to set-up the British/bankster Empire’s wireless communication system. Marconi was ‘partnered’ with the British military-industrial complex, and it was during the Boer War of 1899-1901, that radio technology was successfully used for the first time.

As well as Marconi, Edison was also the consummate businessman, measuring the success of his patents based on the amount of money each made. Whilst Tesla was passionate about discovering and inventing new and revolutionary processes, he was first and foremost a scientist, not a businessman. Once he had discovered something worthwhile, he often lost interest and often did not even patent his breakthroughs, however he still managed to register more than 700 patents. When told that Marconi had done something amazing with radio transmission by sending the first trans-Atlantic message, Tesla replied, “Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using 17 of my patents.”

Many years later of course, radar was developed. It was ‘officially’ invented in 1935, but 18 years previously, Tesla had outlined how it would work. It was he who had originally pitched the idea to the US Navy, who turned it down out of hand. And who was head of Research and Development for the Navy at the time? Unsurprisingly, none other than Thomas Edison.

The official inventor of X-Rays was the German physicist Wilhelm Röntgen, but it was Tesla who also warned that they were extremely dangerous and who outlined the science years before Röntgen did.

And who built the first hydro-electric plant? Nikola Tesla. Who was the first person to record radio waves from outer space? Who invented remote control? Who invented neon lighting? All of those were Tesla’s inventions. He also formulated a scheme to provide free electricity for everyone, drawing it from the ionosphere but of course, JP Morgan was not too happy with that idea. Morgan had already developed a great business opportunity in generating electricity, metering and charging for it and as the use of electricity expanded exponentially during the early part of the twentieth century, so did Morgan’s profits.

But it was in John Jacob Astor, that Nikola Tesla had found the ideal financial backer and friend. Of course Astor was no saint, he was a hard-headed businessman and had divorced his wife for a girl young enough to be his daughter. But he was not a greedy, treacherous, psychopathic bloodsucker like Morgan, and was working diligently alongside Tesla to bring their ‘free electricity for all’ scheme to early fruition.

And so, with the struggle to establish the Federal Reserve Bank AND the free electricity project firmly in Morgan’s thoughts, John Jacob Astor, Benjamin Guggenheim and Isidor Straus, who had a combined wealth of well over $500 million and who were all strongly and vocally opposed to the creation of a central bank, were personally invited by Morgan to join him on the maiden voyage of his new state-of-the-art, luxurious, hailed as the world’s first ‘unsinkable’ ship . . . RMS Titanic

RMS Titanic

Maybe most of you can now guess the next part of the story, but there is more than enough compelling evidence to show that RMS Titanic was deliberately sunk by its owner JP Morgan and his Rothschild/bankster friends as part of an elaborate long-term plan that firstly required the eliminating of the main opposition to their central bank takeover of America’s money supply. In addition to that, there was another motive for Morgan, massive insurance fraud. The deaths, or rather murders of more than 1,500 of the ship’s passengers and crew, were all inconsequential to him, except of course for those of Guggenheim, Straus and Astor.

Only, where Astor was concerned, there was an additional motive, the elimination of Nikola Tesla’s independent financing and close friendship. Tesla’s revolutionary technological ideas and the possibility of future inventions that would greatly benefit mankind, rather than the banksters wallets, were conveniently, almost literally ‘sunk without trace’ along with the rest of the 46,000 ton ship.

Again, this is a question of suspension of cognitive dissonance, asking you to consider a possible, radical alternative to what our history books and Hollywood have always told us about Titanic sinking after a collision with that infamous iceberg. John Pierpont Morgan was in control of the British-based White Star shipping line as well as a significant portion of all American finance and commerce and in 1908, he took the decision to build a new, exclusive class of liners to enable the wealthy to cross the Atlantic in absolute luxury.

This class of ships was to be named the ‘Olympic’ class and so construction of the giant vessels, the ‘Olympic,’ the ‘Titanic’ and the ‘Britannic,’ began in 1909 at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland.

However, rather unfortunately for Morgan and his personal bank balance, this money-making venture stalled somewhat. The Olympic, the first one of the proposed three sister-ships to be completed was involved in a heavy collision with the British Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Hawke in September 1911 off the south coast of England, a few weeks after its maiden voyage and had to be extensively ‘patched-up’ before embarking on the return journey to Harland and Wolff’s shipyard in Belfast, Ireland in order to undergo full damage assessment and proper repair work. At this time, the only dry dock in the world large enough to take her was in Belfast.

It is worth noting at this point that although the Olympic was the first of the virtually identical triplet ‘sisters’ to be completed and enter service, she was never given the publicity, nor enjoyed the huge public acclaim that her younger sister enjoyed, the following year? Why would that be? Surely the big fanfare and carnival-like atmosphere surrounding the maiden voyage of these ‘floating wonders of the age’ should have been reserved for the first one to enter service, Olympic not the second one, Titanic? Indeed, in comparison, the occasion of Olympic’s maiden voyage in 1911 passed relatively quietly. Could the huge accolades and publicity accorded to Titanic’s maiden voyage, possibly have been part of this bankster conspiracy to entice the rich and famous, such as Guggenheim, Straus and Astor to her maiden voyage?

In the meantime a Royal Navy enquiry into the RMS Olympic accident, not unexpectedly, found the crew of the Olympic and thus the White Star Line culpable for the collision and this in effect meant that the White Star Line’s insurance was null and void and the company would therefore be liable to pay for all the costs of the repairs to BOTH ships themselves, despite the fact that it was patently obvious from the enquiry transcripts that it was the helmsman of HMS Hawke who bore all the guilt for the incident. But to make a long story short, this meant that White Star was out of pocket to the tune of at least $3.2 million for repairs and lost revenues whilst the ship was unable to ‘earn its keep.’

Obviously, the massive financial investment of the White Star Line (and Morgan) needed to be recouped as soon as possible and this therefore placed severe pressure on the organisation and impacted upon the final completion of the Titanic, further contributing to the financial black hole in which White Star now found itself increasingly being consumed.

However, for Morgan and White Star, even worse news was to come. The damage to the Olympic was far more severe than anyone had expected and the situation was even further exacerbated by the Olympic being involved in yet another incident involving a partially submerged wreck. Although the damage inflicted in the Hawke incident had been shored-up as well as it could have been, there were strong and persistent rumours circulating amongst the Harland and Wolff workforce and the White Star crews that all was not well with Olympic and this was confirmed beyond doubt when it lost a propeller blade in the above episode, causing further severe vibrational damage to the already damaged ship. I believe that the keel of the ship was actually twisted and therefore damaged beyond economic repair, which would have effectively meant a one-way trip to the breakers yard for her. As this was almost certainly the case, it is virtually certain that the White Star Line would have been bankrupted, given it’s by now, precarious financial situation.

“ . . . it took a fortnight [two weeks] of emergency patching to Olympic’s hull before she was in any fit state to attempt the journey from Southampton to Belfast for more complete repairs. Able to use only one main engine, the crippled liner made the voyage at an average speed of 10 knots, wasting the exhaust steam from the one usable engine. This steam would normally have driven the central turbine engine, which shows that this engine, its mountings or shafting had been damaged in the collision. As this engine sat on the centreline of the vessel, immediately above the keel, which the propeller shaft ran through, we can reasonably assume that the keel was damaged.” Robin Gardiner, ‘Titanic, the Ship that Never Sank?’

If Gardiner’s hypothesis is correct, then the seeds had been sown for a truly remarkable, yet little known event; the surreptitious switching of the identities of the two ships, Olympic and Titanic in order to facilitate massive insurance fraud and dispose of the Federal Reserve bill’s detractors and also the now worthless, virtual wreck RMS Olympic in the guise of its younger sister, Titanic.

Olympic left, Titanic right

Gardiner presents a long, well-researched series of credible testimonies, indisputable facts and evidence, both written and photographic, that would seem to point to the fact that the two ships were indeed switched with a view to staging an iceberg collision or other fatal event, with the Titanic (originally the Olympic) and many of its passengers and crew being sacrificed in an audacious insurance scam which would save White Star from financial ruin.

The alleged switch could have easily been accomplished over a weekend, with very little alteration. Even if some workers had realised what was going-on, none would dare risk losing their precious jobs in such depressed times and run the risk of never finding work in Belfast again. So secrecy would have been no problem, besides who would believe them, and what newspaper editor would dare ‘cross’ his bankster masters?

According to Gardner, “Almost two months after the Hawke/Olympic collision, the reconverted Titanic, now superficially identical to her sister except for the C deck portholes, quietly left Belfast for Southampton to begin a very successful 25 year career as the Olympic. Back in the builders’ yard, work progressed steadily on the battered hulk of Olympic. The decision to dispose of the damaged vessel would already have been taken. It must have been obvious from quite early on that the vessel was beyond economic repair, so these repairs need not have been quite as thorough as they otherwise might have been. Instead of replacing the damaged section of keel, longitudinal bulkheads were installed to brace it.”

How significant then in the light of this statement, that when the wreck of the Titanic was first investigated by Robert Ballard and his crew after its discovery in 1985, that the first explorations of the wreckage revealed (completely undocumented in the ships original blueprints) iron support structures in place, which appeared to be supporting and bracing the keel. This was never satisfactorily explained either at the time or subsequently but would certainly be significant if correct and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is not correct, as it was reported by the puzzled Ballard himself who of course at that time knew nothing about the alleged switching of the two ships’ identities.

Simply arranging for all three men to undergo separate ‘accidents’ would have appeared far too suspicious, so they decided to lure them to the same place at the same time and Titanic’s pre-determined, ill-fated maiden voyage was the ideal solution. The separate ‘accidental’ deaths of three such prominent men would have raised far too many questions and would have been far too risky to even contemplate as a possible solution to Morgan’s problems. There is little doubt in my mind that this was the real reason for all the ‘hype’ surrounding Titanic’s maiden voyage despite the fact that the Olympic was accorded a much less publicised or flamboyant ‘send-off’ on the 14th June 1911, even though she was after-all, the first of the ‘sisters’ off the production line.

Morgan himself also had a reservation to travel on the ship, but as was always intended, he had a ‘last minute change of plan’ due to a so-called ‘bout of ill health’ and significantly failed to show at Southampton at the appointed time and so his personal stateroom remained empty as the giant vessel pulled away from Southampton docks on the afternoon of the 10th April 1912, to the delight of the cheering crowds on the quayside.

Is it possibly also significant that Morgan ordered that an expensive collection of bronzes that he had purchased in Paris, should be unloaded from the ship at the last minute, too? And incidentally, Morgan was seen a few days later in his favourite French holiday resort, Aix les Bains, with his mistress, appearing to be in the best of health.

Another strange anomaly is that Titanic actually set sail on her maiden voyage only around half-full with 2,224 passengers, in the midst of a month-long coal strike in Britain that had in effect prevented 95% of scheduled Atlantic crossings taking place. Many applicants for first-class tickets were inexplicably only offered second-class cabins despite the fact that many first-class cabins remained empty, thus discouraging many would-be passengers from sailing.

And as is now well known and documented, there were not enough lifeboats for the full complement of passengers and crew and some of them left the ship as little as only one quarter full in any case and this fact could well have been used to its full advantage in the execution of Morgan’s master plan.

The Captain strangely ordered white flares to be launched, knowing full well that the international standard colour of distress flares was red. Titanic possessed a full complement of white, blue AND red flares. Other ships without wireless transmitters, passing within sight of these flares were intentionally confused and thought that maybe those aboard Titanic were having a fireworks party. This of course was also all part of the scheme.

The book and feature film of the same name most responsible for the ubiquitous Titanic myths prevalent today, published in the 1950s and the feature film of the same name, ‘A Night to Remember’ was published by Longmans, Green & Co, in 1955 and written by Walter Lord.

Lord was well-known to be a ‘former’ member of the US intelligence services (OSS and CIA) but given the fact that that anyone who has ever been a member of these organisations always in effect remains a member, can we really rely on his accounts or are they just more subterfuge amongst a morass of contradictory stories surrounding the event? What would motivate a ‘former’ member of one of the world’s elite security services to write a book about an accident involving an ocean liner, forty years previously? As always seems to be the modus operandus in any suspected ‘conspiracy,’ we are bombarded with these so-called ‘facts’ by the bankster controlled media, to such an extent that we believe that they cannot possibly be untrue or deliberately misleading.

However, many of the major Titanic ‘facts’ have subsequently been proven to be false but somehow the same version of the story still persists as the absolute de facto truth. Such is the power of propaganda on the human mind and significantly, symptomatic of the methodology by which most of our history is perverted.

“As I delved deeper into the story, more and more inconsistencies became apparent. Inconsistencies that individually meant little but collectively pointed to a grimmer reality than that usually depicted in the heroic legend. Officers who were later acclaimed as heroes were exposed as anything but. One in particular removed a little boy from a lifeboat at gunpoint, before escaping in that same boat himself. Descriptions of the collision and damage supposedly sustained by Titanic do not agree. The ‘slight scrape’ with the ice that was hardly noticed by most aboard contradicts solid evidence of structural damage at least 5½ feet within the outer hull of the vessel. Then came evidence to show that the ice the ship encountered was seen first not 500 yards ahead but more like 11 miles. I began to wonder if perhaps the sinking of the Titanic might not have been an accident after all.” Robin Gardner, ‘Titanic, the ship that never sank?’

Indeed, did Titanic actually strike an iceberg at all? We only have the eye-witness testimony of four people believe it or not, with which to confirm or deny this fact. First Officer Murdoch would have been the fifth witness but ‘fortunately’ for the perpetrators he did not live to tell his story. Is it not more than possible that the copious amounts of ice on the deck of Titanic reported by many survivors could easily have been the result of any collision dislodging the icy build-up on masts, funnels etc. or it could even have been easily shaken loose from the hundreds of yards of overhead rigging and wiring by the thrusting of the ships engines abruptly into reverse? It was after all, an extremely cold, still night with temperatures below freezing.

The point here is that there exist so many different reasons to believe that the official story is probably just an elaborate fabrication. Both the American and British official inquiries were even thought at the time to be pretty much ‘whitewashes,’ with much evidence either ignored and eye-witness testimonies being twisted or indeed fabricated to fit the ‘official’ story.

It is staggering also to report that of the 102 witnesses called to the British enquiry, only two were passengers (the influential Gordons of the famous London gin company) and it is even more surprising to learn that none of the witnesses (crew or passengers) were allowed to offer their own first-hand evidence of any kind and were strictly restricted to the simple answering of fixed, standard questions without elaboration. By any standards at all, this sounds very much like a ‘whitewash.’

The passage of time has also served to cloud the mystery still further and we should also note that amongst all the myriad of (probably) deliberately conflicting information unearthed by the two inquiries, the most puzzling of all is the situation regarding the ‘yellow-funnelled steamer’ observed in the proximity of Titanic by several officers and passengers at around the time of the incident and which has never been either identified or explained away at all. Significantly, this odd occurrence does not even warrant a mention in any surviving Titanic legends — very strange to say the least, despite its appearance in several contemporary newspapers. The crew of this ship (who or whatever she was) must have been aware that they were in the approximate area of the Titanic’s demise at the same time, so why did no-one from the ship come forward after the event to volunteer any evidence or information or simply to state that they had seen nothing significant, instead of disappearing into the mists of history forever? It also begs the question as to why no attempts were made to discover the identity of this ship either by the inquiries or subsequently by independent investigators. Even if attempts were made at the time, as far as I am able to tell, they have been very successfully covered-up and no evidence remains today.

Indeed, could this mysterious ‘yellow-funnelled’ vessel have been responsible for the devastating damage to Titanic in any way? I personally believe it is a very strong possibility and that the ‘iceberg collision’ is just a cover story concocted to protect the guilty. This vessel was also seen by the crew of the Californian, who were to become the ‘scapegoats’ of the official story.

“ . . . I saw another steamer approaching, and asked [the wireless operator] what vessels he had within reach; he replied: ‘The Titanic’, whereupon I replied, ‘that is not the Titanic, she is too small and hasn’t enough lights.’ Shortly afterwards this steamer stopped and was bearing S.S.E. about five or six miles from our position. . . . the chief officer was sweeping the southern horizon with his glasses, and finally reported he saw a four-mast steamer with a yellow funnel to the southward of us, and asked if we should try to get down to have a look at her.” Captain Lord of SS Californian interviewed by an American newspaper, 1914.

SS Californian Captain Stanley Lord

Lord became the official scapegoat for the disaster for his so-called ‘negligence’ in not rushing sooner to Titanic’s aid as the Californian was probably only ‘about 11 miles’ from her when she went down.

The following extract from a report that appeared in the Boston Globe newspaper, four days subsequent to the disaster would seem to cast even more doubt on the veracity of the official version of events . . .

“Captain Lord was asked in what latitude and longitude he was when he first received the SOS message from the Virginian, and his reply was that he could not give out ‘state secrets’ and that the question would have to be answered by those in the office.”

“ . . . the reporters were requesting what he termed ‘state secrets’ and that the information would have to come from the company’s office. Ordinarily when a steamer reaches port and has anything to report, figures giving exact positions reckoned in latitude and longitude have always been obtainable from the ship’s officers . . . .” The Boston Globe, 19th April 1912

I think any comments from me on the above would be superfluous to requirements and I will credit the readers own common-sense with providing the answer as to whether there was a conspiracy involving the highest echelons of governments, being perpetrated.

Furthermore, upon arriving back in England at Plymouth docks, from New York aboard the steamer Lapland, two weeks after the disaster, 173 of the surviving crew members both male and female were firstly, illegally denied their rights to speak with their legal and trade union representatives. Then in addition they were also illegally detained overnight against their wishes (the common terminology for this act is unlawful imprisonment or even kidnapping) in a containing area within the dockyard itself where they were forced to sign a document that they believed was the ‘Official Secrets Act’, promising to keep secret forever, the actual events of the night of 14th / 15th April. Otherwise, they were told, they would be prosecuted and ‘never work again,’ not just for White Star but for any other employer at all.

In those now long-gone days, the inability to procure gainful employment could be almost a death sentence to the crews and their families. So, make of that what you will, but there is no apparent reason why this should happen if the official story was the truth. It is also worth noting that also in those distant days it was far easier without mass and instantaneous communication devices, to invent or twist facts and bury individuals’ own stories. Today of course, any of the survivors’ personal experiences would be viral on the Internet within hours of the event.

So did Captain Smith deliberately steer Titanic into a huge ice-field without reducing speed in order to create the cover-story of the iceberg collision knowing that he was setting-up Titanic to be rammed by the yellow-funnelled mystery ship, in fulfilment of the banksters’ dastardly plot? There were hardly any eye-witnesses to what actually happened after all, so this proposition seems very plausible given all the circumstantial evidence. Along with the officer on duty on the Bridge at that time, First Officer William Murdoch and Quartermaster Hichens plus Quartermaster George Rowe on the after-bridge, lookouts Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee were the only other ones known to have personally witnessed the appalling events.

And of these five witnesses, only four survived, significantly all of them ‘lower-class’ people and placing undue pressure on four working-class people to keep quiet over a century ago, would have been a relatively simple task. First Officer Murdoch is perhaps also significantly but certainly conveniently, said to have ‘committed suicide’ in the aftermath of the collision whilst the ship was being abandoned, however there is no solid evidence available with which to corroborate this fact.

Why would he do this? He has also been accused of shooting passengers before turning a gun on himself, something that his family and descendants have disputed vehemently ever since and so could there be a more sinister explanation for his demise along with that of Captain Smith? Down the years, suicide has always been a very convenient cover-story for many a silencing-murder and in addition it is perhaps significant that none of Guggenheim, Straus and Astor survived to tell their stories either. Indeed Straus and Guggenheim’s bodies were never found and Astor’s was picked-up a few weeks later with his face battered beyond recognition and only identifiable by the contents of his pockets.

So why would Morgan not have simply had Astor, Guggenheim and Straus shot or poisoned, that certainly would have been easier than sinking an entire ship? But to reiterate and re-emphasise the previous point, had this been the case, there would no doubt have been very awkward, intense high-level investigations into their simultaneous murders, due to their prominent positions in society.

But how could Morgan guarantee that Astor, Guggenheim and Straus would be on the ship? Maybe there were behind-the-scenes events, put in place by Morgan, to ensure those men would be on the ship. In addition, how could Morgan be sure Astor, Guggenheim and Straus would go down with the ship and not get off onto lifeboats? Maybe Morgan knew that Astor was a decent, chivalrous character who would not even dream of putting his own safety before women and children . . . “Colonel Astor was another of the heroes of the awful night. Effort was made to persuade him to take a place in one of the life-boats, but he emphatically refused to do so until every woman and child on board had been provided for, not excepting the women members of the ship’s company.” Apparently, Guggenheim and Straus’s actions were similar.

Or alternatively, how easy would it have been under the circumstances and in the post-collision mayhem and confusion, for a paid assassin to dispose of Messrs Smith, Murdoch, Guggenheim, Straus and Astor, in order to make absolutely certain that none of them escaped their planned fates against all the odds?

It also has to be stated that Morgan’s switching of the ships, the massive insurance fraud, was more than merely just suspected by both the bankster-controlled governments of Britain and the United States. If the Morgan-owned White Star Line had gone bankrupt, then so would the Harland & Wolff shipyard that built their ships, and that would have laid-off thousands of workers, and affected the political situation as a result. The British Prime Minister at the time was H. H. Asquith and his Liberal government had an extremely slender majority in Parliament. Had the two companies folded, creating further massive unemployment and public unrest, the impact upon the government would have been disastrous and would probably have meant the end of Asquith’s reign as PM.

To return to the question of the alleged insurance fraud, Titanic’s insurers promptly paid-out over $12 million on a ship that cost $10 million, thanks to Morgan’s psychic prudence in over-insuring it. This was strange enough in itself as Morgan’s usual practice was to insure ships for 75% of their value — not 120%! At the time, this was the biggest maritime insurance claim ever.

And as for the ‘real’ Titanic, the one that had been switched and bore the name RMS Olympic, she went on to serve as a troop transport in World War I, and earned the nickname ‘Old Reliable.’ Following the end of the war in 1918, she again became a passenger liner, plying the Atlantic route for many years. She was retired from service in 1935 and sold to Sir John Jarvis for $100,000 and was stripped of all fixtures and fittings, many of which were recycled and the remainder scrapped.

Executing a diabolical plan such as this and in addition killing fifteen hundred innocent people to advance an agenda for huge financial gain, as will become evident, is absolutely commonplace. In fact, the banksters have made something of a science of it down the long years.

To this day, in our history books, the movies and in all those so-called documentaries on the History Channel and National Geographic channels etc., the official story will always be the one being promoted, in order to continue to protect the guilty. Occasionally these ‘outrageous conspiracy theories’ may get an airing, not in a balanced way but only in such a way as to ‘debunk’ them and divert the people from the real truth. The iconic BIG LIE has to be perpetuated after all. If the ‘masses’ ever discovered the real truth, that they had been fooled all along, then they may just start questioning everything else . . . such as JFK, 9/11, Princess Diana, the war on terror and far too many more incidents to list here.

So, with the elimination of the those three vocal, mega-rich businessmen, the so-called Aldrich Plan for a central bank slowly made its way through the 62nd Congress in 1912, but it nevertheless met with critical opposition from the Progressive Democrats over the banksters having a controlling interest with virtually no public scrutiny — and thus stalled temporarily. So in 1913, the central bank bill was re-introduced once again by the persistent banksters and given the revised, deceptive title ‘The Federal Reserve Act,’ in order to mask its real purpose, the creation of a national financial system owned in its entirety by private individuals. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board would be composed of twelve districts and one director, the Federal Reserve Chairman, who would in effect be able to manipulate the nation’s entire financial resources by controlling the money supply and available credit at will and by holding the government to ransom, through borrowing.

The banksters still had a small problem, however. President William Howard Taft had already made it clear that he would veto such a bill if it was introduced and so they simply had to make sure he would not win re-election, at any cost.

History records the 1912 Presidential campaign as one of the more dramatic political upsets of all time. The incumbent, President Taft, was a popular president and the Republicans, in a period of general prosperity were firmly in control of the government through their majority in both houses. The Democratic challenger, Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, had no national recognition whatsoever and was a staid, austere man with no charisma and who engendered little public support.

Both parties had included a monetary reform bill in their manifestos. The Republicans were committed to the Aldrich Plan, which had already been denounced as a bankster plan and the Democrats had the Federal Reserve Act in their portfolio however, perhaps unsurprisingly, neither party took the trouble to inform the public that the bills were almost identical except for the names.

In retrospect, it now seems obvious that the banksters decided to dump Taft and go with Wilson. How do we know this? Taft seemed certain of re-election and Wilson would no doubt have returned to the obscurity from which he came, but suddenly, Theodore Roosevelt re-appeared on the scene. He announced that he was running as a third party candidate, the ‘Bull Moose.’ His candidacy would have been utterly ludicrous had it not been for the fact that he was exceptionally well-financed.

Moreover, he was given totally unlimited coverage by the bankster-sponsored and owned, press, indeed more than Taft and Wilson combined. As a Republican ex-president, it was obvious that Roosevelt would decimate Taft’s potential vote and divide the Republicans. This eventually proved to be the case and Wilson won the election by a landslide and yet to this day, no-one can say what Roosevelt’s agenda actually was, or why he would sabotage his own party’s prospects in that way. My personal guess is that it was a five-letter word beginning with ‘M’ and ending in ‘Y’ . . . and plenty of it!

Since the banksters were financing all three candidates, they were certain of victory regardless of the outcome but there is no doubt that Wilson, in this instance, was their preferred option. Later Congressional testimony showed that in the firm of Kuhn Loeb & Co, Felix Warburg was supporting Taft, Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff were supporting Wilson and Otto Kahn was supporting Roosevelt. It really made no difference which party won the election in the end (as far as the central bank plans were concerned, apart from the fact that Wilson may have been more amenable to the banksters’ aims on other issues). Anyway, the overall result was that a Democratic Congress and a ‘bankster-friendly’ Democratic President were elected in 1912 in order to get the central bank legislation passed. It seems probable that the identification of the Aldrich Plan as a bankster-sponsored operation ensured that it would have a difficult passage through Congress, as the Democrats would solidly oppose it, whereas a successful Democratic candidate, supported by a Democratic Congress, would facilitate the acceptance of the Federal Reserve plan.

Taft was brutally discarded because the banksters doubted that he could deliver on the Aldrich Plan and Roosevelt’s entirely engineered candidacy was the instrument of his demise.

In order to further confuse the American people and deceive them as to the real purpose of the proposed Federal Reserve Act, the architects of the Aldrich Plan, the powerful Nelson Aldrich, although no longer a senator and Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, set up a campaign against the Bill. They gave interviews whenever they could find an audience denouncing the proposed Federal Reserve Act as inimical to banking and to good governance.

‘The Nation,’ on 23rd October 1913, pointed out that, “Mr. Aldrich himself raised a hue and cry over the issue of government ‘fiat money,’ that is, money issued without gold or bullion back of it, although a bill to do precisely that had been passed in 1908 with his own name as author, and he knew besides, that the ‘government’ had nothing to do with it, that the Federal Reserve Board would have full charge of the issuing of such moneys.”

Frank Vanderlip’s claims were so bizarre that Senator Robert L. Owen, chairman of the newly formed Senate Banking and Currency Committee, which had been formed on 18th March 1913, accused him of openly conducting a campaign of misrepresentation about the Bill. The interests of the public, or so Carter Glass claimed in a speech in September 1913 to Congress, would be protected by an advisory council of bankers. “There can be nothing sinister about its transactions. Meeting with it at least four times a year will be a bankers’ advisory council representing every regional reserve district in the system. How could we have exercised greater caution in safeguarding the public interests?”

In the next phase of the scheme, shortly after President Wilson’s first inauguration, he received a visitor to the White House by the name of Samuel Untermyer, who was a prominent New York City attorney who contributed generously to the National Democratic Committee that installed Wilson in the White House in Washington in the 1912 election. As you may recall from earlier, Untermyer was the bankster ‘handler’ for Cyrus Scofield and the Zionised bible.

At first, President Wilson was extremely pleased to welcome Untermyer to the White House, having met him previously, during the campaign. However, Untermyer surprised Wilson when he eventually informed him of the real purpose of his visit. Untermyer explained to Wilson that he had been retained to bring a breach of promise action against him but that his client was willing to accept $40,000 in lieu of commencing the breach of promise action.

Untermyer then produced a pack of letters from his pocket, written by President Wilson to a former colleague’s wife when they were professors together at Princeton University. These letters firmly established the illicit relationship which had existed between Wilson and the woman in question and unfortunately for him, he had apparently written dozens of endearing letters to her, many of which she never destroyed. Wilson reluctantly acknowledged his authorship of the letters after examining them.

Wilson had left Princeton University to become the Governor of New Jersey and in 1912, he had been elected to his first term as President of the United States. However in the interim period, his former, illicit lover had divorced her husband and married again. Untermyer explained that her second husband had a grown-up son who was in the employ of one of the leading banks in Washington and furthermore his former sweetheart was very fond of her step-son. Apparently this man was now in financial trouble and suddenly needed $40,000 (around half a million dollars today) in order to satisfy a pressing liability to the bank for which he worked.

The full details are not particularly relevant other than to say that the step-son of Wilson’s ex-lover needed the money badly and quickly and Wilson was the logical prospect for that $40,000. Wilson expressed his gratitude for the good fortune that his former lover had approached Untermyer to seek his assistance, otherwise the publicity could have proven very embarrassing had the woman chosen to instead consult a Republican attorney.

However Wilson simply did not have that amount of money and informed Untermyer of this fact. Untermyer therefore suggested that Wilson should consider the matter and that he would return in a few days’ time to discuss the matter further. In fact, Untermyer used the next few days in Washington investigating the credibility of the step-son’s story of his pressing need for $40,000 and learned that the story had not been misrepresented in any way to him.

Untermyer visited Wilson again, a few days later as promised and Wilson appeared irritated yet confessed once again that he simply did not have $40,000 to pay his would-be blackmailer. Untermyer appeared to consider the matter a few moments before offering his already pre-conceived solution, but Wilson was completely taken aback by Untermyer’s proposal.

Untermyer offered to pay the $40,000 himself on one condition, that Wilson would promise to appoint a nominee recommended to Wilson by Untermyer to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Wilson was ecstatic and thought it a small price to have to pay to be relieved of his ‘difficulty,’ finally resolving once and for all the issue of the breach of promise suit which was never mentioned again from that point on. As an insurance policy against any further dissension from Wilson against bankster’s wishes, Untermyer permanently retained the incriminatory letters in his possession.

Untermyer was indeed a man of great wealth. The law firm in New York of which he was the leading partner, Guggenheim, Untermyer and Marshall, is still today one of the nation’s most prominent and most prosperous law firms. He was also a committed Zionist who worked assiduously for the dark powers to help bring about the creation of the State of Israel in line with Zionist goals.

During the so-called Pujo Committee it was the voice of Special Counsel Untermyer that was heard over all others, even that of Chairman Pujo. Thus from the commencement of the hearings to their conclusion it was Untermyer who called the tune. Moreover, Untermyer steadfastly refused to ask either Senator LaFollette or Congressman Lindbergh, the two principal political opponents of the banking trust, to testify in the investigation which they above all others had pressured Congress to hold. Instead the committee under the stewardship of Untermyer called a steady stream of men sympathetic to banking, the banksters and the concept of central and fractional reserve banking. Thus, during the course of the charade that was the Pujo investigation, banksters upon the invitation of Untermyer made the trip from New York to Washington to testify before the Committee.

They all solemnly declared that although they were indeed bankers they always operated in the public interest; indeed, they claimed that they were motivated only by the highest ideals of public service just as were the Congressmen before whom they were testifying.

Another telling fact that confirmed the Pujo investigation as the farce it undoubtedly was, is what Untermyer, the slickest corporate lawyer in town, did not ask any of the bankers vis-a-vis the web of interlocking directorates by which they controlled industry. Nor did he allude to the international gold movements, a known factor in money panics, or, more importantly, the intimate relationships between American bankers and European bankers and especially the Jewish banking families whose influence he knew all too well. Thus, the influence of Jewish banking houses such as Kuhn Loeb, J. & W. Seligman, Ladenburg Thalmann, Speyer Brothers, M. M. Warburg, Eugene Meyer, Lazard Freres and the Rothschild Brothers, which transcended national interests and the interests of nations and their peoples was never alluded to whatsoever by Samuel Untermyer.

This was hardly surprising given Untermyer’s penchant for Zionism and all that this insidious philosophy entails. An example of Untermyer’s duplicity was the sympathetic treatment given to another Zionist intriguer, Jacob Schiff, senior partner in the banking house of Kuhn Loeb & Company. Schiff with the connivance of Untermyer talked for many minutes on generalities of banking without revealing anything substantive or particular about the operations of the very powerful banking house of which he was the prime mover. A bank moreover that Senator Robert Owen had identified as the representative in the United States of the most powerful Jewish interests in the world, the Rothschilds.

The Founding Fathers had attempted to safeguard the sovereign Republic they had fought hard to create by safeguarding the liberties and prosperity of the people by special provisions concerning the control of money issue and credit. Thus, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution whereby the people of the United States granted to Congress the power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standard of Weights and Measures.”

That is why it was made manifest that Congress was refused the constitutional power to delegate money-creation and its regulating responsibility to any private group. This imperative endured until the fateful night of 23rd December 1913, during a hurried, harassed debate, when congressmen eager to head home early for Christmas, incautiously and inadvisably passed the Federal Reserve Act into law. Seemingly, a piece of ad libitum governance that became known as ‘the Christmas Massacre,’ this legislation created the cartel of private banks (i.e. the Federal Reserve System consisting of 12 Federal Reserve banks, the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Advisory Council, and, since 1976, a Consumer Advisory Council), managed by a Board of Governors appointed to their long terms of office by the President. This group of privately-owned and controlled banks thereby became the sole issuer of US money and credit, with full control over its quantity and thus its value.

Moreover, the unprecedented speed with which the Federal Reserve Act had been passed by Congress had also taken President Wilson unawares, since he, like many others had been assured by Congress, as well as those powerbrokers outside Congress, that the bill would not come up for voting until after the Christmas break. Wilson initially refused to sign the Act, however, he relented when pressured by another Zionist intriguer and international financier Bernard Baruch, a principal contributor to Wilson’s campaign fund, who reassured Wilson that his concern was a trifling matter, which could be easily remedied later via ‘administrative processes.’ The imperative of the central bank schemers was to get the Federal Reserve Act signed into law in haste, before a less distracted Congress could give their considered, critical judgment of this piece of pernicious legislation.

Wilson as promised, in return for the banksters campaign financing and ‘hush money,’ and suitably assured by Baruch’s promises, duly signed the Federal Reserve Act into law and by doing so effectively handed over the destiny of the United States of America and its people to the dark powers of International usury — the banksters!

It was the Federal Reserve Act that had destroyed the very thing that the Founding Fathers had feared and presciently attempted to obviate against, by authoring Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That is that the Constitution itself, the lawful safeguard of the United States of America and the liberties of its people, would be circumvented by the banksters and would cease to be the governing covenant of the American people. Moreover, that consequently, the liberties of the American people would be handed over to a small, shadowy cabal of international private bankers.

It is a supreme irony that although those present at the signing of the bill included Vice President Marshall, Secretary Bryan, Carter Glass, Secretary McAdoo, Senator Owen, Speaker Clark and other Treasury officials, none of the real authors of the bill, the participants at the secret meeting on Jekyll Island, were present. Like all the real powerbrokers who control the destiny of the world, the true writers of the Federal Reserve Act chose to remain hidden from public scrutiny and so prudently absented themselves from the scene of their victory, the White House, when Wilson signed the Act into law.

Congressman Charles Lindbergh said on the day that the Federal Reserve Act was passed, to the House . . .

“This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalised. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realise that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress. . . . If we had a people’s Congress, there would be stability. The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government.”

The 24th December 1913 New York Times’ editorial response, in contrast to Congressman Lindbergh’s criticism of the bill was, “The Banking and Currency Bill became better and sounder every time it was sent from one end of the Capitol to the other. Congress worked under public supervision in making the bill.”

By ‘public supervision,’ the Times apparently meant ‘Paul Warburg,’ who for several days had maintained a small office in the Capitol building, where he directed the successful pre-Christmas campaign to pass the bill and where Senators and Congressmen came hourly at his bidding to carry out his strategy.

Two of these secretive ‘masters of the universe’ after the event, corresponded on their success in subverting the Constitution and the stealing of the credit of both the United States and its people. On 24th December 1913, Zionist conspirator Jacob Schiff head of the investment banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, wrote to Edward Mandel House (1858-1938), President Wilson’s supposedly most trusted adviser but who actually was an intriguer for the forces behind international usury and who repeatedly betrayed Wilson to these forces . . . “My dear Colonel House, I want to say a word to you for the silent, but no doubt effective work you have done in the interest of currency legislation and to congratulate you that the measure has finally been enacted into law. I am with good wishes, faithfully yours, Jacob Schiff.”

There is no doubt that Edward Mandel House was an arch-intriguer who could not resist telling the world of what he knew of the grand conspiracy and his part in it. He achieved this by publishing a book, ‘Philip Dru, Administrator’ which was published in the guise of a novel and although House initially disclaimed authorship he later admitted it was his own work. In earlier times, those such as House were, privy to the ancient and grand design of the conspiracy emanating from the occult underworld who, taking the blood oaths to conceal its dark secrets away from the masses, would usually have paid the ultimate price and forfeited their lives via assassination. However, by the time House had written his book, the leaders of the conspirators had deemed their efforts such a success and their position so unassailable that it was appropriate to begin to reveal the enormity of their deception and indeed revel in it. House, therefore was given free rein to benefit and allowed to live out his natural life span.

The book described in fictional form what the author, House referred to as a conspiracy which had succeeded in electing a puppet-president by means of ‘deception regarding his real opinions and intentions.’ The book also described this utopia of the future as akin to the “. . . socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx (with a) spiritual element (which will be the salvation of all those) unhappy many who have lived and died lacking opportunity, because, in the starting, the world-wide social structure was wrongly begun.”

Philip Dru, Administrator, ostensibly a novel, was actually a detailed plan for the future government of the United States of America in which ‘Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx’ is established as the ruling ideology. House’s novel anticipated the creeping ‘socialisation’ (communism) of America and the necessary legislation required, as its title character and protagonist Dru enacted.

Socialist legislation that ‘Dru the dictator’ enacted, included graduated income tax, old age pension provision, unemployment insurance, co-operative markets, a federal reserve banking system, flexible currency system, national employment bureaus and an excess profits tax. This was in effect a blueprint for the Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt ‘liberal’ administrations. Thus, it was no coincidence that House, who imagined himself as Dru, managed to position himself as the confidential advisor to two Presidents of the United States, Wilson and Roosevelt, whose administrations laid the foundations of the future Socialist tyranny which is now about to entrap the people of America. But then, House was so privileged because he was sponsored by and the representative of very a powerful faction that has become almost unassailable, the dark forces behind the conspiracy for the creation of the New World Order. And, crucial to this dark agenda was the co-opting of America, her people and her wealth-creating capacity.

The Socialist (Communist) tyrant Lenin said that the establishment of a central bank is 90% of ‘communising’ a country and another of his ilk, Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto called for “the centralisation of wealth in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with an exclusive monopoly.”

During this time, President Wilson’s closest ‘advisor,’ Edward Mandel House’s power was enormous. He was involved not only in selecting the President’s Cabinet but also virtually ran the State Department single-handedly. Wilson’s great dependence on House was described by Wilson himself. “Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one.” Indeed so.

Thus, the unfortunate Wilson, the twenty-eighth president of the United States and no doubt a man of ‘some’ honour and integrity although sadly lacking in independence of thought, had in House, his ‘second personality,’ a man whose loyalties lay elsewhere and whose betrayal of personal friendship to the secret agenda of his masters was complete and unconditional. Wilson could therefore claim the dubious distinction of being the first of the puppet-Presidents placed into power by the banksters, who were obliged to do what they were told and by doing so, completely lost their moral focus.

Most of the policies to which Wilson attached his name and what in retrospect brought him into disrepute were products of the unholy alliance betwixt banksters and state. These were the shared ‘liberal and progressive ideas’ that he and House ensured were translated into legislation, for example Wilson’s welcome, endorsement and financial support for the murderous Bolshevik Revolution in Russia as well as his introduction of the immoral graduated income tax as recommended by another internationalist bankster-puppet, Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto.

But perhaps more pertinent to modern times was his complicity in the creation of America’s privately owned central bank, the Federal Reserve, through his sponsoring of the Federal Reserve Act. We may only now begin to understand why such a lengthy campaign of planned deception was necessary, from the secret conference at Jekyll Island to the identical ‘reform’ plans proposed by the Democratic and Republican parties under different names. The banksters could not wrest control of the issuance of money from the citizens of the United States, to whom it had been designated through its Congress by the Constitution, until Congress itself usurped the Constitution and handed them their monopoly on a plate.

Like most of the ‘behind-the-scenes operators’ named in this book, House had an almost obligatory ‘London connection.’ Originally from a Dutch family named Huis, his ancestors had lived in England for three hundred years and at some point in the past had ‘anglicised’ their surname. House’s father had emigrated to and settled his family in Texas, where he made a fortune in blockade-running during the Civil War, shipping cotton and other contraband to his British connections, including the Rothschilds and bringing back much-needed supplies for the beleaguered Texans.

House senior, not trusting the volatile Texas situation, prudently deposited all his profits from his blockade-running in gold with the Barings banking house in London and by the end of the Civil War in 1865, he was one of the wealthiest men in Texas. Upon his death in 1880, his estate was distributed among his sons as follows: Thomas got the banking business, John, the sugar plantation and Edward, the cotton plantations, which brought him a more than comfortable income of $20,000 a year.

By the age of twelve, the young Edward Mandel House had contracted ‘brain fever,’ and was later further crippled by sunstroke. As a result, he was a semi-invalid for the rest of his life and his ailments gave him an odd, Oriental-appearance. He never entered any profession, but used his father’s money to become the ‘kingmaker’ of Texas politics, successively electing five governors from 1893 to 1911. Then, in 1911 he began to support Wilson for President and levered the crucial Texas delegation to him which in effect secured his nomination.

And so, the Federal Reserve System began its operations in 1914 with the activity of the Organisation Committee appointed personally by Woodrow Wilson and composed of Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo, who was his son-in-law, Secretary of Agriculture Houston, and Comptroller of the Currency, John Skelton Williams. Then on 6th January 1914, JP Morgan met with the Organising Committee in New York and informed them that there should not be more than seven regional districts in the new system. This committee was to select the locations of the ‘decentralised’ reserve banks and was empowered to select from between eight to twelve reserve banks, although JP Morgan had testified he thought that not more than four should be selected.

Much politicking went into the selection of these sites, as the twelve cities thus favoured would become enormously important as financial hubs. New York, of course, was a foregone conclusion. Richmond was the next selection, as a pay-off to Carter Glass and Woodrow Wilson, the two Virginians who had been given political credit for the Federal Reserve Act. The other selections of the Committee were Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Kansas City and San Francisco. All of these cities later developed important financial districts as the result of their selection.

These local battles, however, paled in view of the complete dominance of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the system.

“In practice, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York became the fountainhead of the system of twelve regional banks, for New York was the money market of the nation. The other eleven banks were so many expensive mausoleums erected to salve the local pride and quell the Jacksonian fears of the hinterland.

Benjamin Strong, president of the Bankers Trust (JP Morgan) was selected as the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Adept in high finance, Strong, for many years manipulated the country’s monetary system at the discretion of directors representing the leading New York banks. Under Strong, the Reserve System was brought into interlocking relations with the Bank of England and the Bank of France. Benjamin Strong held his position as Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until his sudden death in 1928, during a Congressional investigation of the secret meetings between Reserve Governors and heads of European central banks which brought on the Great Depression of 1929-31.” Ferdinand Lundberg, ‘America’s Sixty Families’

Strong had married the daughter of the President of Bankers Trust, which brought him into the line of succession in the dynastic intrigues which play such an important role in the world of high finance. He also had been a member of the original Jekyll Island group, the ‘First Name Club,’ and was thus qualified for the highest position in the Federal Reserve System, as the Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which dominated the entire system.

Because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was to set the interest rates and direct open market operations, thus controlling the daily supply and price of money throughout the United States, it is the stockholders of that particular bank who are the ‘real’ directors of the whole network.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued 203,053 shares, and as filed with the Comptroller of the Currency 19th May 1914, the large New York City banks took more than half of the outstanding shares. The Rockefeller and Kuhn, Loeb controlled National City Bank took the largest number of shares of any bank, 30,000 shares whilst JP Morgan’s First National Bank took 15,000 shares. When these two banks merged in 1955, they owned in one block almost one quarter of the shares in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which controlled the entire system and thus they could name whoever they chose, to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Chase National Bank took 6,000 shares and the Marine National Bank of Buffalo, later known as Marine Midland, took 6,000 shares. This bank was owned by the Schoellkopf family, which controlled the Niagara Power Company and other large interests. National Bank of Commerce of New York City took 21,000 shares.

The shareholders of these banks which own the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are the people who have controlled the political and economic destiny of the USA since 1914. They are specifically, the Rothschilds of Europe, Lazard Freres, Kuhn Loeb Company, (M.M. Warburg Company,) Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller family, and the J.P. Morgan interests. These interests have merged and consolidated in recent years, so that the control is now much more concentrated and in far fewer hands. National Bank of Commerce is now Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Lehman Brothers has merged with Kuhn, Loeb Company, First National Bank has merged with the National City Bank, and in the other eleven Federal Reserve Districts, these same shareholders indirectly own or control shares in those banks, with the other shares owned by the leading families in those areas who own or control the principal industries in these regions.

The ‘local’ families set up regional councils on orders from New York, of such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and other instruments of control devised by their masters. They finance and control political developments in their area, name candidates and are seldom successfully opposed in their plans.

These developments following the passage of the Federal Reserve Act proved every one of the allegations Thomas Jefferson had made against central banks as far back as 1791; that the subscribers to the Federal Reserve Bank stock had formed a corporation, whose stock could be and was held by aliens; that this stock would be transmitted to a certain line of successors; that it would be placed beyond forfeiture and escheat; that they would receive a monopoly of banking, which was against the laws of monopoly; and that they now had the power to make laws, superior to the laws of the individual States.

No state legislature can countermand any of the laws or regulations laid down by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for the benefit of their private stockholders. This board issues laws as to what the interest rate shall be, what the quantity of money shall be and what the price of money shall be. All of these powers abrogate the powers of the state legislatures and their responsibility to the citizens of those states and thus riding roughshod over the Constitution.

The bankster-owned New York Times stated that the Federal Reserve Banks would be ready for business on 1st August 1914, but they did not actually begin operations until 16th November. At that time, their total assets were listed at $143m from the sale of their shares to stockholders of the national banks which subscribed to it. However, the actual amount of this $143m which was paid-in for these shares remains shrouded in mystery. Some historians state that the shareholders only paid about half of the amount in cash whilst others believe that they paid in no cash at all, but merely paid by cheque, which they drew on the national banks which they themselves owned. This latter option seems most likely and that from the very outset, the Federal Reserve operations were ‘paper issued against paper,’ that book-keeping entries comprised the only values which changed hands. Indeed this would dovetail nicely with the way in which these entities operate anyway.

As previously stated, the Federal Reserve System was a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. The word ‘Federal’ conjures an image of a governmental organisation whilst ‘Reserve’ implies that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. ‘System’ was used in lieu of the word ‘bank’ so that no-one would conclude that a new central bank had been created. In reality, the act created a ‘for-profit,’ central-banking corporation owned by a cartel of private-owned banks.

The Ten Member Banks of the Federal Reserve System . . .

Rothschild Bank of London
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

In 1977 Kuhn Loeb and Lehman Brothers merged to create Kuhn Loeb, Lehman Brothers, Inc.

Are you aware that the FRB is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FRB takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free, under law 12 USC 531, and the bankster dynasties as listed above receive a share of all that money.

In addition 100% of the taxes that US citizens pay, goes directly to the Federal Reserve. On the back of any cheque (check) made payable to the Internal Revenue Service it is endorsed as ‘Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig.’

To reiterate, every penny paid in income taxes is given to these private bankster families, commonly known as the ‘Fed’ . . . tax free! And this corrupt, criminal robbery and extortion is repeated in every country of the world, except, as at time of writing, North Korea, Cuba and Iran. Until recently you could also have added Iraq, Libya and Syria to that list. Can you spot the connection at all? Is it a coincidence that these are the very same countries currently being constantly vilified and/or under threat of attack from our bankster-owned governments via the military-industrial complex? Personally speaking I am not a great believer in coincidence, how about you?

For most of us the subject of the inner workings of our financial system and the question of how money comes into being and the part it plays in everyday banking, always sounds so boring, uninteresting and complicated. And that is exactly how the banksters like it . . . You are not meant to figure it all out or supposed to discover exactly how spectacularly simple the subject really is.

Indeed the banksters literally create money from nothing, out of ‘thin air’ if you will. Forget all the media ‘talking heads,’ the so-called economists, financial experts and government officials, because they are all working at the bankers behest, some knowingly and others are simply deceived by their so-called ‘education’ and/or are propagandised by their superiors all the way down the ‘food chain.’ With an authoritative air, they stand before us, spouting endless, incomprehensible gibberish that they have heard second-hand or learned off-pat from a bankster-written textbook, specifically designed to hide and confuse how we are all ‘robbed,’ each and every day. Indeed most of them are just programmed ‘repeaters,’ endlessly repeating so-called ‘facts’ they have been told or read.

An honest, healthy, uncorrupted financial system is simplicity itself. It requires no taxation and is self-sustaining, generating no debt!

Again I would ask, how is money created? If the average Joe on the street is asked this question, most of them have absolutely no idea. This is rather odd, because we all use money — constantly. One would assume that it would only be natural for us to know whence it comes. So what is the answer? Many people assume that in the USA, the federal government creates the money, but that is absolutely not the case. If the US government and indeed any country’s government could just print and spend whatever money it needed-to, the national debt would be zero. But instead, to take the US national debt as an example, as of 1st January 2015, this stood at $18,096,707,199,355.91. That is over $18 trillion or put another way, $56,000 per citizen and this is growing at the rate of $2.43 billion daily.

We often hear these huge figures being bandied around, by financial ‘talking heads,’ but do any of us have any real concept of them? For example, what does a million dollars (pounds) look like? Or a billion, and what about a trillion? It is fair to say that most people have never even seen $10,000 or £10,000 let alone these telephone number-like sums we hear so much about on a daily basis.

The following illustrations provide some idea of the reality of the sums involved . . . so strap-in and prepare to be shocked.

However, now we are getting a little more serious. Below is $1bn . . .

However, here is $1 trillion . . . These are the kind of numbers to which I refer . . .

The 2011 US federal deficit was $1.412 trillion, 41% more than is depicted above. If you had spent $1m a day since the day Jesus was born, you would still not have spent $1 trillion by now, butonly a ‘mere’ $700 billion which by coincidence, just happens to be the same amount that the banks received in their recent bailout.

The Statue of Liberty seems rather worried as the United States national debt is soon to pass 20% of the entire world’s combined economy (GDP / Gross Domestic Product).

If the national debt could be laid in a single line of $1 bills, it would stretch out from Earth, all the way past Uranus, a distance of some 2 billion miles.

And to whom is this vast sum of money owed . . . Yes, that is correct, to the banksters, those nice, benevolent people who lend us ‘their’ money to buy cars and houses and to whom the governments of the world owe every penny of money currently in circulation

But why does any government need to borrow money from anyone?

The truth is that in a healthy, uncorrupted society a government does not have to borrow anything from anyone. But under the central banking paradigm, governments have allowed themselves to be subjugated to a financial system which requires the constant, ongoing borrowing of ever larger and larger amounts of money. Obviously, this arrangement is not permanently sustainable and the inherent structural problems caused by such a system are at the very heart of all our national debts and monetary crises of today.

To use the US government as a convenient example once again; if it wants to issue $1 billion, it has to go ‘cap in hand’ to the FRB to borrow the money. The FRB then contacts the Treasury and instructs them print 10,000,000 Federal Reserve Notes in units of one hundred dollars. The Treasury charges the FRB 2.3 cents for each note, resulting in a total of $230,ooo for the 10,000,ooo FRNs. The FRB then lends the $1 billion to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government then has to create a bond for $1 billion as security for the loan. And thus do the banksters enrich themselves. However, in reality the FRB does not even print the money, it is simply a computer entry in their accounting system.

“It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people.” Benjamin Franklin

All banks in the US are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System and worldwide are affiliated to their own country’s respective central bank. This membership makes it LEGAL for them to create money from nothing and lend it to us. Like the goldsmiths of old, they know that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4% of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry, it exists DIGITALLY only.

Our worldwide monetary system is what is known as a FIAT currency.

Imagine sitting down to play Monopoly and having a friend claim that they are going to act as both the bank and a player. Then when the game starts and your friend, using bank money, buys every single property and fills them with every hotel. You and the other players would be quickly bankrupted because your friend has taken all your money and now owns everything. Who would ever play the game that way? Unfortunately, we all do. In 1913 and as previously related at length, the US financial system, like so many others before and since, was hijacked in much the same way as that Monopoly game when private banksters bribed, coerced and cajoled politicians into granting them the legal right to create money. It is illegal for you and I to print our own money, but our government willingly lets the banksters create money out of thin air and then unbelievably, borrows it back from them in the form of interest-bearing loans. This is the ONE AND ONLY reason for the massive national debt and its spiralling increase and NOT government overspending or trade deficits or anything similar, as we are constantly being told. We are being lied to by the banksters and their professional apologists 24/7, I’m afraid.

In a FIAT money system, money is not backed by a physical commodity (ie. gold or silver.) Instead, the only thing that gives the money value is its relative scarcity and the faith placed in it by the people that use it. In addition, there is no restriction on the amount of money that can be created. This allows for unlimited credit creation, initially leading to the mistaken belief that this represents solid economic growth, as spending and business profits grow and frequently there is a rapid growth in equity prices. In the long term however, the economy suffers even more by the following, inevitable contraction than it ever gained from the expansion in credit.

In most cases, a fiat monetary system comes into existence as a result of excessive public debt. When a government is unable to repay all its debt in gold or silver, the temptation to remove physical backing rather than to simply default becomes irresistible. This was the case in 18th century France as well as in the 1930s and more recently in the 1970s in the US, when President Nixon removed the last link between the dollar and gold and which is still in effect today.

Hyper-inflation is the terminal stage of any fiat currency. With hyper-inflation, money loses most of its value very quickly indeed. It often occurs as the result of increasing regular inflation to the point where all confidence in money is lost. In a fiat monetary system, the value of money is based on confidence and once that confidence is gone, money rapidly becomes worthless, usually irreversibly, regardless of its scarcity. The United States has so far avoided hyper-inflation by shifting between a fiat and gold standard over the past 200 years.

While fractional reserve banking mechanics are surprisingly simple, the implications of the system are not. Mechanically, fractional reserve banking depends on 3 factors:

Initial deposit: The amount of the initial deposit

Reserve requirement: The fractional reserve requirement is a number between 0 and 1

Iterations: The number of times that money is deposited or cycled through the system.

The initial deposit into the fractional reserve banking system comes from the government when they issue bonds and deliver them to the bank. These bonds are in effect ‘IOUs’ from the government as a promise to pay the amount of the bond back — with interest.

The reserve requirement is a number between 0 and 1 and sets the ratio of the amount of money that they bank can ‘print’ to loan out. For example, if the reserve requirement is 0.1 (10%) and the bank receives $100 in government bonds, then the bank can loan out $100 × (1 − 0.1) = $100 × 0.9 = $90.

So the basic mathematics of the system are extremely simple. Generally:

Loan = Deposit × (1 − Reserve Requirement)

eg. $90 = $100 × (1 − 0.1)

Or, in terms of what the bank must keep in reserve, i.e. the amount of money that it cannot loan:

Reserve = Deposit × Reserve Requirement

e.g. $10 = $100 × 0.1

But it does not stop there. Once a loan is made, the person that receives the loaned money spends it to obtain some form of wealth in the real world. That could be absolutely anything, a house, a car, groceries, a meal at a restaurant, etc. etc. The seller of the product or service then takes that money, goes back to the bank, and deposits it. That deposit is then subject to the same reserve requirement with the remainder being made available for the bank to loan out again.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics at Harvard

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

The Federal Reserve Bank only creates the Principal, not the usury or interest that it lends to the US government. Therefore the interest can NEVER be repaid and the debt continues to spiral out of control and the end result is inevitably foreclosure and bankruptcy.

This provides the banksters with an incredible engine for wealth generation, which would not be at all possible in an ordinary economy. Imagine consistently loaning-out 9 times as much money as you actually possessed, how long would that be sustainable? But in our corrupted system, it all works out because the FRB is always able to create more money from nothing to keep it all going.

In her book ‘Web of Debt,’ author Ellen Brown provides a good example of just how profitable this is for the banks . . .

“You live in a small town with only one bank. You sell your house for $100,000 and deposit the money into your checking account at the bank. The bank then advances 90 percent of this sum, or $90,000, to Miss White to buy a house from Mr. Black. The bank proceeds to collect from Miss White both the interest and the principal on this loan. Assume the prevailing interest is 6.25 percent. Interest at 6.25 percent on $90,000 over the life of a 30-year mortgage comes to $109,490. Miss White thus winds up owing $199,490 in principle and interest on the loan — not to you, whose money it allegedly was in the first place, but to the bank. Legally, Miss White has title to the house; but the bank becomes the effective owner until she pays off her mortgage.

Mr. Black now takes the $90,000 Miss White paid him for his house and deposits it into his checking account at the town bank. The bank adds the $90,000 to its reserve balance at its Federal Reserve Bank and advances 90 percent of this sum, or $81,000 to Mrs. Green, who wants to buy a house from Mr. Grey. Over 30 years, Mrs. Green owes the bank $81,000 in principle plus $98,541 in interest, or $179,541; and the bank has become the effective owner of another house until the loan is paid off. Mr. Grey then deposits Mrs. Green’s money into his checking account. The process continues until the bank has ‘lent’ $900,000, on which it collects $900,000 in principal and $985,410 in interest, for a total of $1,885,410. The bank has thus created $900,000 out of thin air and has acquired effective ownership of a string of houses, at least temporarily, all from an initial $100,000 deposit; and it is owed $985,410 in interest on this loan. The $900,000 principle is extinguished by an entry on the credit side of the ledger when the loans are paid off; but the other half of this conjured $2 million — the interest — remains solidly in the coffers of the bank, and if any of the borrowers should default on their loans, the bank becomes the owner of the mortgaged property.”

So imagine if we borrow £10,000 to make some home improvements. The bank did not actually take £10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile, they simply went to their computer and input an entry of £10,000 into your account in effect creating from nothing a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want, as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FRB.

As we can see, betting with 100 times the amount of money you actually possess, can turn an outrageous profit when you’re winning, but even the slightest downturn can destroy you, which is exactly what happened to the banks during the last financial crisis. Of course this is not news, the biggest players know exactly how this game is played. In fact, the more volatile the market is, the more profit that can be made.

So whilst ordinary citizens are being ruined by boom and bust cycles, the reality is that the markets are behaving exactly as intended and money is constantly being siphoned-off by those privy to the scam.

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class.” Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

There are many other examples of rigging the system such as the LIBOR scandal, or the more recent ISDA fix scandal, where banks were essentially caught colluding to manipulate global markets. But all that is not even the worst aspect of the scam. Whatever system of finance we use there will always be a minority who sell their souls, one way or another or lie and cheat to become obscenely rich, but the worst and most pernicious aspect of this scam by far, is inflation, because it attacks the wealth and well-being of every ordinary, honest, hard-working person.

Consider this . . . If all money is created as debt, which is being loaned out at interest, how is there ever enough money in the system to cover the interest accruing? The simple answer is that there is not. By definition, there is always more money owed-back than was created in the first place and that ever-escalating debt creates a mathematical inevitability where the harder we struggle to break even, the more indebted we become.

Since the money required to pay back the interest does not exist, more loans are required and then more loans and more loans, a process which ultimately inflates the value of currency, drives prices higher and higher, and cripples a nation with debt.

This in fact is the sole reason that people such as Charles Lindbergh Sr., John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus and indeed many other wealthy individuals were so opposed to the Federal Reserve Act. They knew, as we now know to our great cost, that this system absolutely destroys the wealth of every individual by removing it into the already overflowing coffers of the banking industry. As people such as those mentioned above had so much more to lose than most, the reason for their vehement opposition to the banksters’ plans now becomes very apparent.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow-up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to ‘the people,’ to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson

Sadly, the warning issued by Jefferson went unheeded by those who could have prevented the abomination of the FRB from becoming a reality. It is a fact that back in the 1970s with just an ‘ordinary,’ what is now termed a ‘minimum wage’ job, it was easily possible to buy a house AND support a family. But today, despite working at two jobs in some cases, many families do not have enough to put food on the table every day. Homelessness is becoming endemic and there are now (2015) almost 50 million people in the US living below the ‘poverty line.’ In addition it was recently stated that there are approximately (the exact figures are unknown) 150,000 homeless people living on the streets of Los Angeles, alone. These trends run totally contrary to any reasonable standard of ‘progress’ to be expected from a society with a benevolent economy, especially considering all the many technological advancements of the last century. So much for ‘your friendly bank,’ eh?

To reiterate: Money is created from nothing at all and every time a loan is made, money is created out of debt.

People fear what they do not understand and it is far easier to delude and control them when they are ‘ignorant’ and afraid.

Interestingly, in October 1913, in the last days of the Taft administration, the US Congress finally passed a bill legalising direct income tax of the people. This was in the form of a Bill pushed through by Senator Aldrich, which is now commonly known as the 16th amendment to the Constitution. The income tax law was fundamental to the workings of the Federal Reserve Bank because the FRB was a system which would generate an unlimited Federal debt. The only way to guarantee the payment of interest on this debt was to directly tax the people’s incomes, as had been the case in England, with the Bank of England and indeed every other country in the world (bar the three aforementioned.)

The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and in England the Inland Revenue, are merely collection agencies for the central bank. The US government obtains its authority to collect income tax through the 16th Amendment, the Federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Over the years, numerous researchers such as for example, William J. Benson, discovered that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the requisite 75% of the states and that regardless of this fact, Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification. Article V of the US Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-quarters of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress.

In 1913, there were forty eight states in the American Union, meaning that affirmative action of thirty six of those forty eight was necessary for ratification and in February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.

In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before undertaken, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After travelling to the capitols of the New England States and reviewing the journals of the State legislative bodies, he discovered that many states had not ratified the proposed amendment and continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor listed the many errors he found in the ratification process.

The following states are among the thirty eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:

California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.

Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favour and twenty two against.

Minnesota: The State sent nothing at all to the Secretary of State in Washington.

Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to convey the precisely opposite meaning to that intended.

At the end of his project in 1984, Benson had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually or legally, ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. Thirty three states engaged in the unauthorised activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the individual States do not possess.

Since the approval of thirty six states was needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify should have been fatal to the Amendment. In fact there were only two states that provably, successfully ratified.

It is a little-known fact that the greatest period of economic growth in American history was during a time when there was absolutely no federal income tax. Between the end of the Civil War and 1913, there was an economic boom in the United States unlike anything ever seen before or since.

Most people, in all countries, simply assume that there is no other option to an income tax and assume that it has always been with us and that it will always be with us. Every year, the American people ‘lose’ in excess of $4 trillion in State and Federal income taxes and this figure is equivalent to approximately 30% of all income earned.

But would governments suddenly go bankrupt if there was no income tax? No, actually the truth is that governments had no financial problems at all prior to the advent of an income tax. In fact, the US national debt for example, has grown 5000 times larger since the Federal income tax and the FRB were created by the corrupted Congress and since then, the dollar has lost 97% of its value.

The Federal Reserve system was actually designed to trap the United States in a debt spiral from which it could never possibly escape, and the federal income tax was needed to greatly expand the size of the federal government and to deprive the American people of the funds necessary to service that debt. But it does not have to be this way. America was once much better-off before the income tax and the Federal Reserve were created, and could easily revert to such a system once again.

The Federal Reserve has brought nothing but massive inflation, and much more massive debt not just to the people of the United States, but to the world itself. In pre-Federal Reserve 1910, the US national debt was $2.6bn yet today it is more than 5,000 times that amount at almost $17 trillion. That is $17,000,000,000,000! Combined with the other bankster-owned central banks of the world, we can only wonder what all that stolen money and all those illegal taxes could have done to benefit mankind in general instead of the tiny minority who keep it ALL for themselves.

What you are about to read should absolutely astound you. During the last financial crisis, the Federal Reserve secretly conducted the biggest bailout in the history of the world and the FRB fought in court for several years to keep it a secret. We can all remember the TARP bailout, and the American people were absolutely outraged that the Federal government spent $700bn bailing out the ‘too big to fail’ banks. But that bailout was pocket change compared to what the Federal Reserve did.

The Federal Reserve actually handed more than $16 trillion in almost interest-free money to the ‘too big to fail’ banks between 2007 and 2010. But of course this is never reported in the bankster-controlled mainstream media.

According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.

This is an astonishing amount of money. (Please refer back to the diagrams on the previous pages to put this into full perspective). It is also put into sharp perspective by noting that the entire GDP (gross domestic product), in other words all the money generated in the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only $14.58 trillion. But, according to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 2007 and July 2010.

The following list of banks and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report . . .

Citigroup — $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley — $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch — $1.949 trillion
Bank of America — $1.344 trillion
Barclays plc — $868 billion
Bear Sterns — $853 billion
Goldman Sachs — $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland — $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase — $391 billion
Deutsche Bank — $354 billion
UBS — $287 billion
Credit Suisse — $262 billion
Lehman Brothers — $183 billion
Bank of Scotland — $181 billion
BNP Paribas — $175 billion
Wells Fargo — $159 billion
Dexia — $159 billion
Wachovia — $142 billion
Dresdner Bank — $135 billion
Societé Generale — $124 billion
All Other Borrowers — $2.639 trillion

Not only did the Federal Reserve give $16.1 trillion in virtually interest-free loans to the ‘too big to fail’ banks, the Fed also paid them over $600 million to help run the emergency lending program. According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled-out an astounding $659.4 million in ‘fees’ to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.

If the FRB can afford to ‘lend’ more than $16tn to all the other parasites in the financial system, how much ‘money’ do you think they actually have in their possession in total? This is obviously not public domain information but my guess would be ‘considerably more than actually physically exists in the entire world.’ But of course we already know now that most ‘money’ exists only theoretically anyway.

So as is now evident, the ‘licensed to steal’ bankster-run central banks routinely bail out their member banks and their ‘friends’ but the taxpayers always get presented with the bill. A bill commonly known as the ‘national debt.’ Except in reality, there is no national debt. It is all an illusion, a massive fraud but the banksters down the centuries have brainwashed us all into thinking it is REALLY owed to them. It’s a lie.

Here is an amusing, fictional anecdote that illustrates just how much of an illusion it all is . . .

“It is the month of August; a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is in the toughest times since 1934, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit; mostly from each other.

Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town. ‘Oh boy!’ Everyone says to themselves when they spot his limousine. ‘How long can we keep this rich guy in town?’

The limo stops, the back door opens and the bigshot enters the only hotel. He drops a 100-dollar bill on the reception counter, and asks to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one he might like.

The moment the elevator closes taking the new customer upstairs, the hotel proprietor takes the 100-dollar bill and sprints four doors down the sidewalk to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the 100-dollar bill, and runs out back to pay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the 100-dollar bill, and hurries to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel. The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100-dollar bill and hurries to pay his debt to the town’s prostitute that in these hard times, gave her services on credit. The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100-dollar bill to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

It all happened in less than 10 minutes, and the hotel proprietor promptly placed the 100-dollar bill back on the counter so that the rich tourist would not suspect anything.

And it was just in time, too, because only a moment later, the rich tourist came down after inspecting the rooms, picked up his 100-dollar bill, remarked that he did not like any of the rooms, and left town.

No one earned anything. However, the whole town was suddenly without debt, and was looking to the future with a lot of optimism.

And now you have seen a quick snapshot of how the federal government . . . via the handy Federal Reserve credit machine, operates in our society.” Pat Shannan, ‘Everything They Ever Told Me was a Lie.’ 2010.

The banksters certainly do not have to point a gun at us to get our money. As they own the law and everything else besides, we pay them out of fear of the consequences of non-compliance!

Chapter 4

The Elite Money Power

As with any investigation into culpability, we should always ‘follow the money’ and in this case it leads to the ultra-powerful, elite bankster families. We will later see further evidence of how they operate, how they enslave humanity and kill millions; crimes that in truth, only the satanically-influenced or psychopathically-minded would be capable of perpetrating.

In 1776, as already related, the Order of the Illuminati was founded by Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria. It was and indeed still is, powerfully connected to the ruling financial elite (banksters) who possess the lion’s share of the world’s wealth. The Rothschilds for instance, played a major role in the financing and support of the Bavarian Illuminati in its formative years, but there are also several other families involved.

Over the years, this organisation of pure evil has spread its despicable tentacles into every country of note but remains largely hidden from view because the Illuminati is after all, a ‘secret society,’ along with its equally repugnant ‘bedfellow,’ Freemasonry. Indeed at the senior levels of Freemasonry, the boundaries between the two, if they exist at all, become exceedingly blurred. The 13 major Illuminati bloodlines exist as a mirror of the 13 levels of the pyramid as denoted on the seal on the reverse side of the US $1 bill and these wealthy families, who are without doubt the real rulers of the world, were thrust into prominence and empowered in the Satanic master plan carried out by the Illuminati.

There are in total, 13 families who are Illuminati but the membership however, is not completely static. 13 of course, is regarded by them as a Satanic number with magical, occult power and is very much to the forefront of all Illuminati planning yet often used in ‘plain sight’ in their various subterfuges.

There is little doubt of the existence of a long-term plan by the international financial elite to enslave humanity in order to bring about their oft-quoted ‘New World Order.’ This conspiracy is often attributed to various factions including, but not exclusively, the Illuminati themselves, Jews, Zionists, the Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons the Black Nobility and the Bilderbergers etc. However the truth is that it is a complex hybrid of all these elements that make up the whole sorry group.

But the real villains are those at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families, the ‘Royals,’ the owners of the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world’s Intelligence agencies. Their identity is meant to be secret but the Rothschilds are certainly among their number. We should never forget that money is power and this power rests largely in the ‘City of London.’

The ‘City of London’

The great majority of people assume that the phrases ‘the Crown’ and ‘the City’ in reference to London, refer to the Queen or the capital of England.

However, this is not so. ‘The City’ is in fact a privately owned Corporation and Sovereign State occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres, approximately one square mile, and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile Greater London area. The population of ‘the City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of the 32 Boroughs of Greater London is approximately seven and a half million. This square mile that constitutes the ‘City’ has its own mayor, laws, courts, flag, police force and newspapers, characteristic of all three independent ‘City States,’ the City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City. They are in effect countries within countries, but only Vatican City is officially accorded the title of ‘country.’

The true identity of ‘the Crown’ however is kept most secret, but nevertheless it was the Crown-controlled Bank of England that took and assumed control of the United States during the Theodore Roosevelt Administration (1901-1909) when its agent, who was in reality a Crown agent (J. P. Morgan and Co.), assumed control of 25% of American business interests.

‘The Crown’ has never referred to the King or Queen of England, not since the establishment of the corporate body, but the British Monarchy is a figurehead for ‘the Crown,’ rules parliament in Great Britain and has absolute authority over the Prime Minister and his government through a Vatican knighthood by the name of the Order of the Garter. Despite its many sycophantic apologists, encouraged all the while by the compliant media and the political hierarchy, who claim that the Royal family are just ‘figureheads,’ unfortunately this is absolutely, categorically NOT the case at all.

The Crown is the directorate of the corporation, and Great Britain is ruled by the Crown, the City of London which controls the Bank of England — a private corporation. In other words ‘the City’ is a ‘private’ state existing in Britain within the very heart of London. It became a sovereign-state in its own right in 1694 when King William III sanctioned the privatisation of the Bank of England, and handed it over to the banksters who today rule the financial world . . . in exactly the same way that the FRB banksters were freely given the ultimate control of money in the US in 1913.

Today, the City State of London is the world’s ultimate centre of financial power and the wealthiest square mile on the planet. The City is also unsurprisingly, home to the privatised Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange and the headquarters of all British-based and many foreign banks. It is home to the branch offices of 385 foreign banks plus 70 US banks, as well as many newspapers and publishing monopolies. It controls the world media and the world’s intelligence services and it is from within the Crown City of London that British Freemasonry, overseen by the British Monarchy specifically the Duke of Kent (Freemasonic Grand Master), and indeed World Freemasonry is governed. This includes the Grand Orient Masonic Order and the Washington DC version, ‘Scottish Rite Freemasonry.’ All a coincidence? I think not.

‘The Crown’ is a committee of twelve men who rule the independent sovereign state known as ‘the City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England and not subject to the Sovereign ruler of Great Britain and its Commonwealth. Neither is it under the rule of the British parliament, it is a separate, independent state, presided over by a Lord Mayor.

The Lord Mayor and his council serve as proxies or representatives who in effect deputise for the world’s wealthiest, most powerful banking families, including the Rothschild family, the Warburg family, the Oppenheimer family and the Schiff family. These families and their descendants own and run the Crown Corporation of London. The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year term, is the absolute ‘monarch’ in the City.

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much. When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.” Aubrey Menen, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16

So, the Lord Mayor leads the Queen into his city. We may think this is simply ‘quaint’ and part of the long British Heritage, no longer to be taken seriously, but simply an age-old ceremony kept as tradition. This is exactly what we are meant to believe but the symbolism is clear; the Lord Mayor is the monarch and the Queen is his subject. The Queen is subordinate to the Mayor only in the City but outside of the City of London he bows to her and furthermore, this exclusive clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament, despite the fact that in theory, Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Ministers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the country but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes.

As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s, Benjamin Disraeli wrote . . . “So you see . . . the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes” ‘Coningsby,’ The Century Co., 1907, p233

The City of London is the only part of the United Kingdom, over which parliament has no authority whatsoever and in one respect at least, the Corporation acts as the superior body of the two. It imposes on the House of Commons a figure referred-to as the ‘Remembrancer,’ an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever we or our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are fully protected.

The now greatly depleted British Empire was an extension of banksters’ financial interests. Indeed, all the colonies were ‘Crown Colonies.’ They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although British citizens were expected to shed blood (often their own) and conquer and pay for them. One key aspect of the colonial period is generally omitted or air-brushed from official history and that is the fact that all the Crown colonies were established on a corporate model with financial ties to the City of London, not to the nation of the United Kingdom (the official name of the political entity consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.) The UK is a Crown colony but the City of London is not.

The directorate of the Crown, had and has no loyalty to any nation, they were and are, devoted entirely to their own philosophy, which seeks absolute power and wealth. For more than 250 years, the ‘servants’ of the Crown brought untold wealth back from the colonies to the British Isles — to enrich their bankster masters only. The general population of the United Kingdom received very little wealth as a result of these exploits, if any at all, despite the fact that it was they who provided the finance through taxation and the ‘cannon fodder’ in the form of the armed forces, to enable the subjugation of foreign powers in order that the banksters could profit from the altruistic exploits of the armed forces.

These servicemen were invaluable assets of the Crown, but they did not know whom or what they served — and indeed still do not. (None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.) Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could also have been referring to the US, Canada or Australia (or any other country you care to name) when he wrote that . . . “England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of the Crown/City of London.”

According to the American Almanac, the Crown and their associated banksters are part of a network with an estimated $10 trillion in physical assets (as opposed to non-existent paper and money in its various electronic forms.) The Crown is in total control of such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, the former companies comprising the giant Imperial Chemical Industries, (now ‘rationalised’ into many different organisations), Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo-American DeBeers. It completely dominates the world supply of oil, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials.

The Crown/City of London also dominates the world’s speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation and food production, controls the lion’s share of the world’s markets and exerts supreme control over world industry. In order to understand the genuine motives for particular actions and events in history we already know to ‘follow the money,’ but that is only part of the story, we must also follow the philosophy and the religious beliefs of those in control. For purposes of clarity, ‘the Crown’ always refers here to a stealthy circle of power-brokers (the banksters) who all believe in the Freemasonic philosophy of the ‘brotherhood of man’ ruled by philosopher kings (or adepts) in league with the God of Masonry. This point is not up for debate, it is only necessary to read some of the cumbersome histories of Masonry and also read Albert Pike’s Morals and Dogma to understand explicitly that this power-philosophy encompasses virtually all the religious ideas ever imagined by man.

Ordinary members of Masonic lodges, those of the so-called ‘blue degrees,’ numbered 1-3 or the three overt levels, the only ones to which most Masons can aspire, are to these adepts and their goals what the people of the Western civilisations are to the directors of the Crown, that is ‘useful idiots.’ This ultra-secretive, all-pervasive cabal is represented by the dominant political, economic and cultural institutions across the world. Indeed, western society has been thoroughly subverted and western culture is morally bankrupt, whilst our so-called democracies are a subtle form of social control and the mass media and our so-called education systems are nothing more than a sham, or at best, covert forms of indoctrination.

The British government is the bonded slave of the ‘invisible and inaudible’ force centred in the City and the City is the master of all. The ‘visible and audible leaders’ i.e. ‘elected’ politicians, are mere puppets who dance to the tunes of the real powers-that-be. They have no real power and no authority and in spite of the outward show to the contrary, they are mere pawns in the on-going game being played-out by the financial elite, the banksters.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire, one was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire. The colonial possessions that consisted primarily of white people were under the jurisdiction of the Sovereign i.e. under the authority of the British government, that is, such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. However, these only represented around 13% of the people who made up the inhabitants of the British Empire.

All the other elements of the Empire, nations such as India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore and Hong Kong were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule and parliament had no authority over them. As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem whatsoever in convincing the British taxpayer of the need to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these countries.

The City reaped enormous profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces however, but this was not British commerce and British wealth it was the international banksters, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the ‘City’ machine that accumulated vast fortunes, especially as the ‘City’ is also a tax haven for them. In fact it is linked to other satellite tax havens across most time zones, ranging from Hong Kong and Singapore in the East, to the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas in the West. All of these havens are Frankenstein creations of the City, as are the Crown Dependency islands of Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey. Is it any surprise that the rich just keep getting richer!?

The Knights Templar

The Crown, the Crown Temple or Crown Templar are all synonymous and date back to the Knights Templar Church. But please understand that this whole pompous, title-ridden nonsense, is just a front for a historically long established, institutionalised criminal and financial oligarchy that has been deceiving and robbing the masses for centuries. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts; the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modelled on the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the Chancel was completed in 1240. The Temple Church serves the both Inner and Middle Temple and its grounds are also home to the Crown offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple ‘Church’ is significantly outside of any Canonical jurisdiction.

Between 1095 and 1291 AD, the Roman Catholic Church instigated seven enormous bloodbaths now referred to as ‘the Crusades,’ which were nothing more than a convenient excuse for torturing, maiming, beheading and committing genocide against millions of Muslims in ‘the name of God.’ The Church’s brutal soldiers were named the ‘Knights Templar’ or ‘Knights of the Temple of Solomon’ and eventually evolved into today’s secretive brotherhood, the Freemasons after the order was ‘dissolved’ in the early 14th century.

The Knights Templar were a pseudo-Christian group of Crusaders, who took up residence in Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem and spent many years digging a tunnel in an attempt to find the Ark of the Covenant, because it was believed that whoever held this ancient treasure, would have the power to rule the whole world, and hence the various legends prevailing throughout recorded history regarding the search for the Ark. Incidentally, the red cross and sword on the flag of the city of London and the red cross on the flag of England (the cross of St. George, below) is actually the Knights Templar’s symbol and is overtly and prominently displayed by many corporate and other entities, for example by the Italian car manufacturer, Alfa Romeo and more significantly by the Red Cross organisation itself, from whence it gets its name. The Cross of St. George also appears on the flags of several nations.

Alfa badge

Between 1450 and 1700, the Catholic Church followed-up their ‘holy’ terror campaign with the Spanish Inquisition. Based on rumours and accusations of practicing witchcraft, the Catholic Church hunted down, tortured and burned-alive tens of thousands of innocent men and women who were allegedly practising the black art of witchcraft.

And more recently, over the course of the last five decades, more than fifteen hundred Catholic priests and bishops have been identified in the sexual assault of tens of thousands of boys and girls in their trusting congregations and orphanages. Whilst preaching spiritual values of poverty and chastity, the Catholic Church accumulated all its immense wealth by placing a price-tag on sin. Many bishops and popes actively marketed guilt, sin and fear for profit, by selling ‘indulgences,’ in effect licences to sin and be subsequently forgiven. Worshippers were encouraged to pre-pay for sins that had not yet been committed and obtained a pardon for them in advance and those who did not pay were threatened with eternal damnation and excommunication. Another method of money extraction was to entice wealthy land owners to bequeath their land and fortunes to the church on their death-bed, in exchange for a blessing which would supposedly enable them to go to heaven. Pope Leo V actually rebuilt St. Peter’s Basilica, by selling tickets to heaven.

The Knights Templar, were originally named ‘the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.’ This is a blatantly misleading title, considering the immense wealth and power of the Templars, who operated 9,000 manors across Europe and owned the majority of the mills and markets. It was the Templars that issued the first paper money for public use in Europe, thus establishing the fiat banking system we know today and being the predecessors of today’s banksters. In England, they established their headquarters at a London temple, which still exists today, Temple Bar (Crown Temple.) This is located in the City of London, between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment and the aforementioned ‘Crown,’ to be precise, is the Knights Templar church, also known as the Crown Temple.

The Temple Bar consists of what are known as ‘Inns of Court’ of which there are four; Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn. It is believed that the Inner Temple is the core group that governs the City of London Corporation, and controls the legal system of Canada and Britain while the Middle Temple controls the legal system of the United States, although all Inns are themselves controlled by the same elite group at the very top of the pyramid, of course.

The logo of the Inner Temple is a white horse on the sunburst seal of the Jesuit Order. The white horse is a symbol of the British Empire / Order of the Garter / Crown Corporation and is the same white horse which is also the symbol of the American-based CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The white horse is in fact a Jesuit symbol — Pegasus. It is the Jesuit Order that governs the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple.

The Master of The Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution. All licensed Bar Attorneys or Attorners, in Britain, the United States and indeed everywhere else, owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath, in pledge to the Crown Temple, whether they realise this or not. In fact most do not. This is because all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. The American Bar Associations are all franchises to the Crown.

The Bar Association is a British-Masonic system that has nothing to do with the country’s sovereignty or the constitutional rights of its people. This is why, all flags displayed in UK or US courts, have a gold fringe around the edges denoting international and/or maritime law as these courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever on dry land in these Sovereign territories despite their pretence to the contrary.

The governments of the United States, Canada and Britain are all subsidiaries of the Crown, as is the Federal Reserve in the US and Canada (aka the 13th Federal Reserve.) The ruling Monarch in England is also subordinate to the Crown and the global financial and legal system is controlled from the City of London by the Crown.

Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution

Most people believe that the US declared independence from Britain in in 1776, thanks to our ‘education’ system and the lies and half-truths peddled to us down the centuries by ignorant, propagandised academics — and also the mainstream media. Even a cursory examination of the US currency reveals all the Masonic symbolism and of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence, at least five of which were Temple Bar attorneys and all of whom had sworn allegiance to the Crown.

Alexander Hamilton was one of the Middle Inn Crown agents during the formation of the US, and was assigned to set up the American banking system, on explicit orders from the Crown, to control the United States. In fact, a ‘State’ is a legal entity of the Crown. This is also true of the ‘State’ of Israel. In total, seven members of the Constitution Convention that signed the United States (actually estates, as in property) Constitution were Middle Inn Templars and today, copies of both the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution still hang on the wall, in the library of the Middle Temple, in London. Thus, any American that believes that they live in an independent republic is badly misinformed to say the least.

The Queen of England, Elizabeth Windsor, through her covert partnership with the Crown Temple, is the largest landowner on Earth. She is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and thirty-one other ‘sovereign’ states and territories and the legal owner of just under 7 billion acres of land, one sixth of the Earth’s land surface — or to put it another way — she owns an acre of land for every person currently living. Most of this land is in Canada, the second-largest country on Earth, where she holds title to 2,467 million acres. In addition she ‘owns’ 1,900 million acres in Australia, 114 million acres in Papua New Guinea, 66 million acres in New Zealand and 60 million acres in the UK.

The City States of ‘The Vatican,’ ‘The District of Columbia’ and ‘The City of London’ form one interlocking Empire and these three ‘City State’ corporations control the world economically, through the City of London Corporation, militarily through Washington DC, and spiritually through the Vatican. They pay no taxes, are under no National Authority, have their own Independent Flag, their own Separate Laws and their own Police Force and have totally independent identities to the rest of the outside world.

Adorning the walls of St. Peter’s Basilica, is the Vatican-approved image of God, an angry, bearded man in the sky painted by Michelangelo. Cruel and violent images of Gods tortured Son, suffering, bleeding and dying with a crown of vicious-looking thorns on his head and nails pounded through his feet and hands are on display throughout the Vatican. These images serve as reminders that ‘God allowed His Son to be tortured and killed to save the souls of human beings who are all born sinners.’

The Vatican and the Catholic Church it controls, rules over approximately 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion people and has been in existence virtually since the birth of Christianity, but the 110 acre Vatican City itself, only came into being when it became an independent state in 1929, through the Lateran Treaty signed by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Casparri on behalf of the Holy See and by Prime Minister Benito Mussolini on behalf of the Kingdom of Italy. Whilst two-thirds of the world earns less than £1 a day and one-fifth of the world is underfed or starving, the Vatican hoards billions in solid gold bullion, within the vaults of the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve Bank. In addition, the Catholic Church has huge investments with many multi-national corporations.

During the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church not only hoarded the wealth they collected from the poor, but they hoarded knowledge too. They kept the ‘masses’ ignorant by denying them a basic education and also prohibited anyone from reading or even possessing a Bible, under pain of death.

As with the city states of London and the Vatican, the city state of the District of Columbia was officially created in 1871 and is located on ten square miles of land in the heart of Washington. The District of Columbia has its own flag and its own independent constitution. This constitution operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as Lex Fori, which bears no resemblance at all to the US Constitution and the name Capitol Hill derives from Capitoline Hill, which was the seat of government for the Roman Empire. When Congress passed the Act of 1871 it created a separate corporation known as The United States and corporate government for the District of Columbia. This treasonous act allowed the District of Columbia to operate as a corporation outside the original constitution of the United States and contrary to the best interests of the American people.

The United States (United British Estates), was established as a corporation under the rule of Washington DC (which is itself subservient to The City of London) with the passage of the Act of 1871. Corporations are run by Presidents hence we have the ‘President’ of the United States and the fact remains that the US President is nothing more than a figurehead for the central banksters and the transnational corporations, both of which are controlled by High Freemasonry that really controls America, Canada and many other countries.

At the centre of each of the three city states is a towering phallic-shaped stone monument, an obelisk. The 187 ton, 69 foot tall London obelisk (aka Cleopatra’s Needle) was transported to London from Egypt and erected on the banks of the River Thames at Victoria Embankment in 1878, during the reign of Queen Victoria. The obelisk originally stood in the Egyptian city of On, or Heliopolis (the City of the Sun.) The Knights Templar’s land extended to this area of the Thames embankment, where the Templars had their own, private docks.

In Vatican City, another Egyptian obelisk towers high above St. Peter’s Square. It was relocated there in 1586, by Pope Sixtus V and is the only obelisk in Rome that has stood since Roman times. Rome originally had the most obelisks of any city, with eight Egyptian and five ancient Roman examples. Obelisks are phallic symbols honouring the pagan sun god of ancient Egypt, Amen Ra. The circle on the ground upon which it stands represents the female vagina, whilst the obelisk itself is the male penis. This is common occult symbolism and the spirit of Amen Ra is said to reside within the obelisk.

In Washington DC, the obelisk known as the Washington Monument was dedicated to the Freemason George Washington by the Freemasonic grand lodge of the District of Columbia. 250 Masonic lodges financed the Washington obelisk monument, including the Knights Templar Masonic order.

Standing at 555 feet, the Washington Monument is the tallest obelisk in the world and also the tallest free-standing structure in Washington DC. The monument’s cornerstone, a 12-ton slab of marble, was donated by the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. As is the Vatican obelisk, the Washington monument too is surrounded by a circle denoting the female and the reflecting pool in front of the monument signifies the ancient Masonic/Kabbalistic dictum, ‘as above, so below.’

Any study of the signed treaties and charters between Britain and the United States will reveal the inescapable truth that the United States has always been and still is a British Crown colony. This is the primary reason that British and US Presidents and politicians alike always refer to the ‘special relationship’ that exists between the two countries.

King James I was famous not only for the rewriting of the Bible into the ‘King James Version,’ but also for his signing of the first charter of Virginia in 1606. That charter granted America’s British forefathers a licence to settle and colonise America and also guaranteed the future kings and queens of England, sovereign authority over all the citizens and colonised land in America stolen from the Indians. After America declared its independence from Great Britain, the Treaty of 1783 was signed. This treaty specifically identifies the king of England as the ‘Prince of the United States’ and contradicts the belief that America ‘won’ the war of independence. Although King George III of England relinquished most of his claims over American colonies, he kept his right to continue receiving payment for his business venture in colonising America.

Had America really won the War of Independence, they would never have agreed to pay debts and reparations to the king of England. In fact, the war actually bankrupted America and turned its citizens into permanent debt slaves of the king. Then more than twenty years later, in the war of 1812, the British burned the White House to the ground and also many US government buildings, in the process conveniently destroying all ratification records of the US Constitution.

Most people believe that the United States is an independent country and that the President is the most powerful man on earth, but in reality, the United States is not a country, it is a corporation and the President is President of the corporation of the United States and his ‘elected’ officials work for the corporation, not for the American people. But if indeed the United States is a corporation, it begs the question as to who owns it.

Similarly to Canada and Australia whose leaders are prime ministers of the Queen and whose land is Crown-owned land, the United States is just another Crown colony. Crown colonies are controlled by the Empire of the three City States, an Empire ‘hidden’ in plain sight, unbeknown to the masses.

The Round Table

The organisation was founded by Cecil Rhodes and although based in the UK, this financial empire extends its influence via a worldwide network, whose supreme council is headed by the Rothschilds of Britain and France. A generational seat is also accorded to a descendant of the Hapsburgs, and to the ruling families of England and France. In America, the Illuminati are represented by old-money families, such as the Rockefellers, Mellons and Carnegies.

The siphoning of the British people’s wealth into the coffers of the Illuminati in the City of London, created severe economic inequalities and stifled the nation’s ability to adapt technologically at a pace similar to that of the rapidly expanding nation of Germany. And so, by the 1870s, the British Empire reached its absolute zenith and England began the longest economic depression in its history, one from which it was not to recover until the 1890s. Therefore, the country of Britain no longer provided the economic capacity to support the global ambitions of the Illuminati and so it was at that point that the Illuminati sought to confer increasing power upon its branches in the United States, which it could rule by proxy in the coming century, while still based financially in Britain.

“I know quite well that whether Mr. Rhodes is the lofty and worshipful patriot and statesman that multitudes believe him to be, or Satan come again, as the rest of the world account him, he is still the most imposing figure in the British Empire outside of England. When he stands on the Cape of Good Hope, his shadow falls to the Zambesi. He is the only colonial in the British dominions whose goings and comings are chronicled and discussed under all the globe’s meridians, and whose speeches, unclipped, are cabled from the ends of the earth; and he is the only unroyal outsider whose arrival in London can compete for attention with an eclipse.” Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes

The son of Baron Lionel Rothschild, Nathaniel Mayer, also known as ‘Natty’ de Rothschild, became head of NM Rothschild and Sons after his father’s death in 1879. Natty also funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and the De Beers diamond conglomerate. He administered Rhodes’ estate after his death in 1902, and helped to set up the Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford University.

In the first of his seven wills, Cecil Rhodes called for the formation of a ‘secret society,’ devoted to ‘the extension of British rule throughout the world.’ Rhodes also posited that only the ‘British elite’ should be entitled to rule the world for the benefit of mankind. In other words, the Illuminati of the City of London would exploit the expansion of British imperialism, to increase their control over gold, the seas, the world’s raw materials, but most importantly, after the turn of the century, a precious, new commodity, oil.

The goals Rhodes articulated included the “the ultimate recovery of the United States as an integral part of the British Empire [which] would culminate in consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”

In his third will, Rhodes left his entire estate to the prominent Freemason Lord Nathaniel Rothschild as trustee. Rhodes had also been initiated into Freemasonry in 1877, shortly after arriving at Oxford and joined a Scottish Rite Lodge. To chair Rhodes’ secret society, Lord Nathaniel Rothschild appointed Alfred Milner, who then recruited a group of young men from Oxford and Toynbee Hall. All were well-known English Freemasons, among them Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Balfour, also Lord Rothschild and other Oxford graduates, known collectively as ‘Milner’s Kindergarten.’ And they, together with a number of other English Freemasons, founded the Round Table.

The man charged by the Round Table with bringing the United States within the financial control of the Rothschilds was Jacob Schiff who also financed the Standard Oil Company for John D. Rockefeller. One thing that we must always bear in mind is that the Illuminati and the powerful families of world banking are one and the same.

As close as may be ascertained, the current list of thirteen families of which the Illuminati/banksters is composed is as follows:

Rockefeller.
Money, Oil, Medical, Education, Think Tanks and Foundations.

John D. Rockefeller Sr. was tasked by the Rothschilds, through their agents John Jacob Astor and Jacob Schiff, to gain control of the American oil industry. The Rockefellers are themselves an important Illuminati family, being Marranos (crypto-Jews), who initially moved to Ottoman Turkey, and then France, before arriving in the US.

John D. Rockefeller Sr. founded Standard Oil, which, through the second half of the nineteenth century, achieved infamy for its ruthless practices. Growing public hostility toward monopolies, of which the Standard Oil Trust was the most egregious example, caused a number of states to enact anti-monopoly laws, leading to the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act by Congress in 1890.

In 1892, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that Standard Oil was in violation of its monopoly laws but Rockefeller evaded the decision by dissolving the trust and transferring its properties to companies in other states, with interlocking directorates, so that the same men continued to control its operations. In 1899, these companies were re-united in a holding company, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which existed until 1911, when the US Supreme Court again declared it in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and therefore illegal. The splintered company, although using various names, continued to be run by Rockefeller.

The history of the Rockefeller family began, with John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s father, William Avery Rockefeller. ‘Big Bill,’ was a travelling salesman who advertised himself as a ‘William Rockefeller, the Celebrated Cancer Specialist’ and who hawked ‘herbal remedies and other bottled medicines.’

He guaranteed ‘all cases of cancer cured unless they are too far gone,’ and these outrageous claims allowed him to charge $25 for his magic cancer cure, a sum then equivalent to two month’s wages. The ‘cure’ survived until quite recently as ‘Nujol,’ consisting principally of petroleum and peddled as a laxative. Nujol was manufactured by a subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey, Stanco, whose only other product, manufactured on the same premises, was the insecticide, ‘Flit.’

Big Bill fled from a number of indictments for horse stealing, eventually disappearing altogether as William Rockefeller and re-emerging as ‘Dr. William Levingston of Philadelphia,’ a name which he retained for the rest of his life. An investigative reporter at Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World newspaper, later disclosed that William Avery Rockefeller had died 11th May 1906 in Freeport, Illinois, where he was interred in an unmarked grave as the aforesaid ‘Dr. William Levingston.’

He married Eliza Davison in 1837 and shortly thereafter engaged Nancy Brown as his ‘housekeeper,’ who became his lover and who also bore his children. On June 28, 1849, he was indicted for raping a hired girl in Cayuga, New York and later was found to be residing in Oswego, New York and was forced once again to flee. He had no difficulty in financing his ‘womanising’ from the sale of his miraculous cancer cure and from another product, his ‘Wonder Working Liniment,’ which he offered at only $2 a bottle. It consisted of crude petroleum from which the lighter oils had been boiled away, leaving a heavy solution of paraffin, lube oil and tar, which comprised the ‘liniment.’

From small beginnings in Cleveland, Ohio, John D. Rockefeller started his career as a bookkeeper and from there he then went into partnership in a refinery with the Clark brothers and eventually bought the company from them, taking great delight in the title of the ‘Most Ruthless American.’

He was a profiteer during the Civil War, selling liquor to Federal troops at a high profit, gaining the initial capital to embark on his drive for a monopoly in the oil business and then in 1870, Rockefeller, along with his associates and older brother William, incorporated his petroleum holdings into the Standard Oil Company (Ohio.) He would buy-out his competitors or put them out of business through tactics that included price-cutting and the acquisition of such supporting enterprises as pipelines, oil terminals, and cooperage plants.

“He expanded with great daring. Borrowing wherever he could, and bringing in new partners. He realized that the only way to dominate the industry was not by producing oil, but by refining and distributing it, and undercutting his rivals by cheaper transport. With the help of a new partner, Henry Flagler, he persuaded the railroads to give secret rebates to his oil, extending the existing practice of allowing discounts for large quantities of freight.” Anthony Sampson, ‘The Seven Sisters.’

When Rockefeller secretly bought out rival oil companies, the executives pretended to be Rockefeller competitors and reported what other rival company executives told them. By 1870 he established a joint-stock company, called the Standard Oil Company, with a capital of a million dollars, of which he owned 27 percent. Standard Oil was already, by this time producing one tenth of the oil in America.

By 1875, Rockefeller, as president of the refiners’ Central Association, had become the leader of the refiners. The refiners effectively took control from the producers and drillers and he formed the Standard Oil Trust in 1883, trading across the entire continent.

“Through the device of a trust, which held shares in each component company, Rockefeller was able to circumvent the laws which then prohibited a company in one state from owning shares in another; at the same time, he could and did pretend that all the companies were independent. He had no personal doubts about the rightness and need for this kind of concentration: ‘this movement,’ he said later, in a famous passage, ‘was the origin of the whole system of modern economic administration. It has revolutionized the way of doing business all over the world. The time was ripe for it. It had to come. Although all we saw at the moment was to save ourselves from wasteful conditions . . . The day of combination is here to stay. Individualism has gone, never to return.’” Anthony Sampson, ‘The Seven Sisters.’

From his operational hub at 26, Broadway in New York City, Rockefeller bought oilfields as well as refineries as the industry moved from Pennsylvania to Ohio, to Kansas, and on to California. Standard Oil’s income was larger than most states and it often ‘bought’ federal and state politicians in order to consolidate its position. With its huge profits, Standard Oil could finance its own expansion, remaining free from the grip of the banksters, whom Rockefeller resented. Standard Oil began exporting oil to the Middle East, the Far East and Europe and by 1885, 70% of its business was overseas.

Standard had its own network of agents throughout the world, its own intelligence service which provided information about its competitors and about political leaders in all the target market countries. The ruthlessness of Rockefeller’s tactics against his competitors and his own workers (when they dared to demand a living wage,) became the focus for serious condemnation of Rockefeller and his sordid tactics. And indeed, Ida Tarbell’s ‘History of Standard Oil’ turned the public against the monopolistic excesses of Rockefeller.

Then in 1890, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed but was only brought to bear much later, during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. In 1907 a report was published by the Commissioner of Corporations and a special prosecutor, Frank Kellogg, began to detail the evidence of Standard’s illegal monopoly and exorbitant profiteering — nearly a billion dollars in a quarter-century. The case was appealed in the Supreme Court which in 1911 decreed that Standard Oil must divest itself of all its subsidiaries.

John Davison Rockefeller, Jr., (1874-1960) was the only son and heir of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. After graduating from Brown University in 1897, he worked in family enterprises eventually personally financing the Rockefeller Centre in New York City. Also, by donating land in New York City, Rockefeller was influential in the decision to locate the United Nations headquarters in the United States. He had one daughter, Abby (born 1903), and five sons; John D. III, Nelson, Laurence, Winthrop, and David, who is still alive at the time of writing, aged 100 (b. June 1915) and to whom I will return my attention shortly.

Standard Oil today consists of . . .

Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (EXXON)
Standard Oil Company of New York (MOBIL)
Standard Oil Company of California (SOCAL)
GULF Oil Company
Texas Company (TEXACO)

The total value of the assets of all living descendants of John D. Rockefeller is now estimated to be around 2 trillion dollars.

Astor. Money, Drugs, Real Estate, Politics.

The original founder of the Astor fortune was John Jacob Astor I, who was born in Waldorf, in the Duchy of Baden (Germany) of a Jewish bloodline. Their Jewish origins have been deliberately well hidden and various false stories of the Astor heritage have been circulated by them. John Jacob Astor I was a butcher in Waldorf and in 1784 he immigrated to America after a brief stopover in London, England.

The story goes, that he arrived in America penniless, and that may well be true, however he soon joined the Freemasons and within three years had become the Master of the Holland Lodge No. 8 in New York City. (This Holland Lodge is notable in that many of its members have good connections to the Illuminati elite.)

An example of a Lodge no. 8 member was Archibald Russell, 1811 — 1871, whose father was President of a real hotbed of Illuminati activity for many years, The Royal Society, of Edinburgh. By 1788, Astor was master of the lodge and this in itself is rather interesting considering that Astor allegedly could not speak English when he arrived in America, and was supposedly ‘very poor.’

The first John Jacob Astor was notorious for being cold-hearted and anti-social, ‘a man who had no charm, wit or grace,’ according to a member of the DuPont family, who wrote a sympathetic biography entitled The Astor Family.

The original financial breakthrough for Astor came when he undertook a series of shady and some say, crooked real estate deals in the New York City area and following that, two men awarded John Jacob Astor a special government privilege. Those two men were President Jefferson and Secretary Gallatin, who were both Illuminati members. The United States government had placed an embargo on all US ships from sailing with goods in 1807, but Astor was granted special permission from these two men for his ship to sail with its cargo. From this enterprise he made almost $200,000 profit in 1807 money values — an absolute fortune. Astor was also able to make huge profits from the War of 1812, which crippled almost all the other American shippers. He also worked together with George Clinton, another member of the Illuminati, on land deals.

Sometime prior to 1817, John Jacob Astor I entered into the fur trade and became the biggest player of all until he sold his interests in 1834. Over the years, he had somehow managed to build up a monopoly but quite how he had managed to exclude everyone else is a very pertinent question. Bearing in mind that white people had been trapping furs in North America for several centuries and the native Indians for many centuries before that, Astor arrived and in a few short years completely owned the entire industry. This could only have been possible because of the undue influence of his friends in high places. If his position in the hierarchy had not been a privileged one then there is no doubt that the families that originally controlled the fur trade would not have allowed him to ‘muscle-in’ on their territory.

As a direct result of the expansion of his fur company the town of Astoria, Oregon was born and even today, perhaps in honour of the family that originally founded it, Astoria is a veritable ‘hot-bed’ of satanic covens. Astor however, unsurprisingly, was also on very good terms with the influential politicians of the day, perhaps because most of them were Freemasons and adepts of Satanism too. He had also been very active in the opium trade, but in 1818 he made a great public show of ending his interest in running opium to China.

“John Jacob Astor made a huge fortune out of the China opium trade, it was the Committee of 300 who chose who would be allowed to participate in the fabulously lucrative China opium trade, through its monopolistic BEIC, and the beneficiaries of their largess remained forever wedded to the Committee of 300.” John Coleman, ‘The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300,’ p. 131

Interestingly another of the thirteen bloodlines, the Russells, was also one of the ‘lucky’ few to obtain a slice of the Chinese opium trade. It is clear from written history that Astor was repeatedly privy to inside information, and maintained his own opium courier system.

Another speculative venture that succeeded for him, was his purchase of large amounts of land in New York which rapidly increased in value. In addition the great financial panic of 1837 (yes, another one!) allowed him to foreclose on a large number of mortgages thus massively increasing his assets.

And so Astor’s wealth continued to skyrocket and as one biographer wrote, “When it came to a question of principle versus profit, Astor was a practical man.” Put simply, he had no morals or scruples whatsoever and yet despite his enormous wealth he also acquired a deserved reputation for reneging upon his legitimate debts.

Astor eventually became a bankster himself and sat on the board of five directors of the new, yet short-lived central bank, the Bank of the United States. How ironic that his great grandson, John Jacob Astor IV was to be such a vocal opponent of the 3rd (and successful) attempt to set up a permanent central bank, 80 years later. There is no doubt that he had become the richest man in the United States, his wealth represented approximately one-fifteenth of the whole amount invested throughout the territory of the United States.

John Jacob Astor I’s descendants had a penchant for secrecy and shunned the limelight, preferring to keep a very low profile whilst others became the public faces of their enterprises. In contrast to some of the other bloodline families, the Astors often chose not to sit on boards of corporations they controlled yet nevertheless in 1890, a real estate expert calculated that they owned 5% of ALL New York City real estate. But now, after making their fortune whilst residing in the New York area, the Astors have largely all immigrated to England. However they still wield great financial power in the United States through proxies, and their collective fortune is estimated to be about £25 billion today.

William Backhouse Astor was the son of John Jacob Astor I. In the 19th Century he was infamous as a ‘slum landlord’ and for his deplorable treatment of thousands of people who rented from him in New York. There were repeated riots and protests by tenants who were forced to exist in terrible conditions in the slums owned by Astor, but their complaints were consistently ignored and of course the protests were brutally suppressed by the authorities who as always, act on behalf of the rich, against the poor. Only around 50% of the children of his tenants attained adulthood, a very poor ratio, even for those days.

John Jacob Astor III was the son of William Backhouse Astor, and was just as haughty, cruel and corrupt as his father and grandfather before him had been. He created and ran ‘sweat shops’ for the poor masses living in his New York tenements and openly supported corrupt politicians such as the criminal, ‘Boss’ Mayor Tweed who effectively ran New York City for his own unseemly ends. ‘The Tweed Ring’ stole millions of dollars from the city of New York before they were finally caught and sent to prison for the embezzlement of more than $200 million of the city’s money, a vast sum in those days. The power of the Astor family and its fortune allowed JJ Astor III’s involvement to remain overlooked and un-reported by the compliant press, whilst Tweed went to prison for life.

On the corner of 33rd Street and 5th Avenue, New York, the original Waldorf Hotel was built by William Waldorf, and opened in 1893. It was contemporarily described as ‘the ultimate in snob appeal.’ Later two Astor cousins built the Astoria in New York which opened in 1897 and the two hotels eventually merged to create the luxurious Waldorf-Astoria hotel complex.

The Astors are also very prominent in the ‘Group’ which is Britain’s equivalent to the Skull and Bones secret society of which the Bush family are famously members. In Britain, the Astors, along with about 20 other families dominate the Group, just as certain families such as the Whitneys in the US, dominate the Order of Skull and Bones.

In 1919, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) was created as a prominent arm of the Illuminati and the Astors were its major financial backers. The RIIA is in effect the British equivalent to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a major role in the political policy-making process in the US, albeit behind the scenes and by unelected members. Just above the CFR/RIIA in the overall hierarchy are Round Table groups which were initially named by Cecil Rhodes as the ‘Association of Helpers.’ Rhodes set up the Rhodes Scholarships to recruit and bring young men from the bloodline families to Oxford University, to be initiated into the Illuminati and to be instructed in the tenets of and the furtherance of the New World Order agenda.

The Astor family in London eventually split into two powerful segments with one branch of the family based on the Cliveden Estate and the other becoming ‘Barons,’ the Astors of Hever. William Waldorf Astor owned the Pall Mall Gazette, the Observer, and the Pall Mall Magazine and in addition, the Times of London has been controlled by the Astors since 1922. However, most of the assets and wealth of the 13 bloodline families is hidden in order to avoid identification of the source.

The Astor dominated Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR) was the group that was behind the Illuminati’s decision to allow Red China to share in the opium trade and also helped lay the groundwork for the Pearl Harbor attack. The Astors also were instrumental in the appeasement policy in Europe which allowed Hitler to re-arm Germany and threaten British interests, the ultimate pre-cursor to World War II.

They were also involved in the temperance movement against alcoholic drink which was ostensibly begun by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. The Temperance movement was an elite-creation which allowed families such as the Kennedys and Onassis, also two of the thirteen Illuminati families to become immensely rich by virtue of control of the ‘bootlegging industry’ in the 1920s and 30s. Today’s equivalent of the Temperance movement is the drug trade, another illuminati-controlled enterprise worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, annually.

As do their partners in crime, the Rothschilds, DuPonts and Rockefellers, the Astors always select a patriarch, the eldest male and this privilege is passed down from generation to generation as a birth-right within the different branches of the family, just as a king passes on the throne to the eldest male heir.

Russell. Money, Drugs, Skull and Bones.

The story of the Russell family begins at Yale University, where three elements of American social history, espionage, drug smuggling and secret societies, become one.

Elihu Yale for whom the University is named, was born near Boston, educated in London and served with the British East India Company, eventually becoming governor of Fort Saint George, Madras, in 1687. He amassed a great fortune from trade and returned to England in 1699. Yale became known as quite a philanthropist and upon receiving a request from the Collegiate School in Connecticut, he sent a donation and a gift of books. After further, subsequent bequests, it was proposed in 1718 that the school be named Yale College.

A statue of Nathan Hale stands on Old Campus at Yale University with an identical copy in front of the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Yet another stands in front of Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts (where George Bush the elder went to prep school and joined a secret society at age twelve.) Nathan Hale, along with three other Yale graduates, was a member of the ‘Culper Ring,’ one of America’s first intelligence operations, established by George Washington and effective throughout the Revolutionary War. Nathan Hale was its only operative to be captured by the British, and after making public his famous ‘regrets,’ he was hanged in 1776. Since the founding of the American nation, the relationship between Yale and the ‘intelligence community,’ has been particularly strong.

Then in 1823, Samuel Russell established Russell and Company for the primary purpose of acquiring opium in Turkey and smuggling it into China, later merging with the Perkins (Boston) syndicate in 1830 and becoming the primary American opium dealer. Indeed many great American and European fortunes were built on the China opium trade.

One of Russell and Company’s Chief of Operations in Canton was Warren Delano, Jr., grandfather of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Other Russell partners included John Cleve Green (who financed Princeton University,) Abel Low (who financed construction of Columbia University,) Joseph Coolidge and the Perkins, Sturgis and Forbes families. (Coolidge’s son founded the United Fruit Company, and his grandson, Archibald C. Coolidge, was a co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.)

William Huntington Russell, Samuel’s cousin, studied in Prussia (now part of modern-day Germany) in 1831-32, a period when the region was a hotbed of new ideas. It was at this time that the ‘scientific method’ was being freely applied to all forms of human endeavour and as a result, Prussia, which blamed the defeat of its forces by Napoleon in 1806 on soldiers only thinking about themselves in the stress of battle, took the principles set forth by John Locke and Jean Rousseau and created a new educational system. Johan Fitche, in his address to the German People, declared that the children would be taken over by the State and told what to think and how to think it, an early form of Marxism / Communism.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel took over Fitche’s chair at the University Of Berlin in 1817 and was a professor there until his death in 1831. Hegel was the embodiment of the Prussian idealistic philosophy school of Immanuel Kant and to him, the world was a world ‘of reason.’ The state was ‘Absolute Reason’ and the citizen could achieve true freedom only by worship and obedience to the state. Hegel called the state the ‘march of God in the world’ and ‘the final end.’ This final end, Hegel declared, ‘has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.’ Communism has its philosophical roots in Hegelianism and this philosophy was very much in vogue during William Russell’s time in Prussia. The ‘Hegelian Dialectic,’ otherwise known as ‘Problem, Reaction and Solution’ is also a product of Hegel’s philosophy.

Upon Russell’s return to Yale in 1832, he formed a secret society with Alphonso Taft, the Order of Skull and Bones and according to information acquired from a break-in to the ‘tomb’ (the Skull and Bones meeting hall) in 1876, ‘ . . . Bones is a chapter of a corps in a German University . . . General Russell, its founder, was in Germany before his Senior Year and formed a warm friendship with a leading member of a German society. He brought back with him to college, authority to found a chapter here.’ So class valedictorian William H. Russell, along with fourteen others, became the founding members of ‘The Order of Skull and Bones.’

In 1833, the young members adopted the skull and bones symbol as their ‘logo’ and at the same time, the number 322 became part of the emblem of the organisation. 322 BCE was actually the year in which the Greek orator Demosthenes died.

In 1856, Skull and Bones was officially registered under the name Russell Trust, owned by William H. Russell and on 13th March of the same year, the organisation moved its headquarters into a sinister mausoleum-like building within the confines of Yale University and appropriately named ‘the Tomb.’ Allegedly, there are innumerable human skulls and bones in the ‘tomb,’ the keeping of which, is illegal under Connecticut law.

Each year one of the responsibilities of the cohort of fifteen seniors is to select fifteen new junior members to replace them. This is known as being ‘tapped’ (selected) for the society. To be tapped for Skull and Bones is seen by many Yale students as the highest honour that can be attained, though occasionally some do refuse. ‘Bones’ members meet at least weekly and conduct an ongoing analysis of each other, including revealing their innermost secrets and their sexual activities, aimed at creating a long term bond between them, which continues after leaving university and taking their place in society. However this is also used as a lever for blackmail to keep the member ‘in order.’ Within the Bones ‘tomb’ are rooms which some believe to be used for satanic worship and other occult practices. Kris Milligan claimed that the room is arranged to represent an entrance into a higher level of the Bavarian Illuminati.

In the tomb, members dine from a china dinner service and using silverware formerly belonging to Adolf Hitler and consume expensive gourmet meals cooked for them by their own personal chefs. Each member is given a secret code-name and refer to themselves as ‘knights’ and to outsiders as ‘barbarians.’

The Order encourages members to view the world outside of Skull and Bones in a desensitised and dispassionate way, thus allowing them to treat the rest of humanity in a scornful and derisive manner, totally devoid of empathy or compassion. The clocks in the ‘tomb’ are intentionally set five minutes ahead of the rest of their time zone in order that the ‘Bonesmen’ may feel an ongoing sense of existing in a totally separate world from the ‘barbarians.’

‘Tapping’ is partially a response to visible or anticipated future excellence, thus it could be considered meritocratic. However, a the great majority of members are repeatedly drawn from the same core families thus rendering it a typical nested, generational-driven secret society with little chance of gaining access unless born into certain privileged families.

The family names of Skull and Bones-men roll off the tongue like a ‘Who’s Who’ of American high society. Whitney, Taft, Jay, Bundy, Harriman, Weyerhaeuser, Pinchot, Rockefeller, Goodyear, Sloane, Stimson, Phelps, Perkins, Pilsbury, Kellogg, Vanderbilt, Bush and Kerry. Both John Kerry and George W. Bush are members of Skull and Bones and Bush famously refused to talk about their common membership in the Order of Death during his 9th February 2004 appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’ In another interview, when Bush was asked what he could reveal about Skull and Bones, he said, ‘Well not much, because it’s a secret . . . Sorry, I wish there was something I could manifest . . . ’ before quickly changing the subject. Bush appointed eleven Skull and Bones members to his Administration in his first term alone.

William Russell went on to become a general and a state legislator in Connecticut. Alphonso Taft was appointed US Attorney General, Secretary of War (a post many ‘Bonesmen’ have held throughout the decades), Ambassador to Austria, and Ambassador to Russia (another post held by many ‘Bonesmen.’) His son, William Howard Taft was the only man to become both President of the United States and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Li. Money, Drugs, Politics and Vice

The Rothschild and the Rockefeller families hold a very great respect for the Chinese and Japanese people and so China and Japan have been offered the chance to become important players in the ‘New World Order.’

The Li family has a long history in China, for example, during the Tang Dynasty around 15 different families were given the honour of using the name. Li Yuan was the founder of the Tang Dynasty which lasted from 618 to 906 AD and his son who succeeded him was Li Shimin. It was ironically during this dynasty that printing and paper money were introduced to China.

Today, the Lis control Red China, Hong Kong and Singapore and hold important positions in Taiwan. If the Lis which control these various nations are related, which is suspected by many researchers to be the case, then this is certainly one of the most powerful families in the world. In fact in terms of power, they are equally as influential as the Rockefellers in America.

They are also connected to several secretive, Chinese occult societies and as far as can be ascertained, the Li family In Hong Kong is part of the satanic hierarchy and works hand in glove with the British and American elite bankster families as well as being inextricably linked to the Triads, the Chinese ‘Mafia.’

The Triads have an extremely long, colourful and even sordid history. They are a secret fraternity much like the Freemasons, yet they also have the appearance of a revolutionary army combined with the Mafia. They are all these things in one package and so are a much more complex group to attempt to understand. Their heritage and history make them almost a sub-culture and a sub-culture that is extremely difficult for law enforcement agencies to infiltrate, and their blood oaths and traditions bind them together and create a virtually impenetrable barrier to ‘outsiders.’

Before Mao Tse Tung and his Communists took over in 1949, the Triads virtually ran China unopposed. For instance, it was discovered that in 1917, the Triads, along with the then Vice-President of the Republic of China were embezzling public funds on a large scale, to purchase opium in order to compete in the drug trade with the British and other western interests. Indeed many leaders of China prior to the Communist takeover were Triad leaders as well as also being Freemasons.

But, after the Communists took power, the Triads were forced ‘underground.’ The Communists made no attempt to eliminate the Triads altogether, but they did suppress their activities, forcing them to operate in secrecy rather than overtly. After the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the Triads smuggled the leaders of the democratic movement out of Red China but as already stated, the Communists have never quite managed to destroy their immense power.

In fact, the Triads are the most powerful criminal fraternity in the world, except for the Illuminati families that make up the Illuminati’s ‘Committee of 300.’ The Mafia are mere ‘newbies’ and amateurs in comparison with the Triads who are almost ‘untouchable’ by any law enforcement group and they have operated with impunity in the United States for over 100 years, are major drug suppliers working in co-operation with the Illuminati, yet most Americans do not even know of their existence. And although America has many citizens of Chinese descent, they generally are unfamiliar with the Chinese dialects that any would-be undercover agents would have to know to infiltrate the Triad operations.

By 1931, there were eight main Triad groups and they had divided-up Hong Kong into geographic areas and ethnic groups for which each was responsible. These groups were the Wo, the Rung, the Tung, the Chuen, the Shing, the Fuk Yee Hing, the Yee On, and the Luen. Each had its own headquarters, its own sub-societies, and its own seemingly innocuous public ‘covers.’ The Fuk Yee Hing’s cover for example, was that it was registered as a workers benevolent society. It consisted of 12 branch offices and a membership of 10,000.

Yee On’s cover was as the ‘Yee On Commercial and Industrial Guild.’ The Wo operated as a death gratuity association and in a similar way they were all disguised by their totally innocent-sounding names. Many martial arts clubs and organisations were also fronts for, or had affiliations with the Triads, and indeed continue to be associated with them, not only in Hong Kong but to some degree in all other countries too. The Triad group that works most closely with the Illuminati is the Yee On Commercial and Industrial Guild, which is the prime controller of the Kowloon Walled City which produced sex toys for the international market.

Today in Hong Kong there may be as many as 60 different Triad Societies operating. The largest numerically is the Yee On, with 33,000 members but the overall Triad influence is widespread, Vancouver, San Francisco, New York, London, Manchester and Amsterdam (not to mention Macao and Hong Kong) are just some of the bases of Triad Operation. Their money is made by extortion, gambling, prostitution and drugs and the Triads have collaborated closely with the CIA in creating the drug network. The creation of the Golden Triangle as a source for drugs was a joint CIA-Triad operation. Indeed, with the advent of the 1960s CIA-instigated drug culture the Triads introduced ‘Pure No. 4’ heroin into England to replace the ‘Brown Sugar’ that the Rolling Stones had famously sung about.

Every city In Britain where a sizeable group of ethnic Chinese are located, the Triads have a foothold, which in effect means all British cities. Most of the couriers for the Triads today are in fact Europeans and they are now using British banks rather than the Hong Kong banks in order to ‘launder’ their dirty money.

In addition, the Triads control the drug trade in New York City almost totally now and the only possible way that this could have been achieved was through the co-operation and goodwill of the major Illuminati families. Without this co-operation from ‘above,’ the Triads would quickly find themselves out of business.

So, in conclusion, the Li family controls Hong Kong through the Triads and the Triads are an occult fraternity, far bigger than Freemasonry, but less well-known despite their close ties to the Illuminati. Li Ka-Shing is the billionaire, de-facto ruler of Hong Kong and a major figure in the occult world. It was the Illuminati that assisted the Li’s in establishing the Li Commercial Bank in New York, most likely as a reward for General Li Mi and his successor, Li Wen-Huan for having originally planted the poppy-growing fields in the Golden Triangle in order to produce the drugs marketed by the other Elite, bankster families.

We only need to observe known members of the Illuminati, such as Skull and Bones George Bush treat the Chinese Lis with such respect and friendship, even when it was Li Peng that crushed innocent people at Tiananmen Square, to realise that the Li family in China is also part of the Illuminati. Why else would the Rockefellers and Rothschilds also have such a cosy relationship with them and why does the Premier of the People’s Republic of China, Li Peng always socialise with the Rockefellers and several other capitalists when he visits New York City, if he is such a hard-line communist? Are the ‘filthy capitalists’ not the communists’ sworn enemies? It is all one big illusion, one big ‘game’ I’m afraid, and we are the innocent dupes who lose every time.

Bundy. Money, Politics

The Bundy family, has a long history of connection with the world of occult and NWO organisations and are active members of the class of aristocracy sometimes referred to as the ‘Boston Brahmin.’ Throughout the last two centuries, they have been in highly influential positions within the governmental hierarchy of the United States, at various levels.

Jonas Mills Bundy (1835-1891) was a key advisor to President Grant, President Garfield and President Chester Arthur.

Harvey Hollister Bundy (1888-1963) was inducted into Skull and Bones in 1909. He was the ‘Special Assistant’ to Secretary of War, Henry Stimson (also Skull and Bones), a law clerk for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the key Pentagon man on the Manhattan Project, secretary of the US Sugar Equalization Board, Chairman of the Panama Railway Co., Chairman of Boston Personal Property Trust, director of Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, director of State Street and Union Trust Companies, director of New England Merchants and director of R.M. Bradley Co. In 1952, he became the chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, chairman of Foreign Bondholders Protective Council, trustee and president of the World Peace Foundation, chairman of Wellesley College and chairman of the New England Rhodes Scholarships Selection Committee.

Harvey H. Bundy was one of the most prominent figures in the supervision of the Manhattan Project, responsible for developing the Atomic bomb. He was also the liaison between the War Department and the Office of Scientific Research and Development.

Then in 1952, Harvey assumed control of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace from John Foster Dulles. The Carnegie Endowment for Peace has been a major vehicle for the Illuminati in the covert financing of various ‘tax-free’ projects. For example, in 1971, the organisation spent over $2 million, and had assets of $41 million. The stated object of the foundation is ‘to promote international peace,’ or at least reading between the lines, the kind of ‘peace’ that President George Bush told the United Nations that the world needed and that of course is the ‘One World Government’ (NWO) type of ‘peace.’

Frederick McGeorge Bundy was initiated into Skull and Bones in 1921 and McGeorge Bundy, son of Frederick, was initiated in 1940 later becoming a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Bilderberger Group. His brother, William Putnam Bundy, a 1939 Skull and Bones inductee, edited the Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Affairs and was a permanent member of the Bilderberger steering committee. He was also a partner in the law firm, Covington and Burling, a firm that represents many of the bankster and Illuminati Elite in Washington, D.C. Covington and Burling also appears to have been a front for the Illuminati in creating an extreme left-wing political movement in the US. In 1951 he quit Covington and Burling to join the CIA as an analyst eventually attaining the position of Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA.

Most people would not necessarily recognise the Bundy name as that of a powerful Elite family, however, in the 1960s the two Bundy brothers (above) held the key positions that controlled most of the information that was fed to US Presidents, Kennedy and Johnson during their terms of office. When Johnson attained the highest office in the wake of JFK’s assassination, McGeorge Bundy occupied the key position of National Security Advisor, a post which determined precisely what information reached the President’s eyes and ears. His brother was also in a key State Department position and significantly, both Bundy brothers were also fraternal brothers of the Illuminati Order of the Skull and Bones. In addition to the above, McGeorge Bundy sat on MJ-12, which is the council of ‘wise men’ that covertly rules the United States.

Harry W. Bundy was also known to be a practising satanist and ‘Chief Adept’ of the Rosicrucians, another secretive sect with strong links to the Illuminati.

In 1953, Senator Joseph McCarthy became notorious almost overnight for his alleged ‘commie hunting’ activities throughout American politics, even dragging Hollywood into his net along the way. He has ever-since been vilified by the compliant mainstream media as some sort of ‘crazy’ or ‘fanatic’ for his actions. However the real, unreported truth is that McCarthy had discovered and tapped into the New World Order conspiracy and recognised its communistic leanings and the danger to the US constitution that it posed. He was, as it turns out, a patriot merely trying to get to the truth about what was really going on in the upper echelons of American politics and society and it is absolutely clear from his own writings that it was the NWO that he was opposing, not simply ‘individuals with communist tendencies,’ as has been falsely portrayed in order to discredit him and his actions. One of McCarthy’s ‘victims’ at his ‘House Un-American Activities Committee’ hearings just happened to be William P. Bundy, whom he had subpoenaed to testify.

The subpoena was instigated because McCarthy discovered that Bundy had donated at least $500 to help the infamous communist spy, Alger Hiss defend himself. Hiss’s brother Donald incidentally, had also worked for Covington and Burling alongside Bundy and Senator McCarthy knew that if Bundy was questioned, it would help him expose the truth although he also realised that he would almost certainly lie under oath to protect himself and his fellow conspirators. However, Allen Dulles, the notorious CIA chief who was also Illuminati, arranged to smuggle Bundy out of the country so that he would not have to face McCarthy’s intrusive questioning. The State Department had issued an arrest warrant for Bundy but as he was about to be detained at New York docks, Dulles somehow contrived to get the State Department to cancel the arrest by the ‘calling-in’ of a favour allowing Bundy to sail away, unmolested into the sunset on the liner Queen Mary.

“I note your refusal to give us any answers to our questions. Your insistence is very revealing. It would seem that the last man in the world who would try to protect and hide the facts about one of his top officers’ association with, and contributions to, a convicted traitor would be the head of the CIA. I think it necessary for me to call your attention to the tremendous damage you thereby do to this organization. That the matter cannot and will not rest here is, of course, obvious.” Senator Joseph McCarthy’s subsequent letter to CIA Director, Alan Dulles.

Lou Russell who was an important figure in McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was also, significantly, part of the Illuminati power structure. This is not an unusual occurrence and is one of the Elite’s usual tactics i.e. infiltrate the ‘enemy’ and thereby control them from the inside — or at least be aware of their every move. But by attempting to subject a member of one of the top 13 Illuminati families to Congressional questioning, McCarthy had in effect signed his own death warrant and the execution was soon expedited. McCarthy has been thoroughly demonised down the generations even though his only crime was that of attempting to protect America from the insidious NWO / bankster agenda. Skull and Bones’ most famous son, George H. W. Bush was still denigrating McCarthy even during his 1992 Presidential campaign, forty years after the event.

Whilst the Hiss/Bundy affair led to McCarthy, who was a genuine American patriot, being thoroughly discredited and murdered, conversely a closet communist and lackey of the CFR was given wide publicity as an anti-communist hero. Richard Nixon (member of CFR) was falsely credited for helping to convict Hiss (also CFR) in order to build a false public image for him as an anti-communist crusader. However as President and protected by his ‘anti-communist’ reputation, Nixon officially recognised Red China, amongst many other pro-communist, NWO-friendly acts.

As for William P. Bundy himself, he later commented on the help Allen Dulles gave him throughout the Hiss affair . . . “I guess there was an element of tribal loyalty in the way Allen handled this, that he knew me, he knew my brother, a sort of fellow feeling, a feeling for the comradeship of the CIA but also a tribal feeling toward a set of people who were in law firms, entered government when the need was felt, could be invited back to the house.”

Yes indeed, that ‘set of people’ is better known as the Illuminati banksters.

In 1960, Bundy whilst still with the CIA was named as the Staff Director of the new Presidential Commission on National Goals. If national goals are seriously being set, then that implies that something is happening above and beyond the democratic process, Congressmen voting in Congress and the market-place simply functioning unaided. However it is blatantly obvious that there is a ‘guiding hand’ behind all events. Nothing in politics or high-finance ever happens by accident and this is all leading us down a pre-planned route to achieve Illuminati and bankster goals, primarily the inception of their long-awaited ‘New World Order.’

Bundy’s Presidential Commission on National Goals set-out objectives that are pure Hegelian philosophy. These goals stated that the individual has a duty to advance the will of the state and that the state . . .

“ . . . is to stimulate changes of attitude . . . and the American citizen in the years ahead ought to devote a larger portion of his time and energy directly to solution of the nation’s problems . . . many ways are open for citizens to participate in the attainment of national goals.” Dr. Anthony Sutton, ‘America’s Secret Establishment’ p.50

In the late Dr. Sutton’s excellent book which thoroughly dissects the Order of Skull and Bones, he describes how McGeorge Bundy received preferential treatment all through his life. Consistently, McGeorge Bundy was offered jobs for which there were many better qualified candidates. Bundy was initiated into the Skull and Bones in 1940 and subsequently joined the US Army as a Private. However, very few Privates ever achieve the rate of promotion that Bundy achieved. Within a year of enlisting as a Private he was already a Captain but not only was he promoted to Captain, he was also placed on the committee involved in planning the logistics of the invasions of both Sicily and Normandy. Truly incredible, as I am sure you would agree.

As Sutton pointed out on page 51 of his book . . . “Can a 23 year-old, with no military experience, undertake planning for amphibious operations? The answer is obviously no, even if his father (also Skull and Bones) . . . is an aide to the Secretary of War (unsurprisingly, also Skull and Bones).”

In 1945, he became assistant to the Secretary of War and co-authored a book with Stimson and after the war, Bundy continued his phenomenal climb up the ladder, from job to job to even more important role, often with no credentials qualifying him for such positions. Then in 1949, Bundy was invited to Harvard University to teach as an assistant professor and within four years was made the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard! How does anyone become Dean of a prestigious University department after a mere four years of teaching? Not only was he regarded as an instant military genius and an economic whizz-kid, now he was suddenly head of Arts and Sciences at what is probably the most prestigious seat of learning in the entire country, if not the world.

Unsurprisingly given his ongoing track record, by 1961 he had become the Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to the President, holding the power of veto as to what the President is or is not made privy. For example, on pages 177-178 of America’s Secret Establishment, Sutton quotes a conversation between McGeorge Bundy, Dean Achison (Scroll and Key — another Illuminati, college secret society akin to Skull and Bones) and President Kennedy, recorded in a memorandum. Kennedy was deceptively led to believe that the United States had deserted its ally of Portugal to aid nationalists in Angola, when in fact the US was supporting Marxist guerrillas in the same conflict.

In 1966, Bundy was appointed President of the Ford Foundation, another Illuminati foundation that now promotes the NWO agenda thanks to Bundy’s infiltration. He then appointed Harold Howe to be his Vice President, a position for which Howe was singularly unqualified, except of course that Howe was another Skull and Bones inductee and was an NWO ‘team player’ that would help further the New World Order with all its inherent Hegelian philosophy and so-called ‘socialism.’ Incidentally, both of the Fords on the Foundation board resigned in disgust at the way the infiltrating ‘Bonesmen’ were using the Ford Foundation to further their own (i.e. the NWO) agenda.

Onassis. Money, Oil, Drugs, Politics

Aristotle Socrates Onassis — named after two Greek philosophers, went from being totally penniless at age 21 to being a millionaire at age 23. He was an Illuminati ‘king,’ a shipping tycoon, an intelligent, ruthless, driven man who spoke several languages; Greek, French, Spanish, English, Italian and Turkish.

Aristotle’s father had planned to send him to Oxford University, but the Turkish genocide of the ethnic Greek Turks changed his plans and instead he set sail to Argentina, supposedly stateless and broke. It was said that he finally found a job as a dishwasher in a bar in Buenos Aires and then shortly afterwards in 1924, he was offered a position with the British United River Plate Telephone Co. (Argentina was often at this time referred to as the ‘fifth British Dominion’ because the British Rothschilds and other British investors owned so much of Argentina). Over the course of the next few years, Onassis proved himself very capable and in the background had been developing a successful tobacco importing organisation using his father’s contacts and influence, supplied via Greece. Although profitable in its own right, the importing of tobacco was merely the cover for a vastly more profitable, opium running enterprise.

After two years of successful trading, Onassis began manufacturing cigarettes, thus removing the need for importing the tobacco. Again this was a cover but Onassis illegally ‘borrowed’ the name of a famous Argentine brand of cigarettes, BIS, and labelled his own cigarettes as such. However, the owner of BIS sued Onassis for using his company’s name and won an injunction against him ultimately causing the business to fail. Regardless of this fact, history and Onassis’s biographers still credit cigarette manufacturing as being the source of his vast wealth, whilst at the same time acknowledging that he lost money from it and had to withdraw because of its unprofitability — a contradiction no doubt designed to obscure his large scale involvement in the drugs trade.

Onassis associated with many powerful people and the fact that he mixed with establishment figures with Elite connections is unsurprising of a man of his wealth. However, it is the nature of his involvement with other Illuminati figures that reveals his true standing.

“Onassis dropping-in on Prince Alfonso Hoheiohe’s Marbella Club in southern Spain and lunching with Baron and Baroness Guy de Rothschild (amidst rumours that it was Rothschild money that had supplanted his own in Monte Carlo) was obviously a noteworthy social incident.” ‘Onassis,’ p. 255

During WWII, Onassis was a regular guest of the movie mogul Spyros Skouras at Mamaroneck on Long Island and amongst many other famous, close friends of Onassis was Eva Peron, the wife of the Argentinian dictator and with whom Onassis allegedly had an affair. He also had extensive Nazi connections that continued throughout his entire life, as indeed did the Perons. For instance, one of Onassis’ Nazi associates was Hjalmar Schacht, president of Hitler’s Reichbank, who Onassis hired after the war. Schacht was employed by Onassis’ shipyards in Germany, engaged in the building of oil-tankers after WWII.

Another extremely close friend of his was Winston Churchill. The mass-murderer and Freemason Churchill, was from a family (Churchill / Marlborough) that has long-been part of the ruling Elite that secretly runs the world. On several occasions, during Churchill’s many holidays on Onassis’ yacht Christina he informed Onassis that the only person that he could trust during WWII was Josef Stalin and this of course is very far from being the story portrayed in our history books. Onassis was also friendly with Winston Churchill’s friend, Bernard Baruch.

It is widely believed that Baruch was the man who convinced Winston Churchill to join the Illuminati (NWO) conspiracy and he achieved this by demonstrating in New York in 1929, how the banksters could destroy the Stock Market at will. It was this dramatic demonstration of their ultimate power that brought Churchill on board.

Two more of Onassis’ Illuminati friends were Joseph Kennedy (the father of JFK) and Peter Grace. Both men also were an intrinsic part of the thirteen Illuminati bloodline families. Gianni Agnelli, the owner of the Italian, Fiat car manufacturer and a powerful man in the Illuminati, also spent time on a number of occasions on Onassis’ yacht Christina while it was in the Mediterranean Sea.

In 1928, the Illuminati owners of all the world’s major oil companies had come together at Achnacarry Castle and formally created the ‘Achnacarry Agreement,’ which in effect created a worldwide international oil cartel. This covert monopoly may be recognised by the fact that the same oil-tanker truck will often deliver to several different fuel stations in an area, regardless of whether it may be for example, a BP station (Rothschild) or an Exxon (Esso) station (Rockefeller.) Understanding this one fact, that the world’s oil has been totally controlled by an Illuminati monopoly since 1928, will also help in the understanding that Onassis, the man who built the largest fleet of oil-tanker ships was also Illuminati, through and through.

In 1932, during the depths of the Great Depression, Onassis somehow bought his first six tankers for a fraction of their actual value (many, many more were soon to follow,) and then during the war he leased his tankers and other vessels to the Allies, making an absolute fortune in the process. Then, following the war, Onassis bought 23 surplus Liberty ships from the United States and embarked on a programme to build progressively larger oil tankers, soon becoming the world’s foremost transporter of oil and petroleum. It was in fact he, who initiated the construction of a new breed of ‘supertankers,’ in 1954 alone, commissioning the building of seventeen such vessels. During the Arab-Israeli wars in 1956 and 1967, his tankers reaped immense profits transporting oil from the Middle East via the Cape of Good Hope route after the Suez Canal had been closed.

In 1953 Onassis purchased a controlling interest in the Société des Bains de Mer, which owned the casino, hotels and much other real estate in the upper-crust resort of Monte Carlo. From 1957 to 1974 he also owned and operated Olympic Airways, the Greek national airlines, under concession from the Greek government.

Du Pont. Money, Chemicals, Politics

The family tend to spell their name as ‘du Pont,’ yet the official business name is written ‘DuPont.’

E. I. du Pont was born Éleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours on 24th June 1771, in Paris. His father, Pierre du Pont de Nemours, was a watchmaker by trade and later a publisher. In the years before the French Revolution, Pierre was also an advisor to the monarchy on economic matters.

In his youth, du Pont was not interested in academic subjects, but had a fascination with explosives, engaging in his own independent research. At the age of 14, he entered the Royal College in Paris, where he became an apprentice to the renowned French chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier. Lavoisier rapidly advanced the young du Pont’s knowledge of chemistry as well as botany and agriculture and a few years later, after completing his apprenticeship, du Pont began to manage his father’s publishing house. It was around this time that du Pont met Sophie Madeleine Dalmas and they married in 1791 and went on to have eight children.

Like his father, du Pont initially supported the French Revolution, believing that the government could undergo a peaceful transition to ‘democracy,’ but as events spiralled out of control in 1792, du Pont and members of his family found themselves defending the king from a mob besieging the Tuileries Palace in Paris. Although they succeeded in saving the king, this action made them some deadly enemies within the revolutionary movement and as the Reign of Terror raged, Pierre du Pont narrowly escaped the guillotine in 1794.

Éleuthère and Pierre du Pont decided to flee to the United States in order to seek safety for the family, landing in Rhode Island on 1st January 1800. Eventually the rest of the family followed and they all re-settled in Delaware. It was whilst hunting with a friend, Colonel Louis de Toussard that Éleuthère noticed that American-made gunpowder was comparatively poor in quality and very expensive and so, sensing an opportunity, du Pont travelled back to France with his brother, Victor, to obtain plans, machinery and financial support to start a gunpowder business in the United States. In 1803, he established E.I. du Pont, de Nemours and Co. on the Brandywine River near Wilmington, Delaware.

In order to challenge England’s domination of the global gunpowder trade, it was Napoleon Bonaparte himself who helped finance du Pont in the establishment of his American gunpowder business in 1802. The first sale of gunpowder of the newly established company was to a close family friend, President Thomas Jefferson.

Du Pont was fanatical about the quality of his product and by 1811, all his diligence in that regard had resulted in his company becoming the largest manufacturer of gunpowder in the United States. The du Ponts continued to diversify their business, opening a woollen mill on the Brandywine River, as well as a cotton mill and a tannery, all of which were very successful. Helped by a massive boost in sales during the War of 1812, du Pont invested most of his profits back into the now rapidly expanding business conglomerate.

However, the company did have an occasional setback. Two explosions during the years 1815 and 1818 resulted in nearly 50 deaths and considerable financial losses, but the company rebounded and continued to prosper.

The company continued to expand quickly and by the mid-19th century had become the largest supplier of gunpowder to the United States military, supplying over half the gunpowder used by the Union Army during the Civil War.

Du Pont was the major supplier of gunpowder during many wars, including:

War of 1812 (supplying the US against Britain/Canada)
Mexican-American War, 1846 (supplying the US)
Indian Wars, 1827-1896 (supplying the genocidal westward expansion)
Crimean War, 1854 (supplying both England and Russia)
Spanish-American War, 1898 (supplying the US)
WWI, 1914-1918 (supplied all US orders and 40% of the Allies’ total requirements)

The DuPont gunpowder factories totally dominated the industry. Henry du Pont (1812-1889) took control of gunpowder manufacturing when he was thirty-eight. However, he was an authoritarian and was known as ‘Boss Henry’ to his maligned and downtrodden workforce. His narrow-minded, backward and Machiavellian ideas almost ran the DuPont Company into the ground in spite of their virtual monopoly of the gunpowder market.

When he died, family members Alfred I. du Pont, Pierre Samuel du Pont II (1870-1954), and Thomas Coleman du Pont (1863-1930) assumed control of various DuPont interests and together revived the flagging fortunes of the now-aging Du Pont factories. They also contrived to buy-out their few remaining competitors, thus giving them an absolute monopoly in the munitions industry.

DuPont does not subscribe to capitalism. As is the case with all Elite-run corporations, its goal is absolute monopoly — which is tantamount to communism. Of course this is dressed-up in palatable yet deceptive terms such as ‘bringing order and stability to a fragmented and chaotic industry.’ They will attempt to achieve this legally (or often illegally) by creatively circumventing ‘anti-trust’ laws and employing armies of highly paid lawyers to further their ends in this respect.

In 1897, when it was illegally agreed with European competitors to divide-up the world and become a cartel, DuPont was awarded exclusive control of gunpowder sales in the Americas and by 1905, the company had assets of $60 million and was the automatic recipient of all US government gunpowder orders. DuPont then eventually diversified into newspaper publishing, chemicals, paints, varnishes, cellophane and rayon. During WWI the world’s largest producer of dynamite and smokeless gunpowder, made hitherto unheard-of net profits of $250 million.

Between the wars, DuPont became the world’s leading manufacturer of explosives, the world’s foremost chemical company and the greatest producer of cars (General Motors) and synthetic rubber, another strategic war material. By the 1930s, it owned Mexican and Chilean explosive companies and a Canadian chemical company. Although still by this time the top US gunpowder supplier, this product represented only 2% of its total turnover.

DuPont’s General Motors notoriously funded a vigilante / terrorist organisation to oppose unionisation of its Midwestern factories. Known as the Black Legion, its members wore black robes decorated with a white skull and crossbones. Anonymous behind their slitted hoods, this KKK-like network of thugs planted bombs in union meeting-halls, set fire to labour activists’ homes, tortured union representatives, in the process killing at least 50 in Detroit alone. Many of their victims were black people lured North by the false promises of well-paid jobs in the blossoming car manufacturing industry. One of their victims, the Reverend Earl Little, was murdered in 1931 and his son, later known as Malcolm X, was then six years old. He would later say that his earliest memory was the night-time raid in 1929 when the Black Legion burnt down their house.

The Black Legion, claiming 200,000 members in Michigan alone, was divided into distinct squads, each focused on a different aspect of their work for DuPont; arson, bombing and execution.

Thanks to a Senate Munitions Investigating Committee (1934-1936) that examined criminal, war profiteering practices of armaments manufacturing companies during WWI, the public learned that DuPont had led munitions companies in sabotaging a League of Nations’ disarmament conference in Geneva.

The committee’s chairman, Gerald Nye, said that, “ . . . once the munitions people of the world had made the treaty a satisfactory one to themselves, Colonel Simons [of DuPont] is reporting that even the State Department realised, in effect, who controlled the Nation.”

The du Ponts fought back against widespread public condemnation that rightly labelled them as the ‘merchants of death,’ they surely were. They claimed that ‘communists’ were behind the Senate hearings and blamed the Committee for undermining US military power. In response, Chairman Nye, a Republican from North Dakota, pointed-out that DuPont had made six times more profit during WWI than during the preceding four years . . . “ . . . so naturally Mr. du Pont sees red when he sees these profits attacked by international peace.”

In 1929, GM acquired Adam Opel, Germany’s largest car manufacturer and in 1974, a Senate Subcommittee on Anti-trust and Monopoly heard evidence from researcher Bradford Snell proving that that in 1935, GM had opened an Opel factory to supply the Nazis with ‘Blitz’ military trucks. In appreciation, for this help, Adolf Hitler awarded GM’s chief executive for overseas operations, James Mooney, with the Order of the German Eagle (first class.) Besides military trucks, Germany’s GM workers also produced armoured cars, tanks and bomber engines.

DuPont’s GM and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey both collaborated with I.G. Farben, the Nazi chemical cartel, to form Ethyl GmbH. This subsidiary, now called Ethyl Inc., built German factories to provide the Nazis with leaded fuel for their military vehicles. Snell quotes from German records captured during the war . . . “The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans [Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil] had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable.”

In outright defiance of Roosevelt’s desire to improve working conditions for the average man, GM and DuPont instituted the ‘speedup systems.’ These forced men to work at terrifying speeds on the assembly lines. Many died of the heat and pressure, greatly exacerbated by fear of losing their jobs. Irénée du Pont notoriously paid almost $1 million from his own pocket for armed and gas-equipped ‘storm troopers’ to supervise the plants and ‘deal with’ anyone who proved rebellious. He also hired the Pinkerton Agency to dispatch its detectives through his whole empire, in order to spy on suspected disruptive elements.

Since WWII, DuPont has continued to be an instrument of US government weapons production. Besides supplying plastics, rubber and textiles to military contractors, it invented various new forms of explosives and rocket propellants, manufactured numerous chemical weapons and was instrumental in building the world’s first plutonium production plant for the atomic bomb. It was also responsible for the production of the infamous Agent Orange and Napalm, thus destroying millions of lives, livelihoods and whole ecosystems in Southeast Asia.

DuPonts 1939 slogan, “Better Things for Better Living . . . Through Chemistry,” belies a destructive legacy that will last thousands of generations. One of the globe’s worst polluters of all time, it pioneered the creation, marketing and cover-up of almost every dangerous chemical toxin ever known and is currently fighting countless lawsuits for the adversity to health and environmental effects of its products, the unsafe working conditions in its factories and the foolhardy, disposal practices it flaunts as solutions for its waste products.

Here is a small sample of DuPont’s legacy to the planet:

Sulphur dioxide and leaded paint.
CFCs: 25% of the world’s supply and almost 50% of the US market.
Herbicides and pesticides: brain damage, hormone system disruption.
Formaldehyde: cancer and respiratory illnesses.
Dioxins: Leading the way to create these carcinogens, DuPont then suppressed data on their deadly effects.
Highly-processed, non-nutritious products marketed as ‘healthy food.’
Genetically modified foods (GMOs) and ‘terminator seeds’ which threaten livelihoods and food security for 1.4 billion people who depend on replenishment of seeds.
Patenting plant genes and stealing the third world’s genetic resources.
Using US prison labour, third world virtual slave labour and running factories in many oppressive regimes.
Its oil subsidiary, Conoco, provided petrochemical raw materials and caused environmental devastation.
DuPont is one of the world’s biggest producers of greenhouse gases.
Sold for 33 years, the fungicide Benlate destroyed crops, shrimp farms and caused birth defects.

Since the 1920s, DuPont produced leaded gas which is responsible for 80-90% of the world’s environmental lead contamination.

Kennedy. Money, Bootlegging, Movies, Politics

In terms of both Elite connections and corruption, Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of JFK certainly had few peers.

Kennedy was a corporate tycoon, a politician, an entertainment executive who had de facto religious influence and was also intrinsically involved in military affairs. Two of his sons were military ‘heroes,’ his eldest son Joe junior being killed in action in WWII and he was also responsible for the orchestration of a concerted public relations campaign that inflated second son, John’s naval ‘heroics’ so far out of proportion that it greatly contributed to his rapid rise to power.

In addition, Joe Kennedy was for all practical purposes a ‘mob’ figurehead for several decades, although his participation in illegal activities was more carefully hidden than the Sicilian families, who chose to run their businesses rather more publicly than Kennedy. When American youths were dying by the thousands in WWI, Joe was already enriching himself through his covert, dubious business practices, somehow managing to avoid the draft. During the subsequent Great Depression, many Americans lost everything while Kennedy continued to enrich himself further through business practices that directly benefited from the losses of others.

Down the decades, the Kennedys have experienced several tragedies, some intensely personal, some as a result of their high profile, and this became known as the ‘Kennedy curse.’ If there is such a thing as ‘karma,’ its effects could well be attributable to the despicable actions of the younger Joe Kennedy, who in the latter days of his life was firstly rendered all but helpless by a stroke and subsequently endured two of his sons being taken from him by assassin’s bullets. Joe Kennedy however, was indeed the very personification of evil.

What is speculative is the considered possibility that the 20th Century ‘success’ of the Kennedys resulted from Joe Kennedy calling forth Satan and making a deal with the devil.

The following are excerpts from ‘The Sins of the Father,’ by Ronald Kessler and ‘The Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal, and Secrets,’ by Nellie Bly . . .

“Joe’s father, P.J. Kennedy, was a saloon owner who used his bar as a launching pad for his political career. In 1885, P.J. was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, due in large part to the strong backing he received from the liquor lobby which was worried about the temperance movement. P.J. would serve five terms as a state representative before being elected to the Massachusetts Senate. P.J. skillfully used his political power to enrich himself and advance the career of his son Joseph P. Kennedy.

When Joe Kennedy was fresh out of college in 1912, his father got him a job as a state bank examiner. Here, Joe had access to useful information about the confidential affairs of companies and individuals who had credit lines with major Boston banks. He found out which companies were in trouble and which had extra cash, who was planning new products or acquisitions and who was about to be liquidated. A former Harvard classmate, Ralph Lowell, said, ‘That bank examiner’s job took him all over the state and laid bare the condition of every bank he visited. He acquired information of value to himself and others.’

Joe’s strategy was to obtain inside information about troubled companies from banks, then drive their stock down so he could buy them more cheaply. While still on the state payroll as a bank examiner, Joe made an acquisition that was aided by inside information. He bought a Boston investment company called Old Colony Realty Associates, Inc. Joe turned the company from an old-line investment firm into one that made money on the misery of others.

Under Joe’s direction, the company specialized in taking over defaulted home mortgages. He would then paint the houses, and resell them at far higher prices. By the time the company was dissolved, Joe’s $1,000 investment had grown to $75,000.

Joe began cultivating strong alliances with members of the press, including William Randolph Hearst, who would print glowing stories about Kennedy’s successes. In January 1914, when Joe was elected president of Columbia Trust, Hearst ran a series praising Joe as the youngest bank president in the country. The stories neglected to mention that Columbia Trust was owned by Joe’s father and his friends.

Joe eventually assumed control of Columbia Trust by borrowing money from other family members who were never repaid. Kerry McCarthy, Joe’s grandniece who interviewed some of those people for a research paper, said, ‘I found money was loaned to him by family members and not repaid. Since it was family, he didn’t feel there was a need to.’

In June of 1914, Joe married Rose Fitzgerald, daughter of Boston mayor John Fitzgerald. Joe would use this new connection for all it was worth. In 1917, with World War I already in progress, the United States government announced that young men would be drafted into military service, and that draft resisters would be executed. Although most of Joe’s friends from Harvard had already volunteered to serve, Joe had no intention of fighting. Joe had already been placed in Class 1 and was subject to immediate call-up, when his father-in-law Mayor Fitzgerald, acquired a job for him at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation in Quincy, Massachusetts. Although Joe knew nothing about shipbuilding, he was made general manager, a job which effectively kept him out of the war.

Daniel Strohmeier, vice president of Bethlehem Steel, said, ‘Joe was accommodated to skip the draft during World War I because of a lot of pressure from his father-in-law.’ Seven months after the armistice was signed to end World War I, Joe left the shipyard. Having avoided the draft, he had no more need to work there. Joe was given a job with the venerable Boston stock brokerage firm Hayden, Stone and Company, after Mayor Fitzgerald promised to swing business to the firm if they hired his son-in-law.

Galen Stone, a friend of Joe’s father-in-law, taught his protégé how to make huge sums of money off unsuspecting investors by trading on inside information. While the practice of using inside information was not then illegal, it was unethical. Stone breached his fiduciary duty to his stockholders, while Joe made money because of his privileged position at Hayden, Stone. Joe told one Harvard friend, ‘It’s so easy to make money in the market we’d better get in before they pass a law against it.’ It was easy, as long as one was willing to breach trust.

Besides using inside information improperly, Joe made fabulous sums through what were known as stock pools. This was a way of manipulating the market by forming a syndicate and arranging for the members to trade stock back and forth. By bidding the price of the stock higher, the pool members created the appearance that the public was bidding up the price. In fact, the syndicate members retained the profits, and when the trading public bit by joining the action, the syndicate members sold out, leaving the public with losses. Joe called the practice ‘advertising’ the stock.

On January 29, 1919, the 18th Amendment was ratified. It prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of ‘intoxicating liquors’ for ‘beverage purposes.’ For Joe, the law represented an opportunity to make huge profits. He formed alliances with crime bosses in major markets, among them Boston, New York, Chicago, and New Orleans. These would come in handy years later when his son was running for national office. Among his mob associates was Frank Costello, former boss of the Luciano crime family, who bragged, ‘I helped Joe Kennedy get rich.’ Sam Giancana, who would later figure prominently in JFK’s presidency, called Joe ‘one of the biggest crooks who ever lived.’

Joe bought liquor from overseas distillers and supplied it to organized crime syndicates that picked up the liquor on the shore. Frank Costello would later confirm that Joe had approached him for help in smuggling liquor. Joe would have the liquor dumped at a so-called Rum Row — a trans-shipment point where police were paid to look the other way — and Costello and other mobsters would then take over. They distributed the liquor, fixed the prices, established quotas, and paid off law enforcement and politicians. They enforced their own law with machine guns, usually calling on experts who did bloody hits on contract.

By the mid-1920s, ‘Fortune’ estimated Joe’s wealth at $2 million. Yet since Joe had left Hayden, Stone in 1922, he had had no visible job. While he made hundreds of thousands of dollars manipulating the market, only bootlegging on a sizable scale would account for such sudden and fabulous wealth.”

One of the ‘overseas distillers’ with strong links to Kennedy and that authors and historians tend to gloss over, was the Jewish Bronfman family of bootleggers and whorehouse owners, who had made a fortune in Canada in the Prohibition era. The Bronfmans were major players in establishing the central, Bank of Canada (via the 1934 Bank of Canada Act,) as the sole issuer of banknotes in the country and the central bank for the Canadian dollar, and was a ploy consolidated by the banksters who arranged for the Bank of Canada to be designated a ‘Crown’ corporation, during the tenure of Canada’s Prime Minister, Mackenzie King.

While that was ostensibly leaving the bank’s share capital with Canada’s Minister of Finance and the Canadian people, it was in reality transferring it to so-called ‘Crown accounts,’ which are in the domain of the private corporation of the City of London and presided over by a committee of about a dozen ‘Judaised’ financiers representing several banks in the City, headed of course, by the Bank of England.

Jews in Canada vociferously backed Mackenzie King’s election as Canada’s Prime Minister in 1921, because they knew that he had worked in the USA for the Rockefellers and was John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s close friend and confidant.

In Yiddish, Bronfman aptly means ‘liquorman’ and the hotel business put the Bronfmans in prime position to take advantage of the 1915 advent of Canadian prohibition. Bronfman hotels soon became ‘boozeriums.’ Prohibition, enacted on orders from the Privy Council as the prelude to the 1920s US Prohibition era and the birth of organised crime, catapulted the Bronfmans into the multi-millionaire bracket and to the status of ‘untouchable’ kingpins of crime in North America.

During Canada’s four dry years from 1915 to 1919, the Bronfmans established their contacts with US organised criminals in preparation for illegally importing liquor into Canada. Then in 1916, they established their first link with the opium trade. Samuel and Abe Bronfman collaborated with the Hudson Bay Company, in which the Keswick family of Jardine Matheson had controlling interest, to buy the Canadian Pure Drug Company.

When prohibition in Canada ended in 1919 and Prohibition in the United States began, they simply turned from whiskey importing to whiskey exporting and after it was all over, in May 1936 they agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle their account with the US Treasury. This payment amounted to a subtle admission that half the liquor that flowed into the United States during Prohibition was from the Bronfmans.

A little reported fact is that the ‘booze’ that the family poured across the border was actually a dangerous poison, being a mixture of pure alcohol, sulphuric acid, caramel, water and aged rye whiskey, that in many cases left its victims paralysed. Between 1920 and 1930, 34,000 Americans died from alcohol poisoning, despite there being a ban on all alcoholic drinks.

A refusal to deal with the Bronfman gang on their terms usually meant death, and several independently-minded gang bosses were often executed by their lieutenants on the Bronfman’s orders.

Since 1920 the Bronfmans had been importing British whiskey from the Distillery Company of London, which controlled more than half the world market in Scotch whisky. Owned by the higher echelons of the British society including Field Marshal Haig, Lord Dewar, Lord Woolavington, and others, the dispensation of distribution rights was a decision made by King George V.

But back now to Joseph Kennedy. He used the profits from his bootlegging operations to fuel his continued stock market speculations and to finance his fledgling efforts in the film industry.

By 1930 Kennedy was an extremely wealthy man. He had known that the Great Depression was coming and as Black Tuesday (the Wall Street Crash) approached, Joe being on the ‘inside,’ had liquidated his longer-term investments while continuing to make money on the declining market by selling short. In this way Kennedy made an estimated $1 million and contributed to the eventual market crash by forcing prices down. The fact that the market was totally unregulated had presented an opportunity to the unscrupulous bankers to manipulate it to their own ends and this is precisely what they did and in doing so made themselves obscenely wealthy whilst simultaneously causing widespread hunger, death and misery for years to come.

Stock pools such as those perfected by Joe Kennedy had defrauded legitimate investors and reporters and columnists had acted as shills for companies peddling stocks in return for payoffs. The crash instigated a worldwide financial panic and Depression that would last for many years and by 1932, 12 million Americans were jobless. Governments responded with strict tariff restrictions that stifled world trade, further contributing to the ongoing downward spiral.

Considerably richer because of his short selling, Joe Kennedy told friends that he had sold off his Wall Street holdings before the bottom dropped out of the stock market. He said he was now waiting to pick up the pieces left by ‘dumb people.’ His wealth was by this time estimated at over $100 million and yet by 1933, he was again manipulating the stock market to his advantage, even as Federal investigators were trying to expose the conditions that had led to the crash.

By 1933 the US had taken the first tentative steps towards repealing Prohibition, and with his usual foresight, Joe could see it was only a matter of time before the 18th Amendment was repealed and alcohol flowed freely again. So, he used his connections in Washington to obtain permits to import ridiculously large quantities of whisky for ‘medicinal purposes’ and stockpiled it in warehouses so that when Prohibition ended, he would have millions of dollars’ worth of high-quality liquor in stock, all ready to make yet another fortune for himself.

After making his illicit fortune, Kennedy was one of the first ‘Eastern’ businessmen to grasp the potential of the movie business which was now firmly established on the west coast and by the mid-1920s, the American film industry was turning out 800 films a year and employed as many people as the car industry. This was indeed a ‘gold mine,’ as Joe had told several friends.

After buying a chain of small movie theatres, Joe eventually realised that the way to make real money was actually on the production side rather than the retail side. Moreover, he was also attracted to the glamour of Hollywood as not only could he influence the way films were made, he could also meet desperate young women, would-be movie stars who would do almost anything in return for a part in a film.

Whilst his wife Rose was back home in Boston, pregnant with their eighth child, Kennedy was in Hollywood, engaged in his notorious liaison with the ‘superstar’ Gloria Swanson. Swanson was by no means Kennedy’s first extra-marital adventure, but she was the perfect ‘trophy’ to symbolise the great success he had achieved for himself.

Joe Kennedy used the profits from his first company, FBO to purchase the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) who had a new system for making motion pictures with sound. Now that Joe headed a studio, he wanted to buy a cinema chain to facilitate the distribution of his pictures and this would eventually lead directly to the infamous ‘Pantages Scandal.’

Kennedy’s eldest daughter Rosemary, was considered shy and mentally limited, exhibiting symptoms of what many now suspect was nothing more than simple dyslexia. For many years the family had dealt with the problem by sending her away to various special schools and convents but by the age of 21 she had deteriorated greatly, giving way to tantrums, rages and violent behaviour, probably at least partly due to extreme frustration at her treatment. She was beginning to understand that she would never ‘measure up’ to her siblings and the resulting frustration led to physical fights and worse, long absences at night when she would be out wandering the streets alone.

Rosemary increasingly became to be seen as a liability to Kennedy’s increasing political ambitions and so it was that in 1942, he attempted to deal with the problem by arranging Rosemary to undergo a prefrontal lobotomy at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, DC. The experimental operation was believed to be extremely beneficial to people who had emotional problems but In Rosemary’s case it was a complete disaster and left her permanently disabled, paralysed on one side, incontinent and unable to speak coherently. She was never allowed to return home, but instead was spirited away to St. Coletta’s School in Wisconsin.

As late as 1958 the family was still maintaining the fiction that Rosemary had become a nun in Wisconsin, content to renounce the glamorous world of her siblings to teach less fortunate children. Today the official family version is that she was born retarded and that only her mother’s Herculean efforts had made it possible for her to appear normal. All total fabrications of course.

Joe Kennedy’s entry into politics began when a mutual friend arranged a meeting between Kennedy and then-Governor of New York, Franklin Roosevelt. Having just won re-election as Governor, Roosevelt was already being described as a contender for President. As a ‘pragmatist,’ willing to obtain support from almost any quarter, he saw Joe Kennedy as both a potential source of major campaign contributions and someone who could influence Wall Street and conservative Democrats. At their first meeting, Kennedy and Roosevelt forged a political alliance. Joe would contribute to his campaign and open doors to him on Wall Street whilst Roosevelt would bring Joe into his inner circle of advisers and include him in his Cabinet.

Once the campaign got under way, Kennedy not only contributed large sums of money directly to Roosevelt, but he also became Roosevelt’s ‘money collector’ or ‘bag-man,’ collecting cash from those who wanted to hide their identities. Kennedy was also of further value to Roosevelt because of his close relationships with many newspaper publishers, who of course could be critically important to any ‘democratic’ election process. Not only could they promote the attributes of any candidates in their papers, they often used their political clout to choose candidates in the first place. Chief among these media power-brokers was Kennedy’s old friend, William Randolph Hearst, the owner of no less than 33 newspapers with a daily circulation of 11 million. He also controlled 86 delegates to the Democratic nominating convention, nearly all whom hailed from the critical states of California and Texas. In a crucial, last-gasp move, Kennedy persuaded Hearst to back Roosevelt.

Hearst not only provided a huge campaign contribution, but he also swung his delegates toward Roosevelt. Kennedy justifiably claimed later that he had personally won the nomination for Roosevelt himself. However, more than a year after Roosevelt was elected President, Kennedy was still without his promised Cabinet post.

The stock market crash and resulting panic eventually led to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934, to which Kennedy was appointed head by President Franklin Roosevelt. This is akin to placing a fox in charge of the henhouse or like appointing Al Capone as head of a task force to combat organised crime and the appointment drew strong criticism from those who felt that Joe Kennedy symbolised everything the SEC had been set up to eradicate. Roosevelt, however stood firm, telling one advisor that it needed ‘a thief to catch a thief.’ Roosevelt also knew that Kennedy’s financial backing had been critical to his election and he hoped that by giving Kennedy the SEC chairmanship it would secure his financial support for the next election as well.

The SEC, under Kennedy’s stewardship outlawed most of the practices that had made Kennedy his fortune, including a ban on short-selling, one of his preferred ways of making money. For almost two years, an almost constant stream of Wall Street stalwarts took to the witness stand and described their roles in their seamy dealings and even though Kennedy’s extensive, unethical (now illegal) transactions were revealed during the hearings, he was unsurprisingly never requested to appear.

However, Kennedy had ambitions for himself and his sons that went way beyond the trifling SEC and he duly resigned his post in September 1935.

Then by 1937, Kennedy had begun hinting to Roosevelt that he still ‘deserved’ some tangible form of recognition for his role in the election and so Roosevelt, who had by then become mistrustful of Kennedy, appointed him ambassador to England. His Ambassadorship coincided almost exactly with the beginning of World War II in Europe and throughout his three-years in office argued against American and British involvement in the war. Joe steadfastly maintained his position of appeasement toward Germany but in May 1940, Winston Churchill was elected British Prime Minister and this brought an end to appeasement (at the bankers behest no doubt) and hastened Kennedy’s fall from favour. The ‘final nail in his coffin’ was Kennedy’s public statement to the effect that ‘Democracy is finished in England,’ thereby giving Roosevelt no choice but to ask for his resignation.

JFK was named in honour of Rose’s father, John Francis Fitzgerald, who in his day had been a popular Boston Mayor. Jack was an unhealthy baby who had suffered from whooping cough, measles, chicken pox and even scarlet fever. His father attended the hospital every day to be by his son’s side and eventually Jack recovered but his health remained an issue for the rest of his life. The family joke was that if a mosquito bit him, the mosquito would die.

The family settled in Brookline, just outside Boston but as well as this, the family also owned property in the exclusive enclave of West Palm Beach, Florida. Summers were spent in Hyannis Port, Cape Cod where they swam, sailed, and played sports. The children played hard and were extremely competitive, encouraged all the while by their father who pitted them against each other in an attempt to ‘toughen them up.’ However whilst the children had everything they needed and wanted materially, they were not ‘spoiled.’ The boys especially, faced very high expectations in sports, education and all other activities.

Jack (JFK) attended Choate, an exclusive boarding school in Connecticut. He played tennis, basketball, football, and golf and read voraciously in those pre-TV days. He even subscribed to the New York Times, which was (and still is) unusual for a teenager. The principal of the school recalled later that he had a ‘clever, individualist mind.’ He was not the best student, but he took his education very seriously, especially history and English, which were his favourite subjects.

After his graduation from Choate, Jack entered Harvard where he regularly played football. He was not a very talented athlete but he persisted until rupturing a disk in his spine. This injury caused him severe pain for the rest of his life and he was permanently on medication, in order to alleviate his suffering.

On 3rd September 1939 World War II began and whilst still a student at Harvard wrote his thesis, ‘Why England Slept,’ on Britain’s lack of preparedness for war. It was a well-written book which was worthy of publication in its own right and Joe made sure of this through one of his contacts in the world of publishing.

Then, in June, 1940 Jack graduated from Harvard and headed to California, where he entered Stanford Business School. He had been given $1 million by his father and according to legend, bedded almost half the eligible females on the West Coast from San Francisco to Hollywood. However his playboy lifestyle was soon cut short by the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in December 1941.

Much more of the Kennedys later . . .

Reynolds. Money, Tobacco, Metals, Politics

Richard Joshua, ‘R.J.’ Reynolds, son of prosperous tobacco manufacturer Hardin W. Reynolds of Patrick County, Virginia, sold his part interest in a tobacco business he had with his father and in 1874 moved 60 miles south to Winston, North Carolina. Reynolds invested $7,500 in land and built and equipped a small factory there to manufacture ‘flat plug’ chewing tobacco. During his first year of operation, Reynolds produced 150,000 pounds of tobacco that was sold primarily, locally in the Carolinas and Virginia.

In 1879 the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was incorporated in North Carolina but initially Reynolds faced stiff competition from rival manufacturers in Winston and its neighboring city of Salem. Reynolds, along with his brother William Neal Reynolds, who joined the firm in 1884, controlled the company.

R.J. Reynolds’ eldest brother and rival, Abram Reynolds, founded his own, separate company manufacturing tobacco products and later became an early advocate of prohibition. Abram however, eventually sold his tobacco company and founded the Lustre Bubbles Soap Company as his land was rich in bauxite, an ingredient in both soap and aluminium. His son R.S. Reynolds, went on to later found Reynolds Metals and helped popularise aluminium foil.

Following their father’s example, all five Reynolds brothers entered the tobacco business, some of them with R.J. and others with Abram. Then in 1890 the company went public and issued its first stock, with R.J. Reynolds himself owning almost 90% of the company. He was elected president, with one of his brothers serving as vice-president.

Reynolds was one of the first companies to introduce saccharin as a sweetening agent in chewing tobacco and by 1894 Reynolds had begun to experiment with smoking tobacco to compete with James Buchanan Duke’s profitable brands and also in an attempt to turn ‘scrap’ tobacco into a profitable line. In 1895 the company introduced its first smoking tobacco brand, ‘Naturally Sweet Cut Plug.’ By 1898 the company’s assets were valued at more than $1 million.

Due to considerable expansion in the late 1890s, Reynolds was in great need of working capital and so reluctantly, he turned to his rival, Duke for help. In 1898 Duke’s American Tobacco Company established a subsidiary, Continental Tobacco Company, in an attempt to monopolise the nation’s chewing tobacco business and then in April 1899 Reynolds sold two-thirds of his stock to Continental, but retained his position as president of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Reynolds insisted upon maintaining his independence in Duke’s tobacco trust and reportedly told friends that, ‘ . . . if Buck Duke tries to swallow me, he will get the bellyache of his life.’

Duke allowed Reynolds his independence as long as he acquired chewing tobacco companies in the Virginia and Carolina area for the trust and Reynolds, as instructed, acquired ten companies but by 1905 he had also demonstrated his independence from the trust by producing five different brands of smoking tobacco.

The tobacco trust, like most trusts during the first decade of the 20th Century, proved to be highly unpopular and so in 1911 a US Circuit Court judge ordered the dissolution of the American Tobacco Company and it was forced to divest itself of all Reynolds stock. R.J. Reynolds and members of his family re-acquired some of the company’s stock, hired aggressive new managers, and increased production and sales almost five-fold during the trust period. By this time, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was the smallest of the ‘big four’ tobacco manufacturers, but this was about to change.

Soon after achieving independence from the trust, Reynolds instituted a plan to place the company’s stock into the hands of friendly investors. A company edict encouraged Reynolds’ employees to buy company stock and the board of directors approved lending of surplus funds and profits to employees for the purchase of ‘voting’ stock. By 1924 the majority of the company’s voting stock was in the hands of people who worked for the company and very soon all tobacco businesses began to emulate the Reynolds stock purchase model.

By July 1913, Reynolds had manufactured the company’s first cigarette, producing three different cigarette brands simultaneously in order to test which one had the greatest public demand. The brand that proved most popular, Camel became an instant success because of its blend, pricing, and advertising. In fact Reynolds recognised the power of advertising and spent more than $2 million in 1915 in an aggressive national advertising campaign and it was Reynolds who adopted the then radical idea of selling cigarettes by the carton. Subsequently, profits soared from $2.75 million in 1912 to nearly $24 million in 1924, largely because of the phenomenal success of the Camel brand. By 1924 the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company net profits had surpassed the nation’s largest manufacturer, the American Tobacco Company.

The company prospered under R.J. Reynolds’s paternalistic leadership and continued to do so for decades after his death in 1918. William Neal Reynolds assumed the presidency after his brother’s demise and remained in that position until 1924 when he was elected chairman of the board of directors, with Bowman Gray, Sr., appointed president. This ensured the perpetuation of R.J. Reynolds’ management philosophy and ensured a continuity of leadership from people within the company. Before R.J. Reynolds’s death he had begun the process that led to the company’s listing on the New York Stock Exchange, issuing preferred stock in 1922 and common stock in 1927.

William Neal Reynolds retired as chairman in 1931 to be replaced by Bowman Gray, Sr. Under Gray’s stewardship, in 1931, the company introduced moisture proof cellophane as a wrapper to preserve freshness in cigarettes — an innovation that other companies soon adopted. The company also began to manufacture its own tinfoil and paper from factories in North Carolina to reduce dependence on foreign supplies and developed a new sales policy that concentrated on mass sales based on brand-name recognition and customer loyalty. During the 1930s, Reynolds invested heavily in a series of advertising campaigns that emphasised the pleasures of smoking. By 1938 the company produced 84 brands of chewing tobacco, 12 brands of smoking tobacco and one primary brand of cigarette, Camel.

In 1948 a major anti-trust suit against the tobacco industry went to trial and several senior R.J. Reynolds employees were convicted and fined on charges of monopolistic practices, although they strongly asserted their innocence. The company itself also was convicted of the same charges. The following year, 1949, Reynolds introduced a major new cigarette brand, Cavalier which turned out to be a disaster and cost the company $30 million in five years.

However, the innovative John Clarke Whitaker assumed the presidency in 1949 and during his tenure Reynolds rebounded and prospered. Technical advances increased the amount of tobacco suitable for cigarette manufacturing, which helped the company’s output double from 1944 to 1958. Reynolds also instituted an active merchandising campaign by using display racks of cigarettes in supermarkets. And in addition, company by-laws that had resulted in the concentration of stock in the hands of employees were gradually eased, making the shares available more widely.

It was during the 1950s though, that the tobacco industry experienced critical attacks centred on the issue of smoking and health, for the first time. In 1952 an article entitled ‘Cancer by the Carton’ appeared in Reader’s Digest and the following year the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute announced that its research showed a clear correlation between cancer and tobacco. The development of filter-tipped cigarettes was partly a response to health concerns and the board of directors also responded by appointing a diversification committee in 1957, to study possible investment in non-tobacco areas and to consider expansion of tobacco operations overseas.

Alexander H. Galloway became president in 1960 and, along with Chairman Bowman Gray, Jr., led the company into a period of unparalleled growth and diversification. The corporate diversification strategy initially focused on acquisitions in food-related industries.

Tobacco, however, continued to be the mainstay of Reynolds, despite the fact that in the 1960s the smoking and health controversy had intensified. In 1964 the US Surgeon General issued a report linking smoking with lung cancer and heart disease and in 1965, Congress passed the ‘Cigarette Advertising and Labeling Act,’ which required tobacco companies to place health warnings on cigarette packs. Cigarette advertising was also banned from radio and television from 1971 and the Federal cigarette tax was doubled in 1983.

When incriminating industry documents became public in the mid-1990s, R.J. Reynolds and competitors Philip Morris and BAT Industries were sued by dozens of state attorneys-general for costs associated with treating tobacco-related illnesses. Although the trio agreed to a settlement in 1997, the deal disintegrated during the Congressional approval process. In the meantime, the tobacco companies raised cigarette prices significantly, in anticipation of a large settlement payout. Finally, late in 1998 the cigarette makers agreed to pay states $206 billion. Although the final amount was less than that agreed, R.J. Reynolds and rivals did not win protection from private class-action suits, a condition for which they had lobbied strongly.

R.J. Reynolds’ international operations suffered in the mid- to late 1990s. The company reduced its staff by ten percent in 1997 in an effort to apply the saving to the international business. However, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International remained weak, and the holding company sold it to Japan Tobacco, Inc., for $8 billion in May 1999. Terms of the sale included trademarks of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International and international rights to Camel, Winston, and Salem brands. At the same time, RJR Nabisco spun-off the domestic tobacco business through a stock distribution to RJR Nabisco shareholders.

All the above information is obviously public knowledge, but what is really kept secret, is the Reynolds family involvement with the bankster-controlled Illuminati. Much of the family’s money has been well-hidden behind fronts, holding companies, etc., and the Reynolds family have been involved in high-level drug dealing for many years. They have also had a major interest in banking.

Richard S. Reynolds, Jr. has been a board chairman of Robertshaw Controls Company, which has a strict monopoly on manufacturing car thermostats and other car parts. The big three American auto manufacturers all buy from Robertshaw Controls Company but then since all 3 of the American auto manufacturers are also Illuminati-controlled, this is no coincidence. Cadence which owns theatres and has published occult comic books such as the series, ‘Journey into Mystery with the Mighty Thor,’ is also closely tied to the Reynolds family.

The Reynolds family also controls several Aluminium companies which form a large part of the bankster-controlled Aluminium cartel. The Mellon family works closely with the Reynolds in this Aluminium cartel and the Mellons have strong links to the British Royal family.

As previously related, the British Elite were heavly involved in the shipping and supply of opium. The British bankster Empire’s military might and political clout was used to force China to allow the opium trade and what is perhaps less well-known is that before the communists took over China, the British Illuminati families hid their opium trade behind the cover of the British American Tobacco Co. Later the Red Chinese would hide their opium trading behind the same front, tobacco, with their state-run People’s Republic of China Tobacco Bureau. In fact, the Red Chinese opium trade was conrolled by another Illuminati member, the Chinese President Li Xiannian from the occult Li family who are the leading oriental satanic family.

President Li, a drug lord was also finance minister of Red China from 1957-75. He sold so much opium to the west that he was able to help Red China pay off its debts and he was nicknamed ‘the money god.’ R.J. Reynolds was a partner with British American Tobacco Co. and was also involved in trading in opium for many years. It is strongly suspected that the family later also became involved in running cocaine and as described previously, Onassis also concealed his early drug smuggling behind tobacco importing.

The Reynolds, along with their fellow-illuminati families, use tax-free foundations as a vehicle to evade taxes and hide their true wealth whilst maintaining their financial power. The illuminati-controlled mainstream press heavily promotes them as ‘charitable,’ when most of the grants by these foundations are self-serving and only used for the benefit of the Elite. Examples of these foundations are the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, the Kate B. Reynolds Foundation, the Richard S. Reynolds Foundation and the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation. All of these foundations function only to benefit the banksters themselves.

Significantly however, a number of government agencies receive money from the Reynolds Foundations, especially those dealing with children such as the Social Services, and even Police Departments. One wonders why — or maybe not.

J.P. Sticht, a director of R.J. Reynolds, who has acted as a liaison between the Reynolds, Duke and Rockefeller dynasties is also a member of Rockefeller University Council and a member of the board of visitors to Duke University. Leighton Hammond Coleman, who is also Illuminati and part of the satanic Coleman family, also acts as emeritus director of R.J. Reynolds Industries. Both he and his father, were part of the Pilgrim Society, which is a level above the CFR in the Illuminati hierarchy.

Another director of R.J. Reynolds Industries was John D. Macomber, a Yale graduate. Macomber married into the Illuminati Morgan family and was also a member of the Pilgrim Society. Besides being a director of Reynolds, he also served the Rockefellers as a director of Chase Manhattan Bank. Gordon Gray, of the satanic Gray family, was also on the Reynolds board, and both Gray and Macomber were linked with the CFR.

The multitude of connections of Reynolds to the Elite, is quite overwhelming. Many of the institutions in the Middle South connect back to the Illuminati and their front organisations such as the Freemasons and the Chambers of Commerce, the CFR etc. etc. Companies with which R.J. Reynolds Industries interlock are Arista Co., Avon Products, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Dun and Bradstreet Companies, Foremost-McKesson Inc., Hatteras Income Securities, Hayes-Albion Corp., Jefferson Pilot Corp., McClean Industries, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Perkin Elmer Corp., Richardson-Merrell Inc., S.C. Johnson and Sons Inc., Southern Broadcasting Inc., Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, Standard Savings and Loan, Stauffer Chemical Co., United States Filter Corp., United States Steel Corp., Wachovia Corp. — to name just a sample.

Krupp. Money, Military, Steel, Chemicals, Politics

During the age of discovery when the New World was first being explored, the powerful occult oligarchies of Europe set up trading companies to divide-up control of the world. The East India Company was one of the most notable of these Elite-controlled trading companies. They were intrinsically connected to the occult world’s leadership and the formation of drug cartels during the age of discovery. The 13 Illuminati families were all participants in the narcotics cartel that was instigated several centuries ago, its roots being traceable back as far as the Knights Templar and the Knights of Malta.

This drug cartel has persisted down through the centuries. For example, I.G. Farben was a 20th Century part of the German element of the cartel and a complete history of the Krupp family would include its links with I.G. Farben and the worldwide chemical monopoly that the Illuminati families have created.

The Krupp family first appeared in the form of Arndt Krupp, whom it is thought arrived in Essen, (now Germany) in 1587, from Holland and soon became a wealthy merchant in the area. His son Anton however, became a military arms dealer, probably at least partly due to the fact that his father-in-law ran a gunsmith company. By around 1650, the Krupps were Essen’s most prominent family and it was said that they covertly controlled the city government. At this point in history, Germany was simply a collection of autonomous, individual ‘states’ and not a country per se. By 1800, the Krupps had diversified into steel and coal as well as military armaments.

Two of the most important advisors to Adolf Hitler during WWII were Gustav and Alfred Krupp and but for Gustav Krupp, Hitler would never have come to power. During 1932, the Nazi Party had little popular support and had lost heavily in the elections. Many of their largest financial contributors had withdrawn their support and seemed as though the party was about to die a slow, lingering death.

Josef Goebbels wrote at this time, “ . . . we are all very discouraged, particularly in the face of the present danger that the entire party may collapse and all our work be in vain. We are now facing the decisive test.” Soon afterwards he also wrote, “The financial situation in Berlin is hopeless. Nothing but debts and obligations,” However, Gustav Krupp suddenly brought to bear his huge influence and wealth (100,000,000 German Marks) into saving the Nazi party from their ‘hopeless’ position. Gustav Krupp was perhaps the most powerful industrialist in Germany at the time and the weight of his great influence helped restore the Nazi party’s fortunes and led to electoral victory later that year. When Krupp’s financial contribution had been received, Hitler assigned Martin Bormann to control the money and from then on, Hitler’s personal finances as well as the party’s finances were totally within the power of Bormann, significantly also a member of the Illuminati.

Gustav Krupp was the sole owner of all his companies, there were no shareholders. He owned a vast array of corporations and companies and properties all over the world. The full extent of his holdings are unknown but this immense wealth ensured that his son, who was the sole inheritor of all the Krupp fortune was able to quickly rebuild his factories, totally destroyed by the allies in WWII, by using the money derived from foreign (non-German) holdings all over the world.

Was Hitler really the driving force of Germany’s re-armament in the aftermath of WWI or does it seem more likely that it was in fact Gustav Krupp who began secretly re-arming Germany in a scheme that perpetuated the immense profitability of his companies. In fact, the documentation that proves that Krupp began planning and secretly rebuilding German armaments on his own initiative, in preparation for WWII immediately after WWI, is absolutely incontrovertible.

When Hitler eventually gained power, Gustav Krupp immediately billed the new Nazi government 300 million marks for the cost of having secretly re-built the German war machine during the 1920s and the Nazis promptly paid him without question.

At the Nuremberg, so-called ‘war-crime’ trials in 1946, Gustav and Alfred Krupp were two of the Nazi defendants. However, Gustav was declared unfit for trial due to ‘ill health’ and Alfred was given very lenient treatment indeed. Many of the other Nazi defendants were in fact sentenced to death with far less evidence against them, than Alfred. As members of the Illuminati, were they being allowed ‘special treatment?’ This particular topic is discussed more fully in a later chapter.

When the war ended, Gustav was at Blumenbach Castle which is located in a remote site in the Austrian Alps and coincidentally, the American officer who captured the castle was Chip Bohlen’s brother-in-law, Colonel Charles W. Thayer (in other words a relative of Gustav Krupp,) who made sure that the American troops did not loot the castle. This is a very strange coincidence indeed, that of all the millions of allied troops, it was actually a relative of the Krupps who was on hand to capture Gustav Krupp’s castle.

The Illuminati’s controlled mass media was eager to portray Gustav’s son Alfred as a ‘victim’ of the Nuremberg trials, even though mountains of documents proved beyond doubt that he was more of a ‘war criminal’ than Adolf Hitler and his closest confidantes. Indeed, the copious documents relating specifically to the Nuremberg trial of Alfred Krupp were never printed in Germany and even today the truth about Krupp is concealed. History is constantly re-written by the controlled media and not least to portray Alfred Krupp as a victim of Nazism, rather than to tell the truth about how he ran the Krupp Empire with brutality and was actively involved in the torture of countless slave labourers in his factories.

Hitler had decreed that slave-workers were to be properly fed in accordance with their workloads but Krupp’s slaves were systematically starved to death while being forced to undertake hard labour. There was an acute shortage of slave labour and pressing needs for tanks, ships, artillery, submarines and other Krupp-produced weapons, so it was ironic that Krupp’s personal factory guards starved and beat slaves to death on a regular basis. The horrendous abuse that the slaves received indeed often inhibited the Krupp factories and prevented them from attaining their production goals.

These slave labourers were tortured in the basement of Krupp’s ‘Hauptverwaltungsgebaude,’ the executive corporation office building in Essen. Several unimpeachable witnesses declared that some of the most despicable torture of slaves occurred within the hearing of Alfred Krupp’s own office. Krupp’s secretaries could certainly hear the screams of people being tortured and there is no doubt that if they could hear them, then so could he.

Later John J. McCloy, head of the Council of Foreign Relations, and member of the Illuminati, (more of him later, too) was given the job of High Commissioner, overseeing occupied Germany. He overturned the Nuremberg Trial decisions, ignoring the legalities (the law is only for lesser mortals to obey, of course) and freed Alfred Krupp from prison and fully exonerated him of ‘war crimes.’

In total, the trial of Alfred Krupp’s WWII crimes had taken five years, and was represented by 330,000 pages of court transcripts and all that time and effort was simply brushed-aside by McCloy. Krupp in fact had employed a team of thirty seven of the very best lawyers who had done everything in their powers both legally and illegally to free him. They even had witnesses murdered and contrived to suppress important, incriminating evidence. In fact, the mainstream newspapers in Europe and the US portrayed Krupp as having been denied adequate legal advice but this was far from the truth — he was the best-defended Nuremberg ‘criminal’ of all.

The Illuminati were always above the law and indeed still are. Friedrich Alfred Krupp was the head of the Fried-Krupp Industrial Empire but was also a homosexual paedophile who used little boys for sex. When he travelled on business he would always obtain boys to satisfy his distasteful urges. The proprietor of the Hotel Bristol in Berlin discovered Friedrich Krupp’s sexual preferences when he was asked by Krupp to supply him with young boys at the Hotel. Utterly disgusted by this, he immediately contacted the Berlin police, who advised him to keep quiet in his own interests. Not only was Krupp above the law, but he also had friends in high places in the form of Kaiser Wilhelm, who was the grandson of Queen Victoria of England and a great friend and protector of the Krupps.

On the island of Capri, Italy a grotto was transformed into Krupp’s own private sex den where countless numbers of young Italian boys regularly performed sexual services for Krupp. The owner of the grotto was also a prominent politician who could therefore protect Krupp’s activities from unwanted intrusion. Solid gold pins shaped like artillery shells or two crossed forks (both designed by Krupp) were allegedly given to the young boys if they performed well.

Krupp also arranged for explicit pornographic photos to be taken of his abhorrent activities but these somehow leaked into the public domain and this, and all the many witnesses to Krupp’s criminal, sexual activities, caused the Italian government to order Krupp to leave Italy. Any ‘ordinary’ person would have been arrested and thrown into jail, but Krupp was simply asked to leave. However, the press in Italy had got wind of this ‘juicy’ story and it was not too long before all of Europe knew of Krupp’s paedophilia. That is except for Germany where the government and the controlled media kept it a secret. A few German journalists did attempt to get the story published in Germany but were arrested for their troubles.

When Krupp’s wife learned of the scandal she was incredibly distressed and informed the authorities who immediately contrived to have her declared insane in order to silence her too. However, committing her to a mental asylum was never going to cover-up the scandal, it had grown completely out of control and after a short period spent fighting a desperate, losing battle, in November 1902 Friedrich Krupp committed suicide. The suicide was also covered up, and his body was placed in a concealed casket and in direct contravention of the law, no autopsy was ever performed.

No-one, not even Friedrich Krupp’s close relatives were allowed to see the body and after a ‘respectful’ period of three days, there was a great remembrance ceremony for Krupp which included the participation of the Kaiser, followed by his remains being laid to rest in a guarded cemetery. The case of Friedrich Krupp’s improprieties and the resulting scandal, suicide and cover-up, clearly demonstrate that these powerful men are absolutely above and beyond the law.

As with all the Illuminati families, the Krupps maintain extensive networks with all the Elite. For example, the Krupps are able at will, to hire or fire corporate leaders in many of Germany’s major corporations, because their controlled banks hold the entire purse strings of Germany.

In July, 1944, the Illuminati’s economic ‘thinkers’ quietly established the World Bank at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, USA and Illuminatus John J. McCloy, the man who illegally set Krupp free, became its first president.

In more recent times, two Illuminati from the Krupp family were Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halsbach (1907-1967) and Charles ‘Chip’ Bohlen (1904-1974.) Chip Bohlen’s grandfather and Alfred Krupp’s great-grandfather were brothers. Alfred Krupp was one of the most powerful and richest men in Europe during the 1960s and ‘Chip’ Bohlen was one of the most powerful political figures of the United States serving as the US ambassador to the USSR for many years.

In 1967, upon Alfred Krupp’s death, the Illuminati ceded control of Krupp’s vast industrial empire to its International banksters.

Rothschild. Money, Politics, Power-broking

Much of the Rothschild family history has already been covered and their activities will continue to be a central theme throughout the remainder of this book.

Secret Societies

Most modern secret societies and especially those that practice degrees of initiation, and this is the key factor, are really one society with one purpose. We may refer to them however we wish, the Order of the Quest, the JASON Society, the Roshaniya, the Qabbalah, the Knights Templar, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus, the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae Crucis (Rosicrucians,) the Illuminati, the Communist Party, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Group, the Brotherhood of the Dragon, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Vatican, the Russell Trust, the Skull and Bones, the Scroll and Key, the Order, the Round Table; they are all essentially linked and all work toward the same ultimate goal, the New World Order.

You may believe that some of those organisations listed above do not, or so it appears, practice degrees of initiation. However, that is just the public view, for public consumption only. For example, many members of the Council on Foreign Relations, in fact the majority, never serve on the executive committees and never go through any initiation ceremony of any kind. They are simply the power base and are used to gain a consensus of opinion. These are not ‘true’ members as such but are deliberately given the impression that they are.

The Executive Committee is an inner core of intimate associates, members of a secret society called the Order of the Quest, also known as the JASON Society, devoted to a common goal. The ordinary members are an outer circle on whom the inner core acts by personal persuasion, patronage and social pressure. Anyone in the outer circle who does not conform is summarily expelled and this lesson is not lost on those who remain. Only members of the Order are initiated into the Order of the Quest, the JASON Society that makes up the executive members of the Council on Foreign Relations and, in fact, the Trilateral Commission as well. The executive members of these insidious organisations are the true world powers — and not governments.

These ‘executives’ are recruited, almost without exception from the fraternal secret societies of Yale and Harvard, known as the Skull and Bones and the Scroll and Key, respectively.

Both societies are secret branches (also called the Brotherhood of Death) of what is otherwise historically known as the Illuminati. They are connected to parent organisations in England (The Group of Oxford University and especially All Souls College,) and Germany (the Thule Society, also called the Brotherhood of Death.)

It is important to understand that the members of these Orders take an oath that absolves them from any allegiance to any nation or king or government or constitution, and that includes the negating of any subsequent oath of allegiance which they may be required to take. They swear allegiance only to the Order, its leaders and its goal of a New World Order.

Clinton, Bush, Obama et al are not loyal citizens of the United States, but instead are loyal only to the destruction of the United States and to the inception of the New World Order. According to the oath Bush took when he was initiated into Skull and Bones, his oath of office as President of the United States of America means nothing.

The Trilateral Commission

The Trilateral Commission is an elite group of some 300 very prominent business, political and intellectual decision-makers of Western Europe, North America, and Japan. This enterprise is a private agency that works to engender political and economic co-operation among the three regions. Its great objective, which it no longer hides, is the foundation of a New World Order.

The Trilateral Commission was the idea of its founder, the American bankster, David Rockefeller. The real reason for its formation was the decline of the Council on Foreign Relation’s power as a result of the people’s dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War. The reasoning behind the move toward the Trilateral Commission was the same principal as entering two horses in the same race, that is, it doubles the chances of winning. The real power has always remained solidly in the hands of the Council on Foreign Relations, however, the Rockefeller family was, is and always will be both the benefactor and power behind both organisations.

A key clue to the real danger presented by the Trilateral Commission is its ‘Seminal Peace’ document, written for them by Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington in the mid-1970s. In his paper Huntington recommended that democracy and economic development be discarded as outdated ideas. He wrote as co-author of the book ‘The Crisis of Democracy,’ “We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary.”

The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission are pro-Marxist. They are solidly set against the nation-state and in particular, the Constitution of the United States. Thus, national sovereignty must be abolished altogether in order to make way for the New World Order that will be governed by an unelected global Elite with their self-created legal framework.

The Trilateral Commission established a firm grip on the Executive Branch of the US government with the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 who was personally tutored in globalist philosophy and foreign policy by Zbigniew Brzezinski himself. Subsequently, when Carter was sworn in as President, he appointed no less than one-third of the US members of the TC to his Cabinet and other high-level posts in his Administration.

Thus, every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral Commission representation either through the President or Vice-president.

The JASON Society

The JASON Society takes its name from the story of Jason and the Golden Fleece and it is a branch of the Order of the Quest, one of the most influential elements in the Illuminati. The Golden Fleece takes on the role of truth to JASON members and Jason represents the search for the truth. Therefore the name JASON Society denotes a group of men who are engaged in a search for the truth. The name Jason is always spelled with capital letters when used as the name of the JASON Society.

Founders of the JASON Group include members of the famous Manhattan Project, which brought together almost every leading physicist to build the atomic bomb during World War II. The group consists mostly of theoretical physicists and is the most elite gathering of scientific minds in the United States. As of 1987, the membership included four Nobel Prize winners and today JASON continues to offer scientific help the government cannot source elsewhere. They are probably the only group of scientists in the United States that know the true state of available technology.

JASON is shrouded in what appears to be unnecessary secrecy. For example, the group refuses to release its membership list and none of the members list JASON membership on their official resumés. Working completely ‘behind the scenes,’ JASON has guided the nation’s most important security decisions and these include, but are not limited to, Star Wars, submarine warfare, and predictions about the greenhouse effect. According to the Pentagon, the JASONS hold the highest and most restrictive security clearances in the nation and are allocated the protocol rank of Rear Admiral when they visit or travel aboard ships or visit military bases.

The veil of secrecy drawn around the JASON Group has been so tight and so leak-proof since its inception that those who believe that the government cannot keep a secret may need to re-examine that position.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

The Council on Foreign Relations has been the leading edge of America’s foreign-policy establishment for more than half a century. It is a private organisation of business executives, scholars and political leaders that studies global problems and plays a key role in developing US foreign policy. The CFR is one of the most powerful semi-official groups concerned with America’s role in international affairs and is controlled by an unelected group of men recruited from the Skull and Bones and the Scroll and Key societies of Harvard and Yale, which are both chapters of a secret branch of the Illuminati.

The Council on Foreign Relations is a sister organisation, an off-shoot of the British, Royal Institute of International Affairs whose ultimate goal is also the New World Order. Although it existed originally as a ‘diner’s club’ in New York, it did not take on its present form until 1921, when it merged with the Royal Institute of International Affairs and received its financial backing from JP Morgan, the Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller family, and other Wall Street bankster interests.

The Council on Foreign Relations (along with the TC and the RIIA) controls our governments. Through the years its members have infiltrated the entire executive branch, State Department, Justice Department, CIA and the top ranks of the military. Every director of the Central Intelligence Agency has been a member of the CFR and indeed all presidents since Roosevelt have been members. The members of the CFR dominate ownership of the press and most, if not all, of America’s leading journalists are members. The CFR does not conform to government policy, the government conforms to CFR policy.

The Bilderberg Group

The most powerful ‘secret’ organisation in the world is the Bilderberg Group, created in 1952 and named after the hotel where its first meeting took place in 1954. The man who instigated the Bilderberg Group, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, has the power to veto the Vatican’s choice of any Pope it selects because his family, the Hapsburgs, are descended from the Holy Roman Emperors.

Prince Bernhard, with the assistance of the CIA, brought the hidden ruling body of the Illuminati into the public domain as the Bilderberg Group. This is the official alliance that makes up the true world governing body. It is an annual conference of Elites so secretive that it was nameless until being coined ‘The Bilderberg Group,’ after its original meeting place. They first convened in 1954 at the Bilderberg hotel in Holland under direction of the former Nazi, Prince Bernhard and David Rockefeller.

At the core of the organisation is three committees made up of thirteen members each. Thus the heart of the Bilderberg Group consists of 39 members with around 130 politicians, bankers, businessmen and senior media executives invited each year. The three committees are made up exclusively of members of all the different secret groups that make up the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Vatican, and the Black Nobility. This committee works year-round in offices in Switzerland and absolutely determines who is to be invited to the annual meeting and what policies and plans will be discussed.

Every proposal or plan that has ever been discussed at an annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group has come to pass usually within one or two years following the meeting. It directs the ‘silent war’ that is being waged against us all. These are the men who really rule the world.

“Surely senior officials of the World Trade Organization, Federal Reserve, Financial Institutions like Rockefeller (the man himself,) the EU and UN World Government models, and corporate oil conglomerates couldn’t belong to the same group as the leading politicians and the media? Well, they do. They all belong to the Bilderberg Group.” Paul Joseph Watson, ‘Order Out of Chaos’

“In 1954 the elite of the planet met in secret at the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland. The Bilderberg Group would later admit that their mission was the formation of the EU. Once the EU was established, under the guise of trade deals, a North American Union and Asian Union would be formed. The three interlocking super-states form the core of the global government, while the United Nations would serve as a world regulatory and enforcement body over the third-world sub-regions. The Bilderberg Group consists of the heads of all the managing Round Table groups that steer individual countries. Picture the elite power structure of the world as a giant pyramid with only the elite of the elite at the tip-top of the capstone. The group has been so secretive that until the mid-1980s the controlled corporate media denied its existence. Into the late 1990s coverage only consisted of rare one-line mentions, but with the rise of the alternative media, their strangle-hold on information has begun to slip.” Alex Jones, ‘Endgame’

In the Illuminati hierarchy, the Bilderberg Group sits above and controls the CFR, RIIA, and Trilateral Commission. It is composed of Kings, Queens, Princes and Princesses, Presidents and Prime Ministers from all over the world, IMF / World Bank / Federal Reserve heads, US Senators, CFR members, EU Commissioners, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Journalists, TV News Anchors, CEOs and more. The last six heads of NATO have all been Bilderberg Group members.

In 1991 Bill Clinton was invited and the next year became President. Coincidence? You decide. Other notable attendees include, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Dan Quayle, Alan Greenspan, Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearle, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, William Perry, Prince Charles, Prince Philip, King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia of Spain, Queen Beatrix and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Peter Jennings, Rupert Murdoch, William F. Buckley Jr., Nelson, Jay and David Rockefeller, Jacob, Guy, Evelyn, Emma, and Lynn Forester Rothschild, Sigmund and Eric Warburg.

“The Bilderbergers meet once or sometimes twice a year. Those in attendance include leading political and financial figures from the United States and Western Europe. Prince Bernhard makes no effort to hide the fact that the ultimate goal of the Bilderbergers is a world government. In the meantime, while the ‘New World Order’ is being built, the Bilderbergers coordinate the efforts of the European and American power Elites. Prince Bernhard’s counterpart among the American Bilderbergers is David Rockefeller, chairman of the board of the CFR, whose economic base is the giant Chase Manhattan Bank and Standard Oil. Among the other Bilderbergers from the world of ultra-high finance are Baron Edmund de Rothschild of the House of Rothschild, C. Douglas Dillon of Dillon Read and Co., Robert McNamara of the World Bank, Sir Eric Roll of S. G. Warburg and Co., Ltd., Pierce Paul Schweitzer of the International Monetary Fund, and George Ball of Lehman Brothers. Every single one of those named as past and present members of the Bilderberger Steering Committee is or was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.” Gary Allen, ‘None Dare Call it Conspiracy’

If you have never heard of Bilderberg it is probably because the heads of CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, Time, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and many other media outlets are regular attendees. Protestors and ‘lesser’ journalists are kept at bay by private police, no one is allowed anywhere near the venue and no minutes of the meetings are ever made public.

“Now the Bilderberg Group in Reuters (which they own) has gone public that it actually grooms our presidents and our prime ministers; that, yes, its members really are international banksters; yes, royal families are involved; yes, the Bilderberg Group runs the central banks; and, yes, the elitists see us as the property of a global super-state (Reuters, May 23, 2001, Secretive Bilderberg Group to Meet in Sweden). Bilderberg member Prince Philip, in his own publication ‘If I Were an Animal,’ brags about how he would kill eighty percent of the population; how his great dream is to come back as a virus.” Alex Jones, ‘9-11, Descent into Tyranny.’ Alex Jones, despite his role as ‘gatekeeper to Zionism,’ does occasionally produce some valuable insight, too.

The late Jim Tucker made it his life’s mission, to expose the criminal globalist organisation, known as The Bilderberg Group. Jim tracked their every move for over 25 years, reporting their clandestine meetings, via several ‘inside sources’ and he is largely the reason that we know so much about this criminal cartel now.

Despite all his years in the media, Tucker had never once heard of Bilderberg and once he discovered them, he realised immediately, as any real journalist should, that there was something wrong. As Tucker summarised it, quite correctly, time and again over the years, “If a hundred of the world’s best known sports figures or film stars were gathered at some exclusive resort behind closed doors for a private meeting, the entirety of the mass media would be on hand, clamouring for admittance and demanding to know what was going on. But when the world’s richest banksters, media barons, industrialists, members of royalty, and political leaders were meeting secretly and discussing public policy matters that impacted on the course of the world’s affairs, the establishment press never said a word.”

Best known for having tracked the aforementioned Rockefeller and the members of such high-level power groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and, most notably, the Bilderberg Group, literally all over the planet for decades, the legacy of Tucker, self-described ‘country boy’ as a brave, no-nonsense investigative reporter is one that is difficult to deny.

The world is indeed a poorer place without him. R.I.P. Jim.

Chapter 5

The British Royal Bankster Family

An apt question at this point may well be; why include a section on the royal family in a book about the ‘banksters?’ The simple answer is that even though the myriad of Central Banks existing throughout the world never fully disclose their shareholders, much circumstantial evidence points to the fact that the royals pull many of the strings and are heavily financially involved ‘behind the scenes’ in central banking. In short, they themselves are banksters too.

The Royal families of Britain and Europe hold a special place in the hearts of many people who seem to absolutely believe the propaganda directed at us daily from the fawning media in all its forms. This insidious propaganda holds that these people are not far removed from being Gods or angels as well as being incapable of committing any wrongdoing whatsoever.

It also tells us that the existence of the Royal family is absolutely essential to the British economy and that without the ‘tourism’ engendered solely by these living Gods, that somehow we would all be living in abject poverty by now. Maybe a slight exaggeration by me, but I think you get the picture?

Actually it is all LIES . . . Unfortunately, I have to inform anyone who still lives in this fool’s paradise regarding these genocidal parasites, that they have almost single-handedly been responsible for more deaths, murders and yes, even genocide down the centuries than any other family you could care to name. And this is not just simply ‘all in the past’ either, it continues to this day.

“ . . . this is the result of aeons of propaganda which has been perpetrated by the royal-political elite, who use pomp and circumstance, parades, fly-bys, flag-waving, national anthems, patriotism, royal weddings and the kissing of babies, as a tool to fool people into thinking that they have some kind of group membership to a nation which has at its head either a king, queen or president that represents their wishes and protects their families. It’s a lie.” Chris Everard, British researcher and film director

It is actually provable that these burdens on our economy do not even pay for themselves via so-called tourism, let alone bring a huge bounty into the country from foreigners eager to spend millions and attracted only by thoughts of catching a glimpse of a ‘minor royal’ shopping in Harrods or catching a number 54 bus down to Portobello Road market to do bit of Saturday afternoon bargain-hunting.

Firstly, think about this . . . So what, if Buckingham Palace and other royal residences attract huge numbers of visitors every year? Where does all that money generated actually go? Back into the royal coffers and not into some communal ‘pot’ to be shared-out equally between all the citizens of the United Kingdom, I would suggest. The only group that actually benefits from ‘royal’ tourism are the royals themselves and there is no proof in the statement often made, that large numbers of people only visit London each year because of the royal connection, thereby contributing to the economy in many other ways.

In fact, secondly, think about this too . . . even if it was that the royals were almost solely responsible for the attraction of all that supposed foreign money flowing into the country, who actually benefits from all that ‘extra’ tourism income? Certainly not you or I, not at all. Maybe the large corporate hotel chains and the huge chain stores that abound in London or maybe even the theatre and entertainment industry, but we ‘ordinary’ folk? No, not a chance. We never see any of this supposed foreign bounty, ever, it only goes to businesses and gets re-cycled in that way. In other words it only goes directly to the already filthy rich (the banksters, who else?) to increase their already considerable fortunes — and NOT to the likes of you or I.

Royal Intrigue

The noted New Zealand researcher and author, Greg Hallet has spent almost a lifetime enquiring and probing into the murky, hidden realms of European royalty and his findings are an absolute revelation. Albeit, maybe an unbelievable revelation to those who will not hear a bad word spoken about our wonderful Royal families. So, what follows is not all my own research but mainly consists of Hallet’s own findings, sometimes verbatim and sometimes paraphrased and edited by myself.

In an earlier chapter, I stated that the legendary, ‘glorious’ British Empire presided over by Queen Victoria, was in reality the British bankster Empire that was ruled primarily by the Rothschilds.

Nathan Mayer Rothschild wanted more than to just simply control the flow and production of money. He had accomplished that already by assuming firm control of the Bank of England in 1815, but he also wanted to control the royal bloodlines too. As the monarchs and nobility of Europe always seemed to be short of funds to service their utterly extravagant lifestyles and to maintain their strings of homes and palaces, it was no surprise that Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, was unable to pay his gambling debts, let alone maintain his string of mistresses with expensive tastes and expectations. As the fourth son of British King George III, Prince Edward was created Duke of Kent and Strathearn and Earl of Dublin on 23rd April 1799 and a few weeks later, was appointed a General and commander-in-chief of British forces in North America.

On 23rd March 1802 he was appointed Governor of Gibraltar and nominally retained that post until his death. Prince Edward was appointed Field-Marshal of the British forces on 3rd September 1805 and became the first member of the royal family to live in North America for more than just simply a short visit (1791-1800) and the first prince to enter the United States, travelling to Boston by foot from Lower Canada after American independence in 1794.

Virtually bankrupt, he was approached by Nathan Mayer Rothschild who offered to pay-off all his debts in return for certain breeding rights. ‘Breeding’ has always been an issue with royalty, but now, it seemed that the Rothschilds also wanted to follow suit and create an exclusive bloodline similar to the royal line.

Mary Louise Victoire, born 17th August 1786, was the fourth daughter and seventh child of Franz Frederick Anton, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and Countess Augusta of Reuss-Ebersdorf. On 21 December 1803 at Coburg, she married (as his second wife) Charles, Prince of Leiningen (1763 — 1814), whose first wife, Henrietta of Reuss-Ebersdorf, was her aunt. Charles and Victoria had two children, Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Emich and Princess Anna Fedora Auguste Charlotte Wilhelmine.

Through her first marriage, she was a direct matrilineal ancestor to various members of royalty in Europe, including Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, Felipe, Prince of Asturias and Constantine II of Greece. On 29th May 1818 at Amorbach she married Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, and became Princess Mary Louise Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Princess of Leiningen, Duchess of Kent and Strathearn.

Mainstream history relates that Edward and Victoria had one child together and that child would eventually become the legendary Queen Victoria, ruler of the British Empire. However there is evidence to suggest the true father was none other than Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

Alexandrina Victoria was born on 24th May 1819, and she was born illegitimate, fifth in the line of succession after her father and his three older brothers; the Prince Regent, the Duke of York and the Duke of Clarence (later King William IV.) The Prince Regent and the Duke of York were estranged from their wives, who were both past child-bearing age anyway and so the two eldest brothers were unlikely to have any further children. The Dukes of Kent and Clarence married on the same day, one year before Victoria’s birth, but both of Clarence’s daughters (born in 1819 and 1820 respectively) died as infants. Victoria’s grandfather and father died in 1820 within a week of each other, and the Duke of York died in 1827.

On the death of her uncle, King George IV in 1830, Victoria became heiress presumptive to her next surviving uncle, King William IV. The Regency Act of 1830 made special provision for the Duchess of Kent to act as regent in the event of William’s death whilst Victoria was still a minor. However, William was not at all confident in the Duchess’s ability to act as Regent and in 1836 declared in her presence that he wished to live until Victoria’s 18th birthday, so that a Regency could be avoided.

Just eight months after Alexandrina Victoria’s birth, her ‘official’ father, Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent died suddenly — and strangely — of ‘pneumonia,’ a few days before his father, King George III. The widowed Duchess had little cause to remain in the United Kingdom, being unable to speak English and having a palace back home in Coburg, where she could live on the incomes of her first husband, the late Prince of Leiningen.

However, the Duchess decided that she would be better served by ‘gambling’ on her daughter’s accession than by living quietly in Coburg and sought support from the British government, having inherited her second husband’s considerable debts. After the death of Edward and his father, the young Princess Alexandrina Victoria was still only third in line to the throne and Parliament was not inclined to support yet another impoverished royal. The Duchess of Kent was allowed a suite of rooms in the by this time, dilapidated Kensington Palace, along with several other impoverished nobles. There she raised her daughter, Victoria, who on 20th June 1837, was to become Queen of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, and eventually Empress of India.

Queen Victoria eventually began to suspect that her mother’s lover and her ‘father’s’ comptroller, Sir John Ponsonby Conroy, whom she absolutely detested, was somehow involved in the very strange circumstances of her father’s death. Although her father at the time of his untimely death was fifty three years of age, he was nevertheless fit and strong. The fact that he was suddenly laid-low by what was little more than a bad cold is acceptable, but that he actually died from this condition is very odd indeed. It certainly was extremely convenient for him to die suddenly at that time. As both an agent for Nathan Mayer Rothschild and a ‘handler’ for the Duchess, Sir John Conroy had been conducting a long-term affair with the Duchess.

The Duchess may well have given birth to his child, the next in line to the throne, but knowing the highly efficient spy network of the Rothschilds and their utter ruthlessness, it is unlikely that Sir John would have been stupid enough to ‘cross’ them in any way.

Sir John or rather Nathan Rothschild, had gained almost complete control of the Duchess, except for the fact that her husband, the Duke, was still alive. The Duke was quite an obstacle. He was financially insolvent, unstable, hugely disliked and feared by the royal household and most crucially, he was about to expose his wife’s illicit liaison, send the Duchess back to Europe and take complete charge of the young princess.

It is strange to note that the Duke’s entire household packed-up and moved to a remote, basic country cottage in the middle of one the coldest winters ever known. Sir John had arranged this bizarre move to save money, or so he said. Sir John being the Duke’s equerry was in control of all the Duke’s business.

He had been highly instrumental in the Duke’s convenient and speedily arranged marriage to an unknown princess of an obscure German state. The Duke was unusually childless whilst his brothers had numerous illegitimate offspring from their various mistresses. The situation in Britain was, at that time extraordinary also in that King George III had thirteen children and yet not one of them had produced a legitimate child between them. There was no heir to the throne at all and so it was rather surprising that only a few months after the royal marriage the Duke and Duchess announced that an heir to the throne was expected. It was even more suspect, that so soon after Princess Victoria’s birth, that the Duke of Kent succumbed to a ‘cold,’ dying very suddenly indeed. This left the baby princess not only the heir to the throne of Great Britain but her hopeless mother, the possible Regent of Britain and Sir John totally in control of both of them.

In 1833 at age fourteen, Princess Victoria, soon to be Queen Victoria and the sixty-four year old Duke of Wellington, victor over Napoleon’s forces at Waterloo, the ‘Iron Duke,’ fell in love and secretly married and the fruit of their forbidden, secret love was a son who eventually became Prince Marcos Manoel. The Duke of Wellington’s wife, Catherine Sarah Dorothea Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington, had died two years previously, so the secret marriage and the child heir were both absolutely ‘legitimate.’

However, the boy was sent into exile in Portugal and given a Portuguese name as part of the elaborate cover-up but nevertheless, being the first-born son of Victoria, Marcos Manoel should have ascended to the English throne when the Queen died in 1901. But significantly, from this date onwards, a wave of destruction of the letters and diaries of Victoria began. Sir Philip Magnus, King Edward VII’s biographer, expressed his regrets for this ‘irreparable loss’ to history.

In the 1920s the descendants of Marcos Manoel were seriously threatened and this is the reason that Francisco Manoel, first representative of the primogeniture of Queen Victoria, took the initiative of disclosing the British Crown’s great secret.

Victoria never divorced Wellington and so in 1840, when she married Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg, it was therefore a bigamous marriage. Prince Albert was a closet homosexual and he too was illegitimate. His mother was Princess Louise of Saxe Coburg and his father was a stable boy called Alex Hanstein who later became Baron von Hanstein and the Count of Polzig. Alex Hanstein was himself the illegitimate son of Baron Karl von Hanstein.

Prince Albert always wore what was eventually named after him, a ‘Prince Albert,’ which was a chain linked to a piercing through his penis, drawn-up and around his waist, so in effect his penis was always vertical, but he was totally incapable of fathering a child. Queen Victoria’s children were in fact fathered by Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who was Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s son. Lionel Nathan de Rothschild through his immense power and influence eventually became the first Jewish Member of Parliament.

Benjamin Disraeli was the principal agent through whom Lionel Rothschild, by granting financial and other favours to numerous traitors, at last and after many failures, secured ‘emancipation’ for the Jews, complete with the right to sit in the House of Commons after taking a Jewish, not a Christian, oath. Lionel was first elected in 1847 as Member for the City of London, but as the House of Lords refused for years to pass Bills for Jewish Emancipation which had already been passed in the lower House, he was unable to take his seat. His constituents however, returned him to the Commons five times in succession, regardless of this fact. It was not until 1858 that he was enabled by law to take his oath in the Jewish form with his head covered. In 1850, he actually had the effrontery to try and ‘con’ the House by substituting the words, “So help me, God,” for “ . . . on the true faith of a Christian,” but was ordered to withdraw by the Speaker.

As did Queen Victoria’s father, Prince Edward, her ‘official’ husband Prince Albert, also died of ‘pneumonia’ in 1861.

Upon his death, and for the rest of her long life, she was a black-clad, virtual recluse. The elderly monarch lived in an atmosphere of grim silence in her castle at Balmoral, Scotland. She had as little contact with her staff as possible; if they needed to tell her something, they wrote a short note and placed it inside a sealed envelope and if their paths crossed in the house or gardens, they were expected to hide behind a convenient piece of furniture or if outside, the nearest bush.

It was at this time that John Brown, a dour Scotsman, entered her life. At first he was only employed as Victoria’s fishing and hunting guide (a ghillie,) but as time passed and they grew closer, he accompanied her almost everywhere and was her constant companion. Brown was also given duties as Victoria’s bodyguard, responsible for her safety on her rare public appearances. There had been several assassination attempts whilst Victoria rode in her carriage and contrary to the common myth that she was a well-loved and respected queen, the real truth was that she was hated by many, and during her reign Britain had never been closer to revolution in the previous two hundred years, such was the strong revulsion for her at the time.

Brown was born in 1826 and he died in 1883, aged 56. He treated Victoria somewhat differently than did all the other servants. He was altogether more informal, indeed more like a friend than a servant and in fact many believe that he was actually her lover.

After John Brown, Victoria eventually acquired another servant / confidante in the form of her Indian manservant, Abdul Karim.

In the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year of 1897, the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VII actually threatened to have his mother declared insane. Unthinkable? Well, that is exactly what happened after her Royal Household refused to condone the Queen’s shockingly intimate friendship with Karim.

Victoria had become very fond of India and everything Indian and maybe this was the initial attraction for her, in this ‘romantic’ man of mystery. In fact she became so infatuated with the tall, handsome Muslim, Abdul Karim that senior royal advisers plotted to have her declared insane just days before her Jubilee unless she halted a controversial plan to knight him.

The young waiter — he was just 24 — had begun serving at the Queen’s table in June 1887 after being sent to London as a ‘gift’ from her Indian subjects. He soon began bewitching her with romantic tales of mysterious India and cooking up delicious curries for her in the royal kitchens.

Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee London, 1897

Victoria promoted Abdul from waiter to her personal teacher or ‘Munshi’ and after he began to teach her a few words in Hindi, the pair grew even closer. She had been starved of affection since the death of John Brown, and Abdul Karim’s great-grandson, Javed Mahmood, recently said it is not difficult to see why she fell for his great-grandfather. He said, “Abdul was a very warm man. He was very jolly, entertaining — a very human person. Maybe those were the traits that attracted the Queen eventually, because he came across as a man of flesh and blood, and she wasn’t used to real people around her.”

Obviously, their growing intimacy was not well received in the strict, hierarchical world of the royal household. Nevertheless, in 1894, Abdul was elevated to the position of the queen’s Indian Secretary making him an official member of the ‘inner circle.’ The idea that a servant, an outsider who has no pedigree or background, could suddenly attain a position of great closeness with the Queen was not very well received by the rest of her courtiers. And it wasn’t just Abdul’s ‘class’ that troubled the Queen’s advisers, they were also scandalised by his ‘race’ too.

But the more the royal household attacked Abdul, the more the Queen defended him. She sent an angry memo to her Private Secretary, Sir Henry Ponsonby, saying, “As for Abdul Karim, the Queen cannot praise him highly enough. He’s zealous and attentive, a thorough gentleman.”

The Royal household retaliated by sending investigators to India who returned with ‘alarming’ information about Abdul’s origins. He was not, as he had claimed, the son of an important military doctor, in fact, his father was a lowly pharmacist who worked in Agra jail where Abdul himself had worked as a clerk. But these revelations only served to push the Queen closer to Abdul. She took a stance that was astonishing at the time — accusing her household of racial prejudice. In another memo to Ponsonby she wrote, “To make out that the Munshi is low is outrageous. Abdul feels cut to the heart to be thus spoken of. The Queen is so sorry for the poor Munshi’s sensitive feelings.”

Rumours soon began to circulate to the effect that Abdul was passing Victoria inflammatory advice about India and that he was a spy, leaking secret foreign policy information. Then in 1897, just a few weeks before Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the Queen announced she planned to knight Abdul.

This ‘bombshell’ was one step too far for her ministers and courtiers and even the Viceroy of India joined forces with the Prime Minister to oppose the move. In response, Victoria threatened to pull out of the Jubilee celebrations. With possibly the most prestigious public event that the British monarchy had ever seen, now under serious threat, the Queen’s eldest son, Bertie, later Edward VII, assumed control of the situation. He hatched a plan with the Queen’s doctor, Sir James Reid, who wrote to her, saying . . .

“There are people in high places who know your majesty well and say to me the only charitable explanation that can be given is that your majesty is not sane, and that at some time it will be necessary for me to come forward and say so. I have seen the Prince of Wales yesterday and he has said he is quite ready to come forward, because it affects the throne.”

Victoria was angry but knew that she had to admit defeat and Abdul did not get his knighthood after all, but he was her constant companion during the Jubilee celebration and for the remaining four years of Victoria’s life, she was inseparable from her beloved servant.

But when she finally died in early 1901, the protection Abdul had enjoyed came to a sudden end. Early one cold, February morning, around one month after Victoria’s death, the inhabitants of a small cottage on the Windsor Castle estate were startled by a loud banging at the door. Tired and dazed, the head of the household, Abdul Karim, opened the front door to find a group of soldiers standing outside. They were accompanied by Queen Alexandra, wife of the new king, Edward VII and by Princess Beatrice, youngest daughter of the late Queen Victoria.

Much to Karim’s astonishment, the party ordered him to hand over every letter, note and memo that the late Queen had sent him over the 13 years he had served her. She had written him many letters, sometimes several in a day, and often signing them ‘your affectionate mother’ and Karim had treasured them. Now the new King wanted them destroyed and so a bonfire was started outside the cottage and Karim watched in horror and sadness as every piece of paper bearing the Queen’s handwriting was consumed by the flames.

Karim and his family were then ordered to pack their bags and leave for India immediately. The fairy-tale had ended and 8 years later, Karim died heart-broken in Agra, aged only 46.

His descendants left for Pakistan when the country was partitioned in 1947, leaving behind all the land and exquisite gifts given to Abdul Karim by Queen Victoria and other European royalty. Only a diary and a few items of memorabilia survived. A lonely grave in Agra, some portraits in Osborne House, the Hindustani journals they wrote for 13 years and a house that bears his name in Balmoral, are all that remain today of the Queen’s closest confidant. Yet the story still remains and as yet has still not quite been erased from the history books.

Victoria and ‘Albert’s’ eldest son, Albert Edward, was king of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Emperor of India from 22nd January 1901 until his death in 1910. He was the first British monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Before his accession to the throne, he served as heir apparent and held the title of Prince of Wales for longer than any of his predecessors. During the long reign of his mother, Queen Victoria, he was largely excluded from political power and came to personify the fashionable, ‘idle rich.’

The Edwardian era coincided with the start of a new century and heralded significant changes in technology and society, including powered flight and the rise of socialism/communism. Edward played a role in the modernisation of the British Home Fleet, the reform of the Army Medical Services and the reorganisation of the British Army after the Second Boer War. He also fostered good relations between Great Britain and other European countries, especially France, for which he was popularly called ‘Peacemaker.’

Shortly after his accession, King Edward VII, discovered that his elder, legitimate half-brother, Marcos Manoel was still alive, causing his coronation to be delayed for 18 months from the 22nd January 1901 to the 9th August 1902. It was for this reason — that is to remove the threat posed by the legitimate heir to the throne — that King Edward VII personally ordered the murder of Marcos Manoel and then passed-on instructions to his son, King George V, who reigned from 1910 to 1936, to assassinate the exiled King of Portugal, King Manuel II, in Twickenham, south London. This destroyed the remainder of the Portuguese Royal Family and thereby eliminating the threat to Edward’s bloodline.

Edward VII was a serial womaniser, and also bisexual, but he, despite the sobriquet of ‘peacemaker,’ far more than any other single human being, was the instigator of the First World War and thus brought about what was probably the most destructive single event in the history of western civilisation, to that point in history. When Edward VII married, he chose Princess Alexandra of the Danish Royal family, who had her own anti-German sentiments, because of Bismarck’s war against Denmark in 1864.

Edward set up a discreet household in Marlborough House in London and began his long career as a royal rake. He became the undisputed leader of British high society and a legendary hedonist and sex maniac whose mistresses included Lillie Langtry, Daisy Countess of Warwick, Lady Brooke, Mrs. George Keppel and many others, too numerous to mention. Some of the can-can dancers painted by Toulouse-Lautrec had also been amongst Edward’s hundreds of conquests.

There was also a fling with Sarah Bernhardt, the French actress. When Bernhardt was appearing in ‘Fedora’ in Paris, Edward confided to her that he had always wanted to be an actor and so, the next night, in the scene in which Fedora comes upon the dead body of her lover, no-one recognised the heir to the British throne who was making his stage debut . . . as a corpse.

Edward’s home at Marlborough House in London was also a centre of the ‘Homintern,’ the hub of the homosexual activities of London’s high society, of which Edward was also an active and enthusiastic member. In fact, one of Edward’s friends, Lord Arthur Somerset, known to his friends as ‘Podge,’ was arrested during a police raid on one of London’s numerous homosexual brothels.

Prince Felix Yussupov was a prominent member of the Russian royal family and was also considered the most beautiful transvestite in Europe. One evening, Yussupov, dressed as usual as a woman, attended the theatre in Paris and soon noticed a portly, whiskered gentleman ogling him through an opera glass from one of the box seats. Within minutes, Yussupov received a propositioning note, signed King Edward VII. Yussupov was later to become one of the assassins of Rasputin, the ‘mad monk’ and reputed German agent, in December 1916.

The ‘Royal’ Jack the Ripper Murders

Edward VII’s first-born son was Prince Albert Victor Edward, known to the family as ‘Prince Eddy’ and more formally as the Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Eddy was therefore the grandson of the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria and older brother of the future king of England, King George V and as such would have been first in line to the throne before George, had fate not overtaken him.

Unfortunately, due to centuries of Royal in-breeding, Eddy was partially deaf and of well below average intelligence and was thus shunned by the majority of his cold-hearted family.

Prince Eddy was arrested at least once in a homosexual brothel but his main claim to infamy today is that he had an indirect involvement in the ‘Jack the Ripper’ murders. This grisly series of crimes involved the murder of five prostitutes in the slums of the Whitechapel area of London in 1888. At the time of the murders, rumours were rife of the involvement of a member of the royal family and of freemasonic intrigue.

Prince Albert Victor Edward (Eddy) (1864-1933)

The story began in the late summer of 1888, the heyday of Queen Victoria’s reign, in the gas-lit streets of London, when a young woman’s horrifically mutilated body was discovered in a tawdry slum street, in the run-down Whitechapel area of London . . . .

On the evening of the 31st August 1888 the body of Mary Ann Nicholls, a common prostitute, was found prostrate on a pavement in the Whitechapel district in the East End of London. She had been brutally hacked to death, her throat having been slit and devastating cuts to her torso revealed her exposed internal organs. She was to be the first of a series of five victims of the now legendary killer who came to be known in popular folklore as ‘Jack the Ripper.’

The so-called ‘Ripper’ murders came under the jurisdiction of the London Metropolitan Police Force and in particular an Inspector by the name of Frederick George Abberline, who was tasked with the overseeing of the investigation. It is important to note that the diaries of Frederick Abberline did not see light of day until around 70 years after the unsolved murders, being in the possession during this time, firstly of Walter Sickert (1860-1942), the famous artist of the time and latterly of Joseph Sickert, his son. The full significance of this will become apparent later.

Walter Sickert had been employed by the royal family in the 1880s to provide private art lessons to their son and heir, Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence, otherwise known by his colloquial name of ‘Prince Eddy.’ Eddy was in fact the eldest son of Albert Edward the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and Princess Alexandra (later Queen Alexandra), the eldest grandson of the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria and older brother of the future king of England, King George V and as such would eventually have been first in line to the throne. Unfortunately however, Eddy was not in the best of health. He had been born, mainly due to centuries of royal in-breeding, partially deaf and of well below average intelligence and was thus shunned by the majority of his cold-hearted family.

Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch at the time was a great supporter and patron of freemasonry, as were all the Royal males of the age (and as they still are today.) Indeed it was the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family (the current British royals) that had sponsored the rise of Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, originally a freemasonry offshoot, in Bavaria in the 18th century. Weishaupt himself was born and raised in the Bavarian town of Gotha.

It is a little known or reported fact that there are several masonic lodges in the royal palaces of Britain, the most significant one perhaps being the Royal Alpha Lodge in Kensington Palace. In 1885 Prince Eddy was initiated into the Royal Alpha Lodge at the behest of his father.

As well as his membership of the lodge, Eddy was also a regular attendee at a homosexual-paedophile brothel in Cleveland Street, London and indiscreetly instigated a series of explicit love-letters with a young boy employed at these most vile of premises. The well-known Satanist, Aleister Crowley had these letters in his possession for many years but eventually they were lost or more likely destroyed and have never since seen the light of day. This incident alone had the potential to become a huge national scandal if made public, but events took a turn for the worse when it was discovered that Eddy had also made a young Catholic ‘commoner’ of Irish descent by the name of Annie Elizabeth Crook, pregnant with his child. Eddy also, as it turned out, had foolishly married her in a clandestine church service and this in effect barred him from ever becoming king, as royal protocol does not permit British royals to marry Catholics, let alone one who is deemed to be a commoner and bearing a child conceived out of wedlock.

In 1883, Eddy’s mother, Princess Alexandra, had asked the young painter Walter Sickert to introduce Eddy to the artistic and literary life of London. Sickert’s studio, where he spent most of his time, was at 15 Cleveland Street near to Tottenham Court Road in north London. He duly introduced the teenage Prince to many of the area’s ‘bohemian types,’ including the theatrical friends he had made when, for four years, he had been a minor member of the Lyceum Theatre Company. Sickert also introduced Eddy to one of his models, a pretty Irish Catholic girl, the afore-mentioned Annie Crook who lived nearby at 6 Cleveland Street, and who worked by day in a local confectioners shop. They fell for each other and, according to Sickert, went through two clandestine marriage ceremonies, one Anglican and one Catholic. Soon afterwards, due to Annie’s pregnancy, her employer needed someone to deputise for her during her confinement.

Walter Sickert was asked if he knew anyone suitable and, after consulting friends, found a young girl by the name of Mary Jean (Marie Jeanette) Kelly, from the Providence Row Night Refuge for Women in Whitechapel. For some months, Mary worked alongside Annie Crook in the shop and the two became friends. In due course, on the 18th April 1885, Annie gave birth to Eddy’s daughter, Alice Margaret and when she returned home, her new friend Mary Kelly moved-in as the child’s nursemaid. Mary also worked as a prostitute in the evenings to supplement her meagre income.

Annie Crook — Walter Sickert’s portrait

Naturally, Eddy absolutely enraged the establishment with his ‘illicit’ marriage and this combined with the incident of the love-letters, threatened to tear apart the monarchy and spark a constitutional crisis of major proportions. So, as is always the case, the monarchy set in motion a huge cover-up operation as part of the damage limitation process. Annie was kidnapped from the small apartment in Cleveland Street where she lived and in which Eddy spent time with her, and at the same time Eddy was abducted into a carriage headed for Buckingham Palace where he was instructed, in no uncertain terms, to remain ‘under house arrest,’ until further notice.

Fortunately, fearing the worst, Annie had already given the child, Alice to Walter Sickert for safekeeping shortly before she was forcefully taken to Guy’s Hospital in London. She remained there for five months and whilst she was there, Sir William Gull, the Queen’s personal physician performed a partial frontal lobotomy on her, in effect rendering her docile and compliant and thus easily controlled by these inhuman monsters. Subsequently certified insane by Gull, Annie lived for the rest of her life in institutions, spending her last days in the Lunacy Observation ward of St George’s Union Workhouse, Chelsea and dying there in obscurity in early 1920 at the age of 57.

This was not the first time that Sir William Gull had been implicated in a scandalous royal cover-up operation. Around twenty years prior to this, the future King Edward VII, the father of Prince Eddy, had been involved in a series of extra-marital affairs, one of which was with the young Lady Harriet Mordaunt. One day she foolishly confessed to her husband, Sir Charles Mordaunt, that she had been unfaithful with several men, one of whom was the Prince of Wales.

Sir Charles was absolutely incensed and he let it be known that he intended to sue for divorce, citing the Prince as a co-respondent. The Prince of Wales was rightly nervous about giving evidence in court as it would bring shame upon the entire royal family and cause an unacceptable public scandal. So, at this point, Queen Victoria herself interceded on the Prince’s behalf to protect the reputation of the family and instructed Sir William Gull to intervene.

Gull immediately, in consort with several other doctors conspired to have the young woman declared insane and locked away in a lunatic asylum, where she spent the last remaining 37 years of her life in abject misery, dying in 1906. Ultimately the case was dismissed, saving the Prince and the royals from acute embarrassment and no divorce was granted, not because adultery was unproven but simply because poor Harriet was declared insane.

However, to return to the main story, the matter might have ended there, but for Mary Kelly’s greed. Back in Whitechapel, Mary had befriended three other local prostitutes to whom she boasted of her ‘royal connections’ and in the spring of 1888 the quartet, led by Mary, hatched a plan to demand money from Walter Sickert, threatening to otherwise make the story public. Being a simple girl, she had not fully comprehended the fact that she was in effect also holding-to-ransom a group of psychopathic murderers who would literally stop at nothing and had the means to kill with impunity whilst enjoying the full ‘protection’ of people in high places.

Sickert immediately passed word to Eddy who informed his father, and the Prince of Wales discussed the threat in the greatest secrecy with trusted fellow masons in the Royal Alpha Lodge. Subsequently, a special meeting was arranged at the Lodge by the royal masons known as the ‘Princes of the Blood Royal,’ whereby they agreed to form a ‘hunting party’ to literally hunt-down and kill the hapless girls as punishment for their sheer audacity and significantly, as a masonic blood-sacrifice ritual.

The ‘hunting party’ was drawn exclusively from the Royal Alpha Masonic Lodge and included Sir William Gull, Eddy’s former Cambridge University tutor J. K. (James Kenneth) Stephen and Sir Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (who took no active part in the killings but who helped facilitate the plot and expedite the cover-up.) To drive them about their sordid business they recruited a coachman who had previously betrayed Prince Eddy’s indiscretions to the royals, one John Netley.

Warren provided what information he could, on the girls’ whereabouts using his privileged position in the police force and Sir William Gull prepared grapes injected with opium, which would be offered to the victims to subdue them so that the dastardly deed could take place with a minimum of fuss. It was arranged that John Netley, the coach driver and a particularly nasty character, was to be the ‘getaway driver’ and the ‘lookout’ would be J.K. Stephen, a cousin of Virginia Woolf and another freemason with royal links, whilst the murders were planned to occur within Gull’s carriage — away from prying eyes.

It should be noted that Abberline’s diaries confirmed that the modus operandus was not that of one person only and that the murders were planned and performed according to masonic ritual, similar to a fox-hunt. These are facts which were never allowed to come to light.

So, who was the ringleader of this murderous gang? None other than the prominent freemason, Secretary of State for India, the Leader of the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Randolph Spencer-Churchill, father of the future prime minister, Winston Churchill. Churchill was not only the ‘brains’ behind the entire operation, but he was also personally responsible for the cutting of masonic emblems and symbols into the bodies of the victims, whilst the skilled surgeon’s hands of William Gull performed the organ removals.

The killings and mutilations were not observed by the public simply because four of them were not carried out in the streets where the bodies were found, but in a moving coach, whilst the last was perpetrated in situ, in the victim Mary Kelly’s own room. The police must have been aware that the bodies had been moved to their resting places due to the lack of blood as the whole pavement area would surely have been awash with blood had the rituals been performed there. Obviously though, this fact was never publicly disclosed by the police.

The assassins set about discovering the blackmailers’ whereabouts with ‘insider’ help from Warren and then systematically plotted their ritualistic executions. The murderous spree began on the 31st August 1888 with Mary Ann Nicholls as their first victim and continued with the killing of Annie Chapman on the 8th September. In turn each woman was lured inside the coach, then killed and mutilated in the ritualistic way that the three ‘Juwes,’ Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, the murderers of Hiram Abiff in King Solomon’s Temple, were executed in the old Masonic legend. Their throats were ‘cut across,’ from left to right, their bodies torn open, their internal organs deftly removed and arranged around the corpses in their final resting places and their entrails ‘thrown over’ the left shoulder.

On the 30th September there were two further killings but on that night things did not go smoothly. As the murderers were dumping that night’s first victim, Lizzie Stride, in Berner Street, they were interrupted and had to abandon her corpse before its ritual mutilation had been completed. More alarming still, the night’s second victim, Catherine Eddowes, was, according to Sickert, almost immediately discovered to have been killed in error. It was learnt that poor Catherine had for some time lived with a man called John Kelly, had often used his surname and so had been wrongly identified by the gang’s underworld informants as the blackmailer-in-chief, Mary Kelly.

That mistake nearly led to the group’s undoing. In the mistaken belief that this was to be the climactic, final episode of their campaign, the group had already arranged Catherine’s corpse, more completely mutilated than any of her predecessors, in Mitre Square (significantly masonic) opposite the masonic Temple and close to the Whitechapel Road. They had chalked on a nearby wall a masonic slogan to act as a postscript to the whole sordid affair. Abberline copied it down into his notebook and it said:

The Juwes are the men thatwill notbe blamedfor nothing.

Arriving on the scene suspiciously quickly, Sir Charles Warren, to the acute surprise of his underlings, ordered that the chalked epitaph, presumed by observers to be in the killer’s hand, noted by Abberline to be that of an ‘educated’ man, should be immediately washed down and erased. The reason he gave was that he did not want anti-Jewish sentiment to be inflamed, but Sickert suggested the real reason was that too many insiders would recognise that the message referred not to the ‘Jews’ but to the ‘Juwes’ of Masonic legend, and would therefore identify the killers as freemasons.

After this setback there was a pause of more than a month, the longest interval between the killings, whilst the group redoubled their efforts to find the real Mary Kelly who was by this time lying low in fear of her life. Meanwhile, rumours of the killer’s associations with freemasonry and with the royal family continued to grow. It was not until the 9th November that Mary Kelly was finally tracked down. To use the coach again was deemed to be too dangerous now, so she was dispatched in her own Dorset Street lodgings, more bloodily mutilated than any of her fellow-conspirators, her throat slashed, her body brutally cut apart and her intestines arranged ritually about the room.

There is in existence a police drawing of the last person to be seen with Mary whilst she was still alive and this bears an uncanny resemblance to no less a person than Lord Randolph Spencer-Churchill himself. Of course, this particular ‘lead’ was never followed-up by the masonic-controlled and run Metropolitan Police. J.K. Stephen, again according to Abberline’s diaries, actually went to the police, made a full confession and surrendered himself in a fit of guilt but of course no arrests were made and Stephen was also released without charge whilst Abberline resigned his position with the force and retired forthwith as a direct result of his disgust at the inaction and cover-up on the part of the police. Indeed there are still files in existence in Scotland Yard that have been sealed forever to prevent the truth from ever being revealed. Stephen himself suffered a complete mental and physical breakdown shortly after the attacks and died a sad, lonely death in a lunatic asylum in Northampton, three years later at the age of only 33.

In the late 1970s, a researcher and author, Stephen Knight, managed to obtain limited access to the ‘Ripper’ files but discovered that there were many gaps in the records. Despite this, he still managed to unearth new leads and information based upon which he wrote a book ‘Jack the Ripper — the final solution’. Unfortunately before publication, many of the more incriminating parts were ‘stolen’ and in those days, before personal computers were commonplace he had no back-ups or copies as protection. After the book was eventually published, minus the more incriminating information, he published another book. ‘The Brotherhood’ which exposed the gross corruption and illegality prevalent in the freemasonic movement and shortly afterwards he was dead — allegedly poisoned — but of course no arrests were ever made. No change there then.

When Prince Eddy found out that his wife had been lobotomised he had a nervous breakdown as a result and when he learned the truth about the ‘Ripper’ murders, he withdrew within himself and was never the same again thereafter.

Sickert fled the country immediately, upon hearing the news of Annie Crook’s abduction and took up residence in Dieppe, France in an attempt to protect her child, Alice. When Alice grew up, she and Walter became lovers and in turn had a child themselves who went by the name of Joseph Sickert — the very same man who held Inspector Abberline’s diaries after inheriting them from his father.

In the meantime, Prince Eddy, his mental health by now completely shattered, was given into the care of the Earl of Strathmore who owned Glamis Castle in Scotland, until such a time as it had been decided by ‘the firm’ what was to be done with him. The royal family then blatantly lied to the world and announced that Eddy had sadly passed away at the age of only 28, on the 14th January 1892 due to influenza (that same old story again) but of course Eddy was still alive and being held in Balmoral Castle having not yet made the final move to Glamis.

Balmoral is approximately 1000 feet (300 metres) above sea-level and as such is partly surrounded by steep cliffs. This was the intended site for the planned murder of Eddy, to be undertaken by Randolph Churchill and John Netley the coachman. The prince was pushed from the cliff-top but somehow managed to survive his fall and after the passage of two days had endeavoured to crawl all the way back to Balmoral where he was found at the door by his incredulous hosts. It was decided after this that the best option would be to just incarcerate him at Glamis for the rest of his life and the Earl of Strathmore agreed to undertake this task on behalf of the royals in return for one simple favour. The favour he stipulated was that one of his daughters be allowed to marry a future king of England.

Prince Eddy died in 1933, forty one years after his ‘official’ death date and during this time, his mother visited him only once, but took a photograph of him which she apparently sent to her cousin. This photograph is still in existence and shows a much older Eddy thoughtfully painting a picture which would sadly never be seen by anyone outside the walls of Glamis Castle.

The pact between Strathmore and the royal family was eventually fulfilled in 1923 when Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (his daughter, b. 1900) married the future King George VI of England after originally being promised to his brother, the heir to the throne and eventually the former King Edward VIII (he of abdication fame.) In 1936 George ascended the throne upon his elder brother’s abdication and Elizabeth became his queen consort. Elizabeth of course was more commonly known as the Queen Mother and the mother of the current incumbent of the family firm, Queen Elizabeth the second. She went to her grave in 2002 without ever revealing the secret and thus the world was never aware of this unholy pact.

In a further twist, as revealed in the Duke of Windsor’s (the former King Edward VIII’s) last known interview, shortly before he died, he revealed to Michael Thornton, the author of ‘Royal Feud — The Queen Mother and the Duchess of Windsor,’ that the Queen Mother had been in love with him and not his brother Bertie (who eventually became King George VI.) In fact it was the Queen Mother’s treachery that was the reason why the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were banished from England and forced to live out the rest of their lives in France. Here is a transcript from the final interview of the Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII of England,) with the author Michael Thornton . . .

“‘So you’re planning to write a book about the Queen Mother,’ said the Duke, exchanging a conspiratorial smile with his wife.

‘Well, we shall have to be extremely careful what we say on that subject, won’t we darling?’

‘Why is that, Sir?’ I inquired innocently, although I was well aware of the reason.

The Duke, only months away from being diagnosed with inoperable throat cancer, was interrupted by a convulsive spasm of coughing.

He cleared his throat and added, ‘I hope your book will tell the truth, instead of all that gush they dish out about her. Behind that great abundance of charm is a shrewd, scheming and extremely ruthless woman.’

He must have noticed my surprised reaction, for he quickly added, with his most charming smile, ‘ . . . but, of course, you cannot quote that.’

The Duchess was less inhibited. ‘The Duke would have loved to return to live in the land of his birth, but our way was blocked at every turn. We were never allowed to go back, and we never will be allowed. Not until the day we die. She will never permit it. When we are dead, perhaps she may at last forgive us.’

When I asked her the reason, the Duchess’s right arm shot out as if she was taking aim with a gun and she said, ‘Jealousy.’

‘Jealousy of the Duke?’ I wondered. ‘No!’ cried the Duchess, and for the first time her southern American origins were audible. ‘Jealousy of me for having married him.’

The Duke, who appeared vaguely uncomfortable with this topic, murmured, ‘Well, it’s hard to explain. But, yes, Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) was rather fonder of me than she ought to have been. And after I married Wallis, her attitude towards me changed. My sister-in-law is an arch-intriguer, and she has dedicated herself to making life hell for both of us.’”

Was it intended then that they were introduced with the specific aim of a royal arranged marriage between the two in order to fulfil the promise to Strathmore, her father and then when she was rejected by him (he was a notorious playboy and rebel in his younger days so quite possibly he went against the wishes of his family in the matter) she/they decided she would have to settle for second best in his younger brother? After all it was she who fought tooth and nail to have them disinherited by the royals and banished to France.

And is it then also possible and most intriguingly of all, that Edward VIII was forced into abdication deliberately, by denying him the right to marry Wallis Simpson whilst he was still King, in order that the decades-old promise would come to fruition and that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore could become Queen? There was obviously no other way of fulfilling this promise if Edward was determined to marry Mrs Simpson. Had it been expedient for the powers that be, that Edward was to marry Mrs Simpson whilst still king, there is no doubt in my mind that this would have been allowed to happen. The rules are changed and manipulated to suit whatever is best for our controllers, after all.

And there is also much irony and even déja vu in the tragic story of the Queen Mother’s nieces, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, both born mentally deficient and unable to speak. They were confined in the Royal Earlswood Mental Hospital at Redhill, Surrey in 1941, where they remained for the rest of their lives. Although the Queen Mother (incidentally, the patron of the mental health charity ‘Mencap,’) knew that the statement in Burke’s Peerage that both women were dead (published after false information had been supplied by their mother) was untrue, she never visited or ever again acknowledged either of them. How typical.

Then in a strange postscript to the story, in 1973, the BBC produced a truly bizarre investigation into the ‘Ripper’ mystery featuring, amongst other strange anomalies, fictional television detectives who all attempted to solve the enigma in their own styles. Several researchers were employed to extract all the information they possibly could about all the potential suspects and after speaking with a long-retired, un-named Scotland Yard detective, one researcher was advised to seek the help of a man by the name of Joseph Sickert who apparently knew about the clandestine marriage of Prince Eddy and a poor Catholic girl by the name of Annie Crook. The researchers could find no evidence of the marriage or the man Sickert and so puzzled by this, they went back to their Scotland Yard contact who revealed that the details he had given them were incorrect (apparently to test their intentions, he said.) He then gave them Sickert’s real address and phone number no less, and after being tracked down, Sickert willingly told his amazing story as it had been outlined to him by his mother and father many years previously.

Sickert explained that the monarchy had been very vulnerable and unpopular at that time and the news of a royal scandal was likely to cause a revolution. Queen Victoria supposedly handed the matter to Lord Salisbury, her Prime Minister, for resolution and Salisbury ordered a raid on the Cleveland Street apartment and Eddy and Annie were abducted in separate cabs. Her child, a girl by the name of Alice Margaret, had somehow escaped in the care of Walter Sickert who had been one step ahead of the royals all along.

Sir William Gull died shortly after the murders in early 1890, as did JK Stephen, in early 1892 at the extremely early age of 33 and significantly both had been committed to insane asylums immediately prior to death. Randolph Churchill died in 1895 also rumoured to be insane, but it was claimed, as a result of syphilis. Annie Crook also died insane in a workhouse in 1920 as a direct result of a lobotomy and severe mental trauma. Netley was chased by an angry mob after he unsuccessfully tried to run over Alice Margaret with his cab and he was believed to have been drowned in the Thames. There does appear to be an awful lot of insanity and strange deaths around at that time — nothing much ever changes, really.

Sickert also said that his father was fascinated with the murders and bore great guilt over them. Walter Sickert, after all, had been the one who introduced Eddy to Annie and begun the grisly game. To attempt to alleviate his guilt, as he could say nothing safely, he painted clues as to the identity of the murderers into several of his most famous paintings and he later married Alice Margaret.

To say that the BBC researchers were stunned by these revelations would be a gross understatement. In checking the facts, they found that a woman named Annie Crook definitely lived in Cleveland Street at that time and that she did give birth to a daughter at the same time that Sickert said she did. They also believed strongly that this ‘theory’ was the most feasible one of all (as do I) and they incorporated it into the show. I also traced Annie’s death using public records and can confirm that she really did exist, and died in the ‘lunatic’ ward of Chelsea workhouse as stated.

When it was screened, the BBC production was confusing to many viewers. The ludicrous combination of facts with fictional detectives and what was to many, an outlandish theory involving people who in their beliefs could do no wrong, prompted much questioning of the programme’s veracity at the time. Joseph Sickert actually appeared personally in the last episode and verified absolutely everything that had been said. As previously related, it was agreed by all that this version of events was the most likely solution to the mystery.

Stephen Knight, the late author, entered the story a little later. After watching the BBC programme, he asked Joseph Sickert for an interview and after some indecision, Sickert agreed. During the course of their interview, which took place over several meetings, Knight also became convinced that Joseph Sickert believed he was telling the truth. He said that the story had been told to him by his father to explain why his mother always looked so sad and why both she and Joseph were partially deaf (as was Eddy.)

Once familiar with the basics of the plot, Knight then attempted to confirm the theory and eventually, he felt that the story warranted a book. Sickert was upset by this as he had only agreed to a short interview for an article and wanted no further publicity and exposure of his father’s role in the story. Undaunted, Knight went ahead with his book anyway but amazingly and contrary to what he had been told by Sickert, attempted to implicate Walter Sickert as the murderer. As a direct result of this action, Joseph Sickert cut off all ties with Knight and immediately publicly denied the whole story — not just simply his father’s alleged involvement in it all — saying that he had made it up for sensationalism.

This I find hard to believe. How could the detective, contacted by the BBC have known Sickert’s whereabouts or even known who he was or somehow involved if the whole story was concocted? And also if Sickert did make it up for ‘sensationalism,’ why did he retreat back into obscurity as soon as he realised that Knight was giving him the publicity he allegedly sought in the first place. No smoke without fire I strongly believe and knowing what I know about masonic operations and royal subterfuge down the ages, although there is no categorical proof that this version of events is the correct one, it does ‘tick a lot of boxes’ and contains more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence.

A further legacy of this sorry affair was that the payoff for the Spencer family, was two terms as prime minister for Lord Randolph’s son and two generations later, Lady Diana Spencer became the wife of the future King Charles III and mother to the future King William V and his brother Harry, only to be famously discarded once she had fulfilled her wifely duties in providing her highly-desirable genes to produce a ‘heir and a spare,’ and eventually being brutally and ritually murdered herself in 1997 in Paris.

This then is the real story of Jack the Ripper, straight from the ‘horse’s mouth’ (ie. Joseph Sickert’s mouth.) These facts must be known by the Elite but as always, they close ranks to prevent the real truth from becoming known. All of the multiplicity of theories that abound as to the identity of the killer and the many films, documentaries and TV programmes that portray an unending search for the ‘truth’ are nothing more than elaborate smokescreens, born from the deliberate confusion engendered by the Elite to protect the guilty, as is their usual modus operandus. Yet another tiny example of how easy it is for these psychopaths to provide us all with a completed distorted view of both history and our existing reality.

More Royal Misdemeanours

Winston Churchill always claimed that he was the political heir of his father, the brilliant but maverick Lord Randolph Churchill, but he undoubtedly inherited his indomitability and joie de vivre from his mother. She was born Jennie Jerome in New York in 1854, one of three daughters of the Jewish millionaire, Leonard Jerome. Beautiful, musical and extremely vivacious, she met Lord Randolph, the second son of the seventh Duke of Marlborough, at Cowes in August 1873.

Marrying an American heiress was becoming a common response from impoverished members of the British aristocracy to their financial problems. There was also in this case a strong physical attraction and in this regard, the couple, seemed to have been rather impatient as Winston was born only six months after their wedding in April 1874. However, maybe all is not as it seems to be.

Things, however, soon went wrong. Exiled to Ireland after ostracism by the Prince of Wales (the future King Edward VII,) the couple spent much of their time apart and as a result Winston’s younger brother Jack, born in 1880, was almost certainly the son of Lord Falmouth.

For all Lord Randolph’s brilliance and his huge popularity among Tory voters, he made enemies among the leadership and indeed ‘overplayed his hand’ once too often over a misjudged resignation in 1886, and this brought an end to his political career.

Leonard Jerome, her father, also lost most of his money, leaving Jennie with expensive habits but a permanently inadequate income. She was a distant mother to the young Winston, who turned instead to his beloved nanny, Mrs. Everest, but the mother and son’s later relationship became a very strong and mutually supportive one. Widowed in 1895, Jennie married again, twice, to handsome men much younger than herself and she clearly also had many affairs, including one with the Prince of Wales.

Researcher Greg Hallett is convinced that Winston Churchill was the son of the Prince of Wales (Edward VII) and Jennie Jerome-Churchill. Why otherwise did the Prince of Wales ostracise the Churchills and send them to Ireland? She was three months pregnant when she married Lord Randolph Churchill and it was noted in many quarters that the young Winston resembled the young Prince of Wales far more than he did his alleged father, Lord Randolph Churchill.

The Triple Entente was the name given to the alliance between Great Britain, France and Russia which was formed during the first decade of the twentieth century and which ultimately led to the outbreak of the First World War. This agreement was the personal creation of King Edward VII of Britain, or more accurately speaking, of his bankster friends. It was King Edward VII who instigated the British alliance with Japan, the Russo-Japanese War, and the 1905 Russian Revolution and it was also he, acting as the autocrat of British foreign policy who engineered the ‘Entente Cordiale’ between Britain and France in 1903-04 and who then went on to seal the fateful ‘British-Russian Entente,’ of 1907.

It was also King Edward who ‘massaged’ Theodore Roosevelt and other American political leaders in order to help bring about the US/UK so-called ‘special relationship,’ which became extremely strong at the time of his reign. This diplomatic work was masterminded and carried out by Edward personally, with various British military-men, politicians and diplomats merely following in his wake. Edward had a geopolitical vision of brutal simplicity; the encirclement of Germany with a hostile coalition, followed by a war of annihilation in which many of Britain’s erstwhile ‘allies,’ specifically France and Russia would also be decimated and crippled.

Skipping forward slightly again now to 1936 and the strange case of the abdication of King Edward VIII and the accession to the throne of King George VI of the film, ‘The Kings Speech’ fame, who had an IQ of only one point above retarded and his consort, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Is it possible that their betrothal and marriage in 1923 were engineered in fulfillment of Edward VII’s promise to Elizabeth’s father as related in the previous section? Knowing what we do about these people, I would say makes it all eminently possible.

In fact, their first child was actually a severely handicapped epileptic and so was merely left by them to die at the hospital. This resulted in the removal of the mentally subnormal King George VI from his duties as the royal ‘sire’ and he was (according to Greg Hallett’s research) replaced in that role by Winston Churchill who was, if you remember, the illegitimate son of King Edward VII.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was initially destined to be engaged to the future King Edward VIII in their youth and who reigned for just less than one year, in 1936. However, he was a notorious playboy and was not interested in her. She was then given the option to become engaged to the future George VI, Edward VIII’s brother but this time it was she that refused.

For this reason it was not actually her that married George, but her ‘whipping-boy.’ The term ‘whipping-boy’ traditionally refers to a scapegoat or one who is singled out for blame or punishment.

It may seem very odd to us today that down the ages, the royals kept a substitute simply for the purpose of beating him when a prince (or princess) did wrong, but that was and still is, exactly the case. ‘Whipping-boy’ was in fact an established position at the English royal court at least from the Tudor and Stuart eras of the 15th and 16th centuries onwards, but probably much, much earlier. However the whipping-boys were not merely hapless street-urchins living a life of torment, but high-born companions to the royal princes. They were educated alongside them, often became best friends and shared many of the privileges of royalty. The downside for them obviously though was that if the prince did misbehave in any way then it was the whipping-boy that bore the consequences. It was also considered a form of punishment to the prince/princess that someone he/she cared about was made to suffer on his/her behalf.

Often the whipping-boy is used as a stand-in for photographs and sometimes there may be two photographs taken, one with the ‘real’ prince/princess and one with the whipping-boy in order to provide a future historical ‘proof’ and record of the person’s past.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon’s whipping-boy, obviously a girl in this case, was known to hail from Waterford, in Ireland. The true Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married someone else and lived in obscurity in France and died in 1950 and it was in fact her whipping-boy that married King George VI.

Then in 1925, Winston Churchill provided the sperm for the artificial insemination of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons’ whipping-boy, resulting in the birth of Princess Elizabeth, who was born in a room above the Coach and Horses pub in Bruton Street in London in 1926. Artificial insemination was already well established and being used covertly by this time.

When King George VI died in 1952, the illegitimate Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and inherited all the royal wealth. In 1946, she became engaged to Prince Philip due to the machinations of Lord Louis Mountbatten, before marrying him in 1947.

Born as Seine Durchlaucht Prinz Ludwig von Battenberg (His Serene Highness, Prince Louis of Battenberg), Lord Louis Mountbatten (1900-1979) was a known paedophile, homosexual and sexual pervert. His German titles and name were discarded during WWI, when his family changed their surname from Battenberg to Mountbatten in an effort to distance themselves from their German heritage, whilst at the same time the reigning royal House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha changed its name to Windsor in a similar attempt to deceive. In truth, the name of the reigning British royal house has changed numerous times over the centuries. At the death of Queen Victoria, her son and successor King Edward VII became the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (being the son of Victoria’s husband, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.)

Strong anti-German sentiment amongst the people of the British Empire during World War I reached its peak in March 1917, when the Gotha G.IV, a German heavy aircraft capable of crossing the English Channel began bombing London directly. This obviously caused alarm amongst the royals as the aircraft bore the same name as the part of the name of the Royal Family. Additionally, the bombings were synchronous with the abdication of King George’s first cousin, Nicholas II, the Tsar of Russia on 15 March 1917, which also raised the possibility of abolition of other monarchies in Europe. Thus King George V, the reigning monarch at the time was finally convinced to abandon all titles held under the German Crown, and to change German titles and house names to anglicised versions.

On 17th July 1917, a Royal Proclamation issued by George V which changed the name of the royal house to Windsor and specified that all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said name of Windsor.

The King also decided that his various relatives who were British subjects relinquish use of all German titles and styles, and adopt British-sounding surnames and compensated several of his male relatives by creating them British peers. Thus overnight, his cousin, Prince Louis of Battenberg, who earlier in the war had been forced to resign as First Sea Lord through anti-German feeling, became Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, while his brother-in-law, the Duke of Teck, became Adolphus Cambridge, 1st Marquess of Cambridge. Other relatives, such as Princess Marie Louise and Princess Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein, simply dropped their territorial designations.

In Letters Patent, documented on 11th December 1917, the King restricted the style ‘His (or Her) Royal Highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘Prince (or Princess) of Great Britain and Ireland’ to the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest living son of a Prince of Wales. The Letters Patent also stated that . . . “the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked.”

Lord Louis Mountbatten was a great-grandson of Queen Victoria and the uncle of Prince Philip (consort of Queen Elizabeth II.) Mountbatten was also a promiscuous bisexual who was famously rumoured to have had an affair with Edward VIII (who was Prince of Wales at the time) when he accompanied him on his Empire tours. It was apparently common knowledge also that Prince Philip and Lord Louis Mountbatten also had sexual relations.

Another ‘close’ friend was an Irish student whom he met at Cambridge, James Jeremiah Victor Fitzwilliam Murphy, who was known by the name of Peter Murphy, a leading Cambridge homosexual with strong left-wing leanings. He became Mountbatten’s closest and constant companion and Mountbatten supported him with an annual allowance of £600 ($1000) until Murphy’s death in 1966. The well-known British homosexual playwright and actor Noel Coward was also included among Lord Louis’ close circle of friends.

Although Mountbatten married Edwina Ashley, a wealthy socialite, in 1922, this was probably just a marriage of convenience as he had a string of lovers of both sexes and of all social classes. As he himself once succinctly put it, “Edwina and I spent all our married lives getting into other people’s beds.”

His wife also had a torrid affair whilst in India with Pandit Nehru, Prime Minister of India and she, Nehru and Mountbatten were fully engaged in a classic love triangle, but it is generally acknowledged that Nehru was the love of Edwina’s life. Indeed all three of them were known by insiders as having bisexual proclivities and Mountbatten himself said that they were a ‘happy little threesome.’ However, having said that, the Mountbattens fought most of the time and lived apart for much of their lives.

Between affairs Lord Louis took time out from his hectic sexual life and became Admiral of the Fleet in the British Royal Navy, the last Viceroy of India and the first Governor-General of the newly-independent India. Although he was a great friend of Winston Churchill for a long time, after 1948 Churchill never spoke to him again over Mountbatten’s role in the independence of Pakistan and India and it was on 15th August 1947, on Mountbatten’s ‘watch,’ that Britain finally relinquished its rights to India.

Mountbatten also forged a close bond with his great-nephew Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, who was deeply affected by his murder in 1979. Mountbatten had a very strong, some may say, unhealthy influence on Prince Charles, who declared that things would never be the same after the loss of his mentor. Perhaps unsurprisingly given all of above, he was known as ‘Dickie’ to family and close friends, despite the fact that ‘Richard’ was not among his given names and equally widely known throughout the military of all ranks as ‘Mount-bottom.’

In the book, ‘War of the Windsors,’ authors Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, confirmed that Lord Louis Mountbatten had the nickname ‘Dickie’ . . . for a very good reason. As the last Viceroy of India, he was a practising homo-paedophile who sexually exploited hundreds of young Indian peasant boys in order to satisfy his exceptionally strong, but warped sex-drive.

In another book, ‘The Kincora Scandal,’ by Chris Moore, the author connects Mountbatten to a child prostitution vice-ring in Belfast, Ireland. Authorities failed to intervene at the Kincora care home for boys, despite a deluge of reports over the years of endemic child sexual abuse taking place there.

The operators of the Kincora child prostitution ring were eventually convicted in 1981 of the ritual sexual abuse of defenceless young boys, who were in effect traded like prostitutes. No charges were ever brought against the known VIP customers, royals, politicians, lawyers and judges involved. Nothing unsurprising about that really though. The intelligence services are heavily involved in all manner of perverted activities themselves and they protect those in high places that also engage in them, well at least until the time when it becomes expedient to sacrifice or dispose of them. In 1979, Mountbatten was killed by a bomb planted on his boat, allegedly by the IRA, but which act in reality was the work of the British Intelligence service, MI-5.

However his cold-blooded murder was nothing to do with his long association with the endemic sexual abuse of children and adults alike, but because he had become too vocal on issues such as the unification of Ireland, and for his anti-nuclear power stance. In short, he had become a ‘loose cannon’ in his old age and thus an embarrassment to the establishment and there were too many royal secrets at stake. His killing would now better serve the purposes of his masters and his own legacy, by his being hailed as a martyr to Britain’s cause.

However, Mountbatten’s many sexual indiscretions paled in comparison to those of his elder brother George, who inherited the title Marquis of Milford Haven on the death of their father. George was also a promiscuous bisexual who was married to another bisexual, Nadeja, Countess of Torbay, who was a niece of Czar Nicholas II. One of George’s several claims to infamy was his vast collection of pornography, upon which he lavished considerable amounts of money and carefully bound it into several volumes, each emblazoned with the family crest. Some of the pornography consisted of photos of aristocrats enjoying sex with their servants, but far more disturbing were the pictures of family orgies in which even children were actively involved in sexual acts and even bestiality.

Upon George’s death in 1938, the collection was inherited by his son, so part of it is it still in the hands of the Mountbatten family, although the bulk of it was donated to the British Museum. It is not available for public viewing however, for obvious reasons.

It was Louis Mountbatten who introduced the well-known paedophile Jimmy Savile to Prince Charles. They spent a great deal of time together, some of which was under the guise of ‘charity events.’ On Savile’s 80th birthday, Prince Charles sent Jimmy Savile a pair of gold cufflinks, a box of cigars and a note saying, “No one will ever know what you’ve done for this country.” I think we do now Charlie boy, I think we do now. There is now an incredible amount of evidence against Savile from the hundreds if not thousands of children that he abused during his lifetime. Did the royals not know what was going on? Of course they did and indeed I would suggest that they were more than happy to be an integral part of it — so long as their involvement could remain a closely-guarded secret.

There is much speculation that Prince Charles is definitely not the father of Prince Harry, his second son and also that Princess Diana had numerous extra-marital relationships because of her knowledge that Prince Charles was not only continuing his long-standing affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, but that Prince Charles was actually a paedophile also.

Whilst in the Royal Navy, Prince Philip was also notorious for getting drunk and then lying face-down so that he could be sodomised. Several of the sailors who sodomised have now come forward and publicly admitted this fact, so there seems little doubt that it is true. In fact not only was Philip a sodomite, he was also a prolific paedophile. On the royal family’s extensive Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, many bodies including those of children, have recently been discovered in shallow, unmarked graves. Of course, this in itself is not proof of ‘royal murder,’ as such, but perhaps the following story is . . .

“I am a survivor of the Kamloops and Mission Indian residential schools, both run by the Roman Catholic Church.

In September 1964 when I was 12 years old, I was an inmate at the Kamloops school and we were visited by the Queen of England and Prince Phillip. I remember it was strange because they came by themselves, no big fanfare or nothing. But I recognised them, and the school principal told us it was the Queen and we all got given new clothes and good food for the first time in months, the day before she arrived.

The day she got to the school, I was part of a group of kids that went on a picnic with the Queen and her husband and school officials, down to a meadow near Dead Man’s Creek. I remember it was weird because we all had to bend down and kiss her foot, a white laced boot. After a while, I saw the Queen leave that picnic with ten children from the school, and those children never returned. We never heard anything more about them and never met them again even when we were older. They were all from around there, but they all vanished.

The group that disappeared was seven boys and three girls, in age from six to fourteen years old. I don’t remember their names, just an occasional first name like Cecilia and there was an Edward.

What happened was also witnessed by my friend George Adolph, who was 11 years old at the time and a student there too.” William Arnold Combes

William Combes 1952-2011

Shortly after ‘going public’ with his story, William, at the time 59 years old and in excellent health, died suddenly and quite unexpectedly and seemingly for no reason as researcher Kevin Annett relates . . .

“The aboriginal man who claimed to witness the abduction of ten fellow residential school children by the Queen of England and her husband in October, 1964 at the Catholic school in Kamloops, B.C. has died suddenly at the Catholic-run St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

William Combes, age 59 and in good health, was scheduled to be a primary witness at the opening session of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) on September 12 in London, England.

I last saw William ten days ago, on the eve of my departure for a European speaking tour, and he looked better than I had seen him in years. According to his partner Mae, William was in stable health and was assigned a new doctor at St. Paul’s Hospital this past week. William was then committed to the hospital for ‘tests,’ and his health began to immediately deteriorate. He died suddenly yesterday of a still-undisclosed cause.

The Vancouver Coroner’s Office refuses to comment on William’s death.

William was the sole survivor of a group of three aboriginal boys who claim to have witnessed the abduction of ten children during a royal visit to the Kamloops residential school in mid-October 1964, when both the Queen and Prince Philip were in Canada.

I believe that William Combes died of foul play, and that his murder was arranged by those who stood to lose from his speaking out about his witnessing of the child abductions and other crimes of murder and torture at Catholic Indian residential schools.

His murderers have not won. William’s videotaped statements, including his witness of the 1964 abductions, have been registered in the archives of our ITCCS, and will be made public at our opening session on September 12, 2011.”

Make of that what you will.

Prince Philip is Prince William and Harry’s grandfather and the husband of Queen Elizabeth II. He married the Queen in 1947 and changed his German name from Philip Battenberg to Philip Mountbatten to conceal his German ancestry. Both of Philip’s sisters married high ranking German officers in the Nazi Party. His sister Sophie married Nazi SS colonel Christoph Von Hesse, chief of Hermann Göring’s Secret Intelligence Service.

Prince Philip’s German uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten was a central figure in secret communications between the British royal family and their pro-Hitler cousins in Germany and his mother was Princess Alice Battenberg, granddaughter of Queen Victoria. She was eventually diagnosed as a paranoid-schizophrenic and committed to a mental institution in Switzerland and his German father then absconded with a wealthy mistress which left the boy parentless. Philip’s uncle George Mountbatten, the paedophile pornographer, then became his surrogate father and legal guardian.

One of the biggest public-relations hoaxes, among almost countless others, ever perpetrated by the British Crown, is that King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1936 was a ‘black sheep,’ due to his support for the Nazis, an aberration in the otherwise unblemished Windsor family. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. The British monarchy and the City of London’s leading Crown banksters, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled and supported his election and also did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine, in preparation for Britain and her allies’ planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia. Indeed, long after the abdication of Edward VIII, the Windsors maintained their direct Nazi links. So, not only was Philip trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, but his German brothers-in-law, with whom he lived at the time, all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party.

Although Buckingham Palace’s rumour-mill has tried to depict this wartime collaboration with the enemy as mere family correspondence, the correspondence apparently included messages from Prince Philip’s secret ally, the Duke of Windsor (the abdicated, former Edward VIII). On 20th November 1995, the Washington Times reported, based on recently discovered Portuguese Secret Service files first published in the London Observer, that the Duke of Windsor had been in close collaboration with the Nazis in Spain and Portugal to foment a revolution in wartime Britain, that would topple the Churchill government, depose his brother King George VI, and allow him to regain the throne, with his Queen, Wallis Simpson at his side.

Whatever correspondence had been sent from the royals to Germany during the war was said to be hidden in Prince Christoph of Hesse’s Kronberg Castle and so in June 1945, King George VI dispatched the former MI-5 officer and now ‘Surveyor of the King’s Pictures,’ Anthony Blunt, to retrieve this incriminating evidence.

Later, Queen Elizabeth II reportedly insisted that there be no interrogation of Blunt about his secret trip to the castle and it is significant that the House of Windsor was absolutely desperate to prevent those documents from Kronberg Castle, from falling into American Army hands during the German ‘liberation.’ Clearly, it is quite logical to assume that Prince Philip’s patron Lord Mountbatten, Mountbatten’s sister, Crown Princess Louise, and Philip’s brother-in-law Prince Christoph were not just exchanging family pleasantries.

The Royally-sanctioned Murder of Princess Diana

In their acclaimed book, ‘Princess Diana: The Evidence,’ authors Jon King and John Beveridge present evidence that a highly sophisticated assassination technique, known as ‘Boston Brakes’ was used to cause the Princess’s vehicle to crash as it drove through the Pont d’Alma tunnel, Paris, in the early hours of 31 August 1997.

This, they reveal, is the favoured assassination technique currently being employed by the West’s intelligence services due to its plausible deniability.

The authors were able to compile a very detailed and compelling case due to information gleaned from their well-placed intelligence and security contacts, mostly former special and elite forces members, mercenaries, royal bodyguards and on occasion, hired assassins. Indeed some of these military employees disclosed details of prior operations in which the ‘Boston Brakes’ technique had been successfully used. Others, who fought in Angola, one of the locations of Diana’s landmines campaign, shed light on the secret oil and diamond wars still raging in central Africa and in particular the dirty, arms-for-oil deals carried out by MI-6, the French DGSE, the CIA and the Bush-Cheney oil syndicate.

By focussing the light of the world’s media on Angola, the authors were told, the Princess was in danger of exposing all these dirty deeds and was thus placing herself directly in ‘harm’s way.’ The fact that she was compiling a dossier containing the names of British politicians and high-powered businessmen involved in the deals was also an important factor in the decision to dispose of her.

“From the minute the decoy car left the Ritz to the moment the tail car closed in . . . it was obvious what was going down. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about will tell you the same.” Former Royal bodyguard, Mike Grey.

Grey added . . . “The operation bore all the classic hallmarks of a security service assassination . . . I have no doubts whatsoever given my twenty years’ experience in various sections of the security industry, that Diana was assassinated. The security service hallmarks are plain to see.”

But it was former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who offered perhaps the most telling revelation of all. The ‘Boston Brakes’ method of assassination, Fiennes revealed, has been in use since at least the 1980s and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering, brakes and acceleration capability at the critical moment. The method, he said, was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, Massachusetts, hence the name but has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces the world over, as well as by private ‘security firms’ and their hit-squads.

One would expect that with the financial means Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana had at their disposal there was absolutely no reason why they should have been expected to use a vehicle that had actually been snatched at gunpoint a few days prior to the fateful night, yet had mysteriously, soon been returned. Yet that is precisely what happened. The car in which the ill-fated couple was travelling, a Mercedes Benz S280, had been stolen some days prior to the crash. This fact on its own was perhaps nothing more than pure coincidence, but the strange element to the story was that the Mercedes had been returned a few days earlier in pristine condition save for one very important aspect . . . The on-board computer chip was missing from the stolen Mercedes!

This chip controls, amongst other things, the navigation, acceleration, steering and braking of a vehicle. The very fact that the car had had its chip stolen some days earlier (yet nothing else, thus suggesting that the car-snatchers were no ordinary thieves) drags the so-called ‘accident’ firmly into ‘conspiracy’ territory.

In fact Fiennes did indeed confirm the relatively common use of this assassination method with particular reference to the death in England of SAS Major Michael Marman, in a 1986 car accident that bears uncanny resemblance to that of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul, and which was carried-out by a private hit-squad known simply as ‘The Clinic.’

Further instances of the Boston Brakes in action are also cited in King and Beveridge’s book, including the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of Diana’s former lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee in 1987 and maybe surprisingly to some, the attempted assassination by ‘road traffic accident’ of Camilla Parker-Bowles, just two months prior to Diana’s own fatal crash. According to sources quoted by the authors, the attempt on Camilla Parker-Bowles’ life was the result of a ‘constitutional crisis’ engendered by Prince Charles’ desire to marry his long-term lover while Diana was still alive.

So, assuming someone wanted to expedite a very sensitive, high-profile assassination but at the same time create as little fuss as possible, the best way to achieve it is of course, to make it appear to be an accident. With this in mind, the disappearance of the on-board computer chip from the Mercedes then begins to make sense. Steal the car, remove the computer chip, replace the old chip with a new ‘doctored’ chip that allows a third party to gain remote access to the car’s controls and that is all that is needed to stage a very genuine-looking ‘accident.’

Furthermore, very suspiciously to my mind, the stolen, recovered Mercedes Benz S280 was the ‘only vehicle available’ to the Princess and her companions that night. Of course it was, yes. We believe you.

The initial reports ‘leaked’ to the press suggested that the Mercedes involved in the crash had been travelling at a speed of 120 mph prior to the crash. In the reports, it also clearly stated that the speedometer of the car was stuck on 196 kilometres per hour (122mph) after the impact. If the car had been traveling anywhere near that speed, wearing a seat-belt or not, no-one would have stood even the remotest chance of surviving the crash. In fact the only person to survive the crash was bodyguard, Trevor Rhys-Jones who was sitting in the front, right-hand passenger seat and who is also widely believed by researchers to have been an active agent of the MI-6 or MI-5 branches of the British Secret Service.

Several professional drivers have decried the ridiculous, claimed speed as being nothing short of preposterous and from all the evidence available, declared that the car was travelling at about 60 mph (96km/h) maximum, at the time of the accident. To date, despite its offers of help in solving the riddle, the Mercedes Benz Company and its experts have never been allowed to examine the car. This in itself is also very strange. Why would the powers-that-be not wish to enlist the help of anyone who could shed some light on the real facts, if there was nothing at all to hide and they wished to find the answers?

Why was Trevor Rhys-Jones who was sat, ‘seat-belted’ in the front passenger seat and thereby in the least survivable position for such an accident, in fact quite contrarily, the only survivor (the front passenger seat is well-known in the car industry as ‘the death seat.’)

The widespread view, as deliberately propagated by the controlled media is that had Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed been wearing seatbelts, they would likely have survived the crash. However again this stretches credibility to breaking-point and beyond. Diana did survive the crash and actually spoke to an off-duty French Doctor (not affiliated with the authorities) who arrived shortly after the incident and administered first aid to her. Interviewed in the following days by the world’s media, he stated categorically that ‘I thought her life could be saved.’

Additionally, from my own personal experience of the incident, albeit second-hand, It may or may not be true, but I have heard this from a friend of a friend (who incidentally absolutely swears it to be the truth and I have no reason to disbelieve it) that she was in Paris on the night of the crash and got back to her hotel room after a late night out and switched on the TV in the room. The local 24-hour news channel was airing the first pictures of an appalling car accident in Paris and she was just in time to see the televised images of a young blonde woman, obviously dazed and groggy, but who was nevertheless able to enter the ambulance on foot, albeit with assistance from paramedics on either side of her. She recognised this woman as Princess Diana and went to bed thinking that Diana had ‘had a lucky escape.’ She was obviously shocked and mystified next day when she awoke to all the reports of the princess’s death in the car crash.

Of course those images were never shown or referred-to ever again as is usual in these cases, much like most of the mysteriously disappearing, original news footage whenever there is a suspicious incident of this kind. As a footnote to, and confirmation of this, I have recently seen evidence of the fact that on that fateful night, the BBC news anchor Martyn Lewis in the BBC’s first ‘newsflash’ announced that Dodi had been killed outright, but that Diana had been seen ‘walking into an ambulance.’

Whatever the real truth regarding the above may be, this is certainly possible in my view. There was obviously no absolutely fool-proof way to ensure Diana’s death, even in a staged crash and so there would have had to be a contingency plan in place in the event of her survival against the odds. If Diana had indeed survived the impact of the crash, then drastic steps would have needed to be undertaken to ensure that she did not survive and maybe this explains why it took the ambulance almost two hours to travel the mere 4km (2½ miles) to the Pitie Salpétriére Hospital. I have not yet heard another credible reason as to why that should have been the case. At one point in the ambulance’s journey it apparently parked at the kerb-side for over twenty minutes just 600 metres from the hospital. This has never been satisfactorily explained by those who control what we are meant to see, hear and believe.

Perhaps the reason that Princess Diana was not wearing her seatbelt is because it was mysteriously but very conveniently jammed in such a way as to render it unusable.

Princess Diana was extremely vocal in her criticism of the Royal family. She was outspoken about the issue of land-mines, the environment and many social issues. She certainly knew her life was in danger, as evidenced in the letter she wrote to her butler, Paul Burrell, (below) in October 1993, just ten months after her separation from Prince Charles.

Excerpt from Princess Diana’s letter to Paul Burrell, her butler

In July 1997, Dodi Al-Fayed, son of the billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, became romantically involved with Diana, Princess of Wales. Dodi was born in Alexandria, Egypt, son of the billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, former owner of Harrods department store, and of Fulham Football Club and the Hôtel Ritz in Paris. Dodi was of Egyptian descent from his father and Spanish, Turkish, and Arab descent from his mother and a Muslim by faith.

Whilst still officially engaged to the American model Kelly Fisher, Dodi began his relationship with Diana which of course, as does any news involving a celebrity or ‘royal,’ created a media feeding-frenzy as the paparazzi tried to capture pictures of them together. In fact the paparazzi were set (or should that be ‘set-up’) to become the scapegoats for the tragic incident.

Dodi and Diana had broken their journey back to London by stopping off at Paris, after having spent nine days together on holiday in the French and Italian Rivieras abroad the Al-Fayed family yacht and it is believed by several sources, that the pregnant Diana was ready to remove the young princes, William and Harry from the ‘clutches’ of the Royal Family to start a new life abroad.

An expert on the life of Diana, Alan Power, suggested that she was murdered to spare the establishment the shame and embarrassment she was about to trigger with sensational revelations of the inner-secrets of the monarchy and further claimed that just nine days before her death, the besotted couple had ordered an Alberto Repossi engagement ring and planned to marry in October or November the same year. Meanwhile, the monarchy fumed silently at Diana’s new-found freedom and happiness and her perceived indiscretions and unacceptably liberal attitudes to her fellow-man — something that caused Diana to be well-loved by all (except them, of course.) This would not ‘do’ at all.

Power’s book, The Princess Diana Conspiracy alleges that she was murdered on the orders of Buckingham Palace because she was about to release a shocking dossier chronicling Prince Charles’ sordid sex secrets and that she was actually killed by an elite team of SAS and MI-6 operatives, known as ‘The Increment,’ acting on direct orders from ‘above.’

In 2011, the actor, Keith Allen produced a $5 million documentary called Unlawful Killing. Unsurprisingly, this was immediately condemned by both the Royal family and their bankster / establishment friends and even banned from general release in Britain, regardless of the fact that it was made available almost everywhere else.

The documentary relates testimonies from numerous credible sources, all expressing the opinion that her death was murder. Mohamed Al-Fayed, Dodi’s father, went even further than this, stating that it was a pre-meditated slaughter by the ‘bloody racist’ royal family. He believes strongly that the royal family had his son killed because they were too racist to accept a foreign, Muslim step-father or a Muslim half-brother or half-sister for the future king. And the film-maker himself, Keith Allen, pointed out how ‘chillingly convenient’ it was for the Windsors that the crash happened at that moment in time.

Even the inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice, (justice, what justice?) was widely dismissed in the film as a ‘cover up.’ The fact that Prince Charles, in spite of being implicated by Diana’s letter as trying to kill her exactly the way she died, was not even asked to appear as a witness is extremely ‘suspicious’ in itself. One law for us and no laws for them. In fact, the Royal Courts of Justice first attempted to conduct the inquest without a jury, a move that was only prevented by the sheer weight of public opinion and pressure. It certainly brings into question the impartiality of an inquest conducted at the Royal Courts of Justice led by a coroner who has sworn his allegiance to the Queen, in a case where members of the royal family should have been among the prime suspects. Perhaps unsurprisingly then, the film-maker concluded that the coroner gave the distinct impression throughout the proceedings, that he had already ‘made up his mind’ about the outcome, before it had even begun. All of which is totally unsurprising.

The whole point of the inquest was supposedly to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding the car crash and reach a conclusion based on that. Was it pure coincidence that Diana had told many people that she had been warned by a confidential source in the palace that Prince Philip had planned to deliberately kill her in a car crash, exactly the way she died? Why were the CCTV cameras along the route of the crash car apparently ‘not working,’ that evening, a ‘coincidence’ shared with several other comparable incidents, 9/11 and the 7/7 London Tube attacks, for example?

Were the driver’s blood samples tampered with, to produce an alcohol and Carbon Monoxide level that would surely have made him ‘falling-down drunk,’ whilst managing to give the impression to all that he was in fact completely sober? Why were Diana’s phone calls being bugged by the American NSA?

Why was Diana’s seat belt ‘jammed’ on the night of the accident, preventing her from — as she normally would — wearing a seat belt, which probably would have saved her life, other circumstances notwithstanding? Why did the police fail to identify the owners or driver of any of the five other vehicles involved in the crash? And why did it take ambulances two hours to transport Diana to the ‘nearest’ hospital, whilst passing other nearer hospitals on the way there?

According to the film, the many suspicious circumstances did not end there. Even before the end of the medical examination of his body, the French press had already published headlines according to which the driver, Henri Paul was ‘as drunk as a pig’ and that was in spite of the fact that according to his hotel bill he had drunk only had two small Ricards. Again similar to other suspicious incidents, the site of the crash was almost immediately cleaned and any forensic evidence immediately washed-away. The film points out the similarity to the case of the Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto, where the site of her murder was hosed down by police almost immediately after the attack. Obviously it is infinitely easier to claim that it was just an unfortunate accident or the facts be twisted to fit the ‘official story,’ if the evidence is destroyed.

At the conclusion of the inquest, the jury had heard such a vast amount of suspicious information that the coroner dare not take any risks as to whether the ‘correct,’ desired verdict of ‘accidental death’ would be returned. And so, in his three day summing-up of the evidence and instructions to the jury, he actually told them to ignore the eye-witness statements and forbade them to even consider the possibility of ‘unlawful killing’ (in other words, murder.) The sensible, honest jury however, completely disregarded the coroner’s instructions, and spent a whole week carefully examining all the evidence for themselves, finally returning a verdict of ‘unlawful killing!’

However, this did not prevent the worldwide media from totally misrepresenting the inquest’s verdict. In a massive world-wide misinformation campaign led by the BBC (who else?) the story was twisted to imply that the inquest jury had decided that it was the paparazzi who were responsible for the crash but what the inquest actually established was that the other vehicles (those mystery vehicles, not driven by paparazzi) surrounding Diana’s car in the tunnel that caused the ‘accident.’ To this day, most people are unaware of the ‘unlawful killing’ verdict and believe that the Inquest delivered an ‘accidental death’ verdict. This in itself demonstrates both the role of, and the ability of, the mainstream, mass-media to manipulate the facts and actually form public opinion.

The film also closely examined the negative attitude of the media ‘hacks’ towards the inquest, who obviously considered it to be a waste of time. Using a ‘mole’ and a hidden camera, ‘planted’ into the media camp, Allen discovered that it was quite common for the journalists observing the inquest to fall asleep, read or simply chit-chat amongst themselves instead of paying attention to the witness statements. They were only interested in information confirming the pre-established consensus, the ‘party-line’ passed-down through the years since the crash, that Paul’s drunk-driving and harassment by the paparazzi had caused the crash, and ignored all the evidence contradicting it.

All views contrary to the official story were regarded as simply ‘crazy’ or a ‘just a conspiracy theory’ and part of the problem, according to the film, was the fact that it was the media ‘royal correspondents,’ not legal journalists who were covering the inquest, in spite of the fact that Diana no longer had ‘royal’ status at the time of her death. How can for example, the BBC’s royal correspondent be totally impartial when it is their job to present the royal family and everything they do or say, in the most favourable light possible. But regardless, they would in any event, not have accepted the detailed contra-evidence presented or acknowledged that the establishment was manipulating information behind the scenes, regarding which and how much evidence they were being made privy to. For example, this is the reason why the media never questioned why the Royal Courts of Justice censored the letters written from Prince Philip to Diana, into abject incomprehensibility.

The Coroner went even so far as to forbid close friends of Diana to relate to the inquest the contents of several extremely hostile letters from Prince Philip written to Diana not long before her death.

The film also describes the accident itself, based on the reports of several witness statements in the inquest. Diana’s powerful Mercedes Benz quickly left behind the pursuing paparazzi but when the Mercedes entered the tunnel, they were immediately surrounded and confronted by four motorcycles and a white Fiat Uno which had been waiting on a small feeder road to the tunnel and had emerged in the wake of the Mercedes as it swooped past. Suddenly a very bright flash of light blinded Henri Paul, causing him to lose control and crash head-on into a solid concrete pillar. None of the other vehicles were ever identified and it was verified by no less than the hitherto absolutely compliant French police that none of these vehicles were driven by any of the paparazzi in attendance that night.

Perhaps the most bizarre circumstance of the accident surrounded the behaviour of the paramedics and doctors in attendance at the crash site and during the ‘short’ trip to hospital. Several ambulances arrived quickly at the scene of the accident and of course, given the time, the early morning shortly after midnight, the streets were virtually empty. And yet, it actually took the ambulance carrying Diana, well over an hour to cover the 3.7 miles to the ‘nearest hospital,’ whilst maintaining complete radio silence. In actual fact there were even two nearer hospitals than the Pitie Salpétriére, where she was taken. It is also remarkable to note that it took the oddly-behaving doctor supervising Diana’s treatment, Jean-Marc Martino, a full thirty seven minutes to move the still conscious Princess from the undamaged back of her car into the ambulance. (Notwithstanding the fact that it is almost certain that Diana was fully capable of walking into the ambulance, albeit aided.) Had she received prompt hospital treatment, all the expert witnesses at the inquest agreed that Diana would most likely have survived.

The head of MI-6 made the absolutely laughable statement during the inquest that his agency had never killed or had ordered anyone killed in the past 50 years. Indeed, former MI-6 agent Richard Tomlinson, an inquest witness, whose book ‘The Big Breach’ describes how MI-6 had planned to murder the Serbian leader, Milosevic using exactly the same ‘Boston Brakes’ method and by causing his car to crash in a narrow tunnel by flashing a very bright light into the driver’s eyes. The MI-6 chief was quite obviously lying through his teeth, a view supported in the film by another former senior MI-6 agent, Baroness Daphne Park, who clearly stated that she had been involved in murders on behalf of that most shady organisation.

In truth, MI-6 and the other secret service agencies had more reason to want Diana dead than simply just her intention to marry a Muslim. Her involvement with and enthusiastic, high-profile support for the world-wide campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines caused anger and consternation within the armaments industry and the corrupt government officials who facilitated the legality of them — all at a ‘price’ of course. The then British Minister of Defence, Nicholas Soames even telephoned Diana and warned her, “Don’t meddle in things you don’t know anything about. Accidents can happen.” This is as much of an overt threat as it is possible to make I believe, without actually openly using the words ‘or we will kill you.’

Her murder took place just three weeks before the Oslo conference to discuss the ban on anti-personnel mines. Without Diana as the most prominent ambassador to the conference, most of the world’s media ignored the event and of course without the media spotlight, the conference quietly yet firmly rejected the motion to enforce a ban.

The autopsy of Henri Paul, which stated that he was completely drunk, in spite of having consumed only two Ricards that night and appearing completely sober on the hotel CCTV captured when leaving the hotel, was performed by Professor Dominique Lecomte, a doctor notorious for her involvement in several previous French government cover-ups. Her autopsy was heavily criticised by several other medical experts as being totally incompetent and containing several critical errors, as was the conclusion from the result of the blood test which was highly suspicious and suggested it likely that the sample had been contaminated or more likely, tampered with. Professor Lecomte and Dr. Lepin the blood analyst, both refused to attend the inquest, after being ordered not to by the French government so as to protect ‘French state secrets and interests.’

Diana had not only spoken to numerous friends about her ex-husband’s family planning to kill her in a car accident and mentioned it in a letter to her butler, she had also written a similar letter to her lawyer who immediately passed it to the police. But in spite of her death in almost exactly in the precise way described in her letter, the Chief of the Metropolitan Police, Paul Condon, concealed the letter for three years, thus knowingly breaking the law by withholding this devastating evidence. However it is unsurprising to note that he was subsequently rewarded handsomely by the Queen by being offered a life-peerage and he has now taken his seat in the House of Lords, like the good little establishment lackey that he surely is.

In spite of no longer being ‘Royal’ at the time of her death, Diana was embalmed within hours of her death, according to the film, to make it impossible to perform a pregnancy test. Not only were her organs removed and destroyed, but so was the blood sample, taken from her upon her arrival at the Paris hospital.

The Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Robert Fellowes was the highest-ranked representative of the Windsors appearing at the inquest. Under oath, he claimed to have been on holiday (vacation) for the entire period before, during and after the accident and yet the diary of Tony Blair’s press secretary Alastair Campbell clearly states that he met Fellowes on several occasions throughout the period during which he claimed to have been away. Diana had mentioned to friends on several occasions that he was one of the three people of whom she was most afraid and firmly believed that Fellowes hated her with a passion and wanted her out of the way of the Royal family. The film strongly suggested that Fellowes had a leading role in the arrangements for her death.

The prime suspect in the cause of the crash was the driver of the Fiat Uno which was seen and reported by several eye-witnesses. Neither the English nor the French police was apparently able to identify him and yet one of the most notorious paparazzi, the Frenchman, James Andanson, with suspected connections to several country’s security services, drove a Fiat Uno exactly matching the description of the one involved in the crash. Andanson, who made a living selling pictures of British royalty and other celebrities to the media, lived in France and was known to have followed Diana and Dodi on their holiday together, immediately prior to the accident. He was not part of the paparazzi crowd waiting in front of the Ritz hotel owned by Dodi’s father and when interviewed by French police about his whereabouts, made contradictory statements, as did his wife and son who provided his ‘alibi.’ In spite of all this, the investigation into his involvement was quietly dropped and the search for the ‘missing’ Fiat Uno soon abandoned. The inquest also made no attempt to establish who was driving the implicated car.

Three years after the crash, in 2000, Andanson was found dead in his burnt-out white Fiat Uno on government-owned land near Montpellier, France. He had no car keys with him and the two firemen who found his body had seen two bullet holes in his skull. The French police however concluded that he had committed suicide but you do not need to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to find it hard to believe that a man shot himself in the head twice before setting fire to his car.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the documentary is the interview with leading British clinical psychologist Oliver James, describing Prince Philip as someone with no internal sense of right or wrong. In his expert opinion, Prince Philip exhibits all the symptoms of psychopathy as do many other mass-murderers.

In summary, the film very convincingly posits, that in the light of the long list of suspicious circumstances and cover-ups, it would be far too much of a coincidence that Diana was killed exactly at a time when Western secret services and armament manufacturers were infuriated by her anti-personnel landmine campaign. It was also probably no coincidence that the Windsors were terrified by the thoughts of what Diana would be prepared to reveal about their ‘inner secrets.’ She had reached the point whereby she felt so badly used by Charles and his family that she would probably have stopped at nothing to get back at them in any way she could. Then of course there was also the far from small issue of the strong possibility of a Muslim step-father and Muslim siblings to the future British King.

‘Unlawful Killing’ made its industry debut at the Cannes Film festival in May, 2011. This was followed in July, by its public premiere at the Galway Film Festival in Ireland. In both cases, both critic and audience reaction was extremely favourable. However, the Royals, the Establishment and the banksters, were ‘not amused.’ They set in motion, every legal, financial and propaganda obstacle they could muster in order to prevent its release. From demanding no less than 87 cuts to the film, to publicly smearing its findings, they eventually made it so difficult, that the film was banned in the United Kingdom and France and Fayed had to abandon its proposed release. Even after being made available on the internet, it was removed by the powers that be.

However, having noted all of Mohamed Fayed’s outrage and indignation at the murder of his beloved son, I do wonder if there was ‘more than meets the eye’ to his anger. His own shady background of heavy involvement himself in the arms trade, money laundering etc., not to mention the absolute control he exercised over Dodi and his relationship with Diana, in almost every detail of their daily lives, begs the question, how come his own very extensive, powerful security resources failed to protect them on that day?

Was it just possible that he could have himself been part of the conspiracy, but that his indignation at the incident was due in no small part to the fact that he actually expected his son to be spared the same fate as Diana? There are so many shades of grey in this whole incident, like that of so many other political assassinations where the complexity of the evil inherent within, is almost endless.

A British pro-establishment journalist, Sue Reid of the Daily Mail wrote on 30th August 2013, that . . .

“The final, haunting photo of Princess Diana, taken on the night she died, shows her sitting with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed in the back of a Mercedes car as it roars away from the rear entrance of the Paris Ritz Hotel, heading for the couple’s secret love-nest near the Champs-Elysees.

Diana is twisting her head to peer out of the Mercedes’ rear window, anxiously looking to see if her car is being chased by the paparazzi who had besieged her and Dodi since their arrival in the French capital from a Mediterranean holiday eight hours earlier.

At the wheel is chauffeur, Henri Paul. Dodi’s bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones is in the front passenger seat. What happened over the next two minutes is central to a new probe by Scotland Yard into an astonishing claim from a Special Air Services (SAS) sniper, known as ‘Soldier N,’ that members of his elite British army regiment assassinated Diana seconds after the Mercedes sped at 63mph into the notoriously dangerous Pont d’Alma road tunnel.

Many will dismiss Soldier N’s claims as yet another conspiracy theory. After all, millions of words have been written about Diana’s death at 12.20am on Sunday, August 31, 1997. The world was led to believe the blame lay with the grossly negligent driving of an intoxicated Mr. Paul and the pursuing paparazzi. But — however unlikely they may seem at first glance — I am convinced there is something in Soldier N’s claims.

Ever since Diana’s death at the age of 36, I have investigated forensically the events that led up to the crash and what happened afterwards. I have spoken to eye-witnesses, French and British intelligence officers, SAS soldiers and to friends of Diana and Dodi. And I have interviewed the Brittany-based parents of the 41-year-old chauffeur Henri Paul. They told me, with tears in their eyes, that their son was not a heavy drinker: his chosen potion was a bottle of beer or the occasional Ricard, a liquorice-flavored aperitif.

The fact is that too many of these accounts suggest that Diana’s death was no accident. Crucially, my investigations show that the paparazzi who supposedly hounded Diana to her death were not even in the Pont d’Alma tunnel at the time of the car crash. They also reveal how a high-powered black motorbike — which did not belong to any of the paparazzi — shot past Diana’s Mercedes in the tunnel. Eyewitnesses say its rider and pillion passenger deliberately caused the car to crash.

In addition, my inquiries unearthed the existence of a shadowy SAS unit that answers to MI-6, as well as the names of two MI-6 officers who were linked by a number of sources to Diana’s death.

Could the Establishment really have turned Henri Paul and the paparazzi into scapegoats? Could there have been a skilful cover-up by people in powerful places to hide exactly what did happen?

There is little doubt that Diana, recently divorced from Prince Charles, was a thorn in the side of the Royal Family. Her romance with Dodi, though only six weeks old, was serious. The Princess had given her lover her ‘most precious possession’ — a pair of her deceased father’s cufflinks — and phoned friends, saying she had a ‘big surprise’ for them when she returned from Paris.

Dodi had slipped out of the Ritz Hotel, as Diana was having her hair done, to collect a jewel-encrusted ring adorned with the words ‘Tell Me Yes,’ from a swanky Paris jeweller. It came from a collection of engagement rings.

Rumours were circulating, too, that the Princess was pregnant. Photographs of her in a leopard-print swimsuit, on holiday in the South of France 14 days earlier, show an unmistakable bump around her waistline. And, as the Mail revealed after Diana’s death, she had visited — in the strictest secrecy — a leading London hospital for a pregnancy scan just before that photo was snapped.

To add to the disquiet, the mother of a future King of England and head of the Church of England was threatening to move abroad with her Muslim boyfriend and take the royal Princes, William and Harry, with her.

Dodi had bought an estate, once owned by film star Julie Andrews, by the beach in Malibu, California, and shown Diana a video of it. He told her the sumptuous house was where they would spend their married life. Ostracised by the Royal Family and stripped of her HRH title, Diana was said to be excited by the prospect.

Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, the multi-millionaire former owner of Harrods, insists Diana was pregnant by his son and preparing to tell the young Princes about her forthcoming marriage when she returned to Britain on September 1 — the day after the crash — before they went back to boarding school.

However far-fetched it sounds, all the Establishment concerns about Diana were genuine. But could this really have led to her assassination? And if so, how could it have been carried out?

These questions are partially answered by the compelling testimony of 14 independent eyewitnesses near the crash scene that night. They say Diana’s car was surrounded at the entrance to the Alma tunnel by a phalanx of cars and motorcycles, which sped after the Mercedes.

The assumption has always been that the cars and bikes were carrying the paparazzi. By the Monday morning after the crash, outside the Alma tunnel, a huge message had appeared. ‘Killer paparazzi’ had been sprayed in gold paint on the walls.

No-one, to this day, knows who put it there — or why they were not stopped by the French authorities from doing so. Yet the paparazzi following Diana did not reach the Pont d’Alma tunnel until at least one minute after the crash, so they cannot be to blame. Indeed, two years later they were cleared of manslaughter charges after the French state prosecutor said there was ‘insufficient evidence’ of their involvement in Diana’s death.

What happened is that the paparazzi had been deceived. In a clever ploy devised by Henri Paul, the Ritz had placed a decoy Mercedes at the front of the hotel to confuse the photographers, which allowed the lovers to slip out of the back door into a similar car. The last picture of Diana peering from the rear window was taken by a France-based photographer who had seen through the ruse and was standing on the pavement by the hotel’s rear entrance watching as the ‘real’ Mercedes sped off.

Yet that Mercedes was definitely being hotly pursued when in the tunnel. The independent witnesses insist it was being followed not only by the black motorbike, but by two speeding cars, a dark saloon and a white turbo Fiat Uno.

There is no evidence to link these cars or the motorcycle to the paparazzi who had been waiting at the Ritz. The saloon tail-gated the Mercedes, which made the chauffeur — thinking, wrongly, he was being pursued by paparazzi — drive even faster and more erratically. Meanwhile, the Uno accelerated, clipping the side of the Mercedes to push it to one side.

This manoeuver allowed the black motorbike to speed past Diana’s car, with its two riders wearing helmets that hid their faces. Witnesses claim that when the bike was about 15ft in front of the car, there was a fierce flash of white light from the motorbike. The suggestion is that this came from a laser beam (dazzler laser) carried by the pillion passenger and directed at the car.

The witnesses’ view is that the flash of light blinded Henri Paul temporarily. It was followed by a loud bang as the limousine swerved violently before slamming into the 13th pillar in the tunnel and being reduced to a mass of wrecked metal. One of those eyewitnesses, a French harbour pilot driving ahead of the Mercedes through the tunnel, watched the scene in his rear-view mirror.

Chillingly, he recalls the black motorbike stopping after the crash and one of the riders jumping off the bike before going to peer in the Mercedes window at the passengers. The rider, who kept his helmet on, then turned to his compatriot on the bike and gave a gesture used informally in the military (where both arms are crossed over the body and then thrown out straight to each side) to indicate ‘mission accomplished.’ Afterwards, he climbed back on the motorcycle, which raced off out of the tunnel. The riders on the bike, and the vehicle itself, have never been identified.

The harbour pilot, whose wife was with him in the car, has described the horrifying scenario as resembling a ‘terrorist attack.’ So, who could have been driving the bike and the other vehicles that did follow Diana’s car into the Alma tunnel that night? Could they really have been part of the plot to get rid of Diana and her lover — a plot orchestrated by MI-6 or the SAS regiment, as the latest sensational claims suggest?

After Diana’s death, I received a nine-line note in the post containing the names of two MI-6 men who have spent their entire careers working at the heart of the British Establishment, representing the Government as senior diplomats, whom I will call X and Y. Written in blue felt-tip pen on a flimsy piece of paper ripped from an A4 exercise book, the note said: ‘If you are brave enough, dig deeper to learn about X and Y. Both were MI-6. Both were involved at the highest level in the murder of the Princess.’ It signed off with the words: ‘Good luck.’

Of course, an unsigned note does not provide firm evidence, or anything like it, that MI-6 spies were operating in Paris that evening or were connected with Diana’s death. Yet their names came up again when I received a call from a well-placed source within the intelligence services. He named the same two men, X and Y, who had overseen the ‘Paris operation’ and said the crash was designed to frighten Diana into halting her romance with Dodi because he was considered an unsuitable partner.

‘We hoped to break her arm or cause a minor injury,’ said my informant. ‘The operation was also overseen by a top MI-6 officer known as ‘the tall man,’ who is now retired and living on the Continent. He admits it went wrong. No-one in MI-6 wanted Diana to be killed.’

And this week the men’s names were mentioned again, this time by Moscow intelligence. According to the author of a new book, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, knew that X and Y were in Paris on the night Diana died. And after the car crash the SVR set out to find out why. Gennady Sokolov, whose book ‘The Kremlin vs. The Windsors’ will be published next year, told me this week: ‘Of course our people were following your agents.’

They were senior MI-6 officers operating secretly in Paris that night, without the knowledge of even French counter-intelligence. They left again after she was dead.

Her relationship and possible marriage to Dodi was deeply worrying to senior royals in Britain. The Princess’s phone was constantly listened-to and she was followed all the time. After the crash, public opinion was deliberately led astray. Scapegoats were created, such as the paparazzi and the drunk driver. There was a dance around Henri Paul, saying he was an alcohol addict, a virtual kamikaze, who helped to destroy them all. It is total nonsense.

From the very beginning, it was clear to me it was not just an accident. My sources in the SVR and other Russian secret services are sure it was a very English murder. They have talked to me about an SAS squad called The Increment, which is attached to MI-6, being involved in the assassination. These guys work on the top level without leaving a single trace, and — perhaps — one was on the motorbike following Diana’s car.’

But why did none of this extraordinary story come out at the inquest into Diana’s death, which should have been the final word on it? It’s true that 14 tunnel witnesses were at least allowed to appear or send their testimonies. But much of their vital information was completely submerged by the sheer volume of evidence presented over the six months of the hearing.

We heard that chauffeur Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed were killed instantly; that the sole survivor was the bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones, who suffered such devastating facial injuries he has no memory of events in the tunnel, and that with the pulmonary vein in her chest torn, Diana died nearly four hours later of heart failure and blood loss at Paris’ Pitie Salpétriére hospital.

But we also know that the inquest never unraveled the full truth. More than 170 important witnesses, including the doctor who embalmed Diana’s body (a process that camouflages pregnancy in post-mortem blood tests) were never called to the inquest.

One radiologist from Pitie Salpétriére hospital, who said that she had seen a small foetus of perhaps six to ten weeks in the Princess’s womb during an X-ray and a later sonogram of her body, was not questioned. Instead, she was allowed by the judge heading the inquest, Lord Justice Scott Baker, to send a statement giving her current address in America and no more details.

Crucially, the hearing was cruelly unfair to chauffeur Henri Paul, who was vilified from the beginning.

On the day after the crash, French authorities insisted that he was an alcoholic and ‘drunk as a pig’ when he left the Ritz that night to drive the lovers to Dodi’s Paris apartment near the Champs-Elysees.

It has since emerged that the blood tests on Paul’s body had not been completed when they made the announcement to journalists. Furthermore, the chauffeur had passed an intensive medical examination for flying lessons three days before the crash — his liver showed no sign of alcohol abuse. A string of witnesses at the Ritz say Paul drank two shots of his favorite Ricard at the bar before taking to the wheel, which was confirmed by bar receipts at the hotel.

However, after a shambolic mix- up over his blood samples (deliberate or otherwise,) it was pronounced by a medical expert at the inquest that Paul had downed ten of the aperitifs, was twice over the British driving limit and three times over the French one, when he drove the Mercedes that night.”

But for all the endless cover-ups and lies, Princess Diana survived the Crown-sanctioned assassination attempt in the car and like so many before her and since, Diana finally fell victim to a ‘doctor-assisted assassination,’ by the Crown/bankster ‘backup’ team in the ambulance.

Diana’s ancestry

In Tina Brown’s book ‘The Diana Chronicles,’ the author claims that Princess Diana’s mother Frances Shand Kydd had a long-running affair with Sir James Goldsmith during her marriage to Earl Spencer. She suggests that Diana who was born in 1961, was Goldsmith’s love-child and not Spencer’s daughter.

The late Sir James Goldsmith, a Jewish bankster and publisher, was a cousin of the Rothschilds. James Goldsmith’s grandfather, Adolphe Goldschmidt came to London as a multi-millionaire in 1895 and changed the family name from the German, ‘Goldschmidt’ to the Anglicised ‘Goldsmith.’ There is no denying that the affair took place at a time when Frances was deeply unhappy in her marriage to the Earl Spencer, who was ‘drinking heavily’ and ‘being beastly towards her.’ She eventually divorced him and remarried in 1969. However, Diana was not only similar to James Goldsmith in looks, ‘but also in her charisma and her sexual appetites . . . ’ She also shared a striking physical resemblance to the children of Sir James Goldsmith — Zak Goldsmith, Ben Goldsmith and Jemima Goldsmith. They are all allegedly Diana’s half-brothers and sister.

News reports that both Diana and Jemima were fathered by swashbuckling tycoon Sir James Goldsmith caused controversy throughout Australia and Britain and the plain facts are that during Diana’s unhappy marriage to Charles, she did not seek and nor was she offered, solace by the Spencers. She sought solace from her surrogate family, the Goldsmiths. Following the Rothschild protocol of interbreeding to keep the power and wealth all-in-the-family, Diana’s alleged half-brother Ben Goldsmith married Kate Rothschild in 2003.

The original and current definition of a Jew, is someone whose mother is Jewish. Judaism is passed down through the matriarchal lineage. Prince William’s mother, Princess Diana, had a Jewish mother (Frances Ruth Burke Roche) and she also likely had a Jewish father which would make Princes William and Harry, both Jewish too.

The Jewish holy book the Torah, forbids a Jewish man from marrying a Gentile woman otherwise his children to that woman will not be regarded as Jewish. Interestingly, Prince William’s in-laws are believed to be Jewish too, which means that not only are Kate and William, the future King and Queen, Jewish but also all their offspring too.

One law for us, no laws for them . . .

As the head of the Crown, (the banksters main front,) the British monarch cannot be charged with a crime, arrested, sued, or even be required to testify in court as long as she or he reigns over the United Kingdom and Commonwealth. In other words she has total diplomatic immunity, a free rein to do whatever she will and if she decided to assassinate passers-by in The Mall, from the Buckingham Palace balcony with a high-powered rifle, even this would not be enough for the monarch to be indicted.

And for added protection and for the ultimate insult . . . Members of Parliament, Lords, Judges, Police, Military, and even the Scouts and girl guides, all swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch. An oath of loyalty and devotion, that is not to the country, not to the British government or people but to the royal-criminal cabal. MPs are prevented from even raising the subject of the abolition of the monarchy, because of this sworn oath of loyalty.

Another entity that swears total allegiance to the Queen and therefore to the Crown, is the intelligence community. MI-5 is Britain’s domestic military intelligence division whilst MI-6 is the foreign military intelligence division. Although officially described as ‘services,’ they are a hybrid of government departments and ‘plain-clothes’ military units, in effect, operationally-controlled foreign powers.

Known as The Secret State and nicknamed The Permanent Government in Robin Ramsey and Stephen Dorril’s book ‘Smear! Wilson and the Secret State,’ they operate as a ‘state within a state,’ being subject to only token democratic accountability. They go to great lengths, including lying to elected-ministers and use of the archaic ‘Official Secrets Act’ in order to ward-off embarrassing revelations about what a waste of our public money many of their operations are . . . and also to deflect any scrutiny of their activities. The IOPS (Information Operations Planning System) department of MI-6 often ‘plants’ stories beneficial to the Secret State to gullible journalists in order to facilitate this.

In her 64 years (at time of writing) as unelected head of state, and head of the Church of England, many international crimes have been committed by the Crown’s security services and thus by implication, Elizabeth herself. Through the never-ending quest for profit at any cost through oil, gold, diamonds or drugs, the Queen has provided the banksters, the Rothschilds, the perfect front for a plethora of crimes, at both domestically and abroad . . .

Foreign Crimes during the reign of the current Monarch

Kenya, 1952-1956

A liberation campaign was launched by the Mau Mau (native Kenyans) and the British response was to immediately close the 149 schools of the Kikuyu Independent Schools Association, 21 schools of the Kikuyu Karinga Education Association, and 14 other independent schools in the country. They were, wrote historian Walter Rodney, “ . . . considered training grounds for rebellion.” The British then imposed a state of emergency and brutally suppressed the Mau Mau freedom fighters. British forces committed many atrocities, established concentration camps and ‘resettled’ hundreds of thousands of people in ‘protected villages,’ resulting in the deaths of around 150,000 Africans.

Guyana, 1953

In October of 1953, Britain suspended Guyana’s constitution. The People’s Progressive Party, (PPP) was the first truly democratic political party in Guyana and was also multi-racial. It was at that time the only party in the Caribbean with a mandate to protect the lower or underclasses of society from the rich predators and bankers who saw the country and its people as yet another resource to be exploited for their own ends. Predictably, the PPP came into conflict with its British imperialist masters and so Britain immediately dispatched troops and installed an interim administration after the ‘democratic process’ had not produced a result to meet with its approval.

Libya, 1953

On 7th December Britain established military bases in Libya for a period of 20 years, ostensibly in return for economic subsidies, which never actually reached ‘the people’ but instead served to maintain a puppet government, friendly to British financial, commercial and military interests.

Egypt, 1956-1957

President Gamel Abdel Nasser unilaterally decided to ‘nationalise’ the Suez Canal causing conflict with Britain whose trade with the Middle and Far East would be severely restricted as a result. According to the historian J.M. Roberts, “The British, French, and Israelis conspired to overthrow [Nasser] in the Suez adventure, the last fling of old-style imperialism.” The incident is notable also for the fact that in the inordinate rush to dispatch troops to Egypt, the British Prime Minister still had to obtain the signed approval of the Queen. According to historian Ben Pimlott, “ . . . the hastily prepared Proclamation . . . ” was passed to her for signature whilst she was at a horse race meeting and, “ . . . Her approval was required before it could be read-out in the House of Commons the same afternoon.” In the wake of the failed Suez invasion, MI-6 planned and carried-out several assassination attempts against President Nasser. The US were also involved, recruiting the Saudis and Iraqis to assist them. In fact, Britain had already made plans to assassinate Nasser, even before he had nationalised the Suez Canal.

Yemen, 1959

The Federation of Arab Emirates of the South was created as an autonomous territory under British ‘protection.’ Britain had previously occupied parts of Yemen in 1837, the year Victoria became Queen.

Kenya, 1961

Britain was forced to introduce a new policy which allowed Africans to buy property and farms in the White Highlands and Kenya’s first pre-independence general elections were held.

By the sale of over-priced land previously seized by the white settlers, not only did the settlers make a great deal of money, but it was also ensured that the land would pass into the hands of either wealthy individuals who would protect European bankster and business interests or people trapped by the debts they incurred in borrowing money to buy the land.

Guyana, 1962

The US concluded that PPP leader Dr. Jagan was a ‘communist’ and although all alternatives to him were unacceptable to the people or downright crooked, the US nevertheless backed Jagan’s opponents under an ‘independent,’ British Guyana which would cause the US money interests far fewer problems than the existing, elected government. Jagan announced a budget which was widely praised by international commentators, but the US/British controlled opposition condemned it and used it as an excuse to instigate violent protests. The opposition was supported by local labour organisations who received support from certain US union groups, funded by the CIA.

The British Governor-General initially refused to send troops to quell the disturbances, but eventually did so under pressure after the arson, looting and deaths in the capital began to spiral out of control. Jagan was forced to withdraw his controversial, unacceptable budget plan.

Yemen, 1962

MI-6 began covertly providing arms, funding and logistical support to pro-British ‘rebels’ in a dirty war against pro-Egyptian republican forces. The British Government secretly colluded with Israel’s Mossad and the Saudi regime and around 200,000 innocents died in the war.

Then in 1963, Britain rejected a UN call for it to withdraw and permit self-determination.

Australia, 1975

The government of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was beset by resignations and the blocking of its budget by the upper house of the Parliament and in an unprecedented move, the UK governor-general, the official, unelected representative of the Monarchy, summarily dismissed Whitlam and his government. A caretaker administration was installed and the speaker of the Australian House of Commons wrote to the Queen to ask her to restore Whitlam to office, but she declined to intervene, stating that it would not be ‘proper’ for her to do so.

It later transpired that the CIA had apparently vigorously lobbied Kerr to dismiss Whitlam, because he was raising awareness of and questioning the fact that the US was running a clandestine outpost of the CIA and a centre for spy satellites in the Australian outback.

Falkland Islands, 1982

Even after the UK proclaimed sovereignty over the islands in 1833, Argentina contested the move and had long sought to wrest them back under her control. Then in 1982, the military junta of Argentina seized the islands — which lay just off its coast — prompting the British to send in warships and troops to wage a 74-day battle for control in order to protect their strategic interests in the region. They eventually re-took the islands, but to this day, Argentina still disputes their ownership. A comparable situation would be if Argentina ‘owned’ the Orkney Islands and used them as a base for extracting the North Sea Oil reserves, under British noses.

Ireland, 1500-date

The Pope at the time, ‘gave’ Ireland to King Henry VII but his successor then attempted to take it back again when Henry’s son, Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the UK has held all or part of the island ever since the late 15th century. Since that time there has been an ongoing catalogue of conflicts, uprisings and bloody disputes between the two nations, culminating in the latest conflict (of the 1970s to the 1990s) instigated and perpetuated by the British government-controlled and so-called, ‘Irish Republican Army’ (IRA,) which is in reality just a fabricated construct of the British security services.

The steady decline of British ability to influence foreign affairs now corresponds to Britain’s ever-diminishing stature as an imperial power.

However, even in an age of increasing indifference to the Monarchy and the less than deferential regard for our ‘masters,’ what has certainly not declined is the ongoing, unacceptably deferential treatment of the British Monarchy, by the establishment and media. The International Criminal Court readily indicts those deemed to be ‘rogue’ leaders from the Middle East and Africa and the third world in general, but there is nary a word of condemnation forthcoming, of British, US or Israeli crimes or their officials, from the Queen downwards.

Next we will scrutinise the role of the British Royals and the Crown in the reconfiguring of the world through the medium of war, for their own nefarious purposes and those of their bankster friends . . .

Chapter 6

Bankster War Crimes — World War I

He’s five foot two and he’s six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He’s all of thirty-one and he’s only seventeen
Been a soldier for a thousand years

He’s a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
And he knows he shouldn’t kill and he knows he always will
Kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he’s fighting for Canada
He’s fighting for France, he’s fighting for the USA
And he’s fighting for the Russians
And he’s fighting for Japan
And he thinks we’ll put an end to war this way

And he’s fighting for Democracy, he’s fighting for the Reds
He says ‘It’s for the peace of all’
He’s the one who must decide, who’s to live and who’s to die
And he never sees the writing on the wall

But without him
How would Hitler have condemned him at Labau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He’s the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war
And without him all this killing can’t go on

He’s the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from here and there and you and me
And brothers can’t you see
This is not the way we put an end to war.

‘The Universal Soldier,’ Buffy Sainte-Marie

Thus far, it has hopefully already been made apparent that the banksters certainly love war and the massive debts it creates for nations and thus by extension therefore, the correspondingly massive profits it makes for them. Indeed, their insatiable lust for these profits knows no bounds. The establishment of the banksters’ Federal Reserve Bank in the United States in 1913, coupled with their numerous other central banks throughout the world and the control they exert over the media in all forms, provided them with the unchallenged ability to rob from virtually every human being on the planet with absolute impunity and without regard to consequences.

In order to counter any question, debate or opposition to the Zionist banksters’ crimes, they simply made it a hate-crime or deemed it ‘racist,’ to even discuss them. In fact, they pre-empted the whole issue by creating the Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’rith (ADL) in the months prior to the launch of the Federal Reserve Bank and in order to intimidate and condemn anyone speaking out against the Zionists. Anyone deemed to be a threat is thereby automatically regarded by the masses as someone who is attacking and threatening ALL Jewish people. ‘Anti-Semite,’ is the accusation and this is the perfect alibi and the perfect defence against criticism of any kind.

The ADL was founded by a Chicago lawyer, Sigmund Livingston in response to the 1913 murder/rape trial of Leo Frank a middle-class Jewish manager of a sweat-shop in Georgia who raped and murdered a thirteen year old, lower-class Gentile (non-Jewish) child worker. The prominent Jews who even at that time in American history were preparing for the total domination of American society by their own kind, were incensed that the goyim (a derogatory Jewish term for non-Jews) had the audacity to indict one of their own, for the crime despite that the fact that there a was a mass of evidence pointing to Frank’s guilt.

Considered one of the most sensational trials of the early 20th century, the Frank case seemed to tick every controversial box of the time, North vs. South, black vs. white, Jew vs. Christian, industrial vs. agrarian etc. During the century that has passed since, it has inspired numerous books and films, TV documentaries, plays, musicals and songs and has fueled legal debates, spawned a travelling exhibition and driven public forums.

It all began on Sunday, 27th April 1913, when the body of Mary Phagan, was discovered in the basement of her workplace, the National Pencil Company factory in Marietta, Georgia. Leo Frank, the northern US-born factory superintendent, was president of the Atlanta chapter of the Jewish secret society, B’nai B’rith. He was also a bisexual paedophile and a drug addict, who managed the factory and all evidence points to the fact that he demanded sex from 13-year old Mary and then when she resisted, he brutally raped and murdered her.

Leo Frank Mary Phagan

Frank and an illiterate black handyman, dragged the body to the basement where they were going to burn it in the factory furnace the next day, but that same night a watchman discovered the body, called the police and after questioning, Frank was arrested, found guilty and sentenced to hang.

However, the governor of Georgia, John Slaton (who purely coincidentally, I’m sure, was the owner of the law firm that represented Frank) commuted his sentence. And so on 16th August 1915, twenty five men abducted him from his bed in a minimum security prison and lynched him in the early hours of the next day.

“Some viewed the commutation by Slaton as a conflict of interest, as Slaton was a law partner of Frank’s lead defense counsel. Slaton’s actions led to threats of mob violence against the governor, and the Georgia National Guard and local police were enlisted for protection. Fear of retaliation prompted Slaton and his wife to move out of Georgia after his term as governor ended. They did not return to the state for a decade.” Wikipedia™

In the aftermath of Frank’s murder, the Anti-Defamation League was formed and campaigned vigorously for a posthumous pardon. This was finally granted on a technicality, without establishing either his guilt or innocence in 1986.

The lynching of Leo Frank

The Zionist ADL continues to exploit this incident to the maximum, to this day and Zionist-controlled Hollywood even produced a film in the 1980s, ‘The Murder of Mary Phagan,’ starring Jack Lemmon and a young Kevin Spacey, which presented a completely one-sided account of the incident, totally sympathetic to Frank’s innocence.

In those days lynchings were not uncommon, not just of blacks as we are deceptively led to believe, but also of whites too (mostly for rape.) However, Leo Frank still remains the only Jew ever known to have been lynched in America and indeed he was the first white man to be brought to trial in the Deep South on a capital charge, solely on the word of a Negro.

What was never revealed at the trial was that Leo Frank had ‘previous.’ One year before Mary Phagan was raped and killed, Frank raped and in the process, viciously bit another one of his child employees who conceived a child by him and was despatched to a home for unmarried mothers as a result of their brief but illegal and one-sided liaison. So, Frank was actually a sadistic paedophile whose case has been used as a stick for more than a century to attack, defame, slander, libel and generally hold to ransom, ordinary American non-Jewish ‘white’ citizens. This is the man that the Jewish community lied-about and is used by the Zionists, as their ‘martyr’ to anti-Semitism.

The conviction of Leo Frank was the impetus for the formation of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in October 1913, after the 500 member strong Atlanta branch of B’nai B’rith voted unanimously on 24th September 1913, to re-elect their ‘wrongfully imprisoned’ President, Leo Frank to a second term as their leader. Frank ran the affairs of this B’nai B’rith chapter behind bars until September of 1914 but was not re-elected for a third term.

Ever since this sad incident, the ADL has been at the very forefront of perpetuating the hate-crime hoax by falsely claiming that people were shouting and chanting ‘hang the Jew’ and ‘kill the Jew,’ outside the open windows of the Leo Frank trial courtroom.

The charter of the ADL states that “The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect, or body of citizens.”

In fact the ADL’s true purpose is to protect the Rothschilds and the other banksters’ criminal network from exposure. Anyone who dares to call attention to the workings of the New World Order, or The Federal Reserve Bank, will immediately be denounced by the ADL as ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘Jew haters.’ It is the ‘enforcement’ arm of the totally Zionist/bankster front organisation the B’nai B’rith, which was founded in 1843. B’nai B’rith in Hebrew means ‘Sons of the Covenant,’ and the covenant that God made with Abraham, the first Jew and afterward renewed with Moses, is the central theme and constitution of Judaism.

As you may remember from a previous chapter, Albert Pike predicted that there would have to be ‘Three World Wars’ in order to bring to fruition the bankster/Illuminati plans for the so-called New World Order (NWO.) A chain of events therefore had to be created to set the scene for all the unnecessary death and destruction that was to follow.

In June 1914, the first steps in bringing about the long awaited, pre-planned World War was through the use of ‘Serbian Nationalists.’ It was an NWO secret society known as the ‘Black Hand,’ possibly working in tandem with the ‘Young Turks,’ that plotted the murder of the ruler of Austro-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Serbia at this time was an independent, orthodox Christian nation under the protection of Czarist Russia but many Serbians also lived under Austro-Hungarian rule (in Bosnia) instead of under Serbian or Russian rule. This arrangement had always been controversial and caused incessant friction, both within Austro-Hungary, and also between Russia and Austro-Hungary.

Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) was heir to the Hapsburg family throne of Austro-Hungary and whilst travelling through the Bosnian city of Sarajevo on an official visit with his wife Sophie, a bomb was thrown at the Archduke’s open car. However, he deflected the bomb with his arm and it exploded behind him, injuring several onlookers. Then, contrary to all advice, the royal couple insisted on visiting the injured at the hospital.

However, during the return trip to the palace, their driver turned onto a side street, where a young member of the Serbian sect, the ‘Black Hand,’ Gavril Princip opened fire on them. Sophie was mortally wounded in the stomach and Franz, in the neck. Franz was still alive when witnesses arrived to give aid and his dying words to Sophie were “Don’t die darling. Live for our children.” They both died shortly afterwards.

By the 29th June 1914, anti-Serbian riots had begun to erupt in the Austro-Hungarian city of Sarajevo (now Bosnia,) no doubt instigated by the agents of those whose best interests would be served by the world becoming involved in a bloody conflict and its ensuing profit opportunities. However profit, whilst a strong motivator was not the prime mover in this case. The banksters wanted more than anything else to re-order the world map, particularly in Europe and in the process destroy the ‘upstart,’ nation of Germany and Czarist Russia in order to fulfil the Rothschild’s threat to the Romanov dynasty, a century previously.

On the 7th July 1914, Austro-Hungary convened a council to discuss the Serbian situation which was now getting out of hand and later that month the Zionist-bankster-controlled, Austro-Hungarian press began to add propagandistic fuel to the fire of escalating anti-Serbian sentiment. False reports of a Serbian conspiracy against Austro-Hungary began to circulate but in an attempt to calm the situation, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany encouraged his ally, Austro-Hungary, to try to settle the matter using diplomacy.

But as is often the case, blind patriotic fervour and propaganda won the day and so on 28th July 1914, Austro-Hungary totally succumbed to the prevalent, totally manufactured hysteria and declared war on Serbia, closely followed, the very next day by Russia mobilising its armed forces in solidarity with its ally, Serbia. Then, as planned, the giant dominoes began to topple all across Europe as treaties were invoked and five weeks after Franz Ferdinand’s death, the world was thrown into complete turmoil as the bankster’s largely conscripted armies prepared to face each other on the battlefields of Europe to act out yet another deadly game initiated by the banksters for their own devious ends.

On 3rd August, now confronted by threats from two fronts, engineered by both France and England, Germany quickly advanced towards France through Belgium while simultaneously confronting Russia in the east. Great Britain then entered the war on the side of its allies, France and Russia and the ‘Triple Entente’ members France, Russia and Britain agreed that no member would make peace separately with Germany or Austro-Hungary.

Finally, the jigsaw was complete when on 28th October, Russia’s southern rival, the Ottoman Turkish Empire, entered the war on the side of Austro-Hungary and Germany.

It is apparent now that there would have been no World War without the banksters’ Federal Reserve System. A ‘strange’ sequence of events, none of which of course were accidental, had occurred. Without Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘Bull Moose’ candidacy, the popular President Taft would have been re-elected and Woodrow Wilson would have returned to the obscurity from whence he had sprung. There would therefore have been no Federal Reserve Act at this time and WWI could not have been financed.

The major European nations had all been induced to maintain large standing armies as a policy of the central banks which dictated their governments’ decisions and from 1887 to 1914, this precarious system of heavily-armed but bankrupt European nations endured, whilst the United States continued to be a debtor nation, borrowing money from abroad, but making few international loans, because it had no central bank. The system of national loans developed by the Rothschilds and their fellow banksters served to finance European struggles during the nineteenth century because they were distributed over Rothschild branches in several countries. But by 1900, it was obvious that Europe could not afford a major war. Most had large armies, universal military service and ‘state of the art’ modern weapons but their economies could not support the enormous expenditures required to maintain them on a permanent basis.

The Federal Reserve System began operating in early 1914 and coerced the American government to lend the European Allies twenty five billion dollars which was never repaid, although of course, a considerable sum in interest was repaid to the banksters themselves. The US was ultimately induced to declare war on Germany, with whom they had no conceivable political or economic quarrel and also despite the fact that the United States possessed the largest number of people of German origin of any country in the world. Almost half of its citizens were of German descent and it was only by the narrowest of margins that German had lost out in the voting for the national language of the USA.

The banksters had been waiting impatiently since 1887 for the United States to enact a central bank policy in order to enable them to finance a major European war among the nations they had already bankrupted with armament and ‘defence’ programs. The most important element of any central bank mechanism of course is war finance.

The background of the notorious banksters, Kuhn, Loeb and Company had been exposed in Truth Magazine in 1912 . . .

“Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., which represents the Rothschild interest on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister to the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil. He was hand-in-glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds and the Rockefellers, in all their railroad enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial world in America. Louis Brandeis, because of his great ability as a lawyer and for other reasons which will appear later, was selected by Schiff as the instrument through which Schiff hoped to achieve his ambition in New England. His job was to carry on an agitation which would undermine public confidence in the New Haven system and cause a decrease in the price of its securities, thus forcing them on the market for the wreckers to buy.”

Schiff’s lawyer, Brandeis is worthy of mention as the first available appointment on the Supreme Court of the United States which Woodrow Wilson was allowed to fill.

Between 1901 and 1913 the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller formed close alliances with the Duke and the Mellon families. This group consolidated their power and came to dominate other Wall Street, bankster powers including those of, Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, and Dillon-Reed. The powerful interests of the Round Table Group however wished to control the people further by having the government impose an ‘income’ tax and deposit the proceeds into the central bank. The group would thereafter assume control of the bank and thereby control the money and subsequently, virtually everything else by dint of its colossal wealth. Indeed, the Round Table went on to take control of the US State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was to be spent and also control the CIA which would gather information, script and produce psycho-political operations focussed upon the unsuspecting masses in order to influence them into acting and thinking in accord with Round Table controlled, State Department policy decisions.

It was also the intention of the Round Table to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single international security system; the much-vaunted ‘New World Order.’

And so as previously related, it transpired that amongst the first legislation introduced by the Wilson administration was the institution of the illegally sanctioned graduated income tax in 1913 and the creation of a central bank, the Federal Reserve. An inheritance tax was also instituted and these tax laws were utilised to rationalise the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Group members’ personal, private corporations and the national University system. The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding which was derived mainly from money, sheltered from taxes and subsequently being channeled into projects that would help achieve Round Table Group aims.

And so, to return to the main thrust of this chapter, Europe, with the rest of the world following swiftly in its wake, exploded into violence in August 1914, with the banksters now all-set to finance and arm both sides of the conflict and thereby reap their expected massive profits, whilst also waiting for all their insidious, highly manipulative geo-political goals to be fulfilled.

World War I Begins in Earnest

After Germany’s initial, westward onslaught towards Paris was brought to a halt, the Western Front settled-down into a bloody stalemate with trench lines that would change little until 1918, and stretching from the North Sea coast to the Swiss Alps. In the East, the Russian army successfully engaged the Austro-Hungarian forces but was soon forced to retreat by the German army. Additional fronts were then opened in Eastern Europe and Asia Minor when the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) joined the war on Germany’s side in late 1914. However this was balanced by Italy’s switching of sides and joining the Entente powers in 1915.

At sea, the British Navy blockaded Germany whilst her U-boats attempted to counter the blockade by sinking many British merchant ships carrying arms and other war supplies.

The Zionist banksters on both sides of the Atlantic were desperate to drag the US into the war against Germany and Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill and President Wilson’s Marxist advisor, Edward Mandel House colluding together believed that if the Germans could be enticed into sinking a British ship with Americans on board, the resulting public outcry would be such that Wilson’s promise not to involve the US in any European war would be forgotten and thus America would be drawn ‘against her will’ into the war. Another classic Hegelian Dialectic, (problem, reaction, solution.)

So it transpired that Churchill and Woodrow Wilson in an operation totally financed by the banksters, arranged for a large, illegal shipment of weapons (it was against US law to place weapons or ammunition on a passenger ship travelling to Britain or Germany) on the Lusitania in May of 1915.

The Lusitania was a luxury ocean liner, owned by the British Cunard Steamship Line and officially part of the British auxiliary navy. She had been commandeered by the British Government for war use for which the ship’s owners were paid £218,000 a year. As an auxiliary naval ship, the Lusitania was under orders from the British Admiralty to ram any German ship seeking to inspect her cargo.

Contemporary newspaper report of the sinking

Three German spies attempted to confirm that the ‘ninety tons of unrefrigerated butter’ destined for a British naval base were weapons and ammunition, however they were discovered and detained on the ship to prevent word getting out, but the weapons were seen by ethnic German dock-workers as they were being loaded onto the Lusitania and they reported this to the German Embassy.

So in order to warn would-be American passengers about the weapons shipment being carried, thus making the Lusitania a legitimate target for its U-boats, the Imperial German Embassy attempted to place an advertisement in 50 US east coast newspapers. These ads were to be printed with a date of 22nd April 1915, but the US State Department managed to block them all — significantly, except one and this is the reason that we know that all this is a true representation of the events.

George Viereck, from the German embassy, protested to the US State Department on 26th April that the ads were being withheld from publication and he even met with Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan and produced copies of the Lusitania’s supplementary manifests. Bryan, previously unaware of the ‘plot’ and impressed by this evidence of the plan to ship illegal weapons on Lusitania, immediately sanctioned publication of the warning. However, someone superior to the Secretary of State, likely Colonel House and/or President Wilson, overruled Bryan.

Significantly, Captain Dow, the previous captain of the Lusitania, had resigned on 8th March 1915 because he was no longer willing ‘to carry the responsibility of mixing passengers with munitions or contraband.’ He had had a ‘close call’ just two days previously and was aware that the rules of naval warfare had changed in October 1914, when Churchill had issued orders that British merchant ships with munitions or contraband, must ram U-boats.

Prior to this change by Churchill, both England and Germany adhered to Cruiser Rules. The Cruiser Rules enabled crews and passengers to escape in lifeboats before being the ships were fired upon but with the advent of the new Churchill ram rules, German U-boats could no longer risk surfacing to issue a warning and therefore attacked while still submerged.

The single ad that slipped past the government censors appeared in the ‘Des Moines Register’ of 22nd April 1915 and is reproduced below . . .

RMS Lusitania was the most famous ship in the world at this time, the Cunard Line’s crown jewel. She was the ship of choice for any discerning traveller’s Atlantic crossing and had a capacity of about 2,200 passengers and 850 crew members. She could cruise at an average speed of around 25 knots with a top speed of 27 knots, slightly over 30 mph. Her first-class accommodations were the equal of those of the White Star line’s giant RMS Olympic, and all classes enjoyed a highly comfortable voyage across the Atlantic Ocean.

However, of course the rest of the story is ‘history,’ as they say. On 7th May 1915, just off the southern coast of Ireland RMS Lusitania was sunk by the U-20, a German submarine under the command of Captain Walter Schwieger, or was it?

The 1st May is a ‘special date’ in Illuminati circles, well-known as the day of Baal/Beltane, the devil’s day. This day also has significance as the day chosen to ‘celebrate’ Communist Russia’s revolution, by its founders, the same bankster cartels that funded American and British war efforts.

The following is from a 2004 article, from one of the most reliable former intelligence sources, Anthony Thomas Trevor-Stokes, known to all truth-seekers as simply ‘T Stokes,’ now sadly deceased . . .

“I first heard this story version many years ago from a senior Freemason in London at the Hackney retired Seamen’s Mission. This man’s father was present at Churchill’s initiation at age 26 and much other relevant info was given in exchange for a large bottle of Scotch whisky. My many years of research, says to me that this is true.

The Lusitania’s sinking created outrage, that a passenger ship would be sunk, and was a determining factor in bringing in the USA onto Britain’s side in WW1. Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were staged ‘theatre pieces,’ and so was the Lusitania sunk with the same bankster/Illuminati game plan.

The ship’s Captain, William Turner had shown himself to be fearless, rescuing a man and a boy from a sinking ship and other acts of heroism, he could also obey orders to the letter, but he was not a popular figure with Cunard Shipping, who felt that a ship’s captain should also have ‘people skills’ to entertain the passengers in route. Capt. Turner was the son of a sea captain, yet lacked these skills, and was uncomfortable and silent, and would avoid travelling company.

Poorly educated and leaving school aged 8, his family wanted him to enter the church because he was a superstitious man who bought a brand new bowler hat before each voyage, and was jokingly referred to as ‘Captain Bowler.’

The ship Lusitania was sunk off the Irish coast on 7th May 1915, the inquest damned the experienced pilot of the Lusitania, Captain William Turner, for not following the established defensive custom of avoiding the U-Boats that gathered in the shallow waters off the Irish coast, in fact he almost ran into them, despite knowing in advance where they lay.

The inquest also stated that although the Lusitania could outrun the subs, it was going at a much slower pace and not zig-zagging as Admiralty practice dictated in its orders, especially as the destroyer escort HMS Juno had been strangely instructed to abandon the Lusitania some while previously.

Winston Churchill was in charge at the Admiralty, the intelligence received by him and Lord Rothschild his mentor and financial benefactor, also had access to all the admiralty documentation and his war team pointed to the fact that the many German émigrés to America had been effective in keeping America out of the war.

The worry to Churchill was simply that the US would remain an isolationist or worse, although America could swing either way, it may yet support Germany. So a plot was hatched by Churchill a 33rd degree mason, in the naval Masonic lodge, and Admiralty HQ with the bosses of Cunard, and the War Dept. to sacrifice Capt. William Turner, the Lusitania, and 1,198 crew and passengers.

The passenger ship that was barred from carrying any armaments, would be loaded with both heavy and light armaments and ammunition, within sight of the many German dock workers. This plan to load weaponry was known to be reported back to the German embassy, which it was. The German reply was to place advertisements in the newspapers of the USA and repeat the warnings to both governments of the ships vulnerability and that any ships carrying weapons would be classed as warships, British and U.S forces officially dismissed this as scaremongering.

Churchill planned the sinking of several ships, among them the HMS Hampshire and the Lusitania, counting on American feelings being high, yet the US authorities were in on it, but like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 it suited their purposes to turn a blind eye.

So Captain William Turner was under orders to continue with the voyage, even though the destroyer escort was recalled, he was told to go slow, his path was plotted by the Admiralty to put the ship ‘in direct danger’ is the word used in Admiralty documents.

Naval apologists have suggested that the captain may not have known of the weapons on board, but the first mate not only knew, but was issued with a side arm, so if he knew, why not captain William Turner?

Certainly statements by a New York celebrity, Mrs. E. Jacobs say many in the Jewish community knew that it contained weapons and would be sunk. The single page cargo manifest was signed by Capt. Turner, but a supplementary cargo manifest 24 pages long was produced after sailing time, this caused a row with the harbourmaster. This 24 page cargo manifest was destroyed in the mass culling of incriminating war documents pulled together from various sources in the 1960s.

Much other incriminating documentation was shredded . . . on the orders of Tony Blair, be assured it contained a list of light to very heavy weaponry.

The ship went down in under 18 minutes from one German torpedo, one torpedo was seen as giving long enough for the passengers and crew to reach the lifeboats, yet we are told from the very few survivors that after impact, a huge explosion occurred on board, away from the point of impact.

It was always the intention of the Churchill/Rothschild/bankster alliance that the Lusitania would be a sacrifice to bring in the USA to join the British war effort against Germany.

Underwater explorer and investigator, the highly reputable Robert Ballard is alleged to have told a reporter with intelligence back-grounding, that the shipwreck he saw on the seabed, had a small torpedo entry hole, but significant and unconnected explosive damage which had sunk the ship. The inference from this and other info, being controlled explosions on board was designed to ensure the ship sunk . . .

Lord Rothschild, whose banks loaned the British the finances for all wars at colossal interest rates, was part of a syndicate with J.P Morgan who was threatening to buy up all the North Atlantic shipping lines including Britain’s White Star, so the Lusitania would have been rendered useless anyway.

In 1903 Cunard boss Lord Inverclyde took the threats seriously and lobbied the Balfour administration for a £2.6 million loan to build the Lusitania and the Mauritania. Rothschild lobbied against Germany for some considerable time previously, while Nathan Rothschild plotted the downfall of the Russian royal family and the revolution, confiscating the Romanov wealth and bank accounts, critics have said that Rothschild representatives planned the war to bring about their plans for profit and world government.

Rothschild would have followed the rule that ‘profit is all,’ the same Hebrew root word is behind the terms for both money and God — ‘shekels and Shekinah’ which explains the money worship.

Churchill and the Rothschild syndicate, planned to push the German authorities in every way into sinking the Lusitania. This tactic is known in intelligence circles slang as a ‘dangle’”

The U-20 fired a single torpedo and its warhead’s 300 pounds of explosives detonated upon contact with the Lusitania. Captain Turner reported that the first explosion sounded “like a heavy door being slammed shut,” and was followed by a much larger explosion that rocked the ship. Turner wrote in the ship’s log . . . “ . . . an unusually heavy detonation,” and the Lusitania sank within twenty minutes.

On 28th May 1915, Germany’s official response to the US government’s protest stated that the German government had no intention of attacking US vessels which were not guilty of hostile acts, but that the Lusitania . . .

“ . . . was one of the largest and fastest English commerce steamers, constructed with government funds as auxiliary cruisers and is expressly included in the navy list published by the British Admiralty. It is, moreover, known to the Imperial government from reliable information furnished by its officials and neutral passengers that for some time practically all the more valuable English merchant vessels have been provided with guns, ammunition and other weapons, and reinforced with a crew specially practiced in manning guns. According to reports at hand here, the Lusitania when she left New York undoubtedly had guns on board which were mounted under decks and masked.”

The official letter from the German government also spelled-out that the Lusitania had 5,400 cases of ammunition that would be used to kill German soldiers and another noteworthy section of the letter stated that British merchant marine ships received secret instructions from the British Admiralty in February 1915 to seek protection behind neutral flags and when so disguised, attack German submarines by ramming them.

The German official response that illegal weapons and explosives were on board, explains the second explosion. For decades, the British and American governments denied that there were weapons on the Lusitania and the wreck-site was even declared a ‘protected zone,’ denying access to divers. And also, in order to further frustrate the ability to determine what the Lusitania carried, since 1946 the British Royal Navy has repeatedly dropped depth charges on to the wreck in what was described as ‘target practice.’

In 1968, in a blatant attempt to keep the truth secret, the British Secret Service unsuccessfully attempted to buy the salvage rights to the Lusitania and in 1993 PBS Online visited the wreck and reported that previous visitors had tampered with the evidence. But whilst the British government continually worked aggressively to distort the truth, weapons were confirmed as being present in the wreckage in July 2006 when Victor Quirke of the Cork Sub Aqua Club found 15,000 rounds of WWI issue, .303 bullets in the bow section of the ship.

On 2nd April 2007, Cyber Diver News Network reported that the American owner of the Lusitania wreck-site, F. Gregg Bemis, Jr., won the case to conduct salvage operations almost a century after the sinking. Interestingly, the Arts and Heritage Ministry did not protest the use of the Lusitania in depth-charge target-practice operations but unsurprisingly did ‘help to respect the sanctity of the site,’ by totally opposing salvage operations.

Many authors have written in the intervening century since the incident that 1,201 people were sacrificed on the Lusitania to create a reason for the US to enter World War I, so this is by no means a new revelation. The reason you may never have heard of this slant on the incident before, is an obvious one really and that is that the powers-that-be wish as few people as possible to know the real truth so that they can maintain their ‘romantic’ myths about WWI and indeed WWII and their fairy tales of German brutality and aggression in both conflicts.

Historian Howard Zinn wrote in ‘A People’s History of the United States,’ that Lusitania carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of small-arms ammunition. Colin Simpson also claims that Churchill and others conspired to deliberately place the ship in harm’s way with the hope of sparking an incident that would bring America into World War I, by the manipulation of public opinion against Germany. Historian Patrick Beesely also supports Simpson’s assessment.

Christopher Hitchens’ book, ‘Blood, Class and Nostalgia,’ further proves the responsibility of First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill in a deliberate action to coerce America into World War I on the British side and history professor Ralph Raico, senior scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute notes that Churchill wrote the week prior to the Lusitania sinking that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”

So, in conclusion, the Lusitania incident played a vital role in turning American sentiment against Germany, but still it was not quite yet time for America to enter the war. The Zionist banksters were biding their time in order to achieve maximum leverage whilst simultaneously prolonging the conflict, before eventually ordering President Wilson to commit to war. For the time being, Wilson and his puppet-masters were content to merely verbally condemn the sinking, whilst still refraining from entering the conflict.

The British were of course, disappointed at the lack of immediate effect that the incident evoked. Politicians, journalists, and even the insane Teddy Roosevelt, all mocked Wilson as being timid and indecisive. So, in a blatant effort to keep US passions inflamed, the British fabricated a story about German school children being given a holiday to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania. This fantasy took its rightful place alongside other such anti-German propaganda as those that told of German soldiers nailing live babies to church doors in Belgium, issuing poison sweets (candy) to children and raping nuns. The British knew that they would eventually need US help if they were to gain the advantage over The Triple Alliance powers and the Zionists knew this too, but they were biding their time, setting-up the UK and the US for the right moment . . . and the right deal!

The sudden death of Lord Kitchener on 5th June 1916, caused as great an international stir at that time, as the sudden deaths of President Kennedy and Princess Diana would in later years, and just as everyone remembers where they were when the news was announced of their deaths, so it was with Kitchener’s demise.

At the outset of World War I, Horatio Herbert Kitchener was recalled home from Cairo, Egypt to become Minister of War. Being widely regarded as a hero of the British Empire, winner of battles in the Sudan, India and the Boer war, children would chant in the street, “Come home Kitchener of Khartoum,” and he was said to be more popular than the king himself.

Kitchener was on board the armoured cruiser, HMS Hampshire which incidentally was carrying gold meant for the use of ‘White’ Russians to resist Rothschild’s planned communist uprising. But after encountering a severe storm, the Hampshire’s escort ships were ordered by the Admiralty to return home, leaving the beleaguered ship to find its way through a minefield alone, on its journey to the port of Archangel, in Russia.

The Admiralty was certainly aware that there was a minefield in this location because, the Laurel Crown had been sunk there three days earlier by mines laid on the 29th May by U-Boat U-75. This fact was confirmed by intercepted radio traffic.

It was ascertained from witness statements, that the Hampshire with 655 men on board hit one mine, but ‘several more explosions’ then sank the ship. The lifeboats were said to have been ‘un-launch-able’ and apparently, instructions were given to the British home guard to shoot the twelve people who somehow survived and who made it ashore. The War Office later claimed that it was believed that the ship was German and wanted no prisoners. A likely story indeed.

So, was this a case of incompetence on a colossal scale or indeed something more sinister and if so, what could have been the reason for the cover-up?

Lord Kitchener was a cult figure, an icon of his time and in spite of his allegedly being a great student and exponent of battle strategy, he had recently refused the recommendations of his front-line advisors to deploy high explosive shells and instead ordered the use of shrapnel shells, which in the ‘intimacy’ of the trenches, killed as many of his own men as the enemy.

He had also advocated ‘bully-boy’ press-gang tactics, ensuring that a ‘blind-eye’ was turned to boys as young as 14 being recruited to the army whilst the legal age to fight in France was 19. He also instigated and widely encouraged the practice of women issuing ‘white feathers’ of cowardice to young lads, not much more than children outside schools and who had not yet joined the armed forces voluntarily. The War Office, under Kitchener’s command also shot young soldiers, some as young as 16, for cowardice whilst knowing fully that they were under-age. Although no accurate government figures are available for child soldiers, the Red Cross and other organisations stated that approximately 80,000 battle casualties were minors.

Kitchener was actually a predatory homosexual, whose appetite for these boys was unquenchable and cruel in the extreme and at the time there were many stories abounding of his ‘exploits,’ similar in nature to those now circulating regarding the paedophile priests of the Catholic Church of today.

It is also maybe a significant fact that Winston Churchill despised both Kitchener — and especially his popularity.

Many years later, a senior intelligence officer well-known to researcher and ‘truth-seeker,’ Anthony Thomas Trevor-Stokes (T Stokes,) confided to him on his death-bed . . .

“Myself and my C.O. went on board the Hampshire, I was told to keep watch outside while he went into Kitchener’s cabin, I put my ear to the door, and heard the C.O. say, ‘I am going to leave you my pistol with one bullet, I will wait outside and you will do the honourable thing.’ We heard a shot, the C.O. went in and retrieved the pistol, and we hurriedly left the ship”

He also claimed that the sinking of the Hampshire with the loss of 643 men was a British cover-up operation, as Kitchener had been directly approached by the Germans seeking peace discussions and his commitment to the war was wavering, whilst of course the establishment and their bankster backers and puppet-masters were still desperate for its continuance.

Indeed, in support of these seemingly ‘outrageous’ claims, recent dives to the shipwreck have proved that it is possible that the ‘several explosions’ were inside and not outside the ship, as the ripped metalwork protrudes outwards not inwards. As always, we will probably never know the absolute truth of the matter.

Meanwhile, back on the ‘Western Front,’ the Battle of Verdun raged-on for ten months, from the 21st February until the 18th December 1916, resulting in 306,000 battlefield deaths (163,000 French and 143,000 German) plus at least half a million wounded. This represents an average of 30,000 deaths for each of the ten months of the battle.

Verdun was the longest and most devastating battle in the Great War, even surpassing the Battle of the Somme for that dubious honour. By the end of the battle, the Germans had almost completely defeated the beleaguered French forces but nevertheless it transpired that in December 1916, Kaiser Wilhelm offered to negotiate a generous peace settlement with the Entente powers. But despite this offer, Britain and France deliberately made impossible demands upon Germany as a condition for even negotiating.

Due to the fact that is always the victors in any conflict who get to write the histories, most people are unaware of the fact that by December 1916, in the third year of the so-called ‘Great War,’ Germany was all-but victorious. Their U-Boats had swept all the British convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, leaving Britain without ammunition and food for both her soldiers, and her people whilst France was virtually bankrupt and its soldiers were mutinying on the Western Front. They had lost 600,000 of their young men in the defence of Verdun. Germany and Austria-Hungary were sweeping into Russia in the east, and Russia itself was nearing collapse. Turkey was holding its own in the Middle East and Italy was second-best in its battles against Austria Hungary.

It is also significant to note that not a single Entente soldier had set foot on German soil and yet Germany offered France and Britain generous peace terms. They offered a negotiated peace on what is legally referred-to as a ‘status quo ante’ basis which put simply, means . . . ‘Let the war end now and everything return to as it was previously.’

Diplomatic messages were sent by Germany to England petitioning for an end to the war, with peace terms proposing an end to hostilities and a restoration of pre-1914 boundaries everywhere on the European continent. This fact has always somehow been excluded from our so called ‘history’ books in order to maintain the banksters’ myths and perpetuate the denigration of the German nation.

However, Britain seriously considered Germany’s peace terms as they were faced with little other choice. It seemed to be a case of either accepting the negotiated peace that Germany offered or continuing with the war and being totally annihilated. But the Zionists, led by Chaim Weitzman, who later became the President of Israel, approached the British War Cabinet and said, “Do not capitulate to Germany. You can still win this war if the United States enters as your ally. We can arrange this, but in return, you must promise us Palestine as a Jewish homeland, once the tide turns in your favour.”

Chaim Weitzman was a Russian-born chemist who moved to England in 1904. By 1915, Weitzman had developed a chemical process of producing acetone from maize. Acetone was a vital ingredient in the production of artillery shells, of which Britain and her allies were in short supply at the beginning of World War I. But it was during this period that Weitzman, through the mediation of Walter Rothschild (who else?) met Sir Arthur Balfour, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and David Lloyd-George, Britain’s Minister of Munitions.

The Zionists had been biding their time waiting for just such an opportunity. As they were inextricably linked to the Zionist banksters in the US who totally controlled that nation’s foreign policy, they knew that a simple word from them would speedily drag the USA into the war.

Both Balfour and Lloyd-George were under the influence of the Rothschild bankster dynasty, of which the Zionist Jew, Walter Rothschild, was the head and it was definitely not detrimental to Weitzman’s goals when in 1916, Lloyd George became the British Prime Minister and Arthur Balfour the Foreign Secretary.

The Rothschilds and their Zionist minions had in fact financed both sides to the point that by mid-1916, almost all the European belligerents were approaching bankruptcy. It costs an absolute fortune to finance a war, and war is therefore extremely profitable to the banksters. So, introducing the United States into the war on the side of Great Britain and France, and with the bankster money and manpower (cannon-fodder) available to the Americans, Germany would be easily defeated and crushed . . . and importantly (for them) in return, the Zionists demanded a written guarantee that they would be given Palestine at the end of the war.

Although the official declaration of British support for a Jewish homeland was not made public until November 1917 (the Balfour Declaration), the agreement was in fact reached in December of 1916 and soon after that, the Zionist-agitated anti-German propaganda was unleashed in the US, while the Zionists and Marxists of Germany also begin to undermine Germany’s war effort from within.

On the 31st October 1917, General Allenby and 150,000 of his soldiers attacked and wiped out the Turkish garrison in the town of Beer Sheba, in the Negev desert in Palestine (what is now southern Israel.) It has been suggested that they were deliberately diverted from the trench-war in France/Belgium to prevent another very costly attack against the German machine-guns of the Western Front.

The British Government was informed by telegram the next day and on 2nd November 1917 the previously prepared Balfour Declaration was issued. It had already been submitted to and approved by President Woodrow Wilson, and France and Italy publicly endorsed it on the 14th February and 9th May 1918, respectively.

The Balfour Declaration

The name of ‘Rothschild’ is strongly linked to the pre-Zionist colonisation of Palestine, Baron Edmond Benjamin James de Rothschild having funded and actively managed Jewish settlements in Palestine since 1882. This is several years before Theodore Herzl is commonly said to have ‘invented’ Zionism in 1895 (although the word itself apparently dates from 1891.) However, Edmond Rothschild was French and his interests were not shared by the English Rothschilds, such as 2nd Baron, Walter Rothschild, recipient of the Balfour letter. Edmond’s Palestine enterprises were based upon Arab labour with Jewish management, quite different from the intention and policies of the Zionists, who sought to replace Arabs with their own countrymen wherever possible, violently if necessary. The rest of the French Rothschild family seems to have had even less interest in Palestine, Edmond’s brothers being openly opposed to his involvement in the ‘colonies.’

Furthermore, despite the Balfour Declaration being addressed to the 2nd Baron Rothschild (Walter, ennobled 1915) there seems to be no evidence that he was personally interested in either Zionism or Palestine.

It is a fact that most (probably all) prominent British Jews were strongly opposed to Zionism from 1895 to 1917. As the Boston Globe put it in 2006, “When Weizmann secured his goal in 1917, some of the eminences of British Jewry were horrified. David Alexander and Claude Montefiore, presidents respectively of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and of the Anglo-Jewish Association, thought the Balfour Declaration a veritable calamity for the whole Jewish people which must have the effect throughout the world of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands, and of undermining their hard-won position as citizens and nationals of those lands.”

Similarly, the one Jew in the British Government in 1917, Edwin Montague, was most hostile to the idea of a Jewish homeland. One of his three memos on the subject was entitled ‘Memorandum on the Anti-Semitism of the British Government’ and was submitted to the Cabinet on 23rd August 1917. The memo stated . . .

“At the very time when these Jews [referring to Jews in Russia] have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognised by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorised to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the ‘national home of the Jewish people.’ I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews, and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine.”

In February 1917, as the Russian economy rapidly deteriorated due to escalating war costs, and the war became ‘unpopular,’ the ‘February Revolution’ began in Russia. A combination of Communists, progressive Socialists and disaffected soldiers further destabilised the already weakened reign of Czar Nicholas II. The Czar was forced to abdicate and placed under house arrest pending exile. A ‘centre-left’ coalition government consisting mainly of Socialists and Communists was established and a power-struggle between the moderate socialist faction and the hard-core Communist (Soviet-Bolshevik) faction ensued.

During the 90 days following the Zionist-British covert ‘deal’ to appropriate Palestine, the Zionists fulfilled their side of the bargain. An intense propaganda campaign was unleashed in the US, the Lusitania incident of two years previously was resurrected along with all the hyperbole surrounding German U-boat warfare.

Then, on 2nd April 1917 the bankster / Zionist puppet, ‘pacifist’ President Woodrow Wilson (who remember, was still being blackmailed over the extra-marital affair he had when he was a Princeton professor,) asked the US Congress for a mandate for a declaration of war and the complicit Congress duly declared war on Germany four days later on the 6th April 1917. Regular armed-forces of the small US military soon began arriving in Europe, but it was not until several months later that the full, mighty force of drafted American manpower was deployed.

According to Under-Secretary of the Navy at the time, Franklin D. Roosevelt, America’s heavy industry had been preparing for war for over a year. Both the Army and Navy Departments had been purchasing war supplies in large amounts since early in 1916.

During 1915 and 1916, Wilson had kept faith with the banksters who had installed him in the White House, by continuing to make illegal loans to the Allies. His Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, protested constantly, famously and pointedly stating that “Money is the worst of all contraband.” In fact, by 1917 the Morgans and the Kuhn, Loeb Company had floated $1.5bn in loans to the Allies. The banksters had also financed a plethora of Orwellian-named ‘peace’ organisations which worked tirelessly to promote the entry of the US into the war. The Commission for Relief in Belgium routinely and regularly manufactured German atrocity stories whilst a Carnegie organisation, The League to Enforce Peace, also agitated in Washington for entry into war. This later became the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which during the 1940s was headed by Alger Hiss. One writer at the time stated that he had never seen any so-called ‘peace movement’ which did not promote war. How true.

The US Ambassador to Britain, Walter Hines Page, complained that he could not afford to take-up the position, and so was given twenty-five thousand dollars a year ‘spending money’ by Cleveland H. Dodge, president of the National City Bank. H.L. Mencken openly accused Page in 1916 of being a British agent, which was unfair, really. Page was actually a banksters’ agent.

Cordell Hull remarked in his ‘Memoirs’ . . .

“The conflict [World War I] forced the further development of the income-tax principle. Aiming as it did, at the one great untaxed source of revenue, the income-tax law had been enacted in the nick of time to meet the demands of the war. And the conflict also assisted the putting into effect of the Federal Reserve System, likewise in the nick of time.”

In Wilson’s ‘war message’ in 1917, he included a despicable tribute to the Russian Communists who were eagerly slaughtering the middle-classes and Christians in that unfortunate country . . . “ . . . Assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening in the last few weeks in Russia. Here is a fit partner for a League of Honor.”

Wilson’s tribute to a bloodthirsty regime which murdered around one-hundred million of its inhabitants in the most barbarous manner, reveals his true sympathies and his true backers, the Zionist banksters who had financed the blood-purge in Russia. At one stage, when the Communist Revolution appeared to be faltering, Wilson sent his personal emissary, Elihu Root, to Russia with $100 million from his ‘Special Emergency War Fund’ to save the struggling Bolshevik regime.

Nothing could more forcefully illustrate the duplicity of Woodrow Wilson’s nature than his nationwide campaign on the slogan, ‘He kept us out of war,’ when he had pledged ten months earlier to involve the US in the war on the side of England and France. This explains why he was regarded with such contempt by those who learned the true facts of his career. H.L. Mencken wrote that Wilson was ‘the perfect model of the Christian cad,’ and that we ought ‘to dig up his bones and make dice of them.’

After the US entry into World War I, Woodrow Wilson turned the government of the United States over to a trio of his campaign financial backers, the banksters, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch and Eugene Meyer. Baruch was appointed head of the War Industries Board, with life and death powers over every factory in the United States whilst Eugene Meyer was appointed head of the War Finance Corporation, in charge of the loan programme which financed the war. At this time, Paul Warburg was in total control of the nation’s banking system.

Knowing that the overwhelming sentiment of the American people during 1915 and 1916 had been anti-British and pro-German, the British viewed the prominence of Paul Warburg and Kuhn, Loeb Company in the prosecution of the war, with more than a little trepidation. They were uneasy about Warburg’s prominent position in the Administration because his brother, Max Warburg, was at that time serving as head of the German Secret Service. A conflict of interest? Certainly not for the banksters.

On the 12th December 1918, the United States Naval Secret Service report on Warburg read as follows . . .

“WARBURG, PAUL: New York City. German, naturalized citizen, 1911. Was decorated by the Kaiser in 1912, was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Handled large sums furnished by Germany for Lenin and Trotsky. Has a brother who is leader of the espionage system of Germany.”

Strangely enough, this report, which was probably compiled much earlier, while the war with Germany still raged, is not dated until 12th December 1918, significantly after the signing of the Armistice. It does not refer to the fact that Paul Warburg resigned from the Federal Reserve Board in May, 1918, which strongly suggests that it was compiled before May, 1918, when Paul Warburg would theoretically have been open to a charge of treason because of his brother’s control of Germany’s Secret Service. But of course that would never have happened because it would not have been in the best interests of the banksters at all.

The 1920 obituary of Jacob Schiff revealed for the first time that Schiff, like the Warburgs, also had two brothers in Germany during World War I, Philip and Ludwig, of Frankfurt-on-Main, who also were active as bankers to the German Government. This was not a situation to be taken lightly, as on neither side of the Atlantic were the said bankers obscure individuals who had no influence in the conduct of the war. On the contrary, the Kuhn, Loeb partners held extremely prominent governmental posts in the United States during World War I, whilst in Germany, Max and Fritz Warburg and Philip and Ludwig Schiff, also moved in the highest circles of government.

According to The New York Times, Paul Warburg’s letter of resignation stated that some objection had been made because he had a brother in the ‘Swiss Secret Service.’ The New York Times has never corrected this blatant falsehood, perhaps because Kuhn, Loeb Company owned a controlling interest in its stock. Max Warburg was certainly not ‘Swiss,’ and although he had probably come into contact with the Swiss Secret Service during his term of office as head of the German Secret Service, no responsible editor at The New York Times could have been unaware of the fact that Max Warburg was definitely as German as the Kaiser, that his family’s banking house was in Hamburg, Germany and that he held a number of influential positions in the German Government.

Indeed he represented German interests (allegedly) at the Versailles Peace Conference and remained in Germany until 1939, during a period when persons of his religion were being discriminated against. In order to avoid any personal misfortune during the approaching war, Max Warburg was allowed to sail to New York in 1939, with no confiscation of his immense personal fortune.

It would seem strange (all other things being equal) to reflect that Woodrow Wilson decided to place the fate of the entire USA into the hands of three men whose personal history was one of ruthless speculation and the quest for personal gain, (Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch and Eugene Meyer) or that during war with Germany, he placed supreme trust in a German immigrant naturalised in 1911, the son of an immigrant from Poland, and the son of an immigrant from France.

Bernard Baruch first came to prominence on Wall Street in 1890 whilst employed by A.A. Housman and Co. In 1896 he merged the six principal tobacco companies of the United States into the Consolidated Tobacco Company, thereby forcing James Duke and the American Tobacco Trust to enter into this combination. The second great trust set up by Baruch brought the copper industry into the hands of the Guggenheim family, who significantly have controlled it ever since. Baruch also worked with Edward H. Harriman, who was Schiff’s ‘front man’ in the control of America’s railway system for the Rothschild bankster family. Baruch and Harriman also combined their ‘talents’ to gain control over the New York City transit system.

In 1901, Baruch formed the firm of Baruch Brothers, with his brother Herman, in New York and then in 1917, when Baruch was appointed Chairman of the War Industries Board, the name was changed to Hentz Brothers.

Testifying before the Nye Committee on 13th September 1937, Baruch stated that, “All wars are economic in their origin.” So ‘straight from the horse’s mouth,’ that belies the usual claim that wars are caused by religious and political disagreements.

A ‘profile’ of Baruch in the New Yorker magazine reported that he made a profit of $750,000 in one day during World War I, after a fake ‘peace rumour’ was planted in Washington. In Who’s Who, Baruch mentioned that he was a member of the Commission which handled all purchasing for the Allies during World War I but in fact, Baruch WAS the Commission. He spent the American taxpayer’s money at the rate of $10 billion dollars a year and was also the dominant member of the Munitions Price-Fixing Committee. He set the prices at which the Government bought war materials and given the track record of these people it would be gross naivety to presume that the orders did not go to firms in which he and his associates had more than just a passing interest.

Some members of Congress were curious about Baruch’s qualifications to exercise life and death powers over almost all American industry in time of war. He was not a manufacturer and had never even set foot in a factory. When called before a Congressional Committee, he glibly stated that his profession was ‘speculator.’ Thus, a self-confessed ‘Wall Street gambler’ had been made the ‘overlord’ of American war-time industry.

Baruch’s erstwhile partner, Eugene Meyer (Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Co.,) later claimed that Baruch was a ‘nitwit,’ and that Meyer, with his family bankster connections (Lazard Freres,) had guided Baruch’s investment career. These claims appeared in the fiftieth anniversary edition of The Washington Post, editorial page, 4th June 1983, with a parting shot from Meyer’s editor, Al Friendly . . . “Every journalist in Washington, Meyer included, knew that Bernard M. Baruch was a self-aggrandizing phony.” In his position as head of the War Industries Board, it is believed that Bernard Baruch made a personal profit of some $200 million from the mayhem, death and destruction of WWI. He would go on to ‘advise’ US Presidents for a further fifty years.

Eugene Meyer (1875-1959,) was son of the partner in the international banking house of Lazard Freres, of Paris and New York. In ‘My Own Story,’ Baruch explains how Meyer became head of the War Finance Corporation . . . “At the outset of World War One, I sought out Eugene Meyer, Jr . . . who was a man of the highest integrity with a keen desire to be of public service.”

Eugene Meyer’s stewardship of the War Finance Corporation comprised one of the most amazing financial operations ever partially recorded. I say ‘partially recorded,’ because subsequent Congressional investigations revealed that each night, the accountancy books were being altered before being subject to the next day’s investigations. Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, figured prominently in two investigations of Meyer, in 1925 and again in 1930, when Meyer was proposed as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. The Select Committee to Investigate the Destruction of Government Bonds, submitted, on 2nd March 1925 . . .

“Preparation and Destruction of Government Bonds — 68th Congress, 2nd Session, Report No. 1635: p.2. Duplicate bonds amounting to 2314 pairs and duplicate coupons amounting to 4698 pairs ranging in denominations from $50 to $10,000 have been redeemed to July 1, 1924. Some of these duplications have resulted from error and some from fraud.”

These investigations may explain why, at the end of World War One, Eugene Meyer was able to buy control of Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation and later, the nation’s most influential newspaper, The Washington Post. The duplication of bonds, ‘one for the government, one for me’ in denominations to the amount of $10,000 each, resulted in misappropriation of a vast sum of money.

It was Eugene Meyer’s Washington Post, under the direction of his daughter, Katherine Graham, which was later to play a crucial part in driving Richard Nixon, from the White House, on the grounds of . . . well, the ‘real story’ will be related in a later chapter.

The Liberty Loans scheme, which sold war bonds to US citizens, were nominally in the jurisdiction of the United States Treasury, under the leadership of Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury, William G. McAdoo, whom Kuhn, Loeb Co. had placed in charge of the Hudson-Manhattan Railway Co. in 1902. Paul Warburg had most of the senior management of the Kuhn Loeb Co. firm by his side in Washington during the war.

Jerome Hanauer, partner in Kuhn, Loeb Co., was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in charge of Liberty Loans. The two under-secretaries of the Treasury during the War were S. Parker Gilbert and Roscoe C. Leffingwell. Both Gilbert and Leffingwell came to the Treasury from the law firm of Cravath and Henderson, and returned to that firm when they had fulfilled their mission for Kuhn, Loeb Co. in the Treasury. Cravath and Henderson were the lawyers for Kuhn Loeb Co. Gilbert and Leffingwell subsequently received partnerships in J.P. Morgan Co.

Kuhn, Loeb Company, the nation’s largest owners of railroad properties in The US and also Mexico, protected their interests during the World War One by enticing Woodrow Wilson to create the United States Railroad Administration. The Director-General was William McAdoo, Comptroller of the Currency and Warburg replaced this set-up in 1918 with a tighter organisation which he named the Federal Transportation Council. The purpose of both of these organisations was to prevent strikes against Kuhn, Loeb Company during the war, in case the railroad workers should try to obtain in wages, some of the millions of dollars in wartime profits which Kuhn, Loeb received from the United States Government.

Among the important bankers present in Washington during the War was Herbert Lehman (1878-1963), of the rapidly rising firm of Lehman Brothers, banksters of New York. Lehman was promptly placed on the General Staff of the Army, and awarded the rank of Colonel. The Lehmans had had prior experience in ‘taking the profits out of war,’ a double entendre and one of Baruch’s favourite phrases. In his book, ‘Men Who Rule America,’ Arthur D. Howden-Smith wrote of the Lehmans, during the American Civil War . . .

“They were often agents, fixers for both sides, intermediaries for confidential communications and handlers of the many illicit transactions in cotton and drugs for the Confederacy, purveyors of information for the North. The Lehmans, with Mayer in Montgomery, the first capital of the Confederacy, Henry in New Orleans and Emanuel in New York were ideally situated to take advantage of every opportunity for profit which appeared. They seem to have missed few chances.”

Other appointments during the First World War were as follows . . . J.W. McIntosh, director of the Armor meat-packing trust, who was made Chief of Subsistence for the United States Army in 1918. He later became Comptroller of the Currency during Calvin Coolidge’s Administration and ex-officio member of the Federal Reserve Board. During the Harding Administration, he was director of finance for the United States Shipping Board when the Board sold ships to the Dollar Lines for a hundredth of their cost and then allowed the Dollar Line to default on its payments. After leaving public service, J.W. McIntosh became a partner in J.W. Wollman Co., New York Stockbrokers.

Henry P. Davison, senior partner in J.P. Morgan Co., was appointed head of the American Red Cross in 1917 in order to wrest control of the $370 million cash which was collected from the American people in donations. A practice which incidentally, is still ongoing today.

The Intelligence Services

It is an undisputable fact that the world’s ‘intelligence’ services were created to serve the ‘Crown,’ aka the banksters and not the nation to which they purportedly belong. Their loyalty therefore is to their bankster masters and their compadres and not their countries.

For example, Sir William Wiseman, Jewish / Zionist chief of the British Secret Service in the USA during WWI, was a partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. He worked most closely with Woodrow Wilson’s afore-mentioned alter-ego, Colonel Edward Mandel House and was also friendly with Max Warburg, the Jewish head of German intelligence. How bizarre.

Britain’s espionage service originated during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I — and it was legendary. Their ciphers were so sophisticated and difficult to ‘crack’ that the Spanish accused the British of using witchcraft to compose them. Credit for creating the first English secret service usually goes to Elizabeth I’s spy master, Sir Francis Walsingham who faced a predicament shared by many of his successors, the need to combat both external and internal threats and the collaboration of the two factions. In the case of the Protestant, Walsingham and his Protestant Queen, the unifying characteristic of their enemies was Catholicism. Walsingham battled this ‘menace’ by recruiting agents at home and abroad and waging an aggressive campaign of counter-subversion.

His most successful weapon was the agent-provocateur who was tasked with penetrating and compromising hostile conspiracies and known anti-Elizabethan factions. He also followed the maxim that England’s enemy’s enemy was her friend, or at very least an exploitable tool. In addition to Protestant sympathisers and dissident Catholics, he is also known to have enlisted the help of witches, sorcerers and atheists in England’s cause.

The Vatican also has a sophisticated spy-network known as the ‘Confessional’ and dating-back over a thousand years. With the loss of the Papal States in 1870, the Vatican no longer had secure communications, even though the ‘Confessional’ was still the most sophisticated spying service in the world.

The British monarchs still bore the pompous title of Defender of the Faith and the time to earn that title by full co-operation with the Vatican espionage system was ripe by the early twentieth century. This necessitated a merger with the Vatican’s service and the newly created British spy agency, MI-6. The infamous departments of both MI-5 and MI-6 came ‘out of the closet’ in 1908, MI-5 being formed to concentrate on domestic spying while MI-6 was international in its scope.

About that time, a series of novels began to appear, written by a man named William Le Queux, one of which was ‘The Invasion of 1910,’ written in 1906, warning the British nation about the alleged threat of a German invasion. In Britain’s past history, it had always been the Spanish or French who were plotting to invade and indeed, in 1588, England had been saved from invasion because the mighty Spanish Armada was defeated by a combination of the much smaller English navy and the unseasonal, inclement weather in the English Channel that late summer. But a very short time later and up to the advent of WWI, Great Britain had the most powerful navy in the world and the popular saying decreed that ‘Britannia rules the waves.’

William Le Queux pronounced ‘Q’ was a Jesuit and bestselling propaganda writer, the forerunner of the James Bond author Ian Fleming in many ways. His overt ‘in your face’ style of propaganda sparked an anti-German mood and contributed to the formation of MI-5 and MI-6. The famous novel ‘The Thirty Nine Steps’ by John Buchan first published in 1915 also takes a similar stance, continuing on from the example of ‘The Invasion of 1910.’

“In reality, it was Germany that was totally infiltrated by the British MI-6 and they helped the Kaiser with the invasion of Belgium and France in August 1914. The Germans did not constitute anything like a major threat and the spy scare that swept Britain in the early 1900s was in fact out of all proportion to the reality. It was stoked, even orchestrated, by the author William Le Queux, who produced a series of best-selling books—with titles like ‘Spies of the Kaiser: Plotting the Downfall of England’ and ‘The Invasion of 1910’—that deliberately set out to blur the lines between fact and fiction.

Le Queux protested vigorously to anyone who would listen, and many influential people did, that the authorities were negligently ignoring the German threat. Lord Northcliffe, proprietor of the Daily Mail, serialised The Invasion of 1910 in his newspaper, carefully rerouting the hypothetical marauding Hun troops through towns and villages where the circulation was at its highest.” Smith, ‘MI-6. The Real James Bonds,’ p. 1.)

Le Queux compared the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to the forthcoming invasion of England in 1910 and what MI-6 really had in mind was a repeat of that war, with a united Germany invading France, restoring the monarchy, and as a bonus restoring the Papal States. However, the rapid Prussian victory of the Franco-Prussian war was not repeated, as World War I became a stalemate of bloody trench warfare.

With the stalemate and thousands dying daily, MI-6 pulled off another diabolical plot in an attempt to get the United States embroiled in the war. It had been a telegram that had led to the start of the Franco Prussian war, so why not use a telegram to get the US involved in WWI too? That was the reasoning of MI-6, as their agent in Germany sent a telegram to the German ambassador in Mexico, promising German help to recover the territories that Mexico had lost in the Mexican-American War.

Sir William Wiseman (who else?) was the MI-6 agent charged with getting the US involved in WWI and his counterpart in Germany was Arthur Zimmermann. Zimmermann was the author of the infamous Zimmermann telegram which contributed significantly to President Wilson’s declaration of war on Germany.

At the very beginning of the war, the English cable ship Telconia destroyed five of the undersea Atlantic cables connecting Germany with the Americas after which only one cable remained open to Germany. Owned by the US, it ran from West Africa to Brazil. Apart from the West Africa-Brazil cable, all German communications to the States had to be made via unsecure radio.

Zimmermann’s telegram said . . .

“We intend to begin on the first of February, unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavour in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President’s attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace. Zimmermann.”

The telegram was deliberately leaked to the press by Wilson on 1st March 1917 and it created a sensation. Many people however were highly sceptical and suspected British treachery. But then, to the utter amazement of all, Zimmermann admitted that he had sent the telegram . . .

“If, on top of these denials, Zimmermann challenged the United States to prove the authenticity of the telegram, the American government, restricted by its pledge of secrecy to Great Britain, would be unable to do it. The Cabinet could only agree to assert emphatically that they possessed conclusive evidence, and unhappily disperse.

Unbelievably, next morning, to the ‘profound amazement and relief,’ in Lansing’s words, of everyone concerned, Zimmermann inexplicably admitted his authorship. It was a second blunder, wrote Lansing, almost bemused with relief, of a most astounding kind.

He thought it showed Zimmermann to be not at all astute and resourceful, for in admitting the truth he not only settled the question in American minds but threw away an opportunity to find out how we had obtained the message. What led Zimmermann, who, despite Lansing, was both astute and resourceful, to commit this historic boner, is not known. That he was too stunned to think clearly is unlikely, for the Germans had had two days to consider their answer and Germans do not issue official statements off the cuff. Probably he reasoned that since the Americans had somehow acquired a true version of the message they were likely also to have acquired some documentary proof of its authorship; therefore denial could only make him look foolish. This was logical but as not infrequent with logic, wrong. Tuckman, The Zimmermann Telegram, p. 183.

As illogical as Zimmermann’s admission may seem, it all makes perfect sense when we understand that it was the two country’s respective intelligence communities colluding together and Zimmerman was just one of hundreds of MI-6 agents working in Germany, albeit a very senior one.

President Woodrow Wilson’s real name was ‘Wolfson’ and his father was a Khazarian Jew from Germany and thanks to the ‘miracle’ of the Zimmermann telegram, Wilson was now free, backed by the majority of public opinion to declare war on Germany on the 2nd April 1917. With the unlimited resources of the United States, the British were able to withdraw soldiers from the Western Front, and deploy them to Palestine to fight the Turks.

T. E. Lawrence, better known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia,’ was just one of the many MI-6 agents in the Middle East. He worked closely with Harry St. John Bridger Philby (father of future Soviet spy Kim Philby) to expel the Turks and create a Khazarian ‘Jewish’ state in the region. Out of the ruins of the defeated Turkish Empire and Saudi Arabia, the state of ‘Israel’ was to be created. However, I will return to ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ later.

The J. Henry Schroder Banking Company is listed as one of the seventeen merchant bankers who make up the exclusive Accepting Houses Committee in London. Although it is virtually unknown in the United States, it has played a large part in its history. And as did the others on this list, it firstly had to be approved by the Bank of England. At the turn of the nineteenth century, in 1900, Baron Bruno von Schroder established the London branch of the firm and was soon joined by Frank Cyril Tiarks, in 1902. Tiarks married Emma Franziska of Hamburg, and was a director of the Bank of England from 1912 to 1945.

During World War I, the J. Henry Schroder Banking Company played an important role behind the scenes. No mainstream historian has ever offered anything approaching a reasonable explanation as to how World War I started, other than to parrot the usual ‘assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated at Sarajevo by Gavril Princip,’ scenario. This is usually followed by, ‘Austria then demanded an apology from Serbia and Serbia sent a note of apology but despite this, Austria declared war anyway and soon the other nations of Europe joined the fray as treaties were invoked.’

In fact, once the war had started, it was quite difficult to keep it going — rather like trying to start a fire with damp wood, such was the weakness of the premise upon which it had been artificially provoked. The principal problem was that Germany was desperately short of food and coal and without Germany, the war could not go on. John Hamill in ‘The Strange Career of Mr. Hoover,’ explains how the problem was solved. He quoted from ‘Nordeutsche Allegmeine Zeitung,’ 4th March 1915 . . .

“Justice, however, demands that publicity should be given to the pre-eminent part taken by the German authorities in Belgium in the solution of this problem. The initiative came from them and it was only due to their continuous relations with the American Relief Committee that the provisioning question was solved.” Hamill points out “That is what the Belgian Relief Committee was organized for — to keep Germany in food.”

The Belgian Relief Commission was organised by Emile Francqui (1863-1935,) director of a large Belgian bank, Societe Generale, and a London mining promoter, an American named Herbert Hoover, who had been associated with Francqui in a number of scandals which had become celebrated court cases, notably the Kaiping Coal Company scandal in China, said to have sparked the infamous Boxer Rebellion of 1900, whose goal was the expulsion of all foreign businessmen from China.

Hoover had been barred from dealing on the London Stock Exchange because of one judgement against him and his associate, Stanley Rowe had been sent to prison for ten years. With this background, Hoover was obviously regarded as an ideal choice for a career in humanitarian work.

Hoover had also carried out a number of mining promotions in various parts of the world as a secret agent for the Rothschild bankster dynasty and had been rewarded with a directorship in one of the principal Rothschild enterprises, the Rio Tinto mines in Spain and Bolivia. Francqui and Hoover threw themselves into the seemingly impossible task of provisioning Germany during the First World War.

Their success was noted in the ‘Nordeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung,’ of 13th March 1915, which noted that large quantities of food were now arriving from Belgium by rail. Schmoller’s Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and Political Economy for 1916, shows that one billion pounds of meat, one and a half billion pounds of potatoes, one and a half billion pounds of bread, and one hundred and twenty-one millions pounds of butter had been shipped from Belgium to Germany in that year alone. A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to the Nursing Mirror in London in April 1915, complaining that the . . . “Belgian Relief supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army.”

The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but the British Intelligence Service in London was appalled by Miss Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy. Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of Kuhn Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of the war was under threat and secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be executed. The Germans reluctantly, duly arrested her and charged her with aiding prisoners of war to escape. The usual penalty for this offence was three months imprisonment, but the German authorities meekly bowed to Sir William Wiseman’s demands and executed Edith Cavell by firing squad, thereby creating one of WWI’s principal martyrs.

Of course the British propaganda machine now had enough material to boost anti-German sentiment even further, for many months to come.

With Edith Cavell no longer a threat to their ‘little game,’ the ‘Belgian Relief’ operation continued unabated, although in 1916, German emissaries again approached London officials with the information that they did not believe Germany could continue military operations, not only because of food shortages, but because of financial problems. More ‘emergency relief’ was therefore sent, enabling Germany to continue in the war until November, 1918, by which time the war had finally lost its impetus and came to an abrupt end.

This is all meticulously documented in a book entitled, ‘The Triumph of Unarmed Forces 1914-1918’ (1923) by Rear Admiral M.W.W.P. Consett, who was the British Naval Attaché in Sweden. His job was to keep track of the movement of supplies, in other words the aforesaid ‘unarmed forces’ necessary for the continuation of the conflict. For example, Scandinavia was completely dependent on British coal. This had the effect of ensuring that the Swedish iron ore that was manufactured into the U-Boats that sank Allied shipping, reached Germany on vessels powered by British coal.

Germany desperately needed glycerine for the manufacture of explosives but England had no trouble securing this substance because it controlled the seas. However, after the war began, the demand for these products from neutral countries ‘exploded’ and the British continued to fill these orders. Of course, the same applied to copper, zinc, nickel, tin, and many other essential products. Consett believed that if they had been embargoed, the war would have been over by 1915.

The trade of tea, coffee and cocoa to neutral countries also increased dramatically but these products were often unavailable there. Instead, they were all redirected to Germany, making huge profits in the process. Consett’s protestations of course, were unheeded. The Minister of Blockades was Robert Cecil, a member of the Round Table, in other words another puppet of the banksters.

Similarly, the banksters financed the German side through their Scandinavian banks to the tune of £45 million sterling thereby making both sides of the conflict their ‘debt slaves.’

“Despite the huge revenues raised from taxation, the British national debt rose tenfold. The government failed to use its bargaining power as the only really massive borrower in wartime to get money at low rates of interest and the French national debt rose from 28 billion to 151 billion francs.” Davies, ‘The History of Money’

World War I profits

“World War I was waged by 27 nations; it mobilised 66,103,164 men of whom 37,494,186 became casualties (around 7 million dead.) Its direct costs were estimated at $208,000,000,000, its indirect costs at $151,000,000,000. And these figures do not include the additional billions in interest payments, veterans’ care and pensions, and similar expenses . . . ” ‘The Merchants of Death’

As a result of WWI, the banksters reconfigured Europe in preparation for the next predicted world war and in the process and exactly as planned, the ‘old order’ was destroyed. Four empires (the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman) lay in ruins and as an added bonus, the banksters had set-up their Bolshevik friends in Russia as a way of acquiring even more ‘property’ and territory And not least of all, they had ensured that Palestine would eventually, if not immediately become a ‘Jewish’ state under their control which as ‘Israel’ would be a perennial source of new conflict in the Middle East.

Modern history is in reality the account of how the banksters convert credit monopoly into a monopoly of power. This entails destroying our connection with nation, religion, race and family. It means substituting objective truth (God, nature) with their own dictats of political correctness, modernism, diversity, globalisation, feminism and the homo-sexualisation of society.

In 1918 when the deceptively named ‘war to end all wars,’ a war between the richest and most powerful nations on earth ended, it was the greatest, bloodiest, most expensive, most disruptive, most damaging and most traumatising war the world had ever seen. It left millions dead, maimed, shell-shocked, dispossessed, impoverished, starving and bitter. It deprived families of their bread-winners, wives of husbands and children of their fathers on a scale never before witnessed. Victory brought a sense of relief rather than elation or sorrow and in the aftermath, the world’s great powers, aka the banksters, were already gearing-themselves for episode two. This was indeed a war that had crushed people’s hopes, destroyed countless lives, brought down empires and at its conclusion sowed the seeds of further conflict and suffering. The extent to which it achieved all these things, made the First World War a war the likes of which the world had never seen before.

Once known as ‘The Great War,’ or as ‘The War to End All Wars’ or even ‘The World War’ until its sequel got underway, even the final resolution of the war was soon to be dubbed ‘the peace to end all peaces.’

The Treaty of Versailles

Apart from a brief, final rally in the autumn of 1918, the German forces were well beaten, surrendered unconditionally and the Armistice was duly signed which ended the war on the 11th November 1918 at 11.00 am, thus bringing to an end four years of horrific, unspeakable bloodshed. Now all that remained was the Treaty of Versailles, which the Germans genuinely believed would be a fair and just settlement of post-war reparations for a nation that had been absolutely shattered beyond the point of recognition, by the privations and horrors of the war. In this they were to be bitterly disappointed. In fact the terms of the treaty were so inordinately destructive to the German nation that it not only lost much of its territory but it did not actually make the final reparations payment until 2009! This in fact led directly to the economic conditions that set the scene for the rise of Hitler and ultimately to World War II. All as pre-planned, by our anti-heroes, the banksters, of course.

The treaty that officially ended WWI was the ‘Treaty of Versailles’ in 1919. This is the reason why the dates of this war are sometimes recorded as 1914-19. Although it has to be said that it has now been recently surreptitiously announced that WWI has now ‘officially’ ended due to Germany’s final reparation payment having been made, 90 years after the event.

Several interesting personalities attended these meetings. In the British delegation was the British economist John Maynard Keynes and representing the American bankster interests was Paul Warburg, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother Max, the head of the German bankster firm of M.M. Warburg and Company, of Hamburg, Germany and who was not only in charge of Germany’s finances but as a leader of the German espionage network, was there as a representative of the German government. Do we need any more proof of collusion between the two sides to achieve maximum impact on the welfare of ordinary Germans?

The Treaty was purportedly written to end the war, but another delegate to the conference, Lord Curzon of England, the British Foreign Secretary, saw through what the actual intent was and said . . . “This is no peace; this is only a truce for twenty years.” Lord Curzon felt that the terms of the Treaty were setting the stage for a second world war and what is even more interesting, he had even correctly predicted the year it would start as 1939.

One of the major tenets of the Treaty, specified swingeing war reparations to be paid to the victorious nations by the German government. It was this factor alone that precipitated three events. The ‘hyperinflation’ of the German Mark between 1920 and 1923, causing untold suffering to the ordinary German people which also led to the virtual destruction of the middle classes and last but by no means least, facilitated the rise to power of someone who would rightly or wrongly be seen as a saviour, a messiah to the German people, Adolf Hitler.

Thus were deliberately sown the seeds of World War II, setting in motion an unstoppable chain of events that would eventually, finally lead to the establishment of the Jewish homeland and to all the complex, inter-related actions that have shaped the world of the early twenty-first century, in which we all live today.

The extent of the war reparations were decided upon by another banksters’ stooge John Foster Dulles, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations, and later the Secretary of State to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Even Keynes himself, not known for his liberal views, was so disturbed by the extent to which the Treaty had been slanted towards the impossibility of fulfilling the terms and therefore presaging the destruction of Germany (one of the objects of the war in the first place) that he wrote, “The peace is outrageous and impossible and can bring nothing but misfortune behind it.”

In addition to penning the Treaty of Versailles, the victors also proposed and propounded the Charter of the League of Nations, the hoped-for preliminary to the bankster and New World Order’s one-world government, ratified on the 10th January 1920, and signed by President Wilson for the American government. Wilson brought the treaty back to the United States and requested that the Senate ratify it. The Senate, for once remembering George Washington’s advice to avoid foreign entanglements and reflecting the views of the American people who did not wish to enter the League, refused to ratify the treaty.

With the benefit of hindsight it has become apparent that Wilson intended to head the planned world government it was hoped to bring along by the imposition of the League of Nations upon the world. Unsurprisingly he was devastated when the Treaty was not ratified as he fully expected to become the first President of the World, only to have it taken away by the actions of the Senate of the United States. Of course, we are still to this day awaiting the dawn of world government but the Elite are nothing if not patient and they firmly believe that their efforts in this direction will be fully rewarded before much more time has elapsed, although they are not quite ‘counting their chickens’ just yet . . .

“As the World plummets into a contrived financial meltdown, those who believe themselves to be the rightful rulers of a planetary fiefdom [the banksters — JH] are convinced that they have a very short window of opportunity to establish their One World Government. Their vision is for total control of all planetary resources including human resources, which will be reduced to the chosen 500,000,000. However, things are not going entirely to plan. Obama’s mentor, Zbigniew Brzezinski recently identified ‘the rapid political awakening amongst the masses’ as the biggest obstacle to establishing a One World Government. In 1970 Brzezinski observed that the challenge for Western governments will be to keep their people locked into consumerist materialism . . . preventing them from realising who they truly are!” Ian R Crane, geo-political researcher, February 2011

One of the by-products of this devastating conflict was to provide an unparalleled opportunity for the Elite families to generate huge profits at the expense of governments and thus the public in the form of war supplies and armaments. These super-rich families, not only desired that the war be won, but they made sure that the victory was expensive to the common taxpayers and beneficial to their own finances. Indeed, one of the families who reaped the exorbitant profits were our old friends, the Rockefellers, who were for obvious reasons, very eager for the United States to enter World War I and who made more than $200m from the conflict which incidentally is $16bn in today’s values.

However, support for the League of Nations continued. The Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry of France was one which advised all of its members, “It is the duty of universal Freemasonry to give its full support to the League of Nations . . . .” Predictably, the League of Nations became a major issue during the Presidential election of 1920 when the Republican candidate Warren G. Harding was on record as opposing the League and further attempts to ratify the charter, saying, “It will avail nothing to discuss in detail the League covenant, which was conceived for world super-government In the existing League of Nations, world governing with its super-powers, this Republic will have no part.”

He was opposed in the Republican primaries by General Leonard Wood, one of the Republican ‘hawks,’ who was backed by a powerful group of rich men who hoped to install a military man in the White House. The American people, once again manifesting their disapproval of the League, voted for Harding as evidence of that distrust and concern and Harding beat the opposition by a greater margin than did President Wilson during the election of 1916. Wilson only managed to get fifty-two percent of the vote, whilst Harding achieved sixty-four percent.

Harding was a supporter of William Howard Taft, the President who opposed the bankers and their Federal Reserve Bill. After his election, he named Harry M. Daugherty, Taft’s campaign manager, as his Attorney General. His other Cabinet appointments were not as wise however, as he ‘inexplicably’ surrounded himself with men representing the oil industry. His chosen Secretary of State was Charles Evans Hughes, an attorney of Standard Oil; his Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon, owner of Gulf Oil; his Postmaster General was Will Hays, an attorney for Sinclair Oil; and his Secretary of the Interior was Albert Fall, a protégé of the oil men.

It was the aptly named Fall, who was indeed to be Harding’s downfall as he later accepted a bribe from Harry Sinclair in exchange for a lease of the Navy’s oil reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming. There are many who believe that the scandal was intended to discredit the Harding administration in an attempt to remove him from office for two very important reasons. Harding was consistently vocal against the League of Nations, and there was still a chance that its supporters could get the United States to join, as the League had survived the Senate’s prior refusal to ratify the treaty and Attorney General Daugherty had been prosecuting the oil trusts under the Sherman anti-trust laws.

These activities did not please the oil interests who had created the Teapot Dome scandal. But Harding perhaps unsurprisingly as is often the case, unfortunately did not live to see the full repercussions of the artificial scandal, as he died on the 2nd August 1923, before the story completely surfaced. Indeed, there are many who believe that there were some who could not wait for the Teapot Dome scandal to remove President Harding and that he was poisoned as were several of his predecessors.

Nevertheless the oil barons allowed it to completely play its course as a warning to future Presidents of the United States not to oppose the oil interests or indeed any other powerful, vested, corporate interests and to date, with one or two notable exceptions, the warning has been generally heeded. Not many have chosen to contend with the true rulers of the United States — certainly not and lived to tell the tale anyway, eh Mr. Kennedy?

Chapter 7

The Red, Zionist Menace

As if the horrendous, massive death and misery of World War I, was not enough to satisfy the banksters’ overwhelming greed and their evil plans for total world denomination, what was about to follow as a direct consequence of their creation of Communism, was guaranteed to split the world apart, even further.

So what exactly is Communism? We all think we know what it is, but let us examine it for a moment.

Sadly, many people ignorantly think that it died with the Soviet Union. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Communism is still alive and kicking but not just in Russia or China anymore.

Communism is . . .

“A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property and means of production in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state; A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state — dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.” Dictionary.com

Let me be generous and take only a couple of excerpts from that as an illustration . . .

‘ . . . in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state.’ Would today’s society come close to that by any chance? We now have ‘governments’ with many unelected and unaccountable ‘Quangos’ and ‘Czars’ currently dictating business practices, profit margins and pay scales. And worst of all, in Europe at least, we now have the totally unelected and unaccountable leaders of the EU dictating to the governments of its member states exactly what laws it can or cannot pass and even imposing its own laws upon them whilst extracting gigantic payments from them, totally disproportionate to any benefits that may accrue from membership.

‘ . . . dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.’ In America today the incumbent Democrat Party, operates a virtual dictatorship, bypassing the other two branches of ‘equal government’ by the expedient of the longest list of presidential ‘executive orders’ issued in US history, self-perpetuated by the flow of massive funds from the Party to labour unions to government employees, entertainers, sportspeople, journalists and welfare recipients, back to the unions who in turn fund the Democrat Party or support it directly. Whilst most other so-called ‘democratic’ nations operate a virtually closed two or three party system that absolutely precludes any views or policies outside the status quo, from permeating the general citizenry’s awareness or consciousness.

So when did this diluted version of Communism that we now have within our ‘western nations’ replace the ‘freedom and liberty’ we all previously enjoyed? Was it the slow, incremental process, as designed by the banksters and their puppet politicians, that they will have you believe is ‘progress?’ In fact it has been evolving painfully slowly from the very first spark of civilisation, whilst no-one was paying attention.

In the US, lawyers and judges first started trying to dismantle the Constitution, almost before the ink was dry on the page. And in addition, the banksters were also attempting from the very beginning of ‘independence,’ to impose a permanent central bank on the US people. So, in truth, freedom and liberty have been under assault from the very dawn of the nation, in America.

“ . . . a subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly worked underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone.” Thomas Jefferson

Let us now also examine . . . ‘ . . . the holding of all property and means of production in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.’ This definition has it exactly right, except for the fact that the property and means of production in question ALL belong to the bankster families.

Communism — in the beginning

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a 19th Century German philosopher and theologian who wrote ‘The Science of Logic,’ in 1812. In the view of many historians, Hegel is probably the greatest of the German idealist philosophers.

In 1847 the London Communist League, whose most prominent members were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, used Hegel’s dialectic theory to back up their economic theory of Communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian Dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian Dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the banksters’ vision for the future.

Hegel’s dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for, or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels’ grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat, otherwise referred to commonly as The New World Order. The synthetic Hegelian ‘solution’ to all these conflicts cannot be introduced unless we all take sides and thereby advance the agenda, which is of course our natural inclination.

The Marxist (bankster) global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed and the only way to prevent international land-grabs, privacy invasions, expanded domestic police powers, insane so-called ‘wars’ against inanimate objects (cancer, drugs, terrorism etc.) and transient verbs, covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to metaphorically step outside the dialectic. Only then can we be released from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

When we understand what motivated Hegel, we can see his influence on all of our destinies. Then we will become real players in the very real game that has been going on for at least 240 years (since 1776.)

Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major political parties, all the way down to local education boards and community and local councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, but fear and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal. Focussing on Hegel’s and Engel’s ultimate agenda and avoiding being entrapped in their impenetrable theories of social evolution, gives us the opportunity to think and act our way towards freedom, justice and genuine liberty for all.

Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages and promotes the taking of sides. We may see it in action in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in Democrats against Republicans or Labour against Conservative, in ‘greens’ against libertarians, in Communists against socialists, in ‘neo-cons’ against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists and in peace activists against the war hawks.

No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts and Communism is just one of the vehicles that the banksters use to divide us, before conquering us.

Communism — the Rise

In 1793, Poland was divided between Prussia and Russia. This was of paramount significance to Russia because she thereby, instantly acquired the world’s largest Jewish population, the former Khazarian ‘Jews’ that is. Russia had always had an Imperial or Royal Head of State with a Czar (monarch) as its supreme ruler and the Czar had decreed in 1772 that Jews could settle in Greater Russia but only in the vast area known as the ‘Pale of Settlement.’

This ‘Pale’ extended from the Crimea, almost to the Baltic Sea, encompassing an area half as great as Western Europe. Because Jews had always maintained their own distinct and separate community within Christian societies, the Pale could not be described as discriminatory. It not only protected Russians from Jewish influence, but protected Jews from their Christian hosts too, as Jewish influence was often despised by the Christian community.

Under Czar Alexander I, many restrictions against residence ‘beyond the Pale’ were relaxed and by 1881, the Jews had greatly prospered and achieved a virtual monopoly in the liquor, tobacco, and retail industries. But, the Jews, in the process, made sure that the Gentiles were excluded in every possible way and from this Hegelian conflict of Jews against Christians, the twin evils of Zionism and Communism were born.

The Polish surname, Trotsky was not the one with which the infamous revolutionary was born. His true name was Levi Davidovich Bronstein and he was born in 1879 into a wealthy family of Jewish landowners in southern Ukraine (ie. within ‘the Pale.’)

In the autumn (fall) of 1888, at the age of 9, Bronstein moved from the family estate to the coastal resort of Odessa, where he lived with his mother’s nephew, Moses Filipovich Spentzer, a liberal, Jewish publisher and after attending high school in Odessa, he went on to college at Nikolayev, where he became involved with a group of Jewish ‘socialists.’ From this early exposure to socialism, he began to read Marx and soon became an agitator within the fledgling trade-union organisations in the area. Eventually he was arrested and jailed and it was at this point in his career that he decided to adopt the pseudonym by which he became popularly known. With more than a hint of irony, he adopted the name of his Polish prison warden, Trotsky, thus disguising his Jewish origins.

In late 1899 he was transferred to a prison in Moscow, and was sent for trial early in the following year and sentenced to four years exile in Siberia. However, before the sentence could be expedited, Trotsky decided to marry one of his fellow Jewish agitators, Alexandra Lyovna Sokolovskaya and they were married in the jail before being sent to their exile in Siberia.

Despite the rigours of the Siberian climate and the privations he endured, Trotsky was able to contribute prolifically to the local, Irkutsk newspaper and to study Marxist books and philosophy and it was around this time that he heard the name of ‘Lenin,’ a fellow-Communist agitator, and the two began corresponding. Lenin suggested that Trotsky should abandon his Siberian exile and go and live in a foreign country. In this task, Lenin assured him that his ‘friends’ would assist, so eventually Trotsky arrived in Vienna, where he was aided by his fellow Jewish Communist, Victor Adler before moving on to Zurich, where another Jewish Communist, Paul Axelrod, was his contact. Trotsky’s wife and children were left behind in Siberia.

Trotsky finally met Lenin at a ‘rooming house’ at 30 Holford Square, King’s Cross, London and was almost immediately appointed editor of The Spark, an ‘underground’ Communist newspaper which was principally directed at Russian agitation. Trotsky also presented several Marxist lectures in London’s predominantly Jewish, Whitechapel district.

After establishing strategy at various conferences in London, Brussels and Paris, Trotsky, using a fake passport, returned to Russia in 1905 in order to launch the long-planned revolution. After several months of agitation, Trotsky was again arrested and sentenced to jail at the Peter-Paul prison in St. Petersburg, along with two other Jewish Marxist agitators, Leon Deutsch and Alexander ‘Parvus’ Helphand. After being sentenced to exile in Siberia once more, Trotsky merely caught another train going in the opposite direction and ended-up in Finland.

After several more years agitating around various countries in Western Europe, Trotsky arrived in New York, where he worked as a journalist on the Russian Communist newspaper Novy Mir, from its offices at 177, St. Mark’s Place on the Lower East Side, in the very heart of the Jewish section of Manhattan. Novy Mir (New World) was owned by two Communist Jews by the name of Weinstein and Brailovsky but according to the New York police, who closely monitored Trotsky’s activities, his main associates during this period were Emma Goldman and Alexander Berman.

By the beginning of 1917, the build-up to the Russian revolution was gaining momentum and Trotsky sensed that the time was ripe for another Soviet takeover bid, following the failed attempt in 1905 but which had nevertheless served to destabilise the monarchy. But finance for the revolution was desperately needed and strangely (or maybe not) these so-called ‘sworn enemies of Capitalism’ had no difficulty whatsoever in raising vast amounts of funding from Jewish banksters on both sides of the Atlantic.

Jacob H. Schiff supplied $20 million of Kuhn Loeb money for the proposed Bolshevik takeover of Russia and Parvus, Trotsky’s cell-mate in the Peter-Paul prison, was now himself a wealthy coal broker and he was also away in the Balkans making deals on behalf of the Imperial German government. Parvus had been instrumental in guiding the ideology of Leon Trotsky as well as the half-Jewish, Vladimir Lenin (real name, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.) The main ‘lesson’ that Trotsky had learned from his mentor, Parvus was that Jewish people are their own collective Messiah and would attain dominance over all others through the mixing and therefore diluting of the other races (multi-culturalism and mass-immigration) and the elimination of all national boundaries.

By 1917, the Jewish/Zionist desire to destroy the Czar had turned almost the entire urban population of Russia against the monarchy and WWI had caused severe food shortages, breakdowns in transportation, and factory closings due to material shortages, thus contributing to the general unrest.

Lower-level Jewish revolutionaries, their leaders being at that time out of the country, fanned the flames of dissent and on 10th March 1917 an American photographer, Donald Thompson, reported that a rich man who tried to pass through the growing mob . . . “ . . . was dragged out of his sleigh and beaten. He took refuge in a stalled streetcar where he was followed by the working men. One of them took a small iron bar and beat his head to a pulp. Many of the men carried red flags . . . ”

At this time the only thing holding the angry mob at bay was the St. Petersburg police and so the mob turned-on the police who were forced to barricade themselves in their police stations. Here they were slaughtered almost to the last man and the prisons were emptied of their entire populations, including serious criminals of every category. Czar Nicholas II was not in St. Petersburg at the time, but after hearing the details and misunderstanding the situation, he sent a message requesting that the Duma (parliament) be dissolved. The Czar abdicated his throne five days later.

Two governing bodies ruled Russian jointly for the next eight months commencing 12th March 1917. The ‘Provisional Government’ and the ‘Petersburg Soviet.’ The Provisional Government immediately allowed all exiled political prisoners to return from Siberia and at least ninety thousand streamed back into Russia in late April, May, June, and July.

On the 26th March, Trotsky left New York, for Russia. He was accompanied by many Jewish-Marxist soldiers-of-fortune from the Lower East Side, plus $20m of gold courtesy of Jacob Schiff. However, when his ship called at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Trotsky was arrested by the British authorities, on the sound rationale that he was heading for Russia in order to take Russia out of the Great War and thereby increase the Germans’ chances of ultimately winning the war. But, in a stunning reversal of fortune, the American President, Woodrow Wilson intervened, threatening not to enter the war unless Trotsky was allowed to continue on his way, unimpeded.

By the time Trotsky reached Russia, the revolution had already taken place, the Czar had been deposed and a replacement, democratic government installed. But being a good Communist, Trotsky wanted to have things his own way. However the democrats, under Kerensky, were wise to these ambitions and warrants were issued for the arrest of both Trotsky and Lenin on the basis that they were agents of the Imperial German government, a not unreasonable assumption since Lenin had been sent back into Russia on a diplomatically-sealed German train and Trotsky had been sent by Jacob Schiff, a cousin of the German Minister of the Interior, Felix Warburg.

The 90,000 returning exiles mentioned previously were the heart and soul of the Bolshevik revolution. They were almost exclusively Jewish and hungry for power and Trotsky immediately joined the Bolsheviks on his return from New York.

By October 1917 the Socialist Prime Minister, Kerensky was struggling to keep a bad economy afloat, an unstable coalition government together and a tired Russian nation in the world war. The time was now ripe for the Reds to stage another violent coup, but this time, Trotsky, Lenin and their evil gang succeeded. With backing from the Red army (many of which had been brainwashed in 1905 Japanese POW camps by Jacob Schiff’s reading materials,) the Capital City of St. Petersburg was seized during the ensuing ‘October Revolution,’ aka ‘Red October.’

Kerensky fled for his life and the new Soviet regime immediately moved to withdraw Russian troops from the war. Outside of St. Petersburg (by now renamed Petrograd,) the predominantly Jewish, Red government was not recognised as legitimate but a bloody civil war between the Jewish-led ‘Reds’ and the opposing Christian ‘Whites’ was now imminent.

“The Bolshevik leaders here (Russia,) most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide social revolution.” David R. Francis, US Ambassador to Russia, January 1918

After the fall of St. Petersburg to the Reds, the counter-revolutionary civil war against the ‘whites’ tore Russia apart for three more years. The various opponents of the ‘Reds’ were collectively referred to as the ‘Whites.’

When it quickly became apparent that the Red revolutionary army composed solely of workers and a few Jewish, ex-Czarist troops was far too small to quell the White counter-revolution, Trotsky instituted a mandatory conscription of the rural peasantry into the Red Army. Any opposition of the semi-literate, rural Russians to Red Army conscription was overcome by brute force and terror tactics and hostages and their families were simply tortured and killed when necessary, in order to force compliance.

In the spring of 1918, the Russian Reds had realised that they were unable to fight a civil war at home and an external war against Germany at the same time, so Lenin and Trotsky had no choice but to take Russia out of the war and bring home the troops to fight their internal enemy. This enabled Germany to divert its forces from the east and stage a major western offensive before the arrival of the majority of the American army.

Their counter-offensive operation, known now to history as the ‘Spring Offensive,’ commenced on 21st March 1918 with an attack on British forces in northern France and was so effective that the Germans achieved a previously unprecedented advance of forty miles. With Paris now a mere seventy-five miles away, the Germans believed that victory was theirs and Kaiser Wilhelm II even declared a national holiday in celebration. However, at just this critical moment, Jewish-Marxist and Zionist leaders in Germany betrayed their own country.

The Marxist trade-union leaders ordered factory strikes which deprived German troops of critical supplies and the Jewish-owned press, which had enthusiastically espoused war in 1914, suddenly performed a U-turn and began decrying the German military. German morale quickly began to deteriorate, as did essential industrial output and new recruits arrived at the front-line with a defeatist attitude as anti-war protests and general discontent spread rapidly, all throughout Germany.

The Spring Offensive ground to a halt as the first Americans began to arrive on the battlefields of France. In the light of the sudden announcement of the Balfour Declaration, German Zionists began betraying Germany so that Palestine could be prised from Germany’s Turkish ally and given to the Jews. German-Jewish Marxists and ‘democratic Socialists’ also regarded a German defeat as a means to destabilise the nation and stage a revolution.

After the war, the treasonous betrayal of 1918 became known as ‘The Stab-in-the-Back’ although modern, brain-washed mainstream ‘historians’ dismiss this as a ‘legend.’ But in reality, there was nothing mythical about it and the plain, simple truth is that on the brink of final victory, Germany was betrayed from within.

Czar Nicholas II had hoped to be exiled to Great Britain while Kerensky was in power, but his British relatives, the Royal family, refused to allow him and his family into the country and so the Bolsheviks held Nicholas, his wife Alexandra, his four daughters, and young son under house arrest in a remote location. As a boy, Nicholas had witnessed the murder of his grandfather, Alexander II, in 1881. His ‘timidity’ had been demonstrated when he failed to execute Red leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky after the failed 1905 revolution but his misguided mercy would come back to haunt both him and his family as they were all denied similar compassion.

In the early hours of the 17th July 1918, the Romanov Family was awakened, ordered to dress and then herded into the cellar of the house in which they were being held. Moments later, Jewish-Red assassins stormed-in and gunned-down the entire family, their doctor and three servants in cold-blood. Some of the Romanov daughters were stabbed and clubbed to death when the gunfire failed to kill them outright. News of the brutal murder of the Romanovs sent shock-waves throughout Russia and all of Christian Europe.

With the Russian Civil War raging, the Communist International, known as the ‘Comintern,’ was established in Moscow. The Comintern stated openly that its intention is to fight . . .

“ . . . by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international ‘bourgeoisie,’ the entrepreneurial class and for the creation of an international Soviet republic, Communist world government — aka the New World Order.”

From 1918-1922, Comintern-affiliated Communist parties formed in France, Italy, China, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the UK, the US and many other nations. All Communists operated under the control and direction of the Moscow Reds, who are themselves financed by the same Globalist-Zionist international banksters and world masters that created the Federal Reserve and brought about the Great War. However the vast majority of these ‘satellite’ Communist groups had no real idea of what Communism really represented, they simply believed that they were fighting for the freedom and for the benefit of the ordinary men and women of the world, against their Elite oppressors. And this fallacy was of course maintained by the Communist hierarchy, in order to keep its millions of new adherents, onside.

Then in September 1918, the Russian Reds planned to commence a reign of terror strategically to intimidate their White adversaries into submission. On orders from Lenin and Trotsky, the ‘Red Terror’ was announced by Yakov Sverlov. This was marked by mass arrests, often in the middle of the night, executions, and horrendous tortures. As many as 100,000 Russians were murdered in the Red Terror, carried out by the Jewish-run Cheka (secret police.)

Among the verifiable atrocities committed, often in view of the victim’s family members, were:

40,000 ‘White’ prisoners publicly hanged in the Ukraine
Burning coals inserted in women’s vaginas
Crucifixions
Rapes
Victims submerged in boiling oil or tar
Victims nailed into coffins filled with hungry rats
Victims soaked with water, and left to turn into human ice-cubes in the winter weather.
Priests, monks and nuns had molten lead poured down their throats and were burned alive.

The demoralising terror takes a heavy psychological toll on the terrified Russian people and by 1922, many were broken into total submission to the Red monsters of the dreaded Cheka.

By the advent of the Red Terror in late 1918, back in France, it was now apparent that Germany could not now win the Great War but nevertheless, as he had in 1916, the Kaiser again offered to negotiate peace on terms favourable to all parties. Although Germany was no longer in a position to win the war, the Allies were struggling too. Germany’s Eastern front with Russia was closed, there were no Allied troops on German soil, the capital city, Berlin was 900 miles distant from the current Western front and the German military was still entirely capable of defending the German homeland from an Allied invasion.

But despite this, the home-front was collapsing. As related previously, treasonous socialist politicians, Marxist trade-union leaders, and Zionist media moguls, had combined to demoralise the population and destabilise Germany. The Kaiser was forced to abdicate and enter exile in Holland whilst expressing his regrets for his past ‘liberalism’ and denouncing the “Jewish influence that has ruined Germany.”

On 11th November 1918, representatives of the newly formed ‘Weimar Republic’ (formed in the city of Weimar) signed an armistice with the Allies to end the war. And so it transpired that incredibly, at a time when the Allies had still been unable to invade Germany, the German military was ordered to lay-down its arms and withdraw from the front lines. Based on Woodrow Wilson’s empty promise of ‘peace without victory,’ leaders of Germany had suddenly placed their nation at the complete mercy of the New World Order.

As a 25-year-old ‘starving’ artist from Austria, the young Adolf Hitler had volunteered to serve in the Austrian Army in 1914. Afflicted with tuberculosis during his youth, he was initially rejected for military service. However he was later accepted and served in the German armed forces with distinction and bravery. In August of 1918, Hitler was awarded the prestigious German Iron Cross 1st Class, and was promoted to Lance Corporal and in October 1918, was temporarily blinded in a British poison gas attack. While recovering his eyesight, Hitler heard of Germany’s inexplicable and complete unconditional surrender and as were many other Germans, was confused and outraged. It seemed to him and his compatriots that the sacrifice and suffering that the German soldiers and nation in general had endured for so long, had been for nothing.

Lance Corporal Adolf Hitler

Unsurprisingly, along with many others, Hitler wanted answers, and he determined that he would not rest until the ‘November criminals’ (his term) were exposed and Germany’s honour restored.

The Armistice on 11th November released the German troops from the horror they had endured, as indeed both sides had, on the Western Front, and they began to wearily trudge home. As the Armistice was strictly speaking an agreement to cease the hostilities and not a surrender, these troops still had their weapons. The active troops remained under the command of the Oberste Heeresleitung, and therefore of General Groener, but the others organised locally into several hundred local Freikorps, each varying from a few hundred men to brigade size. The German veterans known as ‘Freikorps’ were originally militia, very similar to their British counterparts, the ‘Home Guard’ but in 1918 they became anything from homes-away-from-home for returning soldiers who felt alienated from German society and its rapid dislocations, up to fully-fledged and well-armed paramilitary organisations. On occasions, fighting between the Freikorps and the Army broke-out, particularly during an Army mutiny in Berlin in late November but in the main, both Army and Freikorps were united and fought the Communist and Spartacist League attempts to control German cities and to suppress uprisings by Polish separatists in the east.

In 1915, the Jewish Reds, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg founded the ‘Spartacus League’ (named after Illuminati founder Adam Weishaupt’s code name of ‘Spartacus.’) and on 1st January 1919, the group became known as the ‘Communist Party of Germany.’ That same month, the Sparticists, aided by Jewish-Hungarian Communist Bela Kun, took advantage of the German surrender and post-war chaos, by staging a revolutionary coup in Berlin. But the attempted Communist takeover of Berlin was short-lived as the Freikorps units soon reclaimed control from the Jewish Reds and their followers. Luxemburg, Liebknecht and some of their supporters were duly captured and executed and thus had the Freikorps saved Germany from the same deadly fate that had befallen Russia. However, the new ‘democratic socialist’ Germany was soon to face other serious problems.

At roughly the same time as the suppression of the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, in January 1919, a general election was held for members of the constituent assembly which would form the core of the government of the new German Republic. Then in February, in an attempt to avoid the ongoing hostilities in Berlin, the constituent assembly moved to Weimar, some one hundred miles to the southwest and in February elected Ebert, the Republic’s first Reichspräsident. Meanwhile, another coup was attempted in Munich, but this was also suppressed by both the Freikorps and the regular Army, and almost one thousand Communists were detained and shot.

But this was far from the end of the Reds’ attempted power-grab and just as did the hard-core Reds of Russia, the Reds of Germany continued trying to wrest power from the democratic socialists.

The Paris Peace Conference was the meeting of the Allied victors to determine the new international borders in Europe and punishments for the defeated nations, in-line with the wishes of the Zionist banksters’ designs on a New World Order. The budding Global-Zionist World Government devised a whole series of treaties that would re-model Europe and indeed the world, to their own designs. At its centre were the leaders of the three ‘Superpowers,’ Woodrow Wilson (US,) Prime Ministers David Lloyd-George (UK) and Georges Clemenceau (France.) Germany was not invited and was to have no say in the final decisions.

The Paris Peace Conference resulted in the Treaties of ‘St. Germain’ (with Austria,) ‘Trianon’ (with Hungary,) ‘Neuilly’ (with Bulgaria,) ‘Sevres’ (the Ottoman Empire/Turkey) and Versailles (with Germany.) The ‘Treaty of Sevres,’ signed by the Sultan in August 1920, was an almost immediate failure. Mustapha Kemal deposed and exiled the Sultan by 1922 and immediately began re-conquering territories which had been ceded by the Sultan’s signature on the Treaty. The Allies hastily compiled a new treaty with the surprisingly formidable Kemal, the ‘Treaty of Lausanne,’ which he signed in 1923. As a ‘voluntary’ treaty drawn up between approximate equals, it became the only relatively successful treaty of the batch.

German territorial losses 1919-21 as a result of the Treaty of Versailles

In contrast, Germany had no-one who was prepared to negotiate with the vigorousness that Kemal had exhibited and had no soldiers available to despatch to a reopened war on the Western Front. In fact, all Germany’s troops were engaged in fighting Communists or on the eastern frontiers fighting the resurgent Poles. The British Royal Navy’s wartime blockade, still in force, had rendered the German position even more perilous and so Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 with little protest. This had two important effects; firstly, it officially ended the hostilities between Germany and the Allied powers and secondly, it convinced the German voters that their brief experiment with political moderation had been a failure. They felt strongly that Germany had not been treated as a ‘reasonable’ country by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the obvious conclusion was that moderation as a political philosophy was ineffective and German politics subsequently split into the perceived extremes of ‘far Left’ and ‘far Right.’

The German government at Weimar, therefore, drawing-up a constitution for the new German Republic, had to construct an equitable formula which would include parties and factions from the diametrical extremes of the political spectrum, from outright Bolsheviks to raving Monarchists. Reichspräsident Ebert signed the new constitution into law in August 1920 and the new Weimar constitution was a model of democratic government, guaranteed to include members of every political shade.

Unfortunately, as Constitutions go, its liberalism was regarded by some as its weakness and never more so than in the way the that National Socialist German Worker’s Party (or NSDAP,) was able to, by entirely legal and democratic means, turn a minority mandate into effective control of the government, thus making the world familiar with a new word, Nationalsozialistische, or Nazi.

It is a moot point really. The Nazi German government, over the course of its actual thirteen year reign and prior to its utter, bloody annihilation, was set to become the most vilified, misrepresented and detested regime in the history of the civilised world. The mere mention of the words ‘swastika,’ ‘Nazi,’ ‘Hitler,’ etc. invoke instant and often highly indignant revulsion amongst many people. But, is all the bile and vociferous outrage directed at all-things Nazi, its many adherents and Adolf Hitler himself, totally justified or is there, maybe an agenda at work? An insidious bankster-driven agenda, no less? We shall see.

But for now let us return once again to the 1920s where we left-off, and indeed long before that particularly dire turn of events. Back in 1919-1920, the Weimar government followed a progressive, liberal agenda, enacting universal suffrage, an 8-hour workday, agricultural labour reform, and other hallmarks of a modern state.

Finally, by November 1919 the cumulative damage caused to the Reichstag building by all the revolts was repaired and the Republican government moved from Weimar back home to Berlin. After the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles by the newly-formed League of Nations in January 1920, the new regular German military force, the Reichswehr had to be reduced to no more than 100,000 men, such, at least, was the Allied plan. But at that time the Reichswehr consisted of some 350,000 men including the various Freikorps that totalled in excess of 250,000. Obviously, the Freikorps would have to go and the government began to tackle that job in 1920.

In March 1920, it ordered the disbandment of one of the Freikorps units, the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt. Although only a modest cadre of some 6000 men, the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt had had a colourful history, participating in the fighting to retake the northwest ports of Bremen, Cuxhaven and Wilhelmshaven from local revolutionaries in early 1919. Afterwards it was deployed to central Germany to combat local communist uprisings there and it was also among the Freikorps which suppressed the Communist uprising in Munich. Then in August, the Brigade Ehrhardt crushed Polish separatists in Upper Silesia and so perhaps unsurprisingly, when ordered to disband, the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt resisted the command. It appealed to the commander of the Berlin Reichswehr, General Lüttwitz, who after failing to enlist the co-operation of Reichspräsident Ebert, ordered the Brigade to march on Berlin, which was occupied by them in mid-March. The head of the Heeresleitung, General Hans von Seeckt, when ordered by the government to suppress this putsch, refused to fight what he considered a fellow Reichswehr unit, although he conspicuously refused to support it, either.

This occupation of Berlin coincided, perhaps by design, with an attempt by Dr. Wolfgang Kapp, a former president of East Prussia, to declare the Ebert government in violation of the new constitution. Kapp had a valid point, as the constituent assembly had elected Ebert president of the German Republic in 1919. Ebert signed the new Weimar constitution into law in August of 1920 but the constitution provided for the president to be elected by a national election and not by the constituent assembly. So Kapp’s actual motives were probably more sinister than merely pointing-out a procedural nicety and while the Ebert government decamped to Dresden, Kapp used the occupation of Berlin by the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt to declare the presidency of Ebert null and void and announced that he himself would serve as Imperial chancellor until new elections could be organised.

The Ebert government in absentia, called for a general strike by German workers, emphasising, possibly correctly, that the reactionaries who had seized Berlin, were intent on restoring the ex-Kaiser who was at that time safely ensconced in the Netherlands, where Queen Wilhelmina had given him a modest castle and resolutely rejected Allied demands for his extradition. German workers responded to this threat with enthusiasm and their strike effectively paralysed Berlin, as well as much of the rest of the country.

But to return to the Treaty of Versailles . . . According to Part V of the Treaty, the size of the army, the number of War Ministry staff and numbers of customs agents, forest rangers, coastguards, and police were all limited. The total numbers of guns (artillery,) machine guns, trench-mortars, rifles and munitions stockpiles available to Germany were also restricted and no imports or exports of arms and munitions were permitted.

Neither was Germany allowed to have poison gas, tanks, armoured cars, submarines, dirigibles, a military air force or its traditional General Staff. Numbers and sizes of warships were also limited and all forts in western Germany were to be dismantled. Gun clubs were allowed so long as they had no connection whatsoever with the military.

The Treaty specified the minimum enlistment period in the army as 12 years for privates and NCOs, and 25 years for officers. This was to prevent Germany from using the system followed by all major WWI belligerents (except the US,) which allowed them to put millions of trained and equipped men in the field in a matter of weeks. The idea was that all able-bodied men would undergo basic military training and then be demobilised and returned to civilian life. Upon mobilisation or the outbreak of war, they could be called-up immediately, issued with equipment and packed into trains bound for the front.

There was much, much more too, Versailles was a lengthy treaty. But for our purposes, the noteworthy fact is that it was concerned with grand objectives, such as who was going to pay for the near-total destruction of Belgium and much of northern France, where exactly to draw the borders of Poland and how to give Danzig access to the Baltic Sea when East Prussia happened to be in the way.

The power-mad bankster-globalists believe it is their right or prerogative to dismantle existing nations and create new ones as they see fit and to hell with the wishes or needs of the populace whose heritage, traditions and lives they may shatter in the course of their evil machinations. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires almost instantly ceased to exist and their disparate peoples were simply assigned to other states in whatever way it suited them. The Paris Conference, as well as formulating the various treaties, also established the framework for the banksters’ fledgling, future One-World Government, ‘The League of Nations.’

A strong Zionist delegation was also present at the Conference. They had engineered the entry of America into the war by their chicanery and now it was time for them to collect payment for the ‘services rendered’ to Britain. The former Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire were separated from Turkish rule and broken up into smaller states, Palestine being destined to become a British protectorate. The Zionist mandate, the Balfour Declaration, supposedly established the Jewish people’s entitlement to Palestine, to be re-named ‘Israel’ as guaranteed by the League of Nations (exactly as Herzl had predicted in 1897!) and Jews from all over the world would now be allowed to immigrate there. The Arabs of Palestine were never consulted about this and they were of course, quite rightly upset and angry. Britain promising Palestine to the Jews is almost like China promising Wales to Russia. What right would they have to do it? None whatsoever of course, using the logic that we believe prevails, but of course the bankster masters of the universe operate in a totally different sphere and with rules that only apply, whenever they may see fit.

The abject unfairness, cruelty even, of the Treaty of Versailles is still recognised today — even by liberal, establishment historians. With Germany disarmed by its new government, and with no German representatives present, the Zionist banksters proceeded to rape the German nation, whose Kaiser did not want war, had tried his best to avert war and offered more than once to make peace after the war had begun. (We will see later how history would repeat itself in this regard.)

The Treaty contained 440 clauses in total, 414 of which were dedicated towards punishing Germany. To summarise, the key provisions that Germany was forced to accept were:

Germany accepts 100% responsibility for the war
German armed forces were to be restricted to 100,000 men
The industrial German Rhineland would be occupied by French troops for the next 15 years
Kaiser Wilhelm was to be tried for ‘offences against international morality’
The German region of West Prussia was to be sliced-up and given to the new nation of Poland. (As a result, millions of West Prussians were forcefully expelled from their homes and East Prussia was isolated from the rest of the German mainland)
The German Sudetenland region was stripped away and given to the newly created nation of Czechoslovakia
The newly formed state of Austria was forbidden from uniting with their German-speaking brethren in Germany
Germany was stripped of her African colonies. Britain, France and Belgium take them over
The coal-rich Saar region of Germany was placed under League of Nations control for 15 years (During this time, its coal was to be shipped to France)
The strategic Baltic Sea port city of Danzig was to be separated from Germany and declared a ‘free city’
Germany was ordered to pay massive war reparations in the form of money and natural resources. The crushing burden of the payments (equal to almost 1 trillion dollars in modern US currency) would devastate the German economy and later cause a hyperinflationary monetary collapse

Unsurprisingly, the inhumane, unjust Treaty of Versailles breeds resentment and anger in Germany for many years to come and is indeed largely responsible for the conditions that created WWII, twenty years later — as was its intent.

During the Russian Civil War, the Jewish-Hungarian Bela Kun fought for the Communists and as a commander, ordered the killings of many thousands of anti-Communists (Whites.) Then, upon the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kun saw an opportunity to impose Communism in Hungary and in November 1918, he and several hundred other Hungarian Reds returned to Hungary with funds provided by the Soviets and with which he rapidly founded the Hungarian Communist Party on 4th November 1918. Following this, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was soon established and Kun as leader, reported directly to Lenin and was the dominant personality in the government during its brief existence. The first act of his government was to ‘nationalise,’ a euphemism for ‘confiscate,’ all private property.

After an anti-Communist coup attempt in Hungary in June 1919, Kun organised a response in the form of another ‘Red Terror,’ this time in Hungary and carried out by secret police and mostly Jewish, irregular army units. The ‘Red Tribunals’ condemned 600 prominent Hungarians to death.

However, Kun’s Communist reign of terror was relatively short-lived and he and his henchmen were soon removed from power following an invasion by Romania. Kun immediately fled to the USSR.

What modern day historians mockingly refer to as ‘The First Red Scare,’ came about just eighteen years after the Reds murdered US President McKinley in 1901. The 1919 ‘Red Scare’ is marked by a campaign of Communist terror and radical political agitation in America, set against the backdrop of Lenin’s ongoing bloodbath and Woodrow Wilson’s ever-weakening economy.

In April 1919, booby-trap mail bombs were sent to several prominent Americans. But after the first bomb fizzles and the second one injures the wife of a US Senator, the remaining 28 are quickly intercepted by the postal authorities. On 1st May (May Day,) the Reds staged huge rallies that led to violence in Boston, New York and Cleveland. Two die and forty people were injured as patriotic Americans clash with mostly foreign-born Reds.

Then, in June, an additional eight bombs were mailed, killing two innocent people and in September, Marxist Union leaders organised steel strikes, followed by coal strikes in November.

The Zionist-Globalist pressure on Woodrow Wilson became too much for the weak-willed president to handle by November 1919. His New World Order masters had driven their blackmailed-puppet very hard since 1912 and Wilson was ordered to undertake an intense, year-long cross-country campaign to win public support for US entry into the world government blueprint known as The League of Nations, which was established at the Paris Peace Conference.

During his gruelling propaganda tour, the stress became too much for Wilson and he suffered a massive stroke that left him severely paralysed. For the next seventeen months, the enfeebled President lay in his bed on the brink of death, barely able to write his own name, but the outside world was never told of Wilson’s illness. He was still too valuable to the banksters and all subsequent communication with him was through his wife, Edith.

Fortunately for the world, after an intense, year-long campaign to win support for entry into the League of Nations, the paralysed President Wilson and his Globalist bankster masters were dealt a devastating blow to their plans for world domination, when the Senate failed to approve US membership. Bankster pressure actually forced the Senate to vote three times, but the necessary two-thirds majority still could not be achieved. Leading the opposition to membership in the infant World Government were Senators Henry Cabot Lodge, Warren Harding, and William Borah, all Republicans.

“I would sooner lose in a right cause than win in a wrong cause. As long as I can distinguish between right and wrong, I shall do what I believe to be right — whatever the consequences.” William Edgar Borah

This was actually the death-knell of the League of Nations. Without American support, the plans just fell-apart and the scheme was soon abandoned as a lost cause. However, the banksters are nothing if not patient. Patient AND persistent.

Many of the American people had now realised that the very strange war in which they had just taken part, served no American interest at all. They wanted to be involved in Europe’s affairs no longer and simply wished to ‘return to normality.’ But the Globalist/Marxist bankers carried-on scheming against the people until they finally got their ‘foot in the door’ of their much-vaunted, New World Order.

The efforts of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer weakened the Reds power greatly. Though opposed by the Communist-loving ACLU and undermined by many of the Wilson Cabinet, Palmer pressed-on regardless with his roundups, purges and investigations of the Reds. During the ongoing interrogations of suspects, Palmer’s Federal Agent thugs were not shy of beating-up the foreign Reds, including many Russian-Jewish radicals, as well as Italian and East European Anarchists, in the investigation process.

Palmer deported 249 foreign Reds, including leaders such as ‘Red Emma’ Goldman, who inspired and praised the 1901 McKinley murder and then he focussed on the Marxist labour strikes, leaving his young assistant, J. Edgar Hoover, to deal with the foreigners. Hoover rounded-up 3000 more foreign radicals and in total, 5000 radicals were arrested and 556 violent Reds were summarily deported from America.

Also in 1919, in parallel to all the shenanigans in the rest of Europe and the USA, Adolf Hitler joined the tiny German Workers Party (DAP,) becoming member number 7. (There were obviously only six other members of the nationalist group.)

The 30-year old self-educated artist from Austria was penniless and had no political connections but his oratory, organisational and marketing skills and his charisma, quickly propelled him to leadership of the tiny group. His passionate, mesmerising beer-hall speeches stopped onlookers in their tracks and his audience, growing larger and larger every day, was utterly captivated by his oratory. He denounced the Versailles Treaty, the Allied occupation, his ‘November Criminals,’ the Marxists, the Jewish press, and the international banksters alike.

DAP membership rapidly increased, being recruited heavily from unemployed young men and disgruntled ex-soldiers who felt betrayed by the government after the ‘strange’ end to the war. Hitler had an already partially-converted, ready-made audience and in addition he appealed to veterans because he himself had been a frontline soldier, twice decorated for serious injuries sustained and twice more for conspicuous bravery.

To entice recruits away from both the rival ‘right’ Nationalist and ‘left’ Socialist parties, Hitler simply added the words ‘National’ and ‘Socialist’ into the party’s name, making it NSDAP. They never referred to themselves as ‘Nazis,’ this was a later, derogatory shortening of the organisation’s full title.

Back in England, in 1920, the First Lord of the Admiralty and war-criminal, Winston Churchill became a staunch supporter of Zionism, but nevertheless claimed to be an opponent of Jewish Communism. Although this was probably more to do with his bank balance, than his conscience (did he actually have one?) It is known that from being in constant debt, he suddenly acquired a large sum of money, enough to fund his extravagant lifestyle — and strange penchant for extremely expensive ladies underwear — although that is another story for another time, maybe.

Although both, primarily Jewish movements traced their roots back to the same Rothschild bankster-crime family, they sometimes appeared to contradict and conflict with each other. In an editorial appearing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled ‘Zionism vs. Bolshevism,’ Churchill argued that Jews should support Zionism as a preferable alternative to Communism, entirely missing the point that both movements emanated from precisely the same source and were/are inextricably linked.

“This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia,) Bela Kun (Hungary,) Rosa Luxemburg (Germany,) and Emma Goldman (United States,) this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.” Winston Churchill

At the Paris Peace Conference, the bankster-globalists from both the US and UK agreed to establish twin, so-called ‘think tanks’ that were to dominate the political affairs of both nations for the next century. Firstly in 1920, the Fabian Society dominated, Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) (now Chatham House) was created in London, followed in 1921 by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York with prominent bankster and ‘father of the Fed,’ Paul Warburg serving as its first Director.

‘Chatham House Rules’ of secrecy govern the members of both organisations. Membership is by invitation only and although members may discuss the generalities of group meetings, they are expected to remain discreet regarding who attends the meetings and specifically what is discussed and agreed. Isn’t ‘Democracy at work,’ a wonderful thing to behold?

Through the decades of their existence, the membership of both the CFR and Chatham have included prominent names from politics, the media, banking, industry and academia whilst politically-speaking, the members have also included a mixed bag of Globalists, Communists, Zionists, ambitious careerists and many well-meaning dupes. The chosen few recruited by the influential one-world government banksters often find themselves on a fast-track to greater fame and fortune, provided they play by the rules and are openly seen to support and promote the agenda.

By 1921, Lenin’s cruel and persistent oppression of the Russian people had broken both their nerves and their will to resist and the Famine of 1921 that, partly due to governmental incompetence, and partially a deliberate effort to kill off any Russians still not willing to support the Red takeover, was a further, massive blow to their efforts to survive against all odds.

The Communists ran the money-printing presses to finance their civil war and welfare schemes and when inflation followed, as it was certain to, they imposed rigid price controls, causing farmers to lose their livelihoods. The Communists then seized all seeds and food and placed it under their control, thereby greatly compounding the shortages. The resulting, horrific famine is then used to selectively feed those regions submissive to the Reds, and as a weapon to starve those loyal to the Whites.

Starving Russians and Ukrainians resorted to eating grass and even cannibalism and the horror escalated even further when Lenin deliberately blocked foreign relief food supplies from reaching their intended recipients. When the famine death toll reached ten million, Lenin finally allowed food to be distributed to the starving populace but were it not for the foreign aid, the death toll for Lenin’s cruel actions would surely have doubled or even tripled.

At the conclusion of the Red Terror, Red Famine, and Red-White Civil War, in 1922, Lenin and Trotsky formally established the Soviet Union with its new capital, of Moscow. The former Russian Empire was henceforth to be known as the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.) This huge ‘new’ country straddled both the European and Asian landmass but of its constituent republics, Russia itself was by far the largest and most populated.

The well-documented criminal brutality of the Soviets totally shocked the world, as did the Communist’s openly declared intention to overthrow all other nations’ governments and replace them with their own kind. For this reason, three consecutive US Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge and Hoover,) categorically refused to diplomatically recognise the Soviet Union.

Then in order to counter the Soviet promotion of Zionist-Communism and promote the Hegelian dialectic worldwide, the banksters created a form of ‘anti-Communism’ which would be named ‘Fascism.’ The engineered economic depression that followed World War I gave the Reds and socialists an opportunity to agitate in post-war Italy but Benito Mussolini and his newly-formed Fascist Party decided to act quickly before the Communists could gain absolute power. Unfortunately for the banksters though, their plan backfired somewhat and Fascism, in the hands of Mussolini (and later Hitler) mutated into a form of defiance of bankster power — as we will see.

In the October of 1922, in the presence of 60,000 people at the Fascist Congress in Naples, Mussolini declared that . . . “Our programme, is simple: we want to rule Italy.”

His Fascist ‘Blackshirts’ quickly gained the support and momentum required to capture the strategic cities of Italy and Mussolini then personally led a march of 30,000 men on the capital city, Rome. On 28th October, the sympathetic King Victor Emmanuel III, whose father had been murdered by a Communist in 1900, simply, with no fuss, ceded political power to Mussolini and his ‘fascisti,’ who were strongly supported by most Italian war veterans and the middle classes.

The corrupt Communist and left-wing political parties were systematically shut-down and under the leadership of Mussolini, the pro-business Fascist Party assumed control of the country and quickly restored order to the formerly chaotic Italy.

It is perhaps important to consider the tenets of true Fascism at this juncture. Fascism combines an honest and sound monetary system controlled by the government and significantly NOT central banksters, with a modicum of free enterprise and state-regulated corporatism. I say ‘significantly’ because we are now getting to the crux of why Fascism as a system is so vilified as ‘evil,’ today by our Zionist-Communist central bankster overlords. It may also bring us closer to understanding how and why Hitler, Mussolini and the German and Italian states had to be destroyed and furthermore why ever since the end of WWII, their ‘reputations’ have had to be absolutely shattered into tiny pieces and their very names engineered into the evocation of pure evil and hatred in our minds.

There are so many examples of this in action and we really do have to struggle hard to suspend our cognitive dissonance, in order that we can actually take all this on-board, such is the overwhelming might of anti-Hitler and anti-Fascist propaganda to which we have been subjected all our lives. I realise that for some, this may well be impossible, indeed I admit that it did take me a long time before I could even begin to accept and comprehend the staggering scale of the deception and propaganda, which of course is still ongoing. The banksters still cannot allow any semblance of sympathy for the Fascist system to permeate our consciousness as it poses the gravest danger imaginable to their sordid empire. And so the attacks and vilifications continue on and on. I personally counted on my Satellite TV channels, taking one week in October 2015 at random, more than sixty programmes — in one week, sixty (!), that were still denigrating the twin evils of fascism and Hitler and his many cohorts or reminding us of the utter horrors of the so-called ‘holocaust.’ Had I performed the same exercise in April or May 2015 though, I suspect that number would have been well into the hundreds due to that being the 70th anniversary of the war’s end, in the European theatre at least. And what is more, these programmes are continually re-cycled ad nauseum, ‘lest we forget.’ Not that we are ever likely to forget — the bankster-controlled media would never let that happen.

Was the above campaign a success, in hindsight do you think? Maybe, but those ‘indestructible weeds’ are growing pretty wild and prolifically right here and now.

I am NOT a fascist and nor am I particularly a Hitler ‘fan,’ either. My point here is that although he was certainly no angel (name me one politician ever, who was) and Fascism is not some cosy, benevolent and caring system of governance, but neither is it the utter abomination it is made-out to be by the might of all the banksters’ many vested interests. And nor was Hitler, ‘evil personified’ either, as we shall see later. But for now, back to the story . . .

By January 1923, more than four years had passed since Germany’s complete and total surrender at the end of the Great War. The poverty and hunger-stricken German nation was by this time having severe difficulty in making the massive, extortionate reparations payments imposed by The Treaty of Versailles and so, having already destroyed the value of Germany’s currency, the Allies demanded to be paid in timber and coal.

Then in a further humiliation of already occupied Germany, 60,000 troops from Belgium, France, and the French, African colonies expanded the occupation from the Rhineland into the defenceless, industrial Ruhr region and whilst innocent German children were starving, the Allies collected their stolen booty of German commodities. Machine gun posts were set-up in the streets in order to deter resistance as Allied troops openly steal food and supplies from German shopkeepers.

Other than to stage peaceful, passive demonstrations, there was nothing that the disarmed, humiliated, hungry and helpless German people could do about this latest outrage. However, worse, much worse was still to come for the beleaguered German nation. With Allied troops occupying the Ruhr and the German Mark losing its value to inflation, Germany was suddenly plunged into a horrific hyperinflationary, downward spiral. The socialist Weimar government and the Warburg/Rothschild central, Reichsbank had resorted to massively expanding the money supply and flooding the economy with their worthless fiat, non-commodity-backed paper money, mostly to cover the crushing debt imposed by the Versailles Treaty, and also to keep the Weimar Republic’s socialist welfare state afloat — all with disastrous consequences.

The true facts of this financial disaster do not appear in any mainstream history textbooks today. Today’s history uses this inflation to twist the truth into its opposite. It cites the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of the dire consequences that ensue when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from the private cartels run by the banksters. In reality the exact opposite is the truth, as with so much of our accepted historical ‘wisdom’ today.

As stated, the Weimar financial crisis actually began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht (who was never a Nazi Party member and now it appears clear why that was the case,) the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic, opposed letting the German government print its own money . . .

“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”

Schacht echoes the history books’ deception that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money; however, in his 1967 book ‘The Magic of Money,’ Schacht revealed that it was the privately owned ‘Reichsbank’, not the German government that was injecting new money into the economy. Thus, it was that this bankster-owned and run private bank caused the Weimar hyperinflation.

Like the US Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who sold the German Mark short, betting on its decreasing value. Using the manipulative device known as the ‘short sell,’ speculators borrow something they do not own, sell it and then ‘cover’ by buying it back at the lower price.

Speculation in the German Mark was made possible because the privately owned Reichsbank (not yet under Nazi control) made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing. This currency, like all first-world currency today, was created with accounting entries in the bank’s books and then this ‘magic’ money was lent at compound interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for Marks, other private banks were then allowed to also create Marks out of nothing and to lend them at interest. The result was runaway debt and inflation.

On the 24th June 1922, right-wing fanatics assassinated Walter Rathenau, the moderate German foreign minister. Rathenau was a charismatic figure and the idea that a popular, wealthy and glamorous government minister could be shot in a law-abiding society shattered the faith of the German people, who needed to believe that the country was in safe hands after the trauma of the previous decade. The wealthier, by now extremely nervous citizens were already taking their money out of banks and investing it into ‘real goods’ such as diamonds, works of art and safe real-estate, with true intrinsic values, unlike currency, which the banksters manipulate up or downwards to suit their own agendas. Eventually, the ordinary German citizens also began to trade their Marks for real commodities.

The British historian Adam Fergusson noted that pianos were being bought, even by non-musical families. Sellers held back because the Mark was worth less every day and as prices soared, the amounts of currency demanded became greater and greater and the German Central Bank responded to these demands through the printing of more, increasingly worthless paper. Yet still the ruling authorities did not acknowledge that there was anything amiss.

Why did the German government not act sooner to halt the inflation? The problem was partly that it was a shaky, fragile government, especially after the assassination of Rathenau. The vengeful French had sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations due under the Versailles Treaty and the Germans were powerless to resist due to the virtual disbandment of their armed forces and they feared unemployment far more than inflation.

And so the printing presses continued on and on, producing the ever-decreasing in value Mark and once they began to run, they were impossible to stop. The price increases became unmanageable. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough to keep up with the speed of the inflation. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a café and the price on the menu was 5,000 Marks per cup. He had two cups but when the bill arrived, it was for 14,000 Marks. “If you wanted to save money and you want two cups of coffee, you should have ordered them both at the same time,” he was told by the proprietor.

Things became so bad that people would not even bother to bend down to pick up a one hundred million Mark note carelessly discarded by a passer-by as by that time it had become worth less than the paper upon which it was printed. There was a famous case of a man walking along a street on a shopping trip to buy bread, carrying his money in a large wicker basket, such was the quantity and bulk of the notes he needed to carry. Upon unsuccessfully attempting to enter a particularly busy shop, he reasoned that he could quite safely leave most of his money outside in the basket as no-one would bother to risk stealing such a bulky yet paltry amount of money. He was absolutely correct. When he returned, he found his money was all still there on the ground, but someone had stolen his basket!

The presses of the Reichsbank could not keep up to demand, even though they ran through the night. A factory worker described payday, which was every day at 11 am . . . “At 11.00 in the morning a siren sounded, and everyone gathered in the factory forecourt, where a five-ton lorry was drawn up loaded to overflowing with paper money. The chief cashier and his assistants climbed up on top. They read out names and just threw out bundles of notes. As soon as you had caught one you made a dash for the nearest shop and bought just anything that was going.” Teachers, paid at 10 am, took their money into the playground to meet relatives who took the bundles and hurried off with them. Banks closed at 11 am as by this time they had invariably run out of cash anyway.

When the 1,000-billion Mark note was first issued in mid-1923, few bothered to collect the change when they spent it. But by November 1923, with one US dollar equal to one trillion Marks, the breakdown was complete and the German economy had become one of barter only. The currency had completely lost its value — and its meaning.

Then, a new president took over the Reichsbank, Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht, who came by his first two names because of his father’s admiration for an editor of the New York Tribune. The Rentenmark was not Schacht’s idea, but he executed it and as the Reichsbank president, he received all the credit for it. For decades afterward he was able to maintain a reputation for financial wizardry and he became the architect of the financial prosperity brought by the Nazi party.

Obviously, although the currency was worthless, Germany was still a relatively commodity-rich country with mines, farms, factories, and natural resources aplenty. The backing for the Rentenmark was mortgages on the land and bonds on the factories, but that backing was a fiction; the factories and land could not be turned into cash or used abroad. Nine zeros were struck from the currency, that is, one Rentenmark was equal to one billion old Marks. The Germans wanted desperately to believe in the Rentenmark, and so they simply did just that.

But although the country slowly began to function almost normally again, the savings of the middle-classes were never restored, nor were the values of hard work and decency that had accompanied the savings. All those assets were literally subsumed into the banksters’ considerable coffers and with the currency went many of the lifetime plans of average, ordinary citizens. It was the custom in Germany for the bride to bring some money to a marriage (a dowry) and as a result, many marriages were cancelled and many war widows (and these were present in large numbers) dependent on insurance, found themselves destitute. People who had worked for a lifetime and built up a sizeable pension fund, found that their pensions would not even buy a cup of coffee. Such are the ways that the ordinary citizens of the world are cheated out of the money by these vultures.

“The cities were still there, the houses not yet bombed and in ruins, but the victims were millions of people. They had lost their fortunes, their savings; they were dazed and inflation-shocked and did not understand how it had happened to them and who the foe was who had defeated them. Yet they had lost their self-assurance, their feeling that they themselves could be the masters of their own lives if only they worked hard enough; and lost, too, were the old values of morals, of ethics, of decency.” Pearl Buck, American author

Thus, according to Schacht himself, the German government did not cause the Weimar hyperinflation. On the contrary, the government brought hyperinflation under control. It placed the Reichsbank under strict government regulation and took prompt corrective measures to eliminate foreign speculation. One of those measures was to eliminate easy access to loans from private banks and eventually Hitler regained Germany’s financial stability through the issuance of Government Treasury Certificates.

What really causes hyperinflation is uncontrolled speculation. When speculation is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) the result is always disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues currency in carefully measured ways, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment and no need for income taxes.

Naturally this terrifies the banksters, it eliminates their powers, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government and everything else. Were the nations of the world to revert to Government-only money issuance, then the world financial crisis would be solved overnight, as would much of the ever-increasing wars, poverty and suffering we are currently witnessing.

Significantly, it was in the midst of this financial carnage that further devastated an already prostrated nation, that an unobtrusive, former army corporal was thrust into the spotlight and promoted as a great ‘leader of men.’ The prevailing conditions of the time providing a perfect stage for anyone with any aspirations of greatness and the ability to ‘mesmerise’ his audiences with nationalist, patriotic rhetoric. And thus the world was introduced to the soon-to-be world public enemy number one, Adolf Hitler . . .

On the 8th of November 1923, as the German people seethed with anger over the hyperinflation and the French occupation, Hitler decided that the time was right to seize power from the local government in Munich. Hoping that former members of the German military would join the uprising and then move against the national government in Berlin, Hitler used a political rally in a Munich Beer Hall to launch a putsch (coup,) which would later become known as the famous, ‘Munich Beer Hall Putsch.’

The local uprising was ignited by Hitler’s moving speech, but failed to sustain itself as was hoped. Troops opened fire on the nationalist rebels, killing sixteen of them and Hitler and others were arrested and tried for treason. At his trial, Hitler took advantage of the opportunity to share his ideology, which was then published in the newspapers. The judge was impressed with both his eloquence and his views and issued a lenient sentence for him and his colleagues. Although the Munich coup had failed, the legend of the great orator grew exponentially, attracting many new followers and membership in Hitler’s NSDAP had attained about 20,000 by the end of 1923.

Having pledged a ‘return to normalcy,’ Warren Harding was elected the 29th US President in 1920. An vocal opponent of entry into the League of Nations, his victory over James Cox and his VP running-mate, Franklin D Roosevelt (Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin), constituted the largest Presidential election landslide in America’s history (60%-34%.)

Harding inherited an economic depression and quickly moved to reduce income taxes and cut government spending by 50%. With the private economy now freed from the parasitic dead weight of bankster-controlled ‘big government,’ an historic economic boom soon ensued and the ‘Roaring Twenties’ were indeed a period of great prosperity and happiness for the American people. Harding was systematically unravelling the damage to the economy done by Woodrow Wilson and his puppet-masters and gradually returning the country to the halcyon days of William Howard Taft, whom he named as his Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Harding’s support for free-markets, limited government, low taxes, neutral foreign policy and his refusal to grant diplomatic recognition to the appalling and murderous Soviet Union, all went strongly against the banksters’ wishes and so right on cue, they unleashed an intense media smear-campaign regarding ‘scandals’ in Harding’s administration, against the highly-popular President.

In 1922, Interior Secretary Albert B. Fall accepted a bribe of over $400,000 from Mammoth Oil and Pan America Petroleum to obtain the leasing rights to the oil reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming. Unfortunately for the aptly-named Fall, the press were notified and he was exposed. Prior to Watergate this was considered the ‘greatest and most sensational scandal in the history of American politics.’ Some elements of the Eastern, bankster-controlled press were unrelenting in their attacks upon Harding but despite this, the American public were unconvinced by the propaganda and so Harding, and his policies, remained popular. As with so many other Presidents, Czars and other leaders before him, the Zionist banksters therefore decided to remove Warren Harding from office.

Whilst recovering from a strange sickness that had stricken him in San Francisco, President Harding died suddenly on the 2nd August 1923, during the middle of a conversation with his wife and doctors could not agree on the cause of his strange death. However, despite this, within an hour of his demise, Harding’s body was embalmed and placed in a casket and the following morning, the body was on a train, headed back to Washington. Incredibly, no autopsy was ever performed and the strong suspicions of a deliberate, poisoning (the banksters’ assassination method of choice, through the years) spread throughout America. The sudden death of the 57-year-old statesman, who successfully reversed most of Wilson’s damage in just 29 months, remains a mystery to this day. Unsurprisingly, mainstream historians now rate Harding as ‘the worst President ever.’

Harding was immediately replaced in office by his Vice President, Calvin Coolidge, according to the tenets of the Constitution, but after Harding’s apparent assassination, America was unsure what to make of Calvin Coolidge the little-known new President. It was widely believed that Coolidge would serve the remaining 19 months of Harding’s term, and then be replaced at the Republican Convention in 1924 but after continuing Harding’s policies, Coolidge became very popular himself and so was nominated to run against the Democrat, John Davis.

The banksters then promoted their own place-man Robert La Follette, the ‘Progressive Party’ nominee but on Election Day 1924, Coolidge won 35 states, Davis 12, and La Follette only his home state!

And so a brief period of peace and prosperity settled over the United States, with the banksters’ insidious political influence severely depleted. Obviously it was unlikely that they would allow that to continue without a struggle, and so it proved. They realised that they could not simply just keep-on killing Presidents and so the ‘Fed’ began laying a financial ‘bomb’ beneath the nation’s prosperity and when that bomb was finally detonated in 1929, the era of Constitutional Republicanism was to be swept away for good.

When Lenin died in 1924, Joseph Stalin the General Secretary of the Communist Party Central Committee, skilfully outmanoeuvred the Red Army leader, Trotsky to seize leadership of the USSR. Stalin eventually expelled Trotsky from the Communist Party and then from the USSR itself before finally ordering his assassination to be expedited by a Soviet agent in Mexico, sixteen years later.

Stalin’s immediate brutality instilled fear not only into the hopelessly enslaved people of the Soviet Union, but also into the hearts of fellow Communists that the extremely paranoid Stalin believed may challenge his leadership. The egomaniac even renamed the city of Tsaritsyn after himself; Stalingrad (now Volgograd since 1961) and ordered the erection of statues of himself in town squares.

From time to time, the smiling, psychopathic mass-murderer enjoyed a purge of many of his own Communist allies as well as his perceived enemies. He soon disposed of his first wife and then drove his second wife as well as one of his sons, to suicide. And so in the years to follow, Stalin’s chillingly extensive crimes against humanity would make Lenin’s Red Terror and Red Famine seem like a summer Sunday afternoon picnic, by comparison.

Also in 1924, a restructuring of Germany’s reparations debt, (the ‘Dawes Plan’) as well as the Allied debt to the US Treasury (which in turn is payable to the banksters) was instituted. The terms were still very harsh, but at least it had the effect of temporarily stabilising the German economy and its currency.

However, five years later the Dawes plan also failed and was replaced by the ‘Young Plan.’ The reality of the Dawes Plan, named after US Vice-President Charles Dawes, was that Dawes himself had little to do with it and it was in fact the Zionist-Globalist banksters who were imposing the new plan.

“The international bankers dictated the Dawes reparations settlement. The protocol, which was signed between the allies and Germany, is the triumph of the international financier. Agreement would never have been reached without the brutal intervention of the international bankers. They swept statesman, politicians, and journalists aside, and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute Monarchs, who knew there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees. The Dawes report was fashioned by the Money Kings.” Former UK Prime Minister, David Lloyd-George

During his eight-month imprisonment of 1924, Hitler had dictated his now famous book, ‘Mein Kampf’ (My Struggle.) whilst his close associate, Rudolf Hess, imprisoned with Hitler, faithfully committed all Hitler’s ideas to paper in readiness for its publication which was to take place the following year, 1925. In this sensational work, Hitler unambiguously and vociferously placed the blame for Germany’s sorry state (accurately) upon the global bankster conspiracy of Marxists and finance capitalists and their covert domination of everything. Are you now beginning to see how history was about to unfold, a little more clearly now, dear reader!?

According to Hitler, this global conspiracy, directed by the Zionist-Jewish bankers, engineered Germany’s loss of World War I, the Russian revolution, the Versailles Treaty, and the resulting hyperinflation that devastated Germany, all for personal financial gain. He accused the elite, Marxist Jews of Germany of controlling newspapers and banking, fomenting wars, and corrupting the art, culture and morality of all Europe. Was he possibly correct in these oft-denigrated and ridiculed insinuations, after all?

Mein Kampf combined elements of a political manifesto and an autobiography, along with discussions of history, philosophy and economics. Originally written for the followers of National Socialism, Mein Kampf quickly grew in popularity, making Hitler a very wealthy man.

But back in Russia, as part of Stalin’s first ‘5 Year Plan,’ the small farmers of the Soviet Union were forced into a typically Communist, collectivisation scheme whereby the government and not ‘the market,’ controlled output and set prices. Land, livestock, and equipment became the property of ‘the people,’ which is in fact a euphemism for the State and those who control it. Reluctant farmers were smeared in the State-owned Soviet press as ‘greedy capitalists,’ and those who continued to resist the state’s directives were cold-bloodedly murdered or imprisoned without trial.

Thousands of private farmers were killed, but the really significant death tolls began to rack-up in the early 1930s. Like all centrally-planned economic schemes, in which ‘intellectuals’ believe that they know better than the actual farmer, Stalin’s collectivisation and other subsequent ‘5-Year Plans,’ yielded only extremely low living standards for the Soviet people. In fact the average citizen was far worse-off materially under the Communists than they had been under the Czarist rulers. But of course that was all as planned.

The 340 feet (100 metre) tall Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was the grandest Orthodox Christian Church in the world. Completed in 1883, it had taken nearly 20 years to build, and another 20 years to decoratively paint its marble, granite, and gold plated interior. After Lenin’s death, the Christian-hating Soviet Marxist-Jews chose the location of the Cathedral to be the site of a monument to Lenin and Communism, known as the Palace of the Soviets and so on the 5th December 1931, by order of Stalin’s minister and Jewish brother-in-law, Lazar Kaganovich the Cathedral was dynamited and reduced to rubble, whilst Jewish Reds watched and laughed as horrified Christians grieved in terrified silence over the cruel destruction of their religious and cultural icon.

Ironically, due to poor planning and lack of funds, the Palace of the Soviets never even materialised. The site was turned into a huge public swimming pool instead and in 1990, after Glasnost, the Russian Orthodox Church received permission, from what was by this time a more ‘open’ Government, to rebuild the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. Although the interior was not as elaborate as the original, it is still and remains to this day, a magnificent structure once again.

The next in the long line of calamitous events to overtake the ordinary Russian citizens was what became known as the ‘Holodomor’ (Ukrainian translation, Killing by hunger.) This was another engineered famine, occurring mainly in the Ukrainian Republic of the Soviet Union during 1932-33. It was caused partly by the sheer folly of Stalin’s latest socialist scheme and partly by a deliberate, strategic terror-plan (another one) engineered by Stalin’s powerful, psychopathic Jewish brother-in-law, Lazar Kaganovich.

The evil, mass murderer Lazar Kaganovich, would live to the ripe old age of 98, finally dying in 1991.

In 1911 he had joined the Jewish-founded Communist Party and became involved with the Bolsheviks (Lower East Side, New York Zionists) who, financed by the banksters, Kuehn Loeb took an active part in the 1917 takeover of Christian Russia by Communist Jews and rose rapidly through the Party hierarchy.

From 1925 to 1928, he was first secretary of the party organisation in Ukraine and by 1930 was a full-member of the Politburo. Kaganovich was one of a small group of Stalin’s top sadists pushing for very high rates of collectivisation after 1929. He became Stalin’s premier butcher of Christian Russians during the late 1920s and early 1930s when the Kremlin Zionists launched their assault against the kulaks (Christian, small landowners) and implemented a ruthless policy of land collectivisation.

By any standards, Kaganovich was one of the most prolific mass-murderers in history and it is small wonder that during World War II, large numbers of Ukrainians greeted the invading Germans as liberators, with many joining the Waffen-SS in an effort to keep Communism-Zionism from enslaving all of Europe.

Encyclopaedia Britannica estimates that 7-8 million people, 5 million of them Ukrainian, were starved to death by Stalin’s famine but some estimates were as high as 10 million. The famine-genocide was aimed at stamping-out Ukrainian nationalism as well as starving anti-communist peasants in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia itself.

Despite Soviet denials of the famine and a strict news blackout in most of the US Zionist/Globalist press, the truth of the Holodomor was indeed known to the West, even at the time. Unlike Lenin’s terror famine of 1921, this time no outside assistance whatsoever, was permitted in the Soviet Union. Millions died a slow, distressing death and some people even resorted to cannibalism of the already dead in order to survive. Throughout this famine, Stalin and his henchmen destroyed any last lingering, remaining resistance to the Red Revolution.

The harvest of 1932 was only 12 per cent less than the average of 1926-1930. However, the authorities continued with the systematic confiscation of grain from peasants while Stalin upped the grain quota by 44 per cent. Death or ten years at labour camps was announced as a punishment for those who did not contribute to the state’s grain collection. Robert Conquest notes that even though there is no direct proof that the famine was planned by Stalin beforehand, his policies show that he considered it as an effective way to punish Ukrainian peasantry for their resistance to collectivisation.

A special law was passed in Moscow prohibiting the distribution of grain to peasants before the state plan was fully executed. Special commissions were searching for grain and even those who were dying of hunger were not allowed to keep anything. Peasants had to resort to eating cats, dogs, rats, leaves, and even cases of cannibalism were not uncommon. Nevertheless, while the villages were dying of hunger, the party activists kept collecting grain.

The 1930s are known in Soviet history as the time of Great Terror. Ukraine suffered heavily under Soviet mass repressions and in 1929-1930 45 leading scientists, scholars and writers were arrested for belonging to the fictitious ‘Union for Ukraine’s Liberation.’ This fake organisation invented by the Soviet authorities was declared to be planning Stalin’s assassination and the separation of Ukraine from the USSR.

In 1933, the repression of Ukrainian Communist party members began. They were excluded from the party for ‘ideological mistakes’ another Communist euphemism for disagreement with Stalin’s ideas and policies. Those who spearheaded the ‘Ukrainisation’ policy in the 1920s were accused of supporting ‘cultural counter-revolution’ and ‘isolating Ukrainian workers from the beneficial influence of Russian culture.’ Hilarious stuff indeed but not so funny I suppose, to be on the receiving-end.

Thousands of members of the new Soviet intelligentsia were sent to labour camps or executed and of 240 well-known Ukrainian writers, 200 ‘disappeared,’ never to be seen again and of 85 linguists, at least 62 were killed.

The terror was indeed widespread. Suspicion and fear became the realities of the time and in 1937, Stalin decided to eliminate the Ukrainian Communist Party’s leadership as well as the Ukrainian Soviet government. Three of Stalin’s representatives, Vyacheslav Molotov, Nikolay Yezhov and Nikita Khrushchev, were dispatched to Kiev to carry out the ‘purge.’ By June 1938, 17 ministers of the Ukrainian government and almost all members of the Central Committee had been arrested and executed.

Overall, the repressions affected 37 per cent of Ukrainian Communist Party members, i.e. about 170,000 people.

“It can seem a paradox that they were executing their ‘own men’ — the leading activists of the party and state, famous military commanders,” noted Vasily Zaitsev, a ‘Hero of the Soviet Union’ and further explained that, “ . . . there was nothing strange about it because ‘old activists’ who had survived conspiracy and Czarist repressions and civil war and believed in the ideals of the revolution were not fit for the ruling class, whilst being ‘fathers of nation’ at the top of the bureaucratic pyramid. They had to be eliminated to assign the new bureaucracy that entered the party after the revolution and did not have old-fashioned revolutionary fantasies and would be faithful to the leader.”

Soviet authorities attempted to cover up the events of 1932-33, denying that the famine had occurred until the last days of the Soviet Union. Only after Ukraine became an independent state again in the early 1990s, was the Holodomor famine admitted-to. In 2006 the independent Ukrainian parliament formally recognised that the famine was a genocide against the Ukrainian nation, although it is still disputed by some bankster-controlled or duped historians as to whether or not it can be defined as a genocide. Regardless of this controversy however, 26 countries have recognised the Holodomor as such.

Josef Stalin had the census figures altered to hide the millions of famine deaths when the Ukraine and northern Caucasus region had an extremely poor harvest in 1932, just as Stalin was demanding heavy requisitions of grain to sell abroad to finance his industrialisation program which was in addition to the enforced collective farming of 1929.

Stalin is conservatively estimated to have been responsible for the murder and/or starvation of between 40-60 million Russians and Ukrainians during his reign of terror, while the total deaths resulting from the kulak purges and famine, at the bloody hands of Kaganovich, may be conservatively estimated at about 15 million. The exact figures will never be known.

But now, please be prepared for an introduction to even more crazed, sadist, Zionist mass-murderers, a little later . . .

Chapter 8

The Depths of Depression

After the years of unimaginable madness and death, courtesy of World War I and the so-called Spanish Flu, came an era known as the ‘Roaring Twenties.’ It was a time of unheard-of prosperity for the majority, of a new decadence, reckless abandon, radio and mass entertainment.

“In 1929, as the dizzy decade nears its end, the country is stock market crazy. The great and the humble, the rich man and the working man, the housewife and the shop girl, all take their daily flyer in the market, and no-one seems to lose. Then like a bombshell, comes that never to be forgotten Black Tuesday, October 29th . . . Confusion spreads through the canyons of New York City’s financial district, and men stare wild eyed at the spectacle of complete ruin. More than 16.5 million shares change hands in a single day of frenzied selling. The paper fortunes built up over the past few years, crumble into nothing before this disaster, which is to touch every man, woman and child in America!”

From the screenplay of ‘The Roaring Twenties,’ Warner Bros. 1939

The Wall Street stock market crash impacted the whole world. The banksters certainly made sure of that. As per usual, they drew-in the wealth of the masses and then, rapidly ‘pulled the plug’ on them in order to appropriate all the huge amounts of capital that had been injected into stock and share values.

The combatant nations in World War I had amassed huge debts (to the banksters) and their peoples had experienced great suffering, followed in 1918 by a severe pandemic ‘flu’ that worldwide killed almost as many as had the war itself. The aftermath of World War I saw drastic political, cultural and social change across Europe, Asia and Africa and even in areas outside of those that were directly involved in the war.

But by the 1920s, the war was rapidly becoming a bad memory, and a period of relentless global optimism stoked by the hope that the destruction and privations of global war would never happen again, had prevailed. The masses now firmly believed that through determination and perseverance, the energies of mankind could be harnessed toward the creative, rather than the destruction that warfare wreaked.

In the ‘first’ world, mass-produced consumer goods, radios, cars, vacuum cleaners, fridges, canned food, telephones and much more, all became widely available for the first time and a new wave of industrialist entrepreneurs accrued great wealth. These new technologies instigated huge social change, for example, mass-produced vehicles became common throughout America and Europe and the fledgling car industry’s effects were widespread and profound, contributing to the development of the highway system, motels, service stations, used car dealerships and suburban housing developments.

The mass electrification of towns and cities progressed apace as more and more of the world was added to the electricity grid. New power plants were constructed and electricity production and consumption increased exponentially. Telephone lines were also being deployed across vast tracts of the world and indoor plumbing and modern sewage systems were installed for the first time in many areas.

All of these new, beneficial technologies and infrastructures also contributed to the general, exuberant mood reflected in a commensurate growth in the stock exchange. Stock and share prices moved both up and down throughout 1925 and 1926, followed by the beginnings of a strong upward trend in 1927. But by 1928, stocks and shares had become the talk of the masses and discussions about stocks could be heard in offices and factories everywhere. Newspapers reported stories of ‘ordinary’ people such as chauffeurs, maids and blue-collar workers making fortunes in the stock market. Yet very few people studied or understood the finances and underlying businesses of the companies in which they invested and thousands of fraudulent companies were formed that entrapped incautious investors. Many small investors never even realised that a crash or even a downturn was possible because in their over-confident, short experience, the prices of stocks had only ever gone one way.

Yet stock growth far exceeded growth in the underlying industrial economy and worse still, the over-confident growth was debt-fuelled. Those insisting that stock prices would continue to rise were not simply just gambling with their own funds, they were often leveraging other’s money, including commercial banks betting with customers’ funds sometimes at a ratio of ten or twenty-to-one. As stock prices moved higher and higher, more and more individuals were inexorably drawn into the system, using their life savings or meagre pensions to in effect gamble-away their future financial security, although of course they were never made aware of this fact. Please stop me if you have heard this story before somewhere, much more recently!

Then, as the end of the decade approached, the Federal Reserve’s policy of ‘easy money’ had made it profitable for investors to borrow money at artificially low interest rates and then purchase stocks with the money. This in effect, is akin to taking out a mortgage in order to place the money on a racehorse, but of course the public’s unrealistic optimism was never tempered by words of caution from those who knew better. And just like two conmen working the same ‘mug,’ the Zionist Federal Reserve doled-out massive amounts of credit whilst their brethren in arms, the Zionist press hyped-up the Stock Market ‘bubble’ and drew more and more ‘investments’ into it with their fake enthusiasm for the bubble’s ‘unlimited growth potential.’ With hindsight of course, it is patently obvious that any bubble has a finite life and when it reaches its maximum sustainable size, as all bubbles do, it would disappear into thin air in the blink of a bankster’s greedy eye.

In April 1929, with the stock market at an all-time high, Paul Warburg sent out a secret warning to his bankster friends that a collapse and nationwide depression had been planned for later that year. It was certainly no coincidence that according to the biographies of all the Wall Street bankster giants of that era; John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan jr., Joseph Kennedy, Bernard Baruch et al, that they all ‘fortunately’ managed to withdraw from the stock market completely, just before the crash and convert their assets into cash or gold.

So as planned, in August of that year, the Federal Reserve began to tighten the money supply. Slowly, slowly at first in order to give plenty of warning to their compadres and then, quite suddenly and without general warning, on 24th October, the banksters called-in their 24-hour broker call-loans. This meant that both the stockbrokers and their customers had to sell their stocks in order to cover their loans, irrespective of the price they could get for them. As a result of this action, the stock market crashed on a day that would go down in history as, ‘Black Thursday.’

The crash would later be defined into three phases, Black Thursday, Black Monday and Black Tuesday.

Black Thursday came first, on 24th October 1929. The market finally turned steeply downwards due to the actions of the banksters as related above and investors began to panic. Then, on Black Monday, even more investors decided to exit the market, causing stock prices to slide even further with a record loss in the Dow-Jones Index on that one day alone of 13%. On Black Tuesday, amidst rumours that President Herbert Hoover would not veto the pending tariff bill, the stock market plummeted even further. Approximately 16 million shares were traded that day, another record, and the Dow lost another 12% that day, $14 billion in value, bringing the week’s total losses to $30 billion, ten times more than the US annual budget and more than the US had spent in all of World War I, just to put the scale of the disaster in perspective.

Many people then suddenly, quite naturally, became fearful for their money in the banks but when they arrived at the banks’ doors in huge throngs to withdraw their money, the banks, who obviously operated under the odious fractional reserve lending requirements, owed far more money than they actually had in their possession and were unable to pay their depositors. Banks then began to fail by the thousands. By 1933, 11,000 had disappeared, thus consolidating and sustaining the ‘Great Depression.’

This was the first truly global crash. The falls in share prices on the 24th and 29th October 1929 were practically instantaneous in all financial markets, except Japan and the depression that ensued was the first truly world-wide such event. The problems of excessive leverage, over-optimism and over-speculation was evident deep within the global economy before the crash and spilled over into economic, social and political chaos afterward.

Between 1929 and 1933, the banksters reduced the money supply by an additional 33%. Only a few weeks after the crash, $3bn of wealth had ‘vanished’ and within a year this had grown to astonishing $40 billion of wealth that had apparently disappeared, according to the lying, predominantly Zionist media.

But of course, this absolute fortune had not really ‘vanished,’ it had simply been ‘re-distributed’ from the hands of the unsuspecting masses, the millions of small-time investors, to become consolidated in much fewer hands, as was pre-planned. I do not think I need to spell-out in large letters into whose hands this vast fortune passed, I presume? Indeed, this is the reason why booms and depressions are artificially created, whilst the banksters’ many apologists offer lame excuses about ‘market-forces’ or ‘business-cycles.’

Republican Representative Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania, the Former Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Commission, stated on the 10th June 1932, that . . .

“We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board . . . This evil institution has impoverished . . . the people of the United States . . . and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through . . . the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence . . . The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.

When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists acting together to enslave the world. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government.”

How very true. McFadden also warned Congress, that Americans were paying for Hitler’s rise to power . . .

“After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the German international bankers. Those bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her productions and they control all her public utilities. The international German bankers have subsidised the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolf Hitler had used in his lavish campaign to build up a threat to the government of Bruening. When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission.

Through the Federal Reserve Board over $30 billion of American money has been pumped into Germany. You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany, modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve has pumped so many billions into Germany that they dare not name the total.”

After he unsurprisingly lost his congressional seat in 1934, McFadden remained in the public eye as a vigorous opponent of the Federal Reserve and a thorn in the side of the banksters until his sudden death on 3rd October 1936. There had been two previous attempts on his life. Two bullets were fired at him on one occasion, and later he was poisoned at a banquet. (That popular method of choice again) But, on the third attempt, the assassins succeeded and the most articulate and vociferous critic of the Federal Reserve and the banksters’ covert control of the nation was finally silenced forever.

“Britain is the slave of an international financial bloc.” Former British Prime Minister, David Lloyd-George

“Democracy has no more persistent and insidious foe than money power . . . questions regarding the Bank of England, its conduct and its objects are not allowed, by the Speaker of the House of Commons.” Lord Bryce

With the crash of the stock market, the nation’s ‘independent’ banks (those outside the Federal Reserve System) suffered significant losses, due in part to the loss of investments. These losses were then of course immediately passed-on to their customers and investors that had survived the worst of the crash. Mortgages on houses and other properties were foreclosed and many people became homeless as result. Businesses, both large and small, were not immune from this disaster either, they also closed down in their multitudes, creating mass unemployment as a by-product. So, citizens that had invested money in the market found themselves completely penniless and without a prospect of any income — there were no jobs to be had. An estimated $140 billion was lost by people that had deposited their money in banks by 1933.

So, with the world and American economy completely collapsed, the American mid-West then suffered a further economic and ecologically-catastrophic event. Beginning around 1931, the farms of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico suffered a decade of drought, dust, disease and death, referred to by history as the ‘Dust Bowl.’ Farmers of the region had in desperation, attempted to counter the economic devastation of the Depression by increasing their crop yields and to expedite this, they ploughed and planted land which should have remained ‘fallow’ for a year or two in order to allow its nutrients to be naturally replenished. This over-ploughing resulted in the destruction of the native and drought-resistant prairie grass which helped to bind the soil together and this combined with the land mismanagement, extreme drought conditions and high-winds, resulted in great dust storms, also known as Black Blizzards, as the soil lost all of its ‘substance’ and simply ‘blew away.’ These dust storms were so immense and frightening that the farmers thought Armageddon had arrived early. Black Blizzards would rapidly turn day into night and cover areas the size of states, burying houses, cars, and farm equipment. It was believed that an average of about 2-3 feet of topsoil eroded away, destroying all the farmers crops and rendering the land unsuitable for future planting.

Scenes from the mid-West ‘Dust Bowl’ of the 1930s

The dust storms were devastating to the farmers, the nation’s and indeed the world’s food supplies and the US economy. In 1935, the Black Blizzard blew for 26 days consecutive days, greatly affecting the farmers and their family’s health.

During the catastrophe, the bankruptcy of mid-West farmers increased by almost sixty-six percent and approximately 750,000 farms were re-possessed by the banksters. Socially the family unit was affected; marriage and therefore birth rates declined and farmers were unable to feed their families. Over one million women were abandoned by their husbands through the necessity of travelling to find work and many would never return. These extreme conditions eventually led to mass migration from the vast farmlands and tens of thousands of families just abandoned their farms and headed west to California and Oregon, since farming conditions there were more amenable. This catastrophe and its social impact is well-documented in the novel, ‘The Grapes of Wrath,’ by John Steinbeck.

So how bad was the Great Depression? During the four years from 1929 to 1933, production in US factories, mines and utilities fell by more than half and disposable incomes dropped 28 percent. Stock prices collapsed to one-tenth of their pre-crash height and the number of unemployed rose from 1.6 million in 1929 to a staggering 12.8 million in 1933, a figure that represented 25% of the workforce. Quite understandably, ugly rumours of revolution simmered for the first time in living memory.

To properly understand the events of the time, it is necessary to view the Great Depression as not one, but four consecutive phases making up the whole. Professor Hans Sennholz labelled these four phases . . .

The business cycle
The disintegration of the world economy
The New Deal
The Wagner Act.

The first phase explained how and why the crash of 1929 happened in the first place, whilst the other three demonstrated how government intervention kept the economy artificially suppressed for over a decade, unnecessarily prolonging the pain, which was part of the banksters’ plan all along.

During his last year in office (1932) President Hoover introduced a desperate plan to bail out the failing banks, but he needed support from the Democratic Congress, which was not forthcoming. That same year Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in the 1932 presidential election and in 1933 he announced sweeping emergency banking measures and only then did the Fed begin to inject money into the economy and thus began the long process of recovery.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s roots extend back into the 17th Century when the wealthy Dutch Delano and Roosevelt (Rosenfeldt) families arrived in New Amsterdam (Manhattan.) By the 1880s, these families were a well-established part of New York’s financial, political and social hierarchy. FDR (born 30th January 1882,) of course had all of the benefits that come with being born into a patrician family; money, education, and connections.

Until the age of 14, young Roosevelt was home-schooled, before graduating from Harvard with mediocre grades. He used his many connections to find employment as a lawyer on Wall Street in 1908 and his political ambitions were fulfilled when he was elected Senator for New York State in 1911. FDR’s support network was greatly enhanced after October 1911, when he was initiated into Freemasonry at Holland Lodge #8 in New York. He would later rise to become a 32nd degree Mason and Shriner, according to Professor Johan von Leers, in ‘The Power Behind the President,’ Stockholm, 1941, page 148

When Woodrow Wilson took office, he appointed FDR Assistant US Secretary to the Navy. FDR would hold this position throughout World War I and until the end of Wilson’s presidency. His connections would prove to be advantageous when he was rebuked by Congress for his part in the Newport, US Navy homosexual entrapment scandal in the spring of 1920. A Senate subcommittee concluded that FDR had committed perjury before a Naval Court of Inquiry about his investigation of a homosexual corruption ring at the Newport, Rhode Island, Naval Station. FDR, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, had approved the use of decoys to entrap homosexuals (young sailors were instructed-in and ordered by FDR’s lackeys to perform indecent homosexual acts but further details are truly unprintable.) To be frank I could not even bring myself to write them down.

But FDR escaped relatively unscathed, as later that same year he was still the Democratic Party’s Vice-Presidential candidate, on the ticket with Presidential candidate Ohio Governor James Cox, who eventually lost-out to Republicans Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

FDR contracted polio in 1921. Withholding this disability from the public has been referred-to as a ‘splendid deception.’ However, the voters were deprived of important information about a candidate for the highest office. In May 1944 after he had suffered a heart attack, doctors told FDR that if he wanted to avert death, he could not work more than four-hour days but nevertheless even after this, FDR still decided to run for a fourth term. In 1944 he spent 200 days away from the White House in rest or recuperative travel and whilst from his own perspective this was simply a self-serving deception, it was effectively a fraud on the people and it damaged the country. He was utterly unfit for his high office long before the election. The lives of millions depended on the judgment of a man whose mind was warped by arteriosclerosis and the strong medication, digitalis. He had also contracted cancer.

Until he became President, FDR despite his family wealth had always personally struggled financially. He never made more than $25,000 a year as a lawyer, an occupation he had to relinquish in early 1923 because of his polio and his only business was his Warm Springs resort, bought with his mother’s money, which he ran as a health spa. But then as a condition of running for governor in 1928 his Democratic ‘kingmaker,’ John Jakob Raskob paid-off his $250,000 debts.

Raskob’s rise through the ranks of the DuPont weapons/chemical industry began in 1900, when Pierre du Pont hired him as a bookkeeper for his steel and railway businesses. Raskob then became Pierre’s private secretary, his assistant in 1902, assistant treasurer 1911 and treasurer on the Executive Committee in 1914.

By 1915, DuPont was beginning to absorb General Motors. With 3,000 shares, Pierre du Pont was GM’s largest minority stockholder and eventually became GM’s chairman and put Raskob on the board. Their goal was to have all GM cars use paint, varnish, lacquer and artificial leather from DuPont. By 1918, Raskob was GM’s vice president and chaired its Finance Committee and in 1919, Pierre placed family ‘friends’ onto GM’s board, Nobel, their European gunpowder ally and J.P. Morgan and the following year, with financial trickery and $35 million of Morgan’s money, du Pont’s empire now owned GM.

Raskob, by 1928 now dubbed the ‘Wizard of Wall Street,’ informed the bankster-controlled press that GM’s value would skyrocket. This falsely boosted the stock by almost $50 million, to $3.3 billion, the highest yet reached by any US industrial stock. A few weeks later, its fall caused a panic, the ‘bull market’ collapsed and Raskob, resigned as du Pont’s treasurer.

During the Roaring Twenties, insider trading was not yet illegal. Some brokerages, including J.P. Morgan and Kuhn Loeb, sold shares to ‘preferred’ clients, at below current prices. Of course, this scam removed money from small investors and made the rich, richer. Raskob was himself on J.P. Morgan’s ‘preferred list’ and in 1929, he used this advantage to unfairly profit on Standard Brands and United Corporation stocks.

Raskob was also instrumental in persuading ordinary Americans to trust Wall Street. Just before the 1929 Crash, the New York Times had quoted him as saying . . . “Prudent investors are now buying stocks in huge quantities and will profit handsomely when this hysteria is over.” That same year, his famous article ‘Everybody Ought to be Rich’ in the Ladies Home Journal, said that investments of $15 a month, would yield $80,000 in 20 years and meanwhile, his millionaire, bankster friends were busily selling stocks to get out of the market before the Crash.

Raskob also strongly promoted the 40-hour, five-day working week policy. In ‘What Next in America’ (North American Review, November 1929), he justified this policy not through any concern for the welfare of the workers, but as a ‘good business move,’ in order to . . . “ . . . give workers additional time . . . to function as consumers of what they produce. We have got production geared up to such speed . . . that we are faced with . . . the problem of getting the goods . . . consumed. Every manufacturer, every capitalist concerned with financing industry, knows this . . . . If we add a full Saturday holiday . . . there will be an immediate and tremendous increase in . . . consumption of automobiles, tires, gasoline, oil and roads.”

Of course the plan succeeded. Workers did spend more, thus funnelling their earnings directly back to the back to the bankster-industrialists from whence they had just come. But the ongoing Depression soon stopped their spending as the economy ground to a full stop.

Despite all the atrocities occurring at Stalin’s behest and well-known as they were to the Americans, on 17th November 1933, FDR became the first United States President to formally recognise the Communist Soviet Union as a legitimate nation, thereby legitimising the already ongoing trade and commerce with the Soviets. This recognition acknowledged the actual situation whereby Ukrainian grain and other raw materials were being sold in exchange for British and American machinery.

FDR imposed central planning through his ‘New Deal,’ regulations and programmes. His close advisor Douglas said that . . . “The present pseudo-planned economy leads relentlessly into the complete autocracy and tyranny of the Collectivist State.” But FDR broke every campaign promise he had made and the New Deal was exactly the opposite of what he had promised. He had promised . . . “I propose to you that the government, big and little, be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his cabinet . . . Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!” He also falsely promised to “ . . . reduce the cost of government operations by 25 percent” and called for a sound gold-based currency. Instead, Roosevelt engaged in a huge spending-spree and implemented the first twelve planks of the Socialist Party platform, which in substance, was the New Deal. Of course, the New Deal was not his idea — it was the will of his hidden masters, the Marxist-Zionist banksters.

From 1933 to 1936, government expenditures increased by more than 83 percent and he closed many non-Federal Reserve banks with no intention or thought of ever re-opening them (only central banks are needed in Marxist economics.) But after two years the New Deal was such a failure through waste, mismanagement and outright corruption that FDR had to introduce a ‘New, New Deal.” The New Deal has been called ‘a study in economic confusion.’ Herbert Hoover, the 1928 Democrat Presidential Nominee, Alfred E. Smith and the 1924 Democrat Presidential Nominee, John Davis, all dubbed the New Deal ‘communistic.’

Gottfried Haberler, Professor of Economics at Harvard and President of the American Economic Association and (allegedly) the world’s leading authority on economic depressions, called the failure of the New Deal a policy disaster “ . . . unparalleled in other countries.” And Winston Churchill said in 1937 that “The Washington administration has waged so ruthless a war on private enterprise that the US . . . is actually . . . leading the world back into the trough of depression.” The New Deal was repudiated by the voters in 1938 and the Republicans took effective control of Congress. FDR had made the depression worse and prolonged it at his controller’s behest and all exactly as planned.

When he was elected there were 11,586,000 unemployed and in 1939, seven years later, there were still 11,369,000 unemployed. In 1932 there were 16,620,000 on relief and in 1939, after seven years there were 19,648,000 on relief.

FDR supporter Merle Thorpe wrote in 1935, “We have given legislative status, either in whole or in part, to eight of the ten points of the Communist Manifesto of 1848; and, as some point out, done a better job of implementation than Russia.”

Religious leader, Colonel Eugene N. Sanctuary’s pamphlet ‘Is the New Deal Communist?’ made a point-by-point comparison of it, to Marx’s 1848 programme. Indeed, every aspect of the New Deal, whether it was one that encouraged recovery or not, was a choice unerringly true to the essential design of totalitarian, Communist government . . .

To extend the power of executive government, to rule by decrees and rules and regulations of its own making (between 1933 and 1943 FDR issued 3,556 Executive orders)
To strengthen its hold on the economic life of the nation
To extend power over the individual — the domestication of individuality
To degrade the parliamentary principle
To impair the independent Constitutional judicial power
To weaken all other powers — private enterprise and finance, state and local government

It is almost amusing that FDR built a cult of personality just as Stalin had (it is necessary in a tyranny because in rule by men, loyalty is not to law or country but to a person. Power then depends on such a cult.)

In early April 1933, in a move which mimicked that of Lenin’s 1917 decree, FDR confiscated the gold holdings of private US citizens at a price of $20.67 per ounce on the grounds of ‘national emergency.’ Any citizens who did not comply with this unconstitutional ‘law’ were subject to $10,000 fines and / or imprisonment. Then less than one year later in January 1934, FDR suddenly set the value of an ounce of gold at $35 per ounce, and a few months later he also doubled the price of silver. In effect, these actions were an outright theft from the US middle classes, whilst larger holders and hoarders of gold and silver who kept their assets in foreign accounts, in other words, the banksters, made an instant 70% return on their holdings.

In January 1933, bankster Bernard Baruch had told FDR’s son-in-law, Curtis Dall, that he personally held almost one third of the entire world’s silver. Thus Baruch and many others of his ilk made a huge fortune when the price of silver was raised, whilst as usual, all American small businessmen and farmers suffered.

This gold confiscation legislation / advice derived from the insidious Council on Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve Bank Board and in implementing this policy in his first year in office, FDR showed where his real loyalties lay, and that was to the international banksters.

In 1933, both Stalin and Roosevelt consolidated their leadership positions in their respective countries and for the next twelve years they autocratically dictated global geo-political decisions although they were not League of Nations members.

“There is in Chicago and in a very large part of the country, more suffering than there was in 1933 when the President came into office. It is a common sight to see children salvaging food from garbage cans.” Grace Abbot, 1936

“Mr. Roosevelt made depression and unemployment a chronic fact in American life.” Labour leader, John L. Lewis

“The story that Wall Street bankers planned to overthrow FDR in 1933 still makes the rounds in 2007. Recently, the BBC named George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush as one of the conspirators. The NWO apparently still considers Roosevelt and the New Deal as propaganda assets. They want us to think the bankers don’t run the government . . .

The Illuminati bankers staged the coup to give FDR credibility as Wall Street’s nemesis. As I will show, they routinely used such tricks to build up their Presidential puppet. The conspirators (members of the American Liberty League) approached retired Major General Smedley Darlington Butler to use 500,000 veterans to remove FDR and become a Mussolini-like figure.

Butler was absolutely the LAST man you would ask if you were serious. The most decorated Marine in history; Gen. Smedley Butler recently had been forced to resign by Herbert Hoover for calling Mussolini a ‘mad dog’ and warning that his fascist cohorts ‘were about to break loose in Europe.’ Butler refused to retract his remarks and thus became a national hero overnight.

However, if you wanted someone to expose your coup (as he did; thought it ‘smacked of treason,’) Butler was the ‘go-to’ person. Nor was Butler fond of Wall Street. He was touring the nation with a speech stating that the bankers used the US army as ‘gangsters for capitalism,’ thugs and debt collectors. ‘Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints,’ Butler said. ‘The best he could do was . . . operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.’ (‘War is a Racket,’ 1933)

‘There was definitely something crazy about the whole affair,’ remarked Curt Gentry. ‘Butler who had gained prominence for speaking out against fascism, being asked to become an American Duce.’ (‘J. Edgar Hoover’ p. 203)

Nevertheless, Gentry and most other historians accepted the tale, indicating their function as highly paid flacks. The story received its widest currency in Jules Archer’s book ‘The Plot to Seize the White House’ (1973). Judging from Archer’s other works, he is either the Illuminati’s best propagandist or biggest dupe (or both.)

Who was FDR?

For the answer, we are indebted to a book by a courageous honest, public-spirited New York doctor, Emmanuel Josephson: ‘The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt’ (1948)

FDR was the scion of two Illuminati families, the Delanos, and the Roosevelts. He was related to a dozen US Presidents: four on the Roosevelt side and eight on the Delano side. He was a third cousin of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

These families have some Jewish antecedents but they also have Dutch, German, Swedish and principally English blood. FDR’s mother’s father, Warren Delano made a fortune in the opium trade. His father James Roosevelt was Vice President of a railway and director of several companies.

FDR was a spoiled brat who always changed the rules to suit his whims. He was tutored privately, and failed law school but allowed to enter the bar anyway. He never held a real job. In the 1920’s, he helped float some stock market scams. As Governor and later President, he was extremely suggestible, evasive and shifty.

Louis Howe created his public persona and did his thinking for him. Howe was FDR’s ‘alter and wiser ego.’ FDR had a small army of speech writers and sometimes there were screw-ups. For his Democratic nomination acceptance in 1932, he was handed two speeches with diametrically opposed views and read them both.

After his attack of encephalomyelitis, the Rockefellers gave him a health spa at Warm Springs, Georgia. They subsequently funnelled millions of dollars to FDR in the guise of charitable contributions to his ‘foundation.’ (Dr. Josephson found that the institution did not accept charity cases and didn’t issue financial statements.) In Josephson’s words, ‘Roosevelt was magnificently bribed to run for office. By the end of 1930, some $700,000 was poured into the coffers of the foundation . . . [FDR] was the pathetic puppet of conspirators scheming the destruction of democracy and the establishment of an American monarchy.’

In return, the US Treasury under FDR spent hundreds of millions bribing Saudi King Ibn Saud and building oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia to benefit Standard Oil. Josephson said the basic doctrines of the Rockefeller Empire are ‘feudalistic monarchic government’ . . . ‘monopoly of every necessity of life and of national existence, and absolute dictatorship . . . ’

The rich must ‘divide and rule’: ‘The people must be dealt with not as Americans but as minorities set at each other’s throats, Labour vs. Capital, Black vs. White, Catholic vs. Protestant, Christian vs. Jew for e.g.’ He could have added male vs. female and gay vs. straight.

Rich degenerate inbreeds running for President naturally pretend to defend the public good. Naturally their banker-sponsors are willing to feign displeasure and opposition.

FDR learned the game from his cousin Theodore Roosevelt who pretended to be a ‘trust buster’ whilst remaining a creation of the trusts and giving the country to them. The contributors to FDR’s 1932 campaign include a ‘Who’s Who’ of the US business elite, the same people who supposedly tried to overthrow him a year later: Hearst, Rockefeller, Morgan, Baruch, Du Pont and Astor. In 1933, a group of ‘publicity men’ advised that fascism was becoming unpopular in America and FDR could score points by opposing the Nazis. ‘They suggested that Hearst and his publications launch a sham attack on Roosevelt and at the same time pretend to support Nazism and Fascism, thus throwing the Anti-Nazis and Anti-Fascists into the Roosevelt camp.’

‘As the perverter’s of public opinion expected, the gullible public raged at Hearst and flocked to the standards of Roosevelt, blind to the fact that he was giving them another of the same brand of dictatorship.’

The antagonism was an utter sham. Hearst employed FDR’s son Elliot, his daughter and her husband! Similarly the public enmity of the munitions manufacturing DuPonts was also a sham. Ethel Du Pont married FDR Jr.

‘The Liberty League was then set up for the ostensible purpose of attacking Roosevelt and fighting his re-election. This served to throw the entire pacifist vote into Roosevelt’s camp and helped reassure his re-election.’ Clearly the ‘Fascist Coup’ was just another clever ploy invented by the ‘publicity men.’

Curtis Dall was a banker and FDR’s son-in-law. He portrays the President not as a leader but as a ‘quarterback’ with little actual power. The ‘coaching staff’ consisted of a coterie of handlers (‘advisers’ like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international banking cartel. For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by ‘World Money’ and motivated by conceit and personal ambition. (Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law 1970)

The 1933 ‘Banker’s Coup’ is indicative of the trouble the financial elite takes, to deceive the public.” henrymakow.com

In 1934, the 32nd degree Mason Henry Wallace, FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture, Vice President and the 1948 US Communist party-endorsed Presidential candidate, submitted a proposal to the President to mint a coin depicting Illuminati / Masonic symbology on the obverse and reverse. Roosevelt, approved of the idea but opted instead to place it on the dollar bill.

“ . . . the Latin phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum impressed me as meaning the ‘New Deal’ of the Ages. Roosevelt as he looked at the coloured reproduction of the Seal was first struck with the representation of the ‘All-Seeing Eye,’ a Masonic representation of the Great Architect of the Universe. Next he was impressed with the idea that the foundation for the new order of the ages had been laid in 1776 (May 1st, 1776, founding of the Illuminati) but would be completed only under the eye of the Great Architect. Roosevelt like myself was a 32nd degree Mason. He suggested that the Seal be put on the dollar bill rather than a coin.” Henry Wallace, in a letter dated 6th February 1951

Illuminati symbology on American currency

Once freed from the worst excesses of the New Deal, the economy showed some signs of life once more. Unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936, and even lower in 1937 but by 1938, it was back up to 20 percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed again, nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938 and the ‘economic stimulus’ of Roosevelt’s New Deal had achieved a real ‘first,’ a depression within a depression.

FDR’s political views were shaped by a British MI-6 agent named Louis Howe whom he first encountered in 1912 and who was always very secretive about his political beliefs. Howe saw in FDR an ambitious, ruthless young man with no moral compass or real ideas of his own. Over years of conversations, and speech writing and agenda planning, and especially during the onset of FDR’s polio when Howe lived with them and they depended on him, Howe shaped both FDR and Eleanor.

He was their brain and they were his disciples. He taught them an ideology and they thus became ideologues. In a Cosmopolitan article in April 1934, Howe wrote quoting his protégé FDR, that “ . . . the time has arrived to build a new kind of government founded on the doctrine of the good neighbour and not the cruel doctrine of ‘rugged individualism.’” In other words, FDR stood for the obliteration of individualism at the hands of a ruthless, all powerful state — aka communism.

In August, 1935, Huey Long announced his Presidential campaign. He recognised that wealth was being rapidly transferred from ordinary, working Americans to the banksters and so Long proposed the ‘Share our Wealth’ programme which decreed that no individual family could hold more than $5 million in wealth and receive more than $1 million in annual income. An accomplished orator and statesman, Long had pointed out many of the fallacies of Roosevelt and the New (Zionist bankster) Deal and many people were now taking notice. The banksters were also taking notice and were become concerned by Huey Long, as the Great Depression threatened to thrust Long into the Presidency.

In March of 1935, Huey Long made a broadcast and had it placed in the Congressional record. But as we know, FDR was totally controlled by the banksters, and their agents and there was no way that were going to let some upstart, ‘firebrand Southerner’ become President at this critical juncture. On Sunday, 8th September 1935, Huey Long was at the Capital building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, attending a session called by Judge Benjamin Pavy, one of Long’s political enemies. As Long, walked along a corridor in the building, a Dr. Carl Weiss (actually Pavy’s son in law) calmly walked-up to him and shot him in the abdomen. In response, Long’s bodyguards shot the Jewish doctor over thirty times, killing him outright (unsurprisingly.)

Huey Long’s wound was not life threatening as such, but the bullet had hit a kidney, and that caused blood poisoning. Two surgeons were despatched from New Orleans, but Dr Arthur Vidrine, a Jewish physician had other ideas. He declared that he would have to perform emergency surgery before they had a chance to arrive and when the two surgeons arrived they were appalled at Vidrine’s obvious and calculatingly incompetent job. They went so far as to openly state that he was an accomplice of the attacker. Long never recovered from the operation, dying almost immediately. His funeral was attended by well over 100,000 mourners.

Huey Long was remembered as Louisiana’s greatest governor. His state tax system basically used the wealthy to pay for Louisiana schools. He reduced Louisiana’s illiteracy rate from 22%, down to 5% and the road system went from 300 miles to 3200 miles of paved roads. Among his Presidential promises whilst campaigning, was the restriction of the power of the Federal Reserve and to tax the wealthy and the corporations appropriately. His life mission was to redistribute the wealth away from the banksters.

Huey Long without doubt, had been a problem for the banksters and a barrier to FDR’s re-election. His death was, without doubt, very convenient for them, and very timely. Notes and recordings found by Mimi L. Eustis, written by her father Samuel Todd Churchill, who was a highly regarded member of a New Orleans secret society called the ‘Mystick Krewe of Comus,’ provide even more compelling details of an assassination conspiracy.

However let us now leave the United States for the time being and concentrate on events taking place across the Atlantic Ocean, most specifically in Germany.

The German elections of 1932 were held with the ever-present threat of open violence. The ‘far right’ and ‘far left’ factions were nowhere near the resolution of their differences and violent squabbles had become a regular occurrence. Neither side would ever admit to being the instigators of the violence and whichever faction you believe to be the initial aggressor, we only need to look at the track-record of the Soviet Communists in this regard to get some inkling of a clue as to where the majority of the blame lay, in my view. Anyway, regardless of the direction of blame, Red paramilitaries frequently clashed openly in the streets with NSDAP ‘brown shirts,’ but this apart, it was Hitler’s NSDAP that recorded major gains, winning 230 Reichstag seats. It was now the largest political party, but nevertheless still had no outright majority in the 608 member body.

However, political deadlock meant that another election became a necessity in November that same year resulting in a house composed of, NSDAP: 196, Social Democrats: 121, Communists: 100, Centre Party: 70, and 9 other minor parties split about 100 seats. Germany’s chaotic political scene was bitterly divided.

The brutal ‘austerity’ measures of Chancellor Heinrich Brüning had shrunk the national economy by about 25%, but still did not prevent the German budget deficit from growing and unemployment exceeded 30% as 250,000 desperate Germans committed suicide from 1930-1932.

In addition to a Parliamentary Reichstag and a Chancellor, Germany also had a President with unique powers. President Paul von Hindenburg was a World War I Field Marshall and a national hero and politically, he was a non-Party ‘independent.’ On the basis of NSDAP’s 196 seats and in order to end the deadlock, Hitler petitioned Hindenburg to appoint him as Chancellor, but Hindenburg refused the request.

So, after two parliamentary elections in 1932, Germany remained virtually ungovernable as the Socialist and Communist Parties continue to confront the NSDAP, often with violence. President Hindenburg gradually became extremely concerned that the Communists would exploit the chaos and attempt another revolution, but he eventually came to the conclusion that Hitler and the NSDAP were the only way to prevent this undesirable situation.

And so, in order to protect Germany from Communism, on 30th January 1933, Hindenburg finally relented and appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. Hitler’s powers were fairly limited at this stage, but the NSDAP now had predominance in what was still a very unstable situation. But the Communists did not give-u that easily and were constantly trying to destabilise Hitler’s government, calling for massive country-wide strikes. Meanwhile in the US, the Zionist, Sulzberger-owned New York Times began an anti-Hitler campaign on its front page of 31st January 1933 and Zionist Sarnoff’s NBC and Zionist Paley’s CBS soon followed suit.

Four weeks after Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor, Communist agitators burned-down the Reichstag. The police caught a Dutch Communist named Marinus van der Lubbe who had recently arrived in Germany, in the act. The fire was meant to have been the catalyst for a Red-instigated and Russian-funded civil war, aimed at toppling the crumbling Weimar state before Hitler and NSDAP could become established. Whilst evidence would now tend to favour the premise that van der Lubbe was a renegade member of an insignificant Dutch Communist group, this did not stop Hitler from attempting to make great capital out of the event. He immediately accused the German Communist party of a ‘conspiracy’ to destroy his new government and used it to fuel a massive propaganda campaign and clamp-down on them in any way he could.

So loud, long and disproportionate were the NSDAP protestations that it soon began to sound as though ‘ . . . the lady doth protest too much.’ This actually back-fired on Hitler when the world began to suspect that it was all a ‘false flag’ operation and committed by Hitler’s own henchmen in order to generate an excuse for the backlash against the Communists — but this was not the case despite Hitler’s ‘own goal.’ However the bankster-dominated world’s press had plenty to say about it all and of course they lost no time in heavily promoting the fiction that it was Hitler, Goebbels et al that had performed a ‘self-inflicted wound’ for political gain.

“ . . . Author in chief of the ‘Hitler, Göring and Goebbels did it’ fiction, was Willy Münzenberg, the propaganda genius of the German Communist Party. He had managed to escape the German police roundup on February 28th and to flee to Paris. Willy, a dynamic little fellow full of charm and imagination, whom I was later to meet frequently in Paris, soon set up a workshop in the student quarter on the left bank. Then, with the help of a small team of collaborators he proceeded to fake up a number of stories all going to show that the Reichstag fire was a Nazi conspiracy. Every little bit of fact that came the way of the team was seized, twisted and embellished to make up the ‘dossier’ which was promptly published in two ‘Brown Books.’

The recipe by which they worked was simple enough. For instance when Walter Gempp, the Berlin Fire chief who had personally directed the operations in the burning Reichstag, was dismissed because he had accepted extensive bribes from a fire extinguisher concern, Willy Münzenberg and his merry men immediately turned him into a brave anti-Nazi martyr. Gempp, they said, had been got rid of because he knew too much about the fire’s Nazi origin, and because he had complained publicly that he had been hindered by the Nazis in his firefighting. He had complained, they alleged, that when his firemen got into the Reichstag they found at least twenty Storm troopers already there. A brilliant invention. I can vouch myself, that when I went round the burning building, we met only police officers, no Storm troopers. But it was universally accepted as the truth.

On May 8, 1933, Ernst Oberfohren, the deputy chief of the nationalist Party and a bitter opponent of his leader Hugenberg’s alliance with Hitler, committed suicide out of chagrin over the way things were going in Germany.

Münzenberg at once faked up a secret document which, he alleged, Oberfohren had left behind telling the inside history of the fire. It too proved wonderfully effective. My colleague at the Manchester Guardian fell for the fake and sent a long dispatch, citing it as proof of the Nazi’s guilt.

My editor immediately wanted to know why I had not done the same. So I pointed out that apart from other improbabilities contained in the alleged Oberfohren document, I was particularly doubtful concerning the validity of one of the ten points it put forward as proof of the Nazi guilt. This ‘point’ was not in the Manchester Guardian version but it was contained in the copy of the document I had seen. ‘I think you will agree that it rather undermines the credibility of Herr Oberfohren’s alleged revelations — if indeed he was their author. Listen to this!’ And then I read him the passage . . . ‘Hitler’s constant companion and friend, the English journalist Delmer,’ it said, ‘telegraphed full details of the fire to his newspaper before it was discovered, and the name of van der Lubbe as being the culprit.’

The Editor agreed that perhaps we had not been scooped after all. Münzenberg and his team freely seasoned their inventions with Nazi names to give them the stamp of authenticity. Heines the Stormtrooper’s leader they said, had led a posse of his men into the Reichstag, through the subterranean passage connecting it with Göring’s palace. There they had then poured petrol over the benches in the assembly hall. The story was believed all the world over. The fact that Heines was four hundred miles away at Gleiwitz in Silesia, when this was supposed to be happening, did not detract from it at all.

The Münzenberg team declared that the protocol drawn up by Commissary Heisig and Commissary Zirpins during their interrogation of van der Lubbe and signed by him had been destroyed because in it van der Lubbe said that he had not laid the fire in the debating chamber. ‘Someone else’ he was alleged to have said, ‘must have done that.’ He had only set fires in the restaurant and the corridors. In fact the protocol was never destroyed. It still exists today and extracts from it were recently published. In it — as I have already stated — van der Lubbe states that he was responsible for all the fires in the building and had no helpers. And he continued to protest his sole responsibility for the fire at the trial — right up to the last.

When the Nazis tried to contradict the ‘Brown Book’s’ accusations they were too late. The world, shocked by their appalling crimes against the Jews and horrified by the lawlessness of the Storm troopers, was only too ready to believe that the fire was their work.

The legend first sponsored by Münzenberg grew and grew. After the collapse of Hitler, it became standard practice for former Nazi high-ups to alibi themselves with some new piece of ‘evidence’ proving that the Nazis fired the Reichstag. But in almost all instances they merely elaborated some point in Willy Münzenberg’s ingenious myth. Even today, when the ‘Hitler, Göring and Goebbels did it’ legend has been thoroughly exploded as a result of the meticulous and painstaking historical investigation done by the German writer Fritz Tobias, I fear it will still live on among the historical lumber filling the minds of most people. But not, I hope, the minds of those who read this book.” Sefton Delmer, British journalist and author, ‘Trail Sinister,’ 1961

Within hours, Hitler and his staff had orchestrated raids on the homes of around 400 suspected Communist sympathisers and the next morning, Hitler forced the institution of the Reichstag Fire Decree and the implementing of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which authorised President Hindenburg, who by that time did whatever Hitler commanded, to completely suspend civil liberties in this time of ‘national emergency.’

Article 48 was meant to be a temporary measure, to be revoked once the emergency was over, but it was never revoked and overnight, German citizens lost the rights to free expression, assembly, form groups, due process of law, and left them subject to complete government control over their homes, property, companies and several search and seizure options. Hitler from that point on, then became a dictator.

Then, Hitler arranged another election, scheduled for only five days later and as a result of the anti-Communist fervour generated in the aftermath of the fire, the Nazis cruised to a crushing victory. Goebbels was installed as the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and Göring created the infamous Gestapo in November of 1933. Van der Lubbe was tried, found guilty and in 1934, beheaded.

The newspaper headline below depicts what really happened in March of 1933. World Jewry or Judea (actually Zionism and not the Jewish people) declared war on Germany — and not the other way around as is disingenuously portrayed to be the case. At this point in time, there had been no German pogroms against the Jews, no excessively anti-Jewish feelings manifest and no legislation discriminating against them; indeed the Jewish element of the German economy was regarded as being an essential component of the hoped-for wider economic recovery and prosperity of the country, its economy being as stagnant as it was, in this period prior to Hitler’s mass re-armament of the German forces.

The headline of the British Daily Express, 24th March 1933

Jewish Zionist leaders were quoted as calling for ‘Holy War’ against the entire German people. The article reveals that . . . “ . . . the Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people. . . . .Germany is now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry.”

“The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses . . . by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed. The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time . . . . In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.” The Jewish newspaper, ‘Natscha Retsch’, 1933

Germany responded to the International Jewish-Zionist boycott by themselves boycotting Jewish stores and a few days later, Hitler responded to the charges being made against the new Germany, stating on the 28th March that . . . “Lies and slander of positively hair-raising perversity are being launched against Germany.”

Growing ‘anti-Semitism’ in Germany and by the German government in response to the boycott played right into the hands of the Elite Zionist leaders as indeed they had hoped it would. Prior to the escalation of anti-Semitism as a result of the boycott, the majority of German Jews had little sympathy for the Zionist cause of promoting the immigration of world Jewry to Palestine. Making the situation in Germany as uncomfortable for the Jews as possible, in cooperation with German National Socialism, was part of the Zionist plan to achieve their goal of populating Palestine with a Jewish majority.

“For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history, for it ‘proved’ to many Jews that Europeans were irredeemably anti-Jewish and that Palestine was the only answer: Zionism came to represent the overwhelming majority of Jews solely by trickery and cooperation with Adolf Hitler.” www.jewwatch.com

Like FDR, Hitler assumed authoritative power in March 1933 and as did FDR, Hitler inherited an economic disaster, but there the similarities ended. Whereas FDR implemented all of the bankster-Globalists’ economic and foreign policy plans, Hitler by contrast, openly defied the architects of the New World Order by implementing the following policies:

Withdrew Germany from the League of Nations
Banned the Communist Party and arrested its leaders
Replaced the national Marxist Trade Unions with company unions.
Established the NSDAP as Germany’s only political Party
Refused to make any more reparations payments of the Versailles Treaty/Dawes Plan
Removed control of Germany’s Reichsbank away from Warburg/Rothschild banksters and issued his own debt free currency
Restricted Jewish ownership of radio and newspapers
Cut taxes and provided tax incentives for mothers to stay at home and raise their children
Rebuilt German infrastructure and initiated projects like the Autobahn Highway system, financed by debt-free notes paid to the workers.

On the 1st June 1933, The Washington Post was one of many businesses to go bankrupt during the Great Depression. Its owner Ned McLean sold the newspaper at a bankruptcy auction and the buyer was the Zionist, former Federal Reserve Chairman and active member of the CFR, Eugene Meyer. Meyer immediately changed The Post’s editorial policy, transforming the influential newspaper into a pro-FDR, anti-Germany and soft-on-Stalin, Communist-sympathising propaganda sheet. He then almost immediately fired the current editor for refusing to endorse diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union.

In fact the Post continued to run at a loss for the next twenty years but Meyer did not care. He had bought the Post for influence, not profit.

In fact the Zionist ownership of American media began years earlier. David Sarnoff was born in a small Jewish village in Czarist Russia and immigrated to New York in 1900 but by 1919, Sarnoff was General Manager of RCA Radio. In 1926, Sarnoff’s RCA formed NBC, the first major broadcast network in the United States and indeed it was Sarnoff who was instrumental in building the AM broadcasting radio business which became the pre-eminent public radio standard for the majority of the 20th century. During World War II, Sarnoff (who had no military experience) served under General Eisenhower as a Brigadier General and ‘Communications Consultant.’

When television in America was born, under the auspices of the National Broadcast Corporation, the first TV show aired at the New York World’s Fair and was introduced by Sarnoff himself. Leadership of RCA-NBC eventually passed-down to Sarnoff’s eldest son, Robert, one of the husbands of Felicia Schiff-Warburg of the two prominent bankster families. Franklin Roosevelt Jr. (son of FDR) was incidentally, also an ex-husband of Felicia Schiff-Warburg. The Sarnoff Family in fact controlled RCA-NBC TV for more than 60 years.

William S. Paley (Paloff) was the son of Jewish immigrants who came from the Ukraine region of the Czarist Russian Empire and in 1928, the 27-year old businessman secured the majority ownership of the CBS Radio network (of which his father Samuel Paloff had been part-owner.) Within the next decade, Paley expanded CBS into a national institution with 114 affiliate stations. During World War II, Paley, like Sarnoff of NBC, served under General Eisenhower as a colonel in the Psychological Warfare branch of the Office of War Information.

As the absolute ruler of the CBS radio (and later TV) empire, Paley is without question, one of the most powerful figures of the 20th Century and with David Sarnoff controlling RCA-NBC, and Paley in control of CBS, the pre-TV medium of radio had rapidly fallen under absolute Zionist control.

Albert Voegler, Gustav Krupp, Alfred Krupp, Fritz Thyssen and Emile Kirdorf who had provided some of the funds for rise of Nazism, began complaining that one of Hitler’s early supporters, Ernst Roehm and several other leaders of the SA were homosexuals. Ernst Roehm had been with Hitler since the DAP days of 1919. He rose to SA Chief of Staff, transforming the Brown Shirt militia from a handful of hardened thugs and embittered ex-soldiers into an effective fighting force, five-hundred thousand strong, in fact the chief instrument of Nazi enforcement. Hitler needed Rohm’s military skill and could rely on his personal loyalty but Hitler as Fuehrer (leader) had become wary of Roehm’s huge, loyal power-base within the Party and Roehm’s blatant homosexuality, ignored by Hitler for over a decade was increasingly being seen as a detriment to the image of the NSDAP.

So, on 29th June 1934, during what would become known as the ‘Night of the Long Knives,’ Hitler had Ernst Roehm arrested. Around 200 other senior SA officers were also arrested and many were shot as soon as they were captured. Hitler wanted to pardon Roehm because of his long service to the Party, but under pressure from Goering and Himmler, Hitler agreed to eliminate him. He insisted that Roehm be allowed to commit suicide, but when he refused, two SS men shot him. This drastically reduced the power of the SA and they were in fact replaced by the SS as the dominant force in Germany.

Following the ‘Night of the Long Knives,’ nothing stood between Hitler and absolute power in Germany, except the 86-year-old German President, Paul von Hindenburg, who now lay close to death at his country estate in East Prussia. Although Hindenburg was in increasingly bad health, the Nazis ensured that whenever Hindenburg appeared in public, it was always in Hitler’s company.

During these appearances, Hitler made a great show of the utmost respect and reverence for the President but in private, continued to detest Hindenburg and expressed the hope that ‘the old reactionary’ would die as soon as possible, so that Hitler could merge the offices of Chancellor and President into one.

Hitler was always very conscious of the fact that the President was the Supreme Commander-In-Chief of the German armed forces, and that as Hindenburg was still a revered figure in the German Army, if the President decided to sack Hitler as Chancellor, there was little doubt that the Reichswehr would side with Hindenburg. Thus, as long as Hindenburg lived, Hitler was always very careful to avoid offending him. In fact Hindenburg remained in office until his death from lung cancer at his home in East Prussia in August 1934, and as far as Hitler was concerned, Hindenburg’s demise could not have been timed any better. He had just broken the grip of the unruly SA and cemented the support of the Army’s General Staff and now he just needed to resolve the issue of who would succeed Hindenburg as president.

Hitler, of course decided that it was he that should succeed Hindenburg, but not as President, but instead as ‘Führer’ (leader) of the German people. However, there were still a few influential old-time conservatives in Germany who hoped for a return of the monarchy or perhaps some kind of non-Nazi nationalist government after Hindenburg’s death. Although they loathed democracy, they also loathed the excesses of the Hitler regime. These were proud men from the 1800s reared in the days of Princes and Kings and ancient codes of honour.

Among those conservatives was Franz von Papen, Germany’s Vice Chancellor, who was a confidant of President Hindenburg. Just before the Night of the Long Knives, Hindenburg had told him, “Papen, things are going badly. See what you can do.” But Papen had been unable to do anything except to barely escape with his own life. However, he had one last ‘trick up his sleeve.’ In April 1934 he almost convinced Hindenburg to declare in his will that Germany should return to a constitutional monarchy upon his death. Hindenburg at first agreed to insert it in his will, but then changed his mind and instead put it in the form of a personal letter to Hitler, to be delivered after his death. However, for Hitler and his followers, the idea of returning to a monarchy at this point was utterly laughable. Hitler had the Reichstag completely in his control and exercised his power to prevent any such thing from ever happening. He simply had a law drafted abolishing the office of President and proclaiming himself as Führer.

Within hours of Hindenburg’s death, the Reichstag announced the following law, back-dated to 1st August:

“The Reich Government has enacted the following law which is hereby promulgated:

Section 1. The office of Reich President will be combined with that of Reich Chancellor. The existing authority of the Reich President will consequently be transferred to the Führer and Reich Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He will select his deputy.

Section 2. This law is effective as of the time of the death of Reich President von Hindenburg.”

The law was technically illegal since it violated provisions of the German constitution concerning Presidential succession as well as the Enabling Act of 1933 which forbade Hitler from altering the presidency. But that did not matter much anymore and unsurprisingly, no-one raised any objections.

In September, 1934, at the annual Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies, a euphoric Hitler proclaimed, “The German form of life is definitely determined for the next thousand years. The ‘Age of Nerves’ of the nineteenth century has found its close with us. There will be no revolution in Germany for the next thousand years.”

His much-vaunted ‘Thousand Year Reich,’ had just begun — or so he believed. However, the banksters had other ideas.

By 1936, Hitler’s economic recovery, based on his own debt-free currency had become the most stunning economic revival in world history. While the rest of the world remained in the vice-like grip of the banksters’ great depression, Germany boomed. This however had by no means gone unnoticed by the banksters.

Unemployment, which had been at 30% a few years earlier, was now under 5%. Productivity was up exponentially, as were wages, and by freeing Germany from the heavy taxation of the Weimar Republic, the cruel burden of the Versailles Treaty, and the perpetual interest costs of Weimar’s debt-based Central Bank currency, Hitler had unleashed the private economy whilst using the public sector wisely.

Unlike FDR’s wasteful and useless, sham public works programmes, Hitler’s public works were useful investments, improving the lives of the German people beyond all recognition. Low taxes, lean government, debt-free currency and a business-friendly environment were the ‘secrets’ of Hitler’s economic miracle, and of his universal popularity amongst the grateful German people.

Along with the stunning economic rebound, freed from the clutches of the banksters, the re-born Germany also experienced a cultural and moral rebirth. The NSDAP, whose membership was open to all Germans of sound moral character, swept-away all the pornography and degeneracy and debauchery that had thrived under the Weimar State. Classical art made a strong comeback and so-called ‘modern art’ was relegated to its proper place — as an object of ridicule. The future looked extremely bright for Germany.

Now back to the USA again to examine more closely, the events of the 6th May 1937.

For some strange reason, there were twenty-two photographers present at 7 pm to film the arrival of the German airship, the Hindenburg in a New Jersey airfield. This would seem quite excessive for an event which had already occurred twenty times in the previous year at the same field, without incident so why would this event require so many photographers, five of whom were newsreel photographers?

The Hindenburg was behind schedule by exactly 12 hours, it had been supposed to land at 7 am. Both the captain and first officer admitted they were wary of a possible bomb attempt because of the current tensions with Germany and sabotage was maybe a serious possibility, yet it was strictly not to be mentioned by the compliant press after the ‘accident.’

Everyone knows what supposedly happened next, but not one of the photographers caught the actual ‘spark’ that allegedly led to the ‘explosion.’ There was plenty of footage of a large fireball above the airship with a portion of the outer skin opened up and there was footage of the poor souls trying to escape the burning wreckage, but no one caught the spark on film. Strange that with twenty-two photographers present, all of whom would be vying for a potential ‘scoop,’ that nothing of that sort was recorded.

The most serious problem with the mainstream version of the Hindenburg ‘explosion’ scenario is the fact that Hydrogen, by itself, separated from oxygen in a sealed gas cell (Hindenburg had 16 separate cells,) does not burn. Hydrogen and oxygen need to be combined stoichiometrically for this to happen, but there was only pure hydrogen in the Hindenburg. Even striking a match inside a hydrogen fuel cell would do nothing at all except immediately extinguish the flame as soon as the oxygen, in solid oxide form, contained within the match-head powder was exhausted. If a static spark ignited Hindenburg, it would have started burning on the outside of the ship’s skin where air containing oxygen could have mixed with the hydrogen escaping from a small leak and even if there was a static electricity spark, as had never yet occurred in 30 years of successful operation, how would a flame requiring oxygen, burn its way inside the gas cell where there is no oxygen? It is all an impossibility.

Hindenburg had instruments that would have detected and transmitted the slightest changes in gas pressure to the bridge, so any sizable leak would have caused a pressure-drop almost immediately and would have been detected and the pilots would have then sought to correct the problem. If a spark had then occurred in this split section time window, a small flame on the outside skin would have been visible, burning like the head of a small gas torch where the hole was. But there was no way that the flame could have entered the cell, and no way were there any signs of a bomb or explosion there.

Over a period of seven years, the Graf Zeppelin logged more than 1,000,000 miles, carried 18,000 passengers in safety and comfort and made 144 successful Atlantic crossings using only hydrogen as the buoyancy material. Airships are a simple form of anti-gravitation device. They are much more efficient for transporting people and cargo than piston driven and modern day aircraft which have to lift such heavy fuel loads and plough through the air by sheer force in order to keep them aloft. Upon reaching a height of about 500 feet, the engines are started and away they go, like a ship floating in water.

Airship use should have been expanded and continued, but of course it was shut down in favour of inefficient propeller and now jet-driven aircraft, which today consume incredibly large amounts of kerosene, otherwise known as expensive jet fuel, which is also detrimental to the environment.

One of the rare sources of ‘alternative’ news and information before the advent and growth of the Internet, was an irregular newsletter compiled and distributed by Hilaire du Berrier, who had served in the OSS during World War II. After the war, the OSS, ‘Office of Strategic Services,’ changed its name to the CIA, ‘Central Intelligence Agency’ and ‘downsized,’ a euphemism for eliminating the anti-Communists within its ranks. Du Berrier maintained numerous international espionage contacts and ran his ‘intelligence’ newsletter out of Monaco from 1958 to 2001. His very last report ironically was on 9/11/2001 at age 96. No doubt he would have had an absolute ‘field-day,’ with that particular subject matter!

Anyway, according to du Berrier, the man behind the Hindenburg disaster was Moe Berg -- a major league baseball player, master of languages, a Zionist, and like du Berrier an undercover OSS agent. Du Berrier’s source was Tim McAuliffe, a legend of the Boston sports equipment industry . . .

McAuliffe became the friend, adviser and ‘uncle’ to many of the young athletes in the Boston area and the Red Sox baseball team made his apartment their ‘hang-out.’ Moe Berg, the catcher, told him that . . .

“We had to do something that would make that maniac (Hitler) attack us.”

All McAuliffe could think of to say was, “Moe, surely you didn’t kill twenty-five people just for that?” But he was too upset to say any more and finished his meal in silence whilst Berg went on talking.

“I couldn’t be there myself,” he said, “I was scheduled for a game, but I did the planning and four of my men carried it out.”

According to Berg, they used a rifle with a telescopic sight, although the sight was totally unnecessary with a target that big. When the ship approached, the men were hiding in the bushes at Lakehurst and the first shot with an incendiary bullet set the after-end on fire.

McAuliffe lay awake that night, looking at the ceiling and thinking about Berg’s ‘confession.’ He was too scared to tell his story to the FBI in case they charged him with being an accomplice. The more he thought about it, the more he realised it was not the work of a single man. There was teamwork involved for sure, but McAuliffe had no way of knowing how deep it ran. It was at the height of the depression and he was afraid he might lose his job.

It was some years before he started besieging editors and government officials with his story and when he did no one would listen to him. Some editors were afraid of being accused of ‘anti-Semitism.’ Then, when he offered to testify before a government committee, Secret Service men descended on his apartment. A man named Kent Tyler had seen the shots fired but Tyler was silenced by the government. Herb Morrison, who covered the disaster for NBC, never answered his letters.”

Du Berrier further reported that ‘both Washington and Berlin wanted the affair dropped.’ Herman Goering in fact, ordered German intelligence to compile a report but suppressed its findings ‘lest passions be aroused in Germany and around the world.’ This action, I believe demonstrates that the Germans were not the bloodthirsty gang of cut-throats determined at any cost to drag the world kicking and screaming headlong into another conflagration, as they are always, constantly portrayed by the Zionist bankster’s media.

Du Berrier was certainly not a man to invent things and McAuliffe, as a sports equipment dealer, was not a ‘political’ person and would have had no reason to invent the story about Berg, who did not become publicly known as a spy until the first book was published about him some 40 years later. And it is simply too much of a coincidence to suggest that the Hindenburg simply exploded, from the accepted explanation of ‘static electricity,’ just as she was docking, when no such discharge had ever occurred during the course of her many other trips. An incendiary bullet, fired under the cover of darkness, would have been the perfect tool to set the airship ablaze.

Moe Berg had a reputation as ‘the brainiest guy in baseball.’ At Princeton, where he studied seven languages, he communicated in Latin with the college’s second baseman and he later attended Columbia Law School and the Sorbonne. After fifteen undistinguished seasons as a professional baseball player, he became a spy with the OSS during World War II, parachuting into Yugoslavia and interrogating Italian physicists about the German nuclear programme. Apparently, his is the only baseball card on display at CIA headquarters.

On the eve of World War II, the German chemical complex of I.G. Farben was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, with extraordinary political and economic power and influence within the Nazi state. Farben has been aptly described as ‘a state within a state.’ The Farben cartel dated from 1925, when Hermann Schmitz (with Wall Street financial assistance) created the super-giant chemical enterprise out of six already huge German chemical companies Badische Anilin, Bayer, Agfa, Hoechst, Weiler-ter-Meer, and Griesheim-Elektron. These companies were merged to become Internationale Gesellschaft Farbenindustrie A.G. or IG Farben for short.

The declared goal of this cartel, as is the case with all giant corporations, almost without exception, was to obtain control of the global markets in their key industrial sectors of chemistry, pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals and in 1925 when this cartel was founded, its corporate value already surpassed 11 billion Reichsmarks and it employed more than 80,000 people.

Without the capital supplied by the banksters, from the City of London and Wall Street, there would have been no IG Farben in the first place and almost certainly no World War II. But of course, we now know that this was all part of the ongoing, long-range evil scheme anyway.

German banksters on the Farben Board of Directors in the late 1920s included the Hamburg bankster Max Warburg, whose brother Paul Warburg was a founder of the Federal Reserve System in the United States. Probably not coincidentally, Paul Warburg was also on the board of IG Farben’s wholly owned US subsidiary.

Hermann Schmitz, the organiser of IG Farben in 1925, became a prominent early Nazi and supporter of Hitler, as well as chairman of the Swiss IG Chemic and president of the American IG Farben. The Farben complex both in Germany and the United States then developed into an integral part of the formation and operation of the Nazi state machine, the Wehrmacht and the SS.

One of the strategic industries for which IG Farben sought global control was the pharmaceutical ‘investment business.’ They knew that the pharmaceutical industry is not primarily a health industry as it purports to be, but merely an investment business that defines the human body as its marketplace. Whilst presenting itself as the purveyor of health, the entire existence of this investment industry has always been based on the continuation and expansion of diseases as multi-billion dollar markets for their patented drugs. The precondition for establishing a global monopoly for this investment business with patented drugs, as it indeed still is to this day, was the attempt to systematically eliminate all non-patentable, and therefore non-profitable, natural therapies.

Several researchers have argued that Germany could not have gone to war in 1939 without IG Farben. Between 1927 and the beginning of World War II, Farben doubled in size, an expansion made possible in great part by American technical assistance and by American bond issues, such as the one for $30 million offered by National City Bank. By 1939 Farben had acquired a participation and managerial influence in almost 400 other German companies and over 500 foreign firms. Farben owned its own coal mines, its own electric power plants, iron and steel units, banks, research units, and numerous commercial enterprises. There were over 2,000 cartel agreements between Farben and foreign firms, including Standard Oil of New Jersey, DuPont, Alcoa, Dow Chemical, and others in the United States.

However, the full story of IG Farben and its world-wide activities before World War II will never be known, as key German records were destroyed in 1945 in anticipation of the Allied victory. However, one post-war investigation by the US War Department concluded that . . .

“Without I. G.’s immense productive facilities, its intense research, and vast international affiliations, Germany’s prosecution of the war would have been unthinkable and impossible; Farben not only directed its energies toward arming Germany, but concentrated on weakening her intended victims, and this double-barrelled attempt to expand the German industrial potential for war and to restrict that of the rest of the world was not conceived and executed ‘in the normal course of business.’ The proof is overwhelming that I. G. Farben officials had full prior knowledge of Germany’s plan for world conquest and of each specific aggressive act later undertaken . . . .”

Directors of Farben companies of course were not only Germans but also prominent American financiers, but the final sentence above is yet more anti-German propaganda, unfortunately. I will shortly provide ample proof that not only did Hitler and Germany NOT intend ‘world conquest’ but also that Hitler, in the months and weeks leading up to the outbreak of the war and indeed in the early months of the war, before he finally realised the hopelessness of his task, actually fought an eloquent battle of words with both England and the US in an attempt to avert conflict. Indeed it was the allies, backed by a massive propaganda campaign that wanted war and the ultimate destruction of Germany — exactly as they had prior to the earlier conflict.

This 1945 US War Department report also concluded that Farben’s instructions from Hitler in the pre-war period was to enable German self-sufficiency in rubber, petroleum, lubricating oils, magnesium, fibres, tanning agents, fats and explosives. To fulfil this critical task, the War Department claimed, vast sums were spent on processes to extract these war materials from indigenous German raw materials, in particular the plentiful German coal resources. This however, was simply more deception, designed to promote the myth that Germany, under Hitler was making long-term plans for the war at this time.

It is a known fact that much of the bankster-controlled financial and industrial complex in the US and Britain were complicit in the assistance in the re-building of German industrial might in the 1930s and whilst this may seem like a contradiction, there were two main reasons for this . . .

Number one was the great god of ‘profit,’ a subject always close to the banksters’ hearts and at the forefront of virtually all of their machinations and activities, both overt and covert. But the spin-off from all these investments and joint-projects was that it was actually deliberately building-up Germany’s war machine in order to provide a viable adversary to oppose in a major war. By this I mean that had Britain, France and the US decided to prosecute the war in 1931, for example, then it would have been a very short one indeed. At this juncture, there was no Hitler, the cartoon-like bogeyman to hold up as a figure of hate, no German war machine and no industrial infrastructure with which to successfully feed a war economy. In short, the allies needed a powerful enemy to oppose them and so basically decided to construct a viable one for themselves! A perfect, win-win solution.

For example, the Standard Oil group of companies, of which the Rockefeller bankster family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest, was of critical assistance in helping Germany prepare for World War II. This assistance in military preparation transpired because Germany’s relatively insignificant supplies of crude petroleum were quite insufficient for modern mechanised warfare. In 1934 for instance, about 85 percent of German finished petroleum products were imported and so the solution adopted was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was this hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war and this process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with IG Farben.

IG Farben owned half of Standard Oil, and Standard owned half of Farben and the Rockefeller family owned a quarter of the whole package. It was a ‘marriage made in hell,’ with shysters John Foster and Allen Dulles eagerly serving and receiving their fees of course, as midwives at the birth. Standard-Farben, together operated more than forty concentration camps in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries, including Auschwitz, to provide an endless stream of slave labour to the American corporations operating in Germany.

Standard also supplied enormous amounts of conventional oil to the Germans. Rockefeller vessels deceptively operating under the Panamanian flag, shuttled between Mexico and Tenerife in the Canary Islands, ostensibly to supply the Spanish refinery there, but in reality, supplying the German U-boats attempting to starve Britain into submission.

The American-owned multi-national giant, General Electric also, incidentally, had an unparalleled role in twentieth-century history. GE electrified the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, and generously fulfilled for the Soviets, Lenin’s dictat that ‘Socialism = electrification.’

Indeed, General Electric directors were found to be enmeshed in each of these three distinct historical events; the development of the Soviet Union, the creation of Roosevelt’s New Deal and the rise of pre-war Germany, which also suggests that ‘Big Business,’ all bankster-controlled and run of course, are keenly interested in the ‘socialisation’ of the world, for their own purposes and objectives, rather than the maintenance of a fair market-place in a ‘free’ society. General Electric in fact, profited handsomely from Bolshevism, from Roosevelt’s New Deal socialism, and from National Socialism in Hitler’s Germany.

Henry Ford was often seen as an enigma amongst the Wall Street elite. For many years in the 1920s and 30s, Ford was popularly known as an enemy of the financial establishment. He accused JP Morgan and others of using war and revolution as a road to profit and their influence in social systems as a means of personal advancement and by 1938, Henry Ford had divided financiers into two classes; those who profited from war and used their influence to bring about war for profit, and the ‘constructive’ financiers. Among the latter group he included the House of Morgan.

Nevertheless, Henry Ford was also one of the most famous of Hitler’s foreign backers and he was rewarded in 1938 for this long-lasting support with the highest Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners, the ‘Grand Cross of the German Eagle.’ The New York Times reported that it was the first time the Grand Cross had been awarded in the United States and was to celebrate Henry Ford’s 75th birthday. Predictably, this Nazi ‘award’ aroused a storm of controversy in the United States and ultimately degenerated into an exchange of diplomatic notes between the German Government and the US State Department. Whilst Ford publicly protested that he was not in favour of totalitarian governments, he knowingly profited from both sides of World War II, from French and German plants producing vehicles at a profit for the Wehrmacht, and from US plants building vehicles at a profit for the US Army.

Despite the fact that Ford’s plants also supplied the Germans with thousands of engines for their warplanes, Henry Ford refused to allow Ford to supply England with airplane engines.

It is also a fact that General Motors manufactured thousands of German military trucks and Panzer tanks using concentration camp slave labour and both Ford and General Motors, whilst converting their factories in Germany to the production of armaments for the German war-machine, refused requests from the US government to increase military production at their plants in the United States.

Henry Ford had previously shown his true colours when dealing with the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. Trade-unions were established to ‘fight’ for the rights of workers against the often all-powerful might of large corporations, more often than not on picket lines, in contract negotiations, and through media coverage rather than literally. However, violence and intimidation of union organisers and members has a long, sordid history and the events of 26th May 1937 was one of the most significant examples of that. It was a battle that ultimately cost the capitalists their cover-up of lies and deception.

This battle took place outside Detroit at the Ford Motor company’s Rouge Complex, a huge Dearborn industrial park on the Detroit River. Walter Reuther and other UAW organisers were present in order to show their solidarity with Ford workers as they attempted to negotiate for better pay and shorter working hours. A leaflet campaign had been prepared, and the press arrived to cover the event. What happened next, unfortunately for Henry Ford, was captured on film by a Detroit News photographer.

The infamous Harry Bennett was ‘head of security’ for Ford and he was, essentially, Henry Ford’s ‘fixer,’ a tough, uncompromising former boxer whom Ford had hired after asking him a single question, “Can you shoot?” Although Bennett was tough, he was also paranoid. He had built himself a home on the Detroit River that was a veritable fortress with hidden tunnels, an interior stairway that led directly to a dock under the house, complete with getaway motor boat and a moat ringed with explosives ready to be triggered.

Bennett had begun his career at Ford as a clerk in the parts department but quickly rose to prominence as perhaps America’s most famous ‘corporate thug.’ He soon ingratiated himself with Henry Ford, becoming his ‘right-hand man’ in the 1920s. Other than Ford’s wife Clara, Bennett was perhaps the person closest to his boss during the final decades of Ford’s life. Bennett headed-up Ford’s notorious Security Department, with a large staff of often brutal, thugs and in addition there was a spy service made-up of thousands more, who would willingly snitch on their fellow employees. Together they monitored Ford employees, intimidated union organisers, delivered punishments and guarded Ford and his family.

Bennett’s security force were known as ‘service men,’ and it was composed of former athletes, Detroit gang-members, and ex-convicts and it was this security ‘army’ that had shot at Ford workers, alongside the police during the ‘Ford Hunger March’ in 1932, killing five and wounding 60.

Henry Ford sought the media’s sympathy in his fight against the workers that were asking for an ‘extravagant’ two dollars more per day in pay, so Bennett hosted a lavish feast for them at the beginning of May and indeed many of those same reporters and photographers turned up to cover the UAW presence at the Rouge Complex on 26th May.

As the UAW organisers posed for press photographs on a pedestrian overpass that led from the plant to the parking lot, Bennett arrived with 40 of his security force. The ‘service men’ immediately attacked the union negotiators. One of them was thrown down a flight of stairs on the overpass bridge, kicked and punched, and then thrown down a second flight of stairs. Another’s jacket was pulled up over his head and he was savagely beaten and yet another was thrown off the overpass and landed on concrete 30 feet below, breaking his back.

Members of the Ford women’s auxiliary had also arrived to distribute leaflets to other workers as they came-off shift and these women were also attacked and beaten whilst Dearborn police officers stood by and watched. Later they explained that Bennett’s security forces were ‘defending private property’ and they did not want to interfere.

Bennett’s attacking security officers then rounded-on the members of the press who had attended the event. Reporters had notes ripped from them, cameras were smashed, film was confiscated and burned and one reporter was even chased by a group of ‘service men’ for five miles before he finally sought sanctuary in a police station. However, one of the photographers escaped and managed to protect the glass-plate negatives of his photographs. He hid the real negatives in his back seat and surrendered some blank ones to Ford security before making his getaway.

Bennett later declared to the media, “The affair was deliberately provoked by union officials . . . I know definitely no Ford service man or plant police were involved in any way in the fight.” But the smuggled photographs, however, told a different story.

The outcome of the ‘Battle of the Overpass’ was the negative attention it brought to Henry Ford and the way he treated his workers. Called before the National Labor Relations Board, Ford had to answer charges involving dozens of unfair labour practices in violation of the Wagner Act. Prior to the hearing, Ford tried to forestall the bad publicity by raising worker’s pay by $1.50 a day, an announcement he made immediately after the ‘battle’ ended, but the opinion of both the National Labor Relations Board as well as the entire country went against him and forced him, three years later, to sign a UAW contract, permitting them to represent all Ford workers in future.

Back to the main thrust of the story again, though. American-owned companies by the hundred, became involved in the manufacture of Panzer tanks and other military vehicles, warplane engines, navigational equipment for Luftwaffe bombers, radar, high explosives, aircraft aluminium, bomb parts and many other types of vital war material for the German war effort.

Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil, DuPont, Remington Arms, Alcoa and many others had joint ventures in Germany and cartel agreements with IG Farben. And as well as building radar for Germany, General Electric entered into a cartel agreement with armaments manufacturer, Krupp, to restrict the production of tungsten carbide, a vital war material, in the United States.

IT&T obligingly created the German military’s communications systems and provided vital bomb components for their friends in the Third Reich and the company also produced thirty thousand fuses a month for shells to be used against American and Allied troops. During 1944 and 1945, IT&T also supplied the Germans with guidance components for the deadly V1 and V2 rockets which rained down on London’s helpless populace.

IT&T also made its South American subsidiaries available for German intelligence operations and also the capital to German aircraft manufacturers building bombers for the Luftwaffe. Ultimately, IT&T owned 28% of Focke-Wulfe, one of the leading producers of warplanes.

Prescott Bush was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the First World War and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker in 1921.

Other US corporations with major ties to the Nazis included Eastman Kodak, Chrysler, Bendix, Sperry Gyroscope, the Mellon family’s Alcoa, the Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank and International Harvester. The profits of the American companies are kept, for the most part, within Germany where they are used to finance the war effort.

The following is from an article by Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell for the British establishment newspaper, The Guardian, 25th September 2004 . . .

“George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany . . . The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism. His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave laborers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The debate over Prescott Bush’s behavior has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady, internet chatter about the ‘Bush/Nazi’ connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair.

But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazi’s plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush’s business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.

The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world. Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler’s efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen’s international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush’s links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen’s American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush’s involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland. The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director.

Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush’s ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes. A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that “since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country’s war effort.”

“If the Nazis won, some of these ‘business realists’ would have been impeccably Nazi. If the Nazis lost, the same businessmen were impeccably American.” William Stephenson, Head of British Security Coordination

All of the above examples totally support the premise that the banksters and their related industrial conglomerates took no sides during the war. Their lust for profits was not diminished or deterred by any thoughts of illegally ‘trading with the enemy,’ whatsoever. It further strongly supports the notion that these bankster-elites recognise no borders, have no allegiance to any particular country, even their own, and their only concerns are the consolidation and increase of their ongoing mega-profits and their quest to subjugate the entire population of the world in order that the poor get poorer and the already rich (themselves) get even richer.

After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, The Russian controlled Comintern sent Red volunteers from all over the world to fight for their cause against the Spanish regime. As always, the Communists were involved in sickening atrocities against civilians, such as setting fire to the wives and children of Nationalist officers after dousing them with petrol. The Zionist Reds were determined to stamp out Christianity in Spain too, and to this end they raped nuns, tortured priests and set fire to churches with the worshippers locked inside.

But despite the Communists’ best efforts, the Spanish Civil War ended in victory for General Franco’s Nationalists, but the war between Red Globalism and European Nationalism was only just beginning to ignite. On the 25th November 1937, Germany and Japan agreed to the Anti-Comintern Pact, a mutual defence treaty directed at the Soviet-controlled Communist International. The pact stated that . . .

“Recognising that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and subdue existing States by all the means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace and social wellbeing, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of cooperating in the defence against Communist subversive activities.”

In case of an attack by the Soviet Union against Germany or Japan, the two countries agreed to take measures “ . . . to safeguard their common interests.” Mussolini’s Italy also joined the Anti-Comintern and several other nations also joined subsequently and Germany even invited Britain and Poland to join the Anti-Comintern, but they declined. No surprises there, then.

In 1938, mounting pressure on both sides of the border between the two nations, resulted in the ‘Anschluss,’ the voluntary incorporation of Austria into the German Reich which was supported by 99% of Austrians, but opposed by the puppet, Austrian government instituted by the Allies after World War I.

The Versailles Treaty had broken-up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and forbade Austria from uniting with Germany, but after witnessing the miraculous recovery of Germany throughout the early 1930s due to their the freedom from the economic straitjacket of the banksters, and the incredible enhancements in the German living standards, there was a great desire in Austria to unite with their ecstatic, Teutonic brothers and sisters. So, without a single shot being fired, German forces moved-in unopposed and were greeted as liberators by the overjoyed Austrians.

And when Hitler himself arrived in the land of his birth, he was given a hero’s welcome by the frenzied Austrian crowds. Unsurprisingly, the world’s Zionist media portrayed the joyful unification as ‘Germany conquers Austria.’

When the Treaty of Versailles dismantled the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it forced Czechs, Slovaks and Germans into the artificially-created state of Czechoslovakia. The German region, the Sudetenland, lay southeast of Germany, had three million German inhabitants and similarly to the Austrians, the Sudetenlanders also wished to unite with their homeland, the German Reich. However, Czechoslovakia and its Communist President, Edward Benes, would not allow them the right to self-determination and the Sudetenland Germans were instead persecuted by the Globalist-owned state of Czechoslovakia.

Understandably, Hitler and the German people were becoming angered by the Czech abuse of their brethren and he declared that he would no longer tolerate any Czech mistreatment of the Sudeten-German community in Bohemia, and as a result of the growing tensions between Germany and the Czechs and also Germany having to endure constant Polish incursions and sabre-rattling on its territories, it was difficult to see how a general European war could now be avoided. The Czechs had a modern army of twenty-five divisions, and if the German army crossed the border, the Czechs would no doubt give a good account of themselves. The French and Russians had promised their full support if that happened, and the British would also join the anti-German coalition.

At the last moment however, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, made a personal intervention and in order to resolve the matter peacefully, Hitler called for an international conference in Munich, attended by England, France, and Italy.

Chamberlain at heart, was a man of peace and did not wish Europe to descend into another state of war and chaos again so soon after the World War had wreaked such utter havoc and destruction, but he had reckoned without the war-mongering banksters’ demented obsession. He also recognised that Germany had genuine grievances and persuaded himself that if these were met quickly, that a repeat of the 1914-18 war could be avoided. Quoting his personal motto, ‘Peace at any price,’ he flew to Munich and persuaded Hitler into calling-off his attack in return for German re-possession of the Sudetenland. The French were relieved to let Chamberlain defuse tensions; the Russians said nothing and the Czechs, knowing that they could not fight alone, were also secretly relieved and signed the agreement.

Once the artificial Czechoslovakian state had been successfully dissolved, Germany established autonomous protectorates over what remained (Bohemia and Moravia) and again, with no violence whatsoever or even a single drop of blood being shed, the ethnic Germans were welcomed back into the Reich whilst the other ethnic groups were given their own states; a ‘win-win’ for everyone. In scenes echoing his Austrian reception, Hitler also received a delirious welcome upon visiting the Sudetenland.

However, as alluded-to, the banksters were not happy with this turn of events and now had to find another way to create the spark that would set Europe ablaze once again. Furthermore, contrary to what you may have ‘learned’ in modern history lessons at school, college or University, read in articles or books or watched in fictional films and so-called ‘factual documentaries’ about the catalyst of the start of hostilities in 1939, the conflict was absolutely not initiated by Germany. In collusion with the elite, bankster-controlled networks in Europe, primarily Britain, Poland had constantly violated Germany’s borders without provocation.

At the risk of repetition, it is extremely important that everyone should understand that Hitler DID NOT want war of any kind, let alone to conquer the world or even Europe, as is the constant claim of the Zionist-globalist banksters and their legions of apologists.

He was however, backed into a corner by the deceitful allies and put into a position where Germany had absolutely no option but to defend themselves, if necessary by pre-emptive strikes.

“Germany is too strong. We must destroy her.” Winston Churchill, November 1936

“The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets.” Winston Churchill, March 1946

“Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European economic balance.” Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics

“I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power and we were encouraged by the Americans around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right.” Former UK Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, 16th March 1984

“The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.” Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, historian

“I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them.” Adolf Hitler, July 1940

“We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.” Winston Churchill in a Guild Hall speech, July 1943

“The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all.” (p.267) and “Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership.” British historian, Professor A.J.P. Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’ (p104-105)

In March 1939, Poland, already occupying German territory legally ‘acquired’ in 1919 at Versailles, invaded Czechoslovakia and during the months preceding the outbreak of war, Polish armed forces repeatedly violated German borders. On the 31st August 1939 Polish irregular armed forces launched a full scale attack on the German border town of Gleiwitz (significantly now Gliwice, in Poland.)

Within hours Germany retaliated by launching an attack on Poland, resulting in Britain and France’s declarations of war on the German nation on 3rd September 1939. In Britain’s case this declaration of war was constitutionally illegal as it was never ratified by Parliament. Of course the allied propaganda machine churned out the untrue story that the attack on Germany’s border had been carried-out by German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms, in a false-flag operation. Indeed to this day, mainstream history holds this version of events to be true, but it is not.

Despite her borders being constantly attacked by the numerically superior armies of France and England and economically strangled by Elite financial interests, Germany refused to be drawn into action against Britain, repeatedly negotiated for peace and undertook no overt offensive strategies for around nine months. This period was known as the ‘phony war.’ However, Germany did carry-out a full-blooded, pre-emptive strike, the Blitzkrieg (lightening war) on Northern Europe, but only after it discovered that England intended to broaden the western front by occupying the Benelux countries and Norway, thus directly threatening Germany’s borders.

A few days after Britain declared war on Germany, the bootlegger, Mafia asset, chronic adulterer, devout coward, investor in Nazi industry and US Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Joseph Kennedy held a farewell dinner for his nine children before sending them back to the US where they would be safe from the anticipated, German bombing raids on London.

World War Two had now begun in earnest and another six appalling years of darkness, bloodshed and misery was about to descend on Europe, for the second time in only twenty years . . .

Chapter 9

World War Two — The Problem

“There are two world histories. One is the official and full of lies, destined to be taught in schools, the other is the secret history, which harbours the true causes and occurrences.” Honore de Balzac

“In war, truth is the first casualty.” Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC — 456 BC)

Throughout history, various men of military standing have spoken-out against the actions of the military hierarchy. Some have exposed the atrocities that have been covered-up, whilst others have revealed the deceptions that have been used against the public or actions that have been taken that are contrary to what they view as moral principles. Major-General Smedley Darlington Butler is one of the most prominent, high-ranking servicemen who has publicly opposed the actions of the military in which he formerly served.

Marine General Butler is also one of the most highly-decorated military men from the pre-World War II era. Twice a US Medal of Honor recipient, he served from 1898 to 1931 and saw action all over the world. Eventually he became a prominent political figure and was one of America’s most important leaders of the liberal movement of the 1930s. Butler advocated military isolationism and was totally against American involvement in World War II. His isolationist views are certainly unpopular today and in fact are incompatible with the current geopolitical ‘norm’ and were developed from his 33 years of service as what he referred-to as “ . . . a gangster for capitalism.”

In total, Butler delivered over 1,200 speeches in over 700 cities during his speaking tour of the United States and in 1935 published his pamphlet ‘War is a Racket,’ which divided opinion hugely at the time of its publication, as it still does to this day. The foreword by Lowell Thomas spoke of Butler’s “moral as well as physical courage” and noted that “Even his opponents concede that in his stand on public questions, General Butler has been motivated by the same fiery integrity and loyal patriotism which has distinguished his service in countless Marine campaigns.”

What Butler fought so hard for was to take the focus off of moral and ideological arguments for war and concentrate on the geo-political factors that actually motivated war. He tried to raise awareness of what the real motivating factors of war were, as well as its usual dire consequences and indeed was one of the first soldiers to really bring the economic implications of war to the forefront of the public conscience.

In War is a Racket, (which by the way is still in print and available to buy on the internet,) Butler exposes in wonderfully blunt detail how the American ‘military machine’ was used exclusively to the benefit of wealthy American industrialists and banksters. He noted how proponents of war typically call on God as a supporter of the cause and how they embellish the mission as one of liberation and the spreading of freedom, but that these people tend to shy away from discussing the economic details of military ventures.

The following is an excerpt from a speech he made in 1933 . . .

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defence at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defence of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its ‘finger-men’ to point out enemies, its ‘muscle-men’ to destroy enemies, its ‘brain-men’ to plan war preparations, and a ‘Big Boss,’ Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General and during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street.

The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

The following is a quotation is from the acclaimed British Intelligence operative Anthony Thomas Trevor-Stokes, better known to truth-seekers everywhere as ‘T. Stokes . . . ’

“Winston Churchill, who led Britain into both World Wars with his famous ‘victory’ salute, is still revered by many people and was in a recent, rigged newspaper poll voted Britain’s greatest Englishman.

Churchill has been exposed as a long term Zionist/bankster puppet, and served their interest before that of Britain, and whom has been shown to be from documental research and Humint, (human intelligence) to have been a Druid priest, a one-time fringe spiritualist and member of the ‘Golden Dawn,’ and most damning of all, a 33rd degree mason. Masonry is universally accepted as a racist, anti-Christian and a secretly, elitist anti-democratic organisation.

This establishes his interest in the occult from day one, and he himself has said on record that he escaped capture in the Boer war, by his psychic ability to choose to knock on the one door that would give him shelter, his statement here is questionable from archive material research but let’s leave this for now.

His ‘V’ salute is a recognised greeting of the horned god, the symbol of the Devil worshipping Illuminati, as demonstrated in ‘Skull and Bones’ initiates.

The version of the ‘V’ salute as shown in the Star Trek TV show by Spock, is a greeting by Rabbis in the Hebrew tradition, the hand split down the centre represents the 2 fingers on each side of the ‘V’ in deVil, as the initials DE and IL represent the fingers.. The initial ‘V’ is the 22nd letter in the alphabet, a sacred number in Hebrew numerology, and corresponds in the tarot pack to the major arcana.

Winston changed sides in his political career four times, and his skills were on offer on several more occasions for the right price, this meant he was known in the House of Commons as ‘The Shithouse’ from his initials ‘WC.’ He accepted £150,000 to bring Britain into World War II for the Rothschild bankers against Germany, and to latterly drag in the USA.

Archbishop Lang the Church of England expert on occult subjects, prior to WWII was privy to Churchill’s putting together of the ‘Black Team’ those wartime astrologers, dowsers and ritual magicians, under the stewardship of Louis de Whol, Dennis Wheatley, Dion Fortune, Dr Alexander Cannon and Ian Fleming both claimed that Churchill had wartime dealings with Aleister Crowley, advertised as the world’s ‘wickedest man,’ and the famous East-end spirit medium Joe Benjamin, who was often advertised in the sixties as, Winston’s favourite medium.

Sefton Delmer the journalist and black propaganda and psy-ops leader confirmed that 33rd degree masons Churchill and Aleister Crowley were involved in wartime sacrifices at the Devils Chimney on England’s south coast. Churchill wanted occult advice on all wartime events, even insisting on mass, fake astrological pamphlet drops, and other hate propaganda leaflets being dropped from British aircraft over Germany.

The master-spy, Rothschild operative and traitor, Sir Anthony Blunt has said on record, Hitler was negotiating for peace right through the war, and sent his deputy Rudolph Hess to Britain to pursue an honourable peace which Churchill continually refused, following Rothschild advice for total destruction as shown in his needless firebombing of German dormitory cities, this can be seen as the typical ‘Satanic Sacrifice’ as recorded in the Old Testament as a ‘burnt offering’ and in the biblical burning of witches. Sir Anthony Blunt put on record his distaste at Churchill’s support of the Soviet rape squads sent in to defile the women and children in the last days of the Third Reich, disrupting the racial purity of the eugenics tables, and the sacrificial fire-bombing was only equalled by Churchill’s refusal to Leo Amery who begged help for India in the 1943 famine disasters, while Churchill sent food and arms to Russia, this surely is Satanism at its worst?

Patrick Kinna (Churchill’s secretary) tells us we were reading the German Enigma codes so knew which ships would be sunk, and we sent out decoy ships to keep the U-Boats away from those ships we wanted kept safe, we knew the town of Coventry would be bombed but Churchill did not evacuate and left the people to their fate.

Britain’s intelligence services had saturation coverage of the Third Reich up to and through WWII and told us the Germans were a threat to Russia — not Britain, so Churchill formed his own people called the S.O.E. and these were recruited from leftie rabble rousers and socialist sympathisers, and were told to, ‘set Europe ablaze,’ the purpose was to sacrifice Europe for Churchill’s ambitions, and to insure Germany would clamp down on them, which was exactly what happened.

It was suggested to me some years ago, that Churchill was blackmailed over a homosexual affair with his secretary into a pro-Zionist stance, in a similar fashion to what happened with the Prime minister Edward Heath with the ‘sailor boy’ activities, and the Tony Blair / Lord Levy ‘Miranda revelations.’ Churchill’s biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert discussed with several people and argued with Churchill’s doctor Lord Moran over the many alleged visits to the teenage ‘bum-boy’ dens of Morocco.

Soviet spy Eugene Ivanov was just one who documented Churchill’s alcoholism and mental instability, all now in G.R.U archives. Churchill accepted secret bribes in WW I under the name of Colonel Arden, and one of his bank accounts in WW II was alleged to be in the name of ‘A Connolly.’

Britain in the 1930s had a posture that assisted Germany in its anti-Russia stance, yet Churchill on his own, in pure Tony Blair fashion, turns the tables and decides Germany is the enemy and took us to war.

Hitler had a thing about the Anglo Saxon race, that is, Germany, Britain and the U.S.A and did not want war with us. If we had listened to our intelligence services we would have let Russia and Germany fight it out, and we could have easily dealt with the weakened winner, and World war two and the Cold war would never have happened, but Churchill had Vernon Kell reputedly the world best intelligence chief retired off and murdered, and naval intel head, Admiral Sir Barry Domville incarcerated for the wars duration for their opposition to Churchill’s plans.”

So, Winston Churchill sold out to the banksters against the welfare of his own nation, to line his own pockets in the manner of a modern Judas. How very unsurprising.

“Ponder on this . . . on April 20th Hitler’s birthday, because his war with the usurers, asset strippers and bankers, brought Russia to threaten both Germany and England, Churchill took us into WWII, Poland was just the excuse, the same as in all the wars now we fight them for the bankers.” Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domville KBE (Knight Commander, Order of the British Empire), CB (Companion, Order of the Bath), CMG (Commander, Order of St Michael and St George) assistant secretary to the Imperial Defence Committee, Director of Naval Intelligence (1927-30) and President of the Royal Naval College (1932-34)

Conventional, mainstream ‘history,’ an adjunct of the corrupt, ruling orthodoxy, records that Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domville was a distinguished Royal Navy officer who blighted his illustrious career by developing ‘extreme right-wing political views’ and becoming a ‘leading British fascist.’ Domville visited Nazi Germany in 1935 and was invited to attend the Nuremberg Rally of September 1936 as a guest of the German Ambassador, Joachim von Ribbentrop. His fondness for Germany and her people led him to establish a pro-German organisation, the Anglo-German Link, whose membership peaked at around 4,300. It was an ‘independent non-party organisation to promote Anglo-German friendship’ whose intended purpose was . . . “To foster the mutual knowledge and understanding between the British and German peoples, and to counteract the flood of lies with which our people were being regaled in their daily papers.”

The war hysteria being ratcheted-up by the propaganda fed through the media in all its forms ensured that despotic, un-constitutional legislation was passed without any undue delay or debate in the British Parliament, endowing the Home Secretary with the right to imprison without trial, anyone he believed likely to ‘endanger the safety of the realm.’ In other words, anyone whom the Government saw fit. Consequently, a Defence Regulation Order, the infamous ‘Regulation 18b,’ was passed by the ‘mother of all Parliaments,’ that was a useful tool for those wishing to silence the dissenting voices to the unfolding nightmare, the totally avoidable carnage, that is usually referred-to as the Second World War. Regulation 18b was ruthlessly enforced and hundreds of gallant servicemen (and some of their wives) who had fought with great distinction in World War I and received many decorations, but who, only because they opposed the new war with Germany, on moral grounds and not because of any crime they had committed, were imprisoned without charge or trial throughout most of the Second World War. Some were well known, such as Oswald Mosley and some were very distinguished, such as Admiral Sir Barry Domville.

Indeed, nearly two thousand less well-known men and women were also imprisoned by the Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison and Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. Although Domville, when visiting Nazi Germany with Link members, had always been very careful to keep clear of excessive contact with ‘official Nazidom,’ his leadership of the Link was sufficient to secure his imprisonment without trial under the infamous, unlawful regulation. And, for the next three years, ‘home’ for this honourable man was to be a prison cell, with a plank-bed two inches from the floor, a table, chair and washstand. Domville’s autobiography, ‘From Admiral to Cabin Boy,’ was written during this imprisonment and published in 1947.

So why did the self-styled guardians of ‘liberty and freedom,’ those very traitors who exhorted the British people to make the ultimate sacrifice for ‘democracy and freedom,’ seek to imprison Domville? Was this most unfair punishment meted-out to him by those who despised his admiration for Germany and Germans or was it something more sinister? Could it have been that Domville’s enemies sought revenge for his embarrassingly accurate views and intimate knowledge of the inner workings of government and also wished to deny him a platform upon which to expose the treasonous activities of the few that were knowingly bringing the British Empire to its knees?

Before the First World War, Domville, by virtue of his rank and position, began to gain knowledge of the dark secrets of high government and the secret treachery of the British establishment. Furthermore, after World War I, Domville attended numerous peace conferences and knew both Lloyd-George and Churchill and was as well-informed on geo-politics and of the workings of the human heart and mind as one would expect of a future Director of Naval Intelligence. His general impression from these experiences was one of alarm that venal politicians and faceless bureaucrats possessed an unerring knack of prosecuting policies that repeatedly saw the ‘betrayal of all true British interests.’ Moreover, he realised that successive British governments made seemingly stupid or even near-suicidal decisions, (as indeed they still do today) which made no sense whatever in purely logical terms.

In short, Domville realised that the terrible betrayal of Britain and her people by the ruling establishment was so appalling and wholly avoidable, that it could not have been happening by accident and another, hidden force with its own agenda whose objectives were at odds with proper, rational government, was obviously at work. Domville wrote of this epiphany in his autobiography . . .

“From that time onwards I had a strong suspicion that there was some mysterious power at work behind the scenes controlling the actions of the figures visibly taking part in the Government of the country. I had not the least idea whence this power emanated, nor could I gauge the strength of its influence, I was in far too humble a position to make such lofty discoveries. Still the feeling persisted. We always vaguely referred to this hidden control amongst ourselves as ‘the Treasury’ . . . This mysterious power . . . I christened Judmas, because, as I discovered at a much later date, its source is the Judaeo-Masonic combination, which has wielded such a baneful influence in world history for many centuries.”

Domville’s conclusions are in no sense the product of ‘hate’ or so-called ‘anti-Semitism’ as Zionist apologists would have us all believe, but rather of common-sense and acute observation from an honourable, pragmatic man who witnessed the apparent absurdities and injustices of high politics but could not quite account for them. In fact, he viewed with utter contempt the complacent, self-seeking, corrupt and seemingly ‘foolish,’ British Liberal Establishment that repeatedly betrayed the British people on all levels and in all spheres of endeavour. He further understood very well that ‘the puppets dance, whilst hidden forces pull the strings from behind the scenes’ but he did not fully understand what these hidden forces actually were. He was prescient enough to recognise though that these ‘hidden forces’ desired what we now call globalisation, or the ‘New World Order’ and whose architects, these ‘globalisers,’ were.

Recently de-classified documents now in the National archives such as the 1939 MI-5 file on MP Sir Archibald Maule-Ramsey and the 224 members of one important anti-war group, prove beyond doubt that Winston Churchill was part of the Zionist banksters’ plot to replace Neville Chamberlain and drag Britain into war.

Sir Archibald Maule-Ramsay (1894-1955) was the main critic in the House of Commons of having Jews in the government, and in 1938 he began a campaign to have War Minister Leslie Hore-Belisha, fired. In one speech on the 27th April of that year he warned that Hore-Belisha, “would lead us to war with our blood brothers of the Nordic race to make way for a Bolshevised Europe, as openly wanted by Sir Herbert Morrison and the Jewish pressure groups.”

Maule-Ramsey also petitioned in the House of Commons to have Winston Churchill de-selected as MP for Epping for his constant warmongering and links to unelected forces, and also sought direct guarantees of peace from Hitler and Mussolini. An agent for Lord Victor Rothschild’s pro-Jewish banker group named Flora Solomons, confessed in an interview that war with Germany was considered vital in order to restore the banksters’ control.

Interestingly, Churchill was also accused of murder in some quarters. A senior member of MI-5 through the war named Sorrell, kept copies of the documentation of Churchill’s alleged murders and treachery, and was one of several intelligence officers secretly informing the magazine ‘Truth.’

And Churchill, according to new research, was guilty of at least three murders; his mother Lady Jennie Churchill between 11th and 29th June 1921, spymaster and the first head of the British Secret Service George M. Smith-Cumming at his house, 1 Melbury Road, Kensington on the 14th June 1923 and T.E. Lawrence better known as Lawrence of Arabia between 13th and 19th May 1935. There was no question of Churchill killing with his own hands — he was far too careful and squeamish for such things. But he was the man who issued the orders to kill and as such is equally guilty as those that carried out his orders. These were not political murders by the State but the acts of a man hell-bent on revenge on his mother, she having cheated him out of his inheritance and then ensuring he would not be caught and as a consequence, disgrace the name he carried. He achieved this latter goal by killing the two men that knew what he had done to his mother.

[Those who wish to pursue this matter further will find plenty of good information on the internet, however this is not really relevant to the contents of this book as such. It is merely mentioned here to illustrate the type of man that Churchill indeed was — JH]

Many people today question why the foremost ‘seats of learning,’ such as Oxford and Cambridge University, actively encouraged and promoted Russian ‘Socialism/Communism’ in the 1930s. In Russia, Communists had destroyed democracy in all the Universities, the mines, the factories, much of the armed services and even the church was infected with the disease of socialism in its many guises. But all of society was under attack, from almost every direction and such was and is the overwhelming power of these forces of evil, that virtually nothing or no-one could stand in their way.

But there were some pockets of resistance and one of those to stand against the creeping, insidious Communist menace as espoused by the banksters was Adolf Hitler in Germany. He successfully extinguished the Communist threat by creating almost full employment, making it possible for ‘ordinary’ working people to enjoy car ownership through the ‘people’s car’ or Volkswagen. He also undertook a massive programme of public works, building motorways and public leisure facilities, free holidays for all workers and their families at purpose-built holiday resorts and even on cruise ships. However, he committed the cardinal sin of removing the power to create and issue money, away from the international banksters, those predatory financiers, exploiters, asset-strippers and ‘money changers’ — and this led to his ultimate downfall.

However, it was Lord Victor Rothschild, bankster-supreme and later exposed as the infamous ‘fifth man’ in the Cambridge spy-scandal, who wrote the letters of introduction for all the ‘Cambridge traitors,’ Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean, Kim Philby and Guy Burgess among others, to the Intelligence services, and he also protected them at every turn. Rothschild’s ‘Apostles’ were above the law and all were allowed to get away and even George Blake who was sentenced to 42 years was allowed to escape to Russia in a Royal Navy ship, despite his escape officially being blamed on ‘peace activists.’

Rothschild and his organisation was behind the loans for the British war effort in WWII, whilst his bank also loaned money for German re-armament, and the building of at least two concentration camps.

Winston Churchill’s loyalties were to say the least, ‘flexible’ and he changed parties, four times during the course of his political career. He was absolutely not averse either, to a little bribery and corruption. His propensity for the acceptance of surreptitious ‘gifts’ in large brown envelopes was well-known and often commented-upon. Obviously the banksters too, were well aware of this fact and saw Churchill as a possible asset. In fact, it was Ernst Cassels the Rothschild agent, who ‘bought’ Churchill’s loyalty to the Zionist cause and to actively lobby for war with Germany, for the princely sum of £150,000. Churchill, Rothschild’s Judas, was on the verge of losing his home at this time due to massive debts and his bodyguard, Walter Thompson said that his fortnightly bill for alcohol, gambling and prostitutes, was equal to what a working-man earned in a year.

In his book ‘Spycatcher,’ an exposure of the British Intelligence services, Peter Wright made it clear that there was a high-level traitor present in the Service, right through WWII and into the Cold War and that this had virtually torn-apart British intelligence, and had thoroughly compromised almost every single operation between 1938 and 1964. As previously stated, bankster Nathaniel Mayer Victor (Lord) Rothschild, was eventually identified as that high-level traitor, and of course he was the man who controlled Winston Churchill.

This leads us to a pertinent question at this point. Which of the two scenarios is most plausible? That one of the richest men in the world, Victor Rothschild (and many others such as he) espoused Communist ideals so that his own fabulous wealth and position could be taken away in the alleged Communistic trait of wealth-sharing? Or is it more likely that Communism was and still is in fact, a subtle bankster deception, designed to curb the wealth and especially the freedoms of the ordinary citizens under the false pretence of bestowing ‘equality’ upon the masses?

Unfortunately millions if not billions of otherwise well-meaning individuals have been duped into believing-in and fighting-for this clever deception, by those of zero-conscience.

In 1942, Sir Mark Oliphant, a leading British physicist was shocked when a messenger delivered a part from his new ‘magnetron technology,’ with a warning from MI-5 Security Inspector Victor Rothschild to ‘tighten up your security.’

A few days earlier Rothschild had visited Oliphant’s Birmingham University lab, quizzed him on his research, and surreptitiously pocketed the three-inch diameter magnetron. Rothschild, the Soviet agent, had transmitted detailed drawings to Moscow before returning the magnetron, a fact later confirmed by his KGB handlers. Oliphant related this story in 1994 to Roland Perry, the Australian author of ‘The Fifth Man.’ In 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, six retired KGB Colonels in Moscow confirmed Rothschild’s identity as the ‘fifth man’ to Roland Perry. Colonel Yuri Modin, the spy ring’s handler, said . . .

“Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring’s penetration of British intelligence . . . He had the contacts, he was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI-6.” Roland Perry, ‘The Fifth Man’

The Rothschilds are undoubtedly the largest shareholders and de facto controllers of the world’s network of central banking systems and Victor Rothschild’s career as a Soviet agent confirms that these London-based banksters plan to translate their monopoly on credit into a monopoly on everything else too, using government as their instrument and if they get their way, ultimately a ‘world government’ dictatorship akin to Communism. In other words, the ‘New World Order.’

Rothschild had studied Zoology at Cambridge where Anthony Blunt recruited him for the KGB in 1936. (Blunt later said it was Rothschild who recruited him.) Rothschild also joined MI-5 and was in charge of counter-sabotage, instructing the military on how to recognise various types of bombs and defuse them.

After the induction of Winston Churchill into Rothschild’s criminal ‘circle,’ Perry writes . . .

“The two socialised often, during the war years. Rothschild used his wealth and position to invite the prime minister to private parties. His entree to the wartime leader, plus access to all the key intelligence information, every major weapons development and his command of counter-sabotage operations in Britain, made Rothschild a secretly powerful figure during the war years . . . The result was that Stalin knew as much as Churchill about vital information, often before the British High Command was informed.”

Rothschild also helped neutralise enemies of the Soviet Union who approached the British for support. For example, he was involved in the cover-up of the assassination of Polish war leader and British ally Wladyslaw Sikorski, whose plane was blown-up in July 1944. Sikorski had become a threat to Stalin and therefore the British/Soviet relationship after he discovered that the KGB had cold-bloodedly massacred around 20,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Woods in 1940. This was the infamous ‘Katyn Massacre’ which for decades after the war had been blamed on Germany by the allied powers, until the real truth eventually seeped-out in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.

Many, many war crimes and atrocities were committed by the Soviets, in other words the Bolshevik Jews under the command of the Jew, Stalin. But of course, as allies in the cause of the New World Order the Soviets were never even accused of, let alone prosecuted or convicted of ‘war crimes.’ And please do not make the mistake of blaming the ‘Russians’ in general, for the actions of the Bolsheviks, many millions of innocent Russians suffered and were murdered to at the hands of these unspeakable barbarians. In fact, Alexandr Solzhenitzyn estimated that the Bolsheviks murdered 66 million Russians over the decades.

On the 13th April 1943, Germany announced the discovery of mass graves in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, Russia. The bodies of several thousand men, whose hands had been bound and who had been shot from behind, were found buried there and many more thousands were slaughtered elsewhere, the dead being mostly Polish officers. The Germans realised that the Soviet Union was responsible for the massacre and attempted to use this knowledge to their advantage. They hoped that the revelation would alienate the USSR from its allies, Great Britain, the United States and Poland.

When the news broke about the German discovery, the Polish government-in-exile in England, asked the International Red Cross to conduct an independent investigation and Red Cross findings later indicated that the Soviets were responsible for the massacre. But the Soviets denied culpability and blamed the killings on German forces that had overrun the region in 1941 and subsequently broke diplomatic relations with the Polish government. The 19th April 1943, edition of Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party’s Central Committee, accused the Polish government of striking a treacherous blow against the USSR. The Soviets also organised their own ‘investigation’ of the tragedy and determined that the fault lay with Germany but Katyn residents knew differently.

“The stench was bad. When we came, the Germans were removing a layer of earth about a meter thick and then there were coats, bodies and coats, lying there in a row. And they were feeling these bodies, checking the pockets, removing flasks, removing watches, and the Germans set up a museum further out. The Germans wanted witnesses. They wanted us to act as witnesses for history.” Dmitry Khudykh, Katyn resident

Neither the British nor the American governments wished to know too much about the mass-graves. If their ally, Joseph Stalin, had ordered the murders, they preferred not to know and to keep it as quiet as possible. For example, when a British diplomat in London wrote a report suggesting that the Soviet Union had been responsible for the massacre, Churchill addressed the issue in a confidential note, stating that . . . “ . . . there is no use prowling morbidly round the three year old graves of Smolensk.”

Then in late 1943, as the Red Army began to recapture territory in eastern Poland, the Soviet secret police, the NKVD, cordoned-off the Katyn forest to enable them to create one of the most elaborate cover-ups of the war. After exhuming the bodies from the graves that the Germans had previously uncovered, the NKVD had documents forged to suggest that the Germans had committed the crime. They planted the false documents on the newly exhumed bodies and worked to persuade local people who had witnessed the Soviet crimes to change their stories.

It has been suggested that Stalin wanted as many as possible of the Polish Catholic intelligentsia eliminated at Katyn, as almost all senior Soviets were Jews and detested Christianity.

In 1944, Blunt, Burgess and Philby all stayed with Rothschild at his mansion in Paris. Rothschild was briefly in charge of Allied intelligence in Paris and interrogated many prisoners there. After the war Rothschild spent time in the US overseeing attempts to learn the atom bomb secrets in order no doubt, to pass-on the intelligence gathered, to his Soviet ‘friends.’ It was due in part to the ‘Cambridge Five,’ Perry says, that “ . . . the Russians knew about every major intelligence operation run against them in the years 1945 to 1963.”

Victor Rothschild held many jobs that served to disguise his true role which was probably that of a member of the Illuminati Grand Council. He was in fact an extremely powerful force and no doubt issued orders to Churchill, FDR and Stalin. For example, he ensured that the USSR supported the establishment of the State of Israel. “He knew the proper back-channels to reach decision-makers in Moscow,” a KGB Colonel told Perry. “Let us just say, he got things done. You only did that if you had reached the top. He was very persuasive.”

The fact that Rothschild was protected until his death suggests that this is a conspiracy perpetrated by and for the upper echelons of society, by the Royal/Masonic/Bankster/Illuminati conglomerate.

In fact, Rothschild freely admitted to many friends and acquaintances that there were ‘plans in place’ for the world map to be re-drawn, that a world-wide ‘socialist’ government was coming and that those that contributed to the cause would be given positions of great power in this coming ‘New World Order.’ He would later also pass prime secrets, referred to in the Spycatcher book as the ‘Crown Jewels,’ to the Israelis.

It has lately become a popular myth in ‘truth-seeker’ circles to conclude that Hitler was a ‘British Agent.’ As Hitler was known to be in Britain during 1912 — 13, ostensibly visiting his sister who had married an Englishman, stating that ‘Hitler was a British Agent’ is a useful paradigm that is claimed by many to clarify many improbable, seemingly illogical events, such as . . .

Why the German war machine was financed and built by the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve.

Why Hitler was able to expand into the Rhineland without fear of retaliation.

Why Hitler let 335,000 Allied soldiers escape at Dunkirk.

Why Hitler attacked Russia before England was invaded or conquered.

Why the Germans never realised that their communications were compromised.

Why Hitler never sealed the Mediterranean at Gibraltar.

Why Hitler failed to conquer the oil fields of Russia and the Middle East.

Why Hitler gave his racial policies priority over actually winning the war.

Why IG Farben was never bombed, and became the CIA headquarters in Frankfurt after WWII.

. . . And the biggest improbability of all is said to be that an unknown, working-class, Austrian ex-NCO could ever become the Chancellor of Germany. However this is easily refutable as being ‘improbable.’ Hitler’s rise to power is documented in minute detail and it all makes perfect logical sense. It was no sudden rising from the ranks of obscurity, as has often been the case with other bankster-puppets, some of whose improbable meteoric rises are detailed in this book. It took him over ten years of struggle and manipulation to achieve ultimate power.

Firstly, had Hitler been ‘groomed’ for power from the time of his visit to Britain in 1912, then his thrusting into the trenches of World War I, as a Private soldier and subsequently a lowly Lance-Corporal, would have been an extremely risky strategy on the part of the banksters and I know for an absolute fact that they would not have risked the safety of their alleged ‘protégé’ in this way. Furthermore, Hitler was not just an ‘ordinary’ soldier who literally ‘kept his head below the parapet,’ keeping himself as safe as possible until the war ended, he was a war hero who put his life on the line on several occasions, being highly decorated in the process. This fact in itself belies that aspect of the wild claims being made.

And with regard to the so-called ‘illogical’ tactical mistakes he made during the war, well where do I start?

The most obvious reason for building-up Hitler’s war capabilities was to render the banksters’ proposed war sustainable. Had Hitler and Germany not possessed the wherewithal to fight a war on more or less equitable terms, then they would have been defeated in a week and the banksters’ carefully-laid plans for WWII would have been in shreds.

Hitler appeared to make tactical mistakes or errors of judgement, not because he was doing the British a favour, but as is well documented by many, even mainstream historians, this is explainable by the fact that he simply did not want war. At this point in history, he was still hoping to avert further bloodshed and he knew that had he prevented the escape of those trapped at Dunkirk, or worse still annihilated them, then his own fate would have been sealed. He knew that he could not successfully fight a multi-front war, given his existing resources. In fact, he was still desperately seeking a way out and still absolutely believed that the British really did not want a war with Germany. Furthermore, he genuinely believed that Britain and Germany’s common enemy was the Zionist bankster-controlled Soviet Union and that the British people were Germany’s ethnic ‘brothers’ with whom there should have been no dispute. It was only when he was finally backed into a corner by the chicanery of Churchill and others that he was forced to adopt the strategy of the ‘best form of defence is attack.’

“The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.” Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, British historian

“I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them.” Adolf Hitler, July 1940

“Hitler wanted nothing from Britain or her empire, and all the German records uncovered in the last fifty years have confirmed this grim conclusion. Others now echo our view that Churchill knew from code-breaking that Hitler was only bluffing; but for reasons of domestic politics Churchill fostered the fiction in his public speeches (‘We shall fight them on the beaches’) and he did the same in his private telegrams to President Roosevelt.” David Irving, ‘Churchill’s War’

“The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all. Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership.” British historian, Professor A.J.P. Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’ (p104-105)

“At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle of Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations and for weeks did nothing to spur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia.” Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, British historian

In April 1939, there was an exchange of documents and dialogue between US President Roosevelt (FDR) and Adolf Hitler, as well as between the Polish and German governments. On 15th April, FDR sent a telegram to Hitler decrying Germany’s aggression and demanding assurances of non-aggression. Apparently, Hitler saw this as a last-minute chance to avoid open hostilities in Central Europe, thus avoiding another terrible conflagration. He used this opportunity to openly and honestly address all nations, but especially those most directly involved. On 28th April he called a special session of the Reichstag and through German radio and relayed broadcasts, was heard by much of the world. Yet this important address, an honest and sincere effort to avoid war, is today ignored and air-brushed from history as it does not fit with the widely-accepted, yet inaccurate version of history. Upon reading the selections below, one may clearly see why the banksters chose to isolate and pay no heed to these writings. Indeed, one may even notice parallels with current events.

“Adolf Hitler took a last minute opportunity to speak, not only to the USA, but to the whole world, just as dark war clouds were surely and certainly on the horizon. He not only addressed the topics in FDR’s wire transmission, but spoke clearly on other problematic key issues of the day such as the Versailles debacle, the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Munich Agreements, etc. He told the truth about what had been and what was going on in Europe, exhaustively responding to each point raised by the American leader. After a thorough reading, what did I conclude? For one thing, it is quite evident that Germany invited continuing dialogue, not war. Even the casual reader can see this. While the Chancellor speaks strongly and straightforwardly, there are no threats, no aggressive language or provocations. Interestingly, and contradicting the popular image of the ‘anti-Semitic Jew baiter,’ he says little other than to assign them much of the blame for the financial failures of the post-war era and for the rise of Bolshevism; and this in just a few sentences.

His talk logically progresses into a longer, more detailed examination of how the opportunities following WWI were squandered, hijacked and sabotaged. He asked that Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ be fully and equally implemented for all the nations, including Germany. And, he fully recognised Poland’s right to the sea, but maintaining Danzig as a German ethnic area. Several sections recount the various efforts to secure fair and lasting agreements with Poland, but all were summarily rejected by the oppressive and recalcitrant military dictatorship that ruled the newly emerged state. And, there is more, but explore the selections below.

This fascinating manuscript is quietly suppressed by simply ignoring it. As said, the very limited partial translation does not do it justice, revealing very little of the real content of this timely foreign policy address by a major world leader. We cover sections which readers may, hopefully, find educational and enlightening. As said, almost all of the quotations herein seem to be unavailable anywhere else. The introductory headings are from those appearing in the margins of the booklet pages. Since the ill-fated Versailles Treaty was central to many of Europe’s problems, we begin with that.” Dr. Harrell Rhome

Hitler responded to Roosevelt’s accusations thus . . . “ . . . But the millions were cheated of peace; for not only did the German people or the other peoples fighting on our side suffer through the peace treaties, but these treaties had a devastating effect on the victor countries as well.

That politics should be controlled by men who had not fought in the war was recognised for the first time as a misfortune. Hatred was unknown to the soldiers, but not to those elderly politicians who had carefully preserved their own precious lives from the horrors of war and who now descended upon humanity as in the guise of insane spirits of revenge.

Hatred, malice and unreason were the intellectual forebears of the Treaty of Versailles. Territories and states with a history going back a thousand years were arbitrarily broken up and dissolved. Men who had belonged together since time immemorial were torn asunder.

No one knows this [the burdens of Versailles] better than the German people. For the Peace Treaty imposed burdens on the German people, which could not have been paid off in a hundred years, although it has been proved conclusively by American teachers of constitutional law, historians and professors of history that Germany was no more to blame for the outbreak of the war than any other nation. It is hard to imagine a clearer and more concise summary of the massive errors at the end of the war, setting the stage for the next one.

The resultant misery and continuous want [after the war] began to bring our nation to political despair. The decent and industrious people of Central Europe thought they could see the possibility of deliverance in the complete destruction of the old order, which to them represented a curse.

Jewish parasites, on the other hand, plundered the nation ruthlessly, and on the other hand, incited the people, reduced as it was to misery. As the misfortune of our nation became the only aim and object of this race, it was possible to breed among the growing army of unemployed suitable elements suitable elements for the Bolshevik revolution. The decay of political order and the confusion of public opinion by the irresponsible Jewish press led to ever stronger shocks to economic life and consequently to increasing misery and to greater readiness to absorb subversive Bolshevik ideas. The army of the Jewish world revolution as the army of the unemployed were called, finally rose to almost seven million. Germany had never known this state of affairs before.

As a matter of fact, these democratic peace dictators destroyed the whole world economy with their Versailles madness.

They [the Western powers] declared at the time that Germany intended to establish herself in Spain, taking Spanish colonies. In a few weeks from now, the victorious hero of Nationalist Spain [Generalissimo Franco] will celebrate his festive entry into the capital of his country. The Spanish people will acclaim him as their deliverer from unspeakable horrors as the liberator from bands of incendiaries, of whom it is estimated that they have more than 775,000 human lives on their conscience, by executions and murders alone. The inhabitants of whole villages and towns were literally butchered, while their benevolent patrons, the humanitarian apostles of Western European and American democracy, remained silent.”

Hitler further stated . . . . “Mr. Roosevelt declared that he had already appealed to me on a former occasion for a peaceful settlement of political, economic and social problems without force of arms. I myself have always been an exponent of this view and as history proves, have settled necessary political, economic and social problems without force of arms, without even resorting to arms.

Unfortunately, however, this peaceful settlement has been made more difficult by the agitation of politicians, statesmen and newspaper representatives who were neither directly concerned nor even effected by the problems in question.”

Does this sound to you like a crazy, power-mad dictator, ready to launch his legions of death upon a defenceless world? Or, is this the voice of a reasonable man, still ready to negotiate for real and lasting peace? If you are still undecided, read on further . . .

“If the cry of ‘Never another Munich’ is raised in the world today, this simply confirms the fact that the peaceful solution of the problem appeared to be the most awkward thing that ever happened in the eyes of those warmongers. They are sorry no blood was shed, not their blood, to be sure for those agitators are, of course, never to be found where shots are being fired, but only where money is being made. No, it is the blood of many nameless soldiers!

They hate us Germans and would prefer to eradicate us completely. What do the Czechs mean to them? They are nothing but a means to an end. And what do they care for the fate of a small and valiant nation? Why should they worry about the lives of hundreds of thousands of brave soldiers who would have been sacrificed for their policy? These Western Peace-mongers were not concerned to work for peace but to cause bloodshed, so in this way to set the nations against one another and to thus cause still more blood to flow. For this reason, they invented the story of German mobilisation.

Moreover, there would have been no necessity for the Munich Conference, for that conference was only made possible by the fact that the countries which had at first incited those concerned to resist at all costs, were compelled later on, when the situation pressed for a solution on one way of another, to try to secure for themselves a more or less respectable retreat; for without Munich that is to say, without the interference of the countries of Western Europe, a solution of the entire problem if it had grown so acute at all would likely have been the easiest thing in the world.

Mr. Roosevelt declared finally that three nations in Europe and one in Africa have seen their existence terminated. I do not know which three nations in Europe are meant. Should it be a question of the provinces reincorporated in the German Reich, I must draw the attention of Mr. Roosevelt to a mistake of history on his part.

It was not now that these nations sacrificed their independent existence in Europe, but rather in 1918. At that time, in violation of solemn promises, their logical ties were torn asunder and they were made into nations they never wished to be and never had been. They were forced into an independence which was no independence but at most could only mean dependence upon an international foreign world which they detested.

Moreover, as to the allegation that one nation in Africa has lost its freedom, that too, is erroneous. On the contrary, practically all the original inhabitants of this continent have lost their freedom through being made subject to the sovereignty of other nations by bloodshed and force. Moroccans, Berbers, Arabs, Negroes, and the rest have all fallen victim to the swords of foreign might, which however, were not marked ‘made in Germany’ but ‘made by Democracies.’

Ireland charges English, not German oppression. Palestine is occupied by English, not German troops. Arabs appeal against English, not German methods.”

And, I here solemnly declare all assertions which have in any way been circulated concerning an impending German attack or invasion on or in American territory are rank frauds and gross untruths, quite apart from the fact that such assertions, as far as military possibilities are concerned, could only be the product of the silliest imagination. Friendship and respect for the British Empire must be mutual.

During the whole of my political activity I have always propounded the idea of a close friendship and collaboration between Germany and England. In my movement I found others of like mind. Perhaps they joined me because of my attitude in this regard. This desire for Anglo-German friendship and co-operations conforms not merely to sentiments based on the racial origins of our two peoples but also to my realisation of the importance of the existence of the British Empire for the whole of mankind.

I have never left room for any doubt of my belief that they existence of this empire is an inestimable factor of value for the whole of human culture and economic life. By whatever means Great Britain has acquired her colonial territories and I know that they were those of force and often brutality, I know full well that no other empire has ever come into being in any other way, and that, in the final analysis, it is not so much the methods that are taken into account in history as success, and not the success of the methods as such, but rather the general good which those methods produce.

Now, there is no doubt that the Anglo-Saxon people have accomplished immense colonising work in the world. For this work, I have sincere admiration.

I regard it as impossible to achieve a lasting friendship between the German and the Anglo-Saxon peoples if the other side does not recognise that there are German as well as British interests, that just as the preservation of the British Empire is the object and life-purpose of Britons, so also the freedom and preservation of the German Reich is the life-purpose of Germans.

A genuine lasting friendship between these two nations is only conceivable on a basis of mutual regard. The English people rule a great empire. They built up this empire at a time when the German people were internally weak.

Germany once had been a great empire. At one time she ruled the Occident. In bloody struggles and religious dissensions, and as a result of internal political disintegration, this empire declined in power and greatness and finally fell into a great sleep.

But as this old empire appeared to have reached its end, the seeds of its rebirth were springing up. From Brandenburg and Prussia there arose a new Germany, the Second Reich, and out of it has finally grown the Reich of the German people.

And I hope that all the English people understand that we do not possess the slightest feeling of inferiority to Britons. The part we have played in history is far too important for that.” Adolf Hitler, in response to FDR’s accusations of aggression, April 1939

This was evidently too large a dose of truth for FDR to swallow. He ignored it, as did all the bankster-controlled press. It would never do for the real truth about what was happening in the world, to become common knowledge. In fact Hitler had told the absolute truth and so many despicable secrets of World War II are still highly classified to this day, and for good reasons.

But now, history was unfolding exactly according to the banksters’ long-term plan. All wars are plotted decades in advance and orchestrated to achieve the destruction of nations and also depopulation, demoralisation, and of course to enhance the banksters’ power-base and profits.

The German Luftwaffe (air force) was created and expanded greatly in the 1930s by a British MI-6 ‘intelligence officer’ named Group Captain Frederick William Winterbotham. Winterbotham supervised every aspect of this new air-arm which would later terrorise Europe with its Heinkel and Junkers heavy bombers . . . and the deadly Stuka dive bombers.

Winterbotham spelled this out in his own words in his memoirs, published in 1978 . . .

“My activities between 1933 and 1938 were closely connected with the rise of Nazi Germany and the rebirth of her mighty armed forces. Although I may sometimes tell it in a light vein, consistent with the character I assumed for my association with the younger people to match their new-found exuberance, the underlying theme was always in deadly earnest. When the invitation from Rosenberg finally came, I once again discussed the whole matter of this strange adventure with my Chief, who in turn discussed it with Sir Robert Vansittart at the Foreign Office. Both these men throughout the thirties believed in the German menace and permission was therefore granted for me to undertake this somewhat unusual mission.” Winterbotham, ‘The Nazi Connection,’ p. 44

In 1934, Winterbotham had an interview with General Walther von Reichenau, one of Hitler’s senior generals and he laid out the strategy for a blitzkrieg invasion of Russia . . .

General von Reichenau seemed absolutely certain that they would be able to pull all this off and he now turned to both de Ropp and myself and said, ‘You see, the whole war in Russia will be over in the early summer. No doubt it will take a good while to mop up the vast Russian forces which have been split up and surrounded.’ Again I didn’t want him to stop, so I looked a little sceptical and said, ‘well, we’ve always been taught in our history books that the Russian winter has proved the greatest Russian General.’ Reichenau put his fist quietly on the table and with great emphasis said, ‘there will be no Russian winter, it will be a German winter, all our troops will be comfortably and warmly housed in the great cities and towns of the Communists.” Winterbotham, ‘The Nazi Connection,’ p. 44

As you may now begin to fully comprehend, the events of World War II, as all previous wars, were in order to advance the banksters’ evil agenda of a one-world dictatorial government, the New World Order.

The so-called ‘free city’ of Danzig was 95% German in the early twentieth century. Along with the surrounding German region, East Prussia, Danzig was totally isolated from the rest of the German mainland by the Versailles Treaty. This formerly-German territory, as of 1919, belonged to Poland which in its newly-expanded form cut right through the Prussian/Pomeranian region of Germany. As was the case with all the ethnic Germans stranded in Czechoslovakia by the inhuman Treaty, the Germans isolated in Poland, became a persecuted minority.

So when Hitler came to power, he attempted to solve the ‘Polish Corridor’ issue, peacefully by proposing that the people living in Danzig, and the rest of the ‘corridor’ be permitted to vote in a referendum to decide their status and if the vote mandated a return to German sovereignty, then Poland will be given a 1 mile wide strip, running through Germany to the Baltic Sea so that it would not be landlocked again.

The Poles considered Hitler’s solution, but behind the scenes, Poland was urged by FDR to not make any deals with Germany and when it became apparent to Hitler that Poland would not allow a referendum, he then proposed another solution, the international control of the formerly German regions. This entirely reasonable offer was also ignored.

In fact, the banksters intend to use Poland as the catalyst for the outbreak of World War II and on 25th August 1939, the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed between the nations, pledging mutual support in the event that either was attacked by another European country. This consolidated the previous agreement of March 1939 between the two countries, and also France, by specifically committing to military action in the event of any of the three nations being attacked.

With this agreement, powerful Zionist-bankster interests in the UK effectively trapped the reluctant Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, as well as France and Poland and all that then remained was for Polish-Jewish thugs to deliberately provoke Germany into action by attacking Germany’s heavily defended borders.

Overestimating their own strength, underestimating German strength, and knowing that France and the UK would now be forced to support them, on 31st August, Polish-Jewish terrorists crossed the border and attacked a German radio station near Gleiwitz, Germany. This was no isolated incident and was in fact merely the latest in a whole string of deliberate Polish border infractions against Germany and was to prove the proverbial, ‘straw that broke the camel’s back.’ It was backed-up by a general call to arms in Poland against Germany and Germans in general, whether Polish residents or not. German security services however, quickly arrived on the scene and resumed control, killing one of the Red terrorists in the process.

In fact the Jewish Red terrorists, their Polish government protectors, and their Globalist-Zionist masters had now set in motion a deadly chain of events.

Establishment historians claimed that the ‘Gleiwitz Incident’ was staged by Germans deceptively dressed as Polish terrorists but as was the case with the ‘Reichstag Fire’ conspiracy theory, they offered no evidence whatsoever, beyond a forced ‘confession’ obtained under torture from a captured SS officer, Alfred Naujocks, to support this theory. Please remember that this was a ‘theory’ that also ignored the outrageous and repeated pattern of provocations directed at Hitler’s Germany ever since 1933, including the previous, numerous border incidents, and also Hitler’s sincere attempts to negotiate a fair resolution to the Polish Corridor and Danzig controversies.

Robert H. Jackson, a US Supreme Court Justice from 1941 to 1954, was sent to Europe when the war was ending to ensure that Germany alone would be blamed for the Second World War. Jackson, as leader of the US legal team, helped draft the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which created the legal basis for the Nuremberg Trials.

After studying some of the documents, Jackson knew well and emphasised that the German declaration of war on the United States was perfectly legal. Therefore, he pointed out, it had to be shown before the court that the war in Europe was, from the beginning, a German aggression contrary to international law (making it a crime Against peace.) Thus, the invasion of Poland had to be shown to be an aggressive move with no justification with no blame attached to Poland. Further study of the files brought Jackson to doubt that a fair trial would support, in any way, the finding of Germany’s exclusive responsibility. On the contrary, he said . . . “The Germans will certainly accuse our three European allies of having pursued a policy that has enforced the war. I say this because the seized documents from the German Foreign Office, which I have seen, all come to the same conclusion . . . ‘We have no escape, we must fight, we are surrounded, we are strangled.’ How would a judge react if this is found in the trial? I think he would say . . . ‘Before I condemn anyone as the aggressor, he ought to describe his motives.”

“And that would be catastrophic,” Jackson continued, “ . . . because if this trial leads to a discussion of the political and economic causes of the war, this may cause infinite damage, both in Europe which I do not know well, and in America that I know fairly well.”

As a servant of the US Government and US war policy, Jackson arrived at the only possible solution to the issue. That was to in effect ban any discussion on the causes of the war at the Nuremberg tribunal. In other words, not to have a fair trial. In the transcripts of the proceedings, there is nothing whatsoever regarding the war policies of the West, Poland, or the USSR since almost all documents and testimonies that would have been relevant in this respect were rejected by the court as ‘irrelevant.’

But, affidavits such as the one signed by Alfred Naujocks, in which he claimed, without any corroboration, that he participated in a German undercover operation to attack the Gleiwitz radio station, on the very night that Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland, and blame it on the Poles in order to ‘justify’ Germany’s ‘crime against peace,’ was admitted by the court without question or discussion. Naujocks did not appear in person, only his affidavit was put in evidence and so there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the witness, by the defence.

In reality the real aggressors were Poland, and its guarantors in case of war with Germany, France and Great Britain. Those three nations are the only ones truly guilty of ‘crimes against peace.’

By 1st September 1939, Germany had had enough of Poland’s open aggression and invaded Poland. As the German army advanced eastwards, the Polish forces, no match for Hitler’s legions withdrew rapidly. But in the meantime, cowardly Red-Jewish terrorists characteristically raped, tortured and massacred 3000+ ethnic German Polish civilians in the town of Bromberg, Poland. The massacre was known as ‘Bloody Sunday.’

But of course, the Zionist-controlled world press threw-up its hands in mock-horror over Germany’s ‘aggression’ whilst studiously ignoring the Bromberg Massacre as Britain and France simultaneously declared war on Germany.

Then, later in the month and with the Polish army being routed by the advancing Germans in the west, Stalin decided to break the Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1932. Poland was stabbed in the back as Soviet, Bolshevik forces rushed-in from the east. The advancing Reds carried-out several massacres, the most infamous being, as mentioned earlier, the Katyn Forest massacre, in which up to 20,000 Polish Army officers were murdered in cold-blood.

Unlike the pre-Versailles Treaty, historical ethnic-German areas which Germany reclaimed, the Soviets conquered all of Poland. Exhibiting shocking double-standards, the anti-German Zionist-bankster press, the US, France and the UK remained totally silent regarding this brutal Soviet aggression.

As it came under severe threat from the advancing Red hordes, Poland appealed to Britain for help, citing the Poland-British Common Defence Pact that had been signed a mere few weeks previously. Even the Polish ambassador in London contacted the British Foreign Office to point- out that clause 1(b) of the agreement which concerned an ‘aggression by a European power’ on Poland, should apply to the Soviet invasion. However, the British Foreign Secretary responded with hostility, stating that it was Britain’s decision alone as to whether or not to declare war on the Soviet Union.

The truth is that the Allies cared nothing at all about Poland and its helpless citizens. They simply used its ultra-nationalist leaders to provoke Hitler, so that they could have their sought-for war and therefore, the horrors that Poland was to suffer under Soviet invasion and occupation was to be Poland’s problem alone, and not Britain’s.

Meanwhile, the German-Polish War ended quite abruptly with German forces completely devastating the weaker Polish army and there was now nothing that the Allies could do to help their Polish puppet.

The period between October 1939 and May 1940, was dubbed by a US Senator as ‘The Phony War,’ as neither side seemed prepared to make the first moves, instead waiting for the other to show their own hand. Also, during this period, Hitler pleaded for the Allies to withdraw their war declarations. To France, he declared . . .

“I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts.”

Whilst to the British, Hitler stated that . . .

“I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German understanding, no, more than that, of an Anglo-German friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests . . . Why should this war in the West be fought?”

However, his pleas for peace and common sense to prevail, fell on deaf ears as the Allies amassed 600,000 troops in Northern France. They were in fact planning to advance eastward upon Germany through Belgium and Holland, as well as establishing bases in neutral Norway and Denmark, with or without the consent of their respective governments.

The Neutrality Acts prohibited the United States from selling arms to warring nations, the purpose being to prevent the US from again becoming involved in European wars. But throughout the 1930s, FDR and his bankster-handler, Bernard Baruch (who had also been the handler of Woodrow Wilson), anticipating the proposed new war against Germany, had unsuccessfully tried to amend the previous Neutrality Acts. Soon after the war commenced though, FDR again urged Congress to repeal the Neutrality Acts as per the banksters’ wishes, a new Neutrality Act was quickly passed, making the sale of arms to the UK, totally legal under US law.

Thus had the scheming FDR on behalf of his puppet-masters, taken a large step towards involving the US in a war for which the bankers had long been agitating. At the end of November 1939, just two months after the subjugation of Poland, Stalin launched an invasion of Finland. As he had with Poland, Stalin again broke a 1932 non-aggression pact to which he had agreed with the Finnish government, the Soviet-Finnish Non-Aggression Pact of 1932.

The invasion was all-powerful, with 21 Soviet divisions consisting of 450,000 Red Army troops. Stalin expected to overwhelm Finland in a matter of weeks, but the brave and outnumbered Finns staged a heroic defence of their homeland causing acute embarrassment for Stalin. Eventually a peace treaty was signed in March 1940, but the Finns were forced to cede 10% of their territory to the mighty USSR.

Stalin had by this time broken two non-aggression treaties and annexed territories from both betrayed parties (Poland and Finland) and so the ‘International Community’ verbally condemned the Soviet actions, but there were no calls for boycotts or sanctions, nor any declaration of war against the USSR, as there had been against Germany for far less a transgression.

In April 1940, one the Allied plans of attack was to disrupt Germany’s iron-ore imports from Sweden by illegally mining Norwegian waters, and then occupying the important Norwegian port of Narvik. Plans were also put in place to impose a base of operations in Denmark, Germany’s neutral neighbour to its north.

A Norwegian politician named Vidkun Quisling confirmed the existence of these Allied schemes (Operation Wilfred and Plan R4.) Sympathetic to Germany, and not wishing his country to become a battlefield, Quisling informed Hitler of the Anglo-French plot to wage-war from the two Scandinavian countries. So Germany moved quickly to secure the port of Narvik before the British could deploy their mines, and also to occupy Denmark whilst German diplomats assured the leaders of both nations that Germany sought neither conquest nor interference in their internal politics and so life under limited German occupation went on uneventfully for the Scandinavians during the war. Quisling’s name appears today as a word in English dictionaries, synonymous with ‘traitor,’ a totally unfair characterisation as all Quisling wanted was peace and to avoid bloodshed in his country.

On the 10th of May 1940, the British violation of Iceland’s neutrality began with British troops disembarking in the Capital City of Rejkjavik. The British quickly moved inland, disabling communications networks and securing landing locations whilst the government of Iceland vociferously protested the illegal incursion into their territory which was of course, to no avail. This occupation force was then subsequently augmented, to a final strength of 25,000 and this, combined with the recently thwarted, attempted British occupations of neutral Denmark and Norway, clearly demonstrated that bankster-Britain and France were the true aggressors of the war.

Although FDR, up until December 1941, promised that America would remain neutral, 30,000 US troops actually relieved the British and occupied Iceland in the spring of 1941, totally contrary to what we are told and despite America’s supposed neutrality.

One of Churchill’s first acts upon becoming Britain’s un-elected Prime Minister was to suspend all intelligence surveillance on Soviet suspects. This led to the massive infiltration of MI-5/ MI-6 by the communists throughout the 1940s, as previously related.

Churchill, and his wealthy, Zionist backers, had been advocating for war with Germany for the previous five years. His warmongering had made him a virtual outcast in British politics, but now, with the Zionist press of Britain totally misrepresenting the facts surrounding the German-Polish War, Churchill was portrayed as some sort saviour of Western civilisation.

But Hitler well-knew exactly who Churchill was, and what he represented. He even referred to Churchill in his speeches, prior to Churchill’s metamorphosis as PM, as part of Britain’s ‘government of tomorrow,’ and once Chamberlain had gone, consigned to the Orwellian ‘memory hole’ and with Churchill now in power, Hitler knew for absolute certain that the ‘phony war’ was about to transform itself, almost overnight into a very real one.

Hitler’s plaintive cries for peace had been repeatedly ignored as approximately 600,000 British and French troops massed in northern France. The massive attack against Germany was planned to be routed through the countries of Belgium and Holland, whose governments were subjected to intense Allied pressure to allow the safe passage of the Allied invasion forces. And thus, again, Hitler’s hand was forced and he soon realised that the best form of defence would be attack and so on the very same day that Churchill became PM, and as an act of national self-defence, Germany advanced upon the Allies before they had a chance to realise what was happening.

The stunning advance westward and surprise attack, the German Blitzkrieg ‘lightning war,’ quickly over-ran the smaller nations, and also pushed the Allied armies into a full retreat towards the beaches of northern France, from where they were hoping to scurry back across the English Channel to the relative safety of England, in order to re-group.

The Zionist-banksters’ press, as well as today’s history books, portray the Blitzkrieg as ‘the Nazi conquest of Holland, Belgium, and France,’ but the menacing presence of the 600,000 Allied troops is always conveniently ignored. In fact, Hitler had no designs whatsoever on Holland or indeed Belgium and the German advance through those territories was simply an expedient, direct way of reaching the Allied forces massing in France in preparation for their attack on Germany.

But with the eyes of the world focussed firmly on events in Western Europe, Stalin continued to expand his ‘Evil Empire,’ almost un-noticed, certainly un-reported and definitely un-condemned for his despicable actions. The Zionist-Reds annexed the tiny, virtually defenceless Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and also parts of eastern Romania. In fact the Soviet Union had violently invaded six countries in just nine months, yet the banksters remained obsessed with demonising and attacking only Germany, a nation whose leader constantly pleaded for peace. Of course, Stalin knew that he was free to act with absolute impunity, safe in the knowledge that his fellow-Zionist sponsors, the western banksters would take secret delight in his quest for global domination. It could be argued that he was actually doing their job for them, which of course — he was.

In order to bring about the defeat of France, Lieutenant-General Erich von Mannstein and his colleague Major Henning von Tresckow, had devised a very sophisticated battle plan. The French army, relying on their experiences of the First World War had dug-in behind an eighty mile long series of fortifications built along the French-German border known as the Maginot line and to the south, always-neutral Switzerland (the banksters monetary safe-haven, of course) provided a natural bulwark against Germany, whilst to the north lay the hilly Ardennes, in which the French believed tank units would find it nigh-on impossible to function. So this natural frontier was ignored by the French high command in all defensive planning but was in fact the strategic weak-point that the Germans exploited to their full advantage.

The western offensive began with von Mannstein confusing the French with a decoy strategy. The Luftwaffe attacked the airfields of Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland, gaining complete air superiority and thereby allowing German paratroopers and ground-troops landed in gliders, to attack and overcome the defenders of the Belgian fort of Eben-Emael, one of the lynch pins of the Allies defence strategy.

The capture of this fort allowed the German forces to cross the Albert Canal, another natural defence barrier and then overrun the Belgian defensive lines causing the Belgians to retreat, but also drawing into a trap the main British and French forces advancing northwards to reinforce the Belgians. Further north, the German advance into Holland was also successful and despite fierce resistance, the Dutch were subdued within five days, surrendering on 15th May.

Having responded to the German attack, some twenty divisions, the best units of the British and French armies were sent north to support Belgium and Holland, with the aim of preventing German troops advancing any further southwards into France. The Allied High Command were totally unaware, that the largest tank squadron ever assembled, and concealed within the dense forests was already rolling ominously through the Eifel mountains and the Ardennes, heading for the River Meuse. Indeed, fifteen-hundred German armoured vehicles reached the river on 12th May, encountering minimal resistance in the process.

On the opposite bank, the French defensive forces had entrenched and were waiting apprehensively for the German invaders and soon found themselves under intense aerial attack from twelve Stuka dive-bomber squadrons, forcing the French heavy artillery to withdraw and inflicting serious casualties upon them. General Heinz Wilhelm Guderian seized his opportunity and concentrated all his tanks along a one mile-wide section of the Meuse just west of Sedan, and sent across a guards division in inflatable boats. These were quickly followed by light armoured vehicles which secured a ‘beach-head’ on the French side. Lacking any armoured support whatsoever, the French units quickly found themselves overrun and began to retreat. Eight hours later it was virtually all over and the German bridgehead stretched five miles into French territory, allowing the pioneer units to construct a temporary bridge in order to allow the heavy tanks to successfully cross the Meuse.

This laid wide-open the route to Paris for the Germans, and realising that they now risked being cut-off and encircled, the bulk of the Allied forces in Belgium began to withdraw on the 16th May. Luckily for the Allies the German High Command, at this point became concerned that the Panzer (tank) divisions had become over-extended, and so ordered the advance to halt, in order to allow the bulk of their infantry units to catch-up from the rear. Meanwhile, Guderian was ordered to reconnoitre the area, but interpreted this order extremely freely, allowing his tank squadrons to advance another fifty miles to the west.

This unexpected appearance of German tanks caused French morale and resistance to completely crumble, as they had assumed that the Germans would consolidate and then wait for reinforcements before continuing their advance. On the 20th May 1940, just ten days after the German invasion of France had begun, Guderian’s tank divisions had already reached the English Channel at the town of Abbeville. The Germans had now encircled the elite of the British and French armies, forcing them into a desperate retreat, whilst to the north, Holland had already surrendered, Luxembourg had been overrun and Belgium was also on the brink of collapse.

By the 22nd of May, German tank divisions had advanced rapidly north isolating the ports of Boulogne and Calais and therefore only the Belgian port of Dunkirk remained as an option for the retreat back to Britain of the British Expeditionary Force and the remnants of the French Army.

It also appeared that the Allies were in a desperate race against time and it was looking increasingly likely that they would all be captured or worse, when quite suddenly and unexpectedly, a miracle happened, and the inexorable German advance towards them, ground to a halt. Field Marshall von Rundstedt commander of Army Group A had become concerned about the wear and tear that his armoured divisions were suffering and the following day Hitler sanctioned the halting of the German armoured advance. However, Boulogne still fell to Army Group B on the 25th with Calais falling a day later on the 26th. Now only Dunkirk remained in French hands, so the remaining British and French troops, about 330,000 of them began to congregate there.

When he heard the grave news, Winston Churchill ordered the implementation of Operation Dynamo, a plan to evacuate troops and equipment from the French port of Dunkirk, that had been drawn-up by General John Gort, the Commander in Chief of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF.)

The Allied armies had been ‘painted into a corner’ on the beaches at Dunkirk, France, surrounded by the sea on one side and the massing German forces, seemingly waiting to simply pick them off at will, on the other. Indeed, the entire force could easily have been captured or worse, but Hitler issued a ‘halt’ command, allowing the Allies to be evacuated, in the very mistaken belief that a show of ‘good faith’ and generosity towards his tormentors, would be more likely to stop the war, if they were to escape with their dignity remaining intact. .

So, seizing the opportunity that had been unexpectedly allowed them, the British and French High Commands began to implement ‘Operation Dynamo.’ Using literally any vessel of any size that they could procure, including many civilian volunteers to man them, the evacuation of the encircled armies began on the night of 28th May. Possibly blissfully unaware of how desperate the situation was, a motley flotilla of some 693 ships and boats, consisting of 39 destroyers, 36 Minesweepers, torpedo boats, ferries, 77 trawlers, and even 26 yachts, and a variety of other small craft, set-off from Britain to Dunkirk where they ferried the waiting and exhausted troops from the beaches to larger transport ships lying further offshore. This continued day and night for nearly a week under consistent, yet sporadic attacks from the Luftwaffe, until Dunkirk finally surrendered to German forces on 4th June 1940. Almost all the equipment of the British expeditionary force had been destroyed or fallen into the hands of the Germans, but most importantly, some 338,226 troops had been rescued. Of that number 140,000 were members of the French Army but all heavy equipment was abandoned and left in France.

The Dunkirk evacuation, was the largest evacuation the world had ever seen. But left behind in France were 2,472 guns, almost 65,000 vehicles and 20,000 motorcycles, 377,000 tonnes of stores, more than 68,000 tonnes of ammunition and 147,000 tonnes of fuel. 30,000-40,000 French troops were captured in the Dunkirk pocket.

In addition, six British and three French destroyers were sunk, along with nine other ships, nineteen destroyers were damaged and over 200 of the ‘little ships’ were sunk, with an equal number damaged.

Prior to the successful evacuation, Churchill gave a warning the House of Commons to expect “hard and heavy tidings,” and subsequently, Churchill referred to the outcome as a ‘miracle,’ and the British press fêted the evacuation as a ‘disaster turned to triumph.’ However the real reason for the ‘miracle’ was that Hitler was still desperately trying to end the war and in his, as it turned-out, mistaken view, this was one of the ways he could achieve it . . . a sort of naïve attempt to prove to the Zionist warmongers that he meant no harm and merely wanted to serve his country’s best interests geo-politically, without impinging on the sovereign rights of any other nation.

“ . . . he (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world . . . He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.” German General von Blumentritt, speaking later of Hitler’s astonishing ‘Halt Order’

How different could the world have been today, but for this totally unavoidable catastrophe, known as the ‘Second World War’ and the vaulting ambitions of a powerful group of psychopathic Zionist parasites?’

As the fleeing French government collapsed, the Germans entered Paris unopposed on the 14th June 1940 and the new ‘loyal’ government was headed by the World War I hero Marshal Philippe Petain who had agreed to make peace with Germany. Unlike the brutality of The Versailles Treaty, the terms of this Armistice are generous, insisting only that Germany be allowed to continue its occupation of northern France as a defensive measure against a British invasion of the continent whilst the new French government had its administrative offices in the southern city of Vichy. Other than this strategic occupation of the north, France remained a sovereign nation. And life in occupied France went-on virtually unchanged. The German soldiers established a reputation for their courtesy and consideration and charmed the French ladies, despite the lies we have been told about the ongoing atrocities and oppression under German rule.

Meanwhile, back in England, Churchill and French General Charles De Gaulle, were angered by Marshal Petain’s unwillingness to continue fighting. Hitler expressed a desire that Petain ally his country with Germany, but Mussolini’s aggressive declaration of war on France left such a bitter taste in the mouths of the French, that it became impossible for them to join any German-Italian alliance.

And with British ground troops now having been forcibly expelled from the European mainland, Churchill and his London/New York bankster-controllers could only continue the fight in the air and on the seas. The Royal Air Force was ordered by the bloodthirsty sadist Churchill, to bomb the Germans into submission by concentrating their efforts on civilian areas. Churchill of course achieved his objective of provoking a like-for-like retaliation from Hitler so that he and FDR could score points as to the “German bombing of British civilians.”

Professor A.J.P. Taylor wrote that the war of 1939 was . . . “ . . . less wanted by nearly everybody than almost any other war in history.”

And on the 15th February 1940, PM Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons affirmed . . .

“Whatever the length to which others may go, H.M. Government will never resort to deliberate attacks on women and children, and other civilians, for the purpose of mere terrorism,” and in a reply to Captain Ramsey This reaffirmed his position given on 14th September. “City bombing,” he emphasised, “ . . . was absolutely contrary to international law.”

But contrarily in a July 1940 memo to the Minister of UK Aircraft production, the despicable warmonger Churchill, recently voted in several contemporary polls as the ‘greatest ever Englishman,’ wrote that . . .

“When I look around to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power . . . but there is one thing that will bring him (Hitler) down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through.”

If Churchill was indeed the greatest-ever Englishman, what does that say about the rest of us? The implications sadden and absolutely disgust me to be frank. There is little doubt that Churchill’s hero-status has been artificially exaggerated and deliberately enhanced in the minds of the British populace throughout the decades. It speaks volumes to me that this ‘hero,’ this magnificent specimen of humanity, this demi-god was immediately voted-out of office in the greatest landslide ever seen in the entire history of British politics, at the very first opportunity by the British public in the aftermath of the war. Maybe ‘the people’ are not so ‘dumb’ as we may think after all, eh?

Indeed Churchill carpet-bombed German civilian areas on a regular basis, killing thousands of innocents including children, in the process. Many Berlin residential neighbourhoods were razed but at first Hitler categorically refused to retaliate in kind and indeed German bombers were under strict orders to limit their attacks to military/industrial targets only. In July 1940 the Luftwaffe began its mass-bombing attacks on British radar stations, aircraft factories and fighter airfields and during the next three months, the Royal Air Force lost 792 planes and over 500 pilots were killed. This period became popularly known as the ‘Battle of Britain.’

Finally, on the 4th of September 1940, Hitler was forced to openly declare that any more British bombings of civilian areas would be met reciprocally and right on cue, as expected, when the Luftwaffe dropped its first bombs on British civilian areas, the banksters’ world press immediately declared that, “Germany Bombs Civilians.”

‘The Blitz’ on London in 1940 and 1941 was a direct response by Germany to the initiation of civilian bombing by Churchill some months earlier but very few are aware of this rudimentary fact, which was central to Britain’s role in instigating World War II.

The Blitz is nowadays another element, held-up as proof-positive of Hitler being evil personified and the cause-and-effect connection is never, ever alluded-to or even acknowledged. Winston Churchill and the War Department in fact engineered a situation whereby they knew that London residential suburbs would be bombed mercilessly, whilst neglecting to inform ‘the people’ that it was in fact Britain that had set the process in motion, several months earlier. This had the double effect of simultaneously traumatising the population and also, more importantly, engendering in them an overwhelming desire for revenge, which gave Churchill and his ilk the licence to fight their sordid, manufactured conflict without recourse to normal conventions of war. These restraints had hitherto established and long-proclaimed that civilians would not be deliberately targeted.

In 1936, RAF ‘Bomber Command’ was formed and long-range bomber planes were designed and constructed. Its purpose was candidly described by J.M. Spaight of the Air Ministry as . . .

“The whole ‘raison d’être’ of Bomber Command was to bomb Germany, should she become our enemy.”

What a giveaway. So, those who espoused war had already started planning for it in 1936. Germany and France had nothing resembling these sophisticated, state-of-the-art bombers and their development in those countries lagged many years behind that of Britain, despite what we are deceptive told about Hitler’s long-term war planning strategy.

In fact, the highly punitive Treaty of Versailles had forbidden war-shattered Germany from ever developing an ‘active defence,’ alluding to such things as searchlights, flak guns etc. So not only was Britain preparing for a future offensive war, but by the terms of the treaty, had also cunningly attempted to prevent Germany from fighting a defensive one.

Hitler repeatedly sought to secure a truce in city bombing, and to gain agreement that in any future conflicts bombing should be strictly confined to the zone of military operations. Existing conventions and laws of war did not specifically allude to air bombardment, and therefore he repeatedly made offers to restrict the conduct of war by ‘confining the action of war to the battle zones.’

But Churchill’s first civilian bombing raid on Germany on the 11th May 1940, although in itself, trivial, was an extremely significant event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilised warfare; that which exhorted that hostilities must only be waged against enemy combatant forces. On the following day, the War Cabinet minutes noted on ‘Bombing Policy,’ that the Prime Minister was ‘no longer bound by our previously-held scruples as to initiating unrestricted air warfare.’

The Battle of Britain was the largest and most famous air battle in history. By day and night the combatants from Britain (along with pilots from other allied nations) and their enemies from Germany with some limited support from Italy, fought in the skies over south east England, between the 10th July and 31st October 1940. France had fallen to the might of the German Blitzkrieg earlier that year and the Luftwaffe commanded by Hermann Goering now planned to render the Royal Air Force impotent, in preparation for the proposed German invasion of Britain, ‘Operation Sea Lion,’ an amphibious and airborne invasion.

The Germans were unable to destroy the majority of British radar stations — the ineffectiveness of the slower-flying Stuka dive bomber against RAF fighter attacks meant that the Germans had nothing capable of conducting accurate strikes on the radar stations and this put them at a distinct disadvantage. But by August 1940, despite the heroic efforts of British pilots, the continuous bombing of airfields, ports and shipping was starting to take its toll on the Royal Air Force. During the early stages of the campaign, under strict orders from Hitler, London had been virtually ignored as a target by the Luftwaffe, however on the 24th August, it was reported that a group of ‘lost’ German bombers ‘accidently’ bombed the capital which resulted in a whole series retaliatory bombing raids by Churchill on Berlin.

However, the Royal Air Force still actually had about 1,000 operational aircraft available and by mid-September 1940, the switch in Luftwaffe tactics to bombing civilian targets, gave the Royal Air Force some ‘breathing-space’ to repair airfields and radar installations and build more aircraft. Although the RAF fighter pilots were exhausted, the risk of defeat at the hands of the Germans had now lessened for Britain. Now, large formations of Spitfires and Hurricanes could be deployed to attack the German bombers which were concentrated mainly over London. The RAF had the advantage of being close to their bases, ammunition and fuel-supplies allowing them to land and return to the air in a relatively short time-scale, whilst for the Luftwaffe far from ‘home,’ the losses eventually became unsustainable.

The primary German fighter in the Battle of Britain was the Messerschmitt Bf-109. Although it was a great combat aircraft and could compete equally with the British Spitfires and Hurricanes, its disadvantage was that it lacked sufficient range to provide adequate long-range escort duties for the German bombers and the bombing targets in south-eastern England were at its maximum operational range. The ME-109s could remain to protect the bombers for a short period of time only, before needing to head-back to their bases in France, thus leaving the German bombers highly vulnerable to fighter attacks. The longer-range fighter-plane of the Luftwaffe was the twin-engined Messerschmitt Bf-110 but, this was totally ineffective against the more nimble and faster British fighters. The Luftwaffe had originally been developed as a tactical air-arm to provide air-support to the German ground forces, rather than a strategic, long-range air force and this factor was taking its toll on the otherwise highly-skilled German aircrews.

At the start of the battle, Britain had a strength of 640 fighters and Germany had 2600 bombers and fighters. Although it is difficult to obtain accurate figures on aircraft losses due to exaggerations by both sides during the war, by the end of the battle, it is estimated (according to the BBC and RAF websites) that Britain had lost over 1000 aircraft (the majority were Hurricane fighters) and Germany lost nearly 1900 aircraft, mostly bombers and the ME-109s. During the period of the battle, British factories produced new aircraft at more than double the number of Royal Air Force losses, whilst Germany could only produce enough aircraft to cover half the Luftwaffe’s losses, this fact highlights why the Luftwaffe could not continue the battle due to the losses sustained.

In reluctant response to Churchill’s bombing of German civilians, the Luftwaffe replied in kind, but only after six such surprise attacks on civilians in Berlin in the previous weeks. Thus Germany justifiably referred to it as a reprisal.

“The British people were not permitted to find out that the Government could have stopped the German raids at any time, merely by stopping the raids on Germany.” Professor Arthur Butz

Indeed they are still generally unaware of this fact. Winston Churchill never receives the blame he deserves for instigating the Blitz, although he was never actually popular, even during the war. His ‘morale-boosting’ personal visits to London’s Blitz-devastated East-end had to be curtailed after he was booed and verbally abused on more than one occasion by some angry residents. The German bombs took some one-tenth of the lives of civilians as compared to the British offensive, and Britons do not seem very aware of this ten-to-one ratio.

On the first day of the Blitz, 430 citizens died and around 1,600 were injured. The German bombers returned again the next day and a further 412 died. In all, between September 1940 and May 1941, the Luftwaffe made 127 large-scale night raids. Of these, 71 were targeted on London and other targets outside the capital were Liverpool, Birmingham, Plymouth, Bristol, Glasgow, Southampton, Coventry, Hull, Portsmouth, Manchester, Belfast, Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham and Cardiff.

In addition to these raids, and following the disgraceful British bombing of the historical town of Lübeck, the Germans instigated what were known as the ‘Baedeker raids,’ named after a famous German tourist guide-book of Britain. These raids concentrated upon places of cultural and historic significance and unfortunately for Germany, the outrage invoked by this retaliatory yet petulant, unnecessary action only resulted in a further escalation of the attacks upon their own civilians. During these attacks the non-strategic, historic towns and cities of Norwich, York, Exeter, Bath, Canterbury, Ipswich, Weston-Super-Mare, Kings Lynn and Deal were all targeted, resulting in the destruction of many historic buildings and several hundred civilian deaths. But overall, in comparison to the British raids on Germany, these casualty numbers were tiny — as we shall see later.

Also, during the Blitz, in total, some two million houses were destroyed and 60,000 civilians were killed and 87,000 were seriously injured. Of those killed, the majority were in London and indeed until half-way through the Second World War, more civilians had been killed in Britain, than serving soldiers.

Incidentally, in 1919-1920, it was the British that first developed the technique of bombing towns and villages, bombing Kabul, Afghanistan, and rebellious tribal groups along the border areas of India. And in the 1920s, the British intentionally bombed ‘rebel’ villages in Somalia and Yemen and instigated an extended bombardment campaign against civilian populations in rebel areas in British-controlled Iraq for several years.

Now that the war was seriously escalating, America and more specifically, the American banksters and their puppet, FDR were becoming impatient for a slice of the ‘action.’ Understandably, Germany and Japan were equally suspicious of FDR’s true, but as yet publicly undisclosed intentions and therefore in order to discourage American military involvement in either Germany’s war with Britain, or Japan’s unrelated war with China, Germany, Japan and Italy signed the ‘Tripartite Pact,’ in which they all agreed to assist one another by all political, economic and military means, should one of the signatory nations be attacked by a nation not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

Germany, Italy and Japan hoped that this pact would help to discourage America from joining-in the war but ironically, as it turned-out, it actually facilitated FDR’s dastardly scheme to draw America in. Whilst publicly insisting that ‘our American boys,’ “ . . . will not be going to foreign wars,” FDR continued to secretly prepare for US entry into the banksters’ Second World War and as a prelude, instituted the peacetime ‘Selective Service Act’ which required all males aged 26-35 to register for an upcoming draft, ‘just in case.’ The actual draft begin in October 1940 and the unlucky draftees were told that they would be compelled to serve a 12-month term, based in either the Western Hemisphere, or a US territory.

Roosevelt signed the Burke-Wadsworth conscription bill in the presence of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Congressman Andrew J. May, chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee, General George C. Marshall and Senator Morris Sheppard, chairman of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, on the 16th September 1940.

By the summer of 1941, the deceitful FDR, who was of course planning to trick America into the war by way of a Japanese provocation, decreed that the draftee’s service-periods be lengthened. The outraged draftees protested FDR’s broken promise, and threatened to desert when their 12 months were complete, but most of them reluctantly obeyed the new order and continued to serve past the promised October 1941 release date, right up until the ‘surprise attack’ upon Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in December 1941. This was the first, and only ever, peacetime draft in US history.

It is now well-known that Roosevelt, under pressure from US bankster industrial and financial interests and Churchill, desperate for the US to enter the war to aid a floundering British war effort, conspired together and with others to set in motion events to create a situation which would turn public opinion and generate the outcry that would make war inevitable.

Despite the fact that FDR had won a second term as President largely due to his oft-repeated promise that American soldiers would not become embroiled in the ‘European war,’ he knew only too well that that is exactly what had been planned.

“‘But our boys are not going to be sent abroad,’ says the President. Nonsense, Mr. Chairman; even now, their berths are being built in our transport ships. Even now, the tags for identification of the dead and wounded are being printed by the firm of William C. Ballantyne and Co, in Washington DC.” Representative Philip Bennett, Missouri, 1939

Also in 1939, Senator Nye of North Dakota, quoted words in the Senate from a volume named ‘The Next War’, printed in London some years previously. In it was detailed the plan to drag America into WWII by whatever means it could muster, and it said . . .

“To persuade the US to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda, to every citizen, before the Republic will again take arms in an external quarrel . . .

. . . The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan was involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious effect of our propagandists to achieve this, just as in the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States against Germany.”

Throughout the US election year of 1940, nationalist Republicans warned that FDR was plotting to drag the US, ‘kicking and screaming’ into the war. Because the public was strongly opposed to entry in another European war, FDR reassured voters that the ‘isolationists’ (those who oppose proactive military action) were misrepresenting his intentions. During the campaign, FDR gave his famous ‘again and again’ speech . . . “I say to you mothers and fathers and I shall say it again and again and again. Your boys will not be sent into any foreign wars.”

Then true to form, the Globalists hijacked the nominating process and put forward an unknown patsy, an ‘ex-Democrat’ named Wendell Willkie, to run against FDR. Many Republicans were shocked when the Republicans (supported by the media’s hype of Willkie) sanctioned the appointment of an unknown New York lawyer who had never held any public office — of any kind.

“The vast majority of Americans were firmly against intervention in the war, but a covert British propaganda and ‘dirty tricks’ campaign, employing almost 1,000 people in New York had hijacked democracy with the full co-operation of the FDR administration. In fact more than propaganda was involved, the organiser of the Republican convention, Ralph Williams, an ‘isolationist’ ‘conveniently’ died (maybe not too conveniently for him though) on the 16th May and was replaced by a lifelong British agent, Sam Pryor who packed the convention with Willkie delegates and supporters chanting, ‘we want Willkie, we want Willkie.’

But historian Thomas Mahl claimed that the British mandate included murder and he implied strongly that this indeed took place. Later, Heinrich Muller, the head of the Gestapo who worked for the CIA during the Truman administration after the war, confirmed that the British had killed many Americans who got in the way.” Gregory Douglas, ‘The CIA Covenant, Nazis in Washington’

“Willkie’s nomination exempted President Franklin Roosevelt from the normal pressures of an election campaign,” Mahl wrote in 1998 in his explosive book ‘Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the US, 1939-44’

Had a Republican nationalist such as Robert Taft, won the nomination, Churchill had privately expressed that he was prepared to make peace with Hitler and abandon Stalin to his fate. But that scenario was not to be, unfortunately. Willkie ran a very poor campaign, unsurprisingly to some and was heavily defeated and lo and behold, FDR was elected for an unprecedented 3rd term. Afterwards, FDR appointed Willkie as an Ambassador!

In February 1941, the first units of the German Afrika Korps arrived in North Africa to rescue the collapsing Italian forces. General Erwin Rommel, the master tactician known as the ‘Desert Fox,’ commanded the German forces to some stunning successes, but this diversion of manpower and resources to Africa, eventually proved to be costly for Germany.

Britain meanwhile, was running short of arms and supplies as Germany continued to offer peace on terms favourable to Britain, but of course, Churchill was not interested because, behind the scenes, FDR was reassuring him that the US would shortly enter the war, as soon as they could conjure up a valid reason, of course. But, with his successful re-election campaign of 1940 now behind him, FDR became more voluble and antagonistic in his approach to the anti-war ‘isolationists.’

The Lend-Lease programme placed the massive industrial might of the US at the disposal of the UK, and later the Soviet Union. The US was to become ‘the Arsenal of Democracy,’ according to FDR and Britain would eventually receive $31 billion worth of war supplies (about $600 billion at 2015 prices.)

Between mid-1940 and late 1941, Congress appropriated the staggering sum for peacetime of $23bn for the War Department. That was more than the entire total budget of the entire First World War. But remember, the Second World War offered riches far in excess of any bankster’s wildest dreams. Indeed, more than 50% of Britain’s Conservative Members of Parliament had shares in armaments factories and stood to become very rich in the event of war.

The Comptroller General of the Unites States, Lindsay C. Warren, testified before the House of Representatives in 1943 and 1944, revealing that . . . “more than $150bn of ‘slush’ had already been skimmed off some war contracts, and extensive lobbying on the part of war production firms was ongoing, mainly conducted by ex-military officers after leaving the armed forces.”

US Congressmen were desperate to become involved in the securing of war contracts and sub-contracts to constituent entrepreneurs, for which in return they received lavish ‘campaign contributions,’ votes and other benefits. Many British and American companies became international conglomerates as a direct result of scrambling for the potential profits of war. Non-descript politicians emerged from the war with absolute fortunes, made from investments in the arms industry, paid for of course with the expendable blood of their nation’s youth. Democracy at its finest, of course. In fact Democracy is by far the best political system that money can buy.

Britain, now alone against Germany, which was being armed and fuelled by Standard Oil (Exxon-Mobil), General Motors, Texaco, DuPont, Alcoa, Ford, IT&T, IBM et al, appealed to Roosevelt for armaments. Churchill in return, offered the secrets to some of the most important scientific developments of the twentieth century including radar, sonar, antibiotics, the jet engine and much of the original research on atomic power and the atomic bomb.

Ultimately, the US transferred around $21bn worth of war materials to Britain and in addition to providing the US scientific secrets, which had incalculable value to the American bankster-owned multinational corporations, Britain repaid the entire cost of the armaments over the course of the following sixty five years, making the final payment in 2006.

Using the research data provided by Britain and a host of European physicists, the US launched the Manhattan Project in order to develop an atomic bomb. Interestingly, one of the major corporate contributors to the Manhattan Project was none other than Nazi financier and eugenics proponent, Irenee du Pont’s DuPont Chemical. DuPont’s partner-in-crime IG Farben, was meanwhile also busily at work in Germany, developing an atomic bomb of their own.

Even after they had converted their military vehicle plant in Russelsheim, Germany to engine production for German bombers, General Motors executives informed dissenting shareholders in the US that it was impossible to convert GM assembly lines in the US in order to manufacture airplane engines for the US and Britain.

At around this same time (March 1941,) British intelligence orchestrated a coup in Yugoslavia whereby the new Yugoslavian regime became an anti-German, British puppet-state, which immediately signed a ‘Treaty of Friendship’ with the USSR. Significantly, Yugoslavia actually shared a border with Germany in its Austrian region.

Long before the German-Polish conflict, FDR had waged a silent war against Germany and with Germany now in control of the European theatre, FDR was even more desperate to drag America into the banksters’ war. He baited Hitler relentlessly with such tactics as impounding German ships, clandestinely sinking German U-Boats, freezing German, Italian, and Japanese financial assets in the US, assisting the British Navy in tracing and sinking The Bismarck, killing 2200 German sailors, and shipping large quantities of arms to Britain. Hitler bore these humiliating provocations quietly, being fully aware that US entry into the war would be disastrous for Germany.

On the 22nd of June 1941, as Germany and Britain fought each other in the air, at sea and also in North Africa, Stalin’s Red Army arrived at Germany’s eastern frontier, near the Romanian oil fields that supplied the German war machine. Hitler recalled how Stalin had broken the non-aggression pact and attacked Poland while the Poles were pre-occupied with Germany. Another non-aggression pact was broken when Stalin attacked Finland and Soviet invasions of the Baltic States, and eastern Romania offered even further proof that Stalin could not be trusted. And so, with Germany and Britain distracted, Stalin threatened all of Europe. Hitler had hoped to remove the Soviet threat in April, but invasion plans were delayed by Mussolini’s misadventures in Africa and Greece but when ‘Operation Barbarossa’ was launched by Hitler, the Red Army was taken completely unawares and decimated by the German forces.

Millions of Soviet troops were taken prisoner and the devastating loss of weaponry and equipment left the Red Army neutralised. Around 65% of all Soviet tanks, field guns, machine guns, and anti-tank guns were either destroyed or captured and the Germans chased the Reds all the way back to Moscow, liberating the cheering Ukrainian and other Baltic peoples along the way. It was only the onset of the brutal Russian winter that forced the Germans to pause their stunning offensive and it was only the unfortunate two-month delay, due to Mussolini’s folly in Greece, requiring German intervention that saved the Red regime from total annihilation in 1941.

But with Stalin’s evil Empire on the brink of extinction, Roosevelt moved quickly to rescue the murderous Soviet regime. He released Soviet assets that had been frozen after Stalin’s attack on Finland in 1939, enabling the Soviets to immediately purchase more arms and weapons of war. The glorious US of A, bastion of democracy, had now been transformed into the saviour of Communism — exactly as the banksters had hoped, and the tide had now turned distinctly in their favour.

By 1945, the staggering amount of US-provided armaments to Stalin included 11,000 aircraft, 4,000 bombers, 400,000 trucks, 12,000 tanks and combat vehicles, 32,000 motorcycles, 13,000 locomotives and railway cars, 8,000 anti-aircraft cannons, 135,000 submachine guns, 300,000 tons of explosives, 40,000 field radios, 400 radar systems, 400,000 metal cutting machine tools, several million tons of food, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. Without this enormous infusion of US aid, there is absolutely no doubt that the German forces would easily have obliterated ‘Stalin’s Empire’ after the spring thaw of 1942.

But back for now to 1941. In late June, the Communist Party of the USSR called upon Party, Soviet, and Trade Union organisations to form ‘partisan divisions and diversion groups’ and to ‘pursue and destroy the invaders in a merciless struggle.’ In violation of commonly accepted rules of warfare, many of the Partisans wore no uniforms and nor did they recognise international laws governing warfare. In order to swell the ranks of the Red Partisans and prevent the Germans from winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the civilian population of the newly German-occupied areas, Soviet commandoes donned German uniforms and carried out ‘false-flag’ atrocities against their own people, thereby inciting hatred against the Germans. Communist Jewish partisans, aided by the American OSS (the forerunner to the CIA,) also utilised the same false-flag tactics which meant that the German troops were unable to tell enemy from innocent civilian.

Massive Jewish participation in non-uniform-wearing Partisan groups, including women and children, was one of the reasons for Hitler’s decision to intern Europe’s Jews in work camps as a wartime security precaution. In much the same way as Britain’s ethic German (even 2nd and 3rd generation) population had been interred in Britain and the US-Japanese citizens suffered the same fate in the US.

Volunteers from every nation in Europe including anti-Red Jewish, as well as many from Asia, joined the Germans to fight the Soviet-Communist threat. They were welcomed into Germany’s Waffen SS, elite fighting force in action on the eastern front. The rabidly anti-Communist Waffen SS were strongly motivated by a vision of a greater European family and were tired of the European petty jealousies, border disputes, and economic rivalries. They fought for Europe itself, not for any one country and indeed the Waffen SS was a true international army of the European peoples. One million men fought in the SS, of which, 600,000 were non-German. During and after the brutal winter of 1941-42, it was the Waffen SS who stood their ground and delayed the massive, US-sponsored Soviet counter-offensive. By the war’s end 40% of its members were listed as killed or ‘missing in action.’

Just as his father before him had, the true American patriot, the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh spoke-out against the banksters’ insidious plans. He could clearly see that FDR was manoeuvring towards American involvement in the ‘European war. Lindbergh was a leading figure in the ‘America First’ movement, or what Zionist-Globalist propaganda disingenuously referred to as ‘isolationism.’

Lindbergh was obviously absolutely aware of the truth of what was happening behind the scenes when he warned, “ . . . the leaders of the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.”

US relations with Japan had been strained for some time and significantly, Roosevelt was fully aware of Japan’s dependence on imports. He had already provocatively, unilaterally terminated America’s long-standing commercial treaty with her, resulting in Japan having to ask permission on a case-by-case basis whenever she wished to import anything at all from the United States. In July 1940 the administration had further prohibited exports to Japan by requiring her to obtain a ‘licence’ to purchase aircraft engines and other strategic materials. In fact, Roosevelt was tightening an economic noose around Japan’s neck by stealth, thereby forcing her to source from elsewhere, the supplies and materials she had been accustomed to buying from the United States.

The Japanese had considerable commercial interests in Southeast Asia, especially in French Indochina (now Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.) After the fall of France in June 1940, Japan had negotiated with the Vichy government of ‘un-occupied France’ for permission to occupy French Indochina, so as to take-over military bases there, and to maintain order. The helpless Vichy government had agreed and so as trade with the United States became more difficult, Japan’s interests in Indochina gained in importance and she turned more and more towards that source for the foods and raw materials she desperately needed. Trade pacts later concluded with Indochina assured Japan of uninterrupted supplies of rice, rubber and other vital raw materials.

In February 1941, Sir Robert Craigie, the British ambassador in Tokyo, cabled his Foreign Office in London that Japan was about to invade British-held Singapore, which was then a vital commercial and communications link between Britain and her overseas dominions and colonies. Anthony Eden, British Foreign Secretary, summoned Mamoru Shigemitsu, the Japanese ambassador in London, and strongly berated him regarding the intelligence emanating from the British embassy in Tokyo.

When Eugene Dooman, counsellor at the US Embassy in Tokyo, called on Japan’s vice minister for foreign affairs, he was assured that “there was no truth whatever in Sir Robert’s statement.” In fact he said that he had “repeatedly told Sir Robert that Japan would not move on Singapore or the Dutch East Indies, unless we (the Japanese) are pressed by the imposition of American embargoes.” However, he also said that, “ . . . if disorders beyond the power of the French to control were to arise in Indochina . . . we would be obliged to step in to suppress the disorders.” His assertion was an overt indication of the danger inherent in imposing embargoes on Japan.

But by the end of July 1941, the United States had frozen all Japanese assets in the US, and the Dutch East Indies. All oil deals were cancelled and these moves had the drastic effect of bringing 75% of Japan’s foreign trade to a standstill. An intolerable situation for them, of course as the US administration knew well and as was the intent all along.

The US Ambassador in Japan had kept Roosevelt fully informed of her precarious economic situation and urgent need for imports and the US Chief of Naval Operations had also warned the President of the danger of imposing an oil embargo on Japan. He had in fact made it known to the State Department, in no uncertain terms, that in his opinion if Japan’s oil were shut off, she would declare war. A fact now well-known to FDR and also part of the cunning entrapment of the Japanese.

In the closing months of 1941, FDR’s provocations of Japan had escalated virtually to the level of acts of war,’ and FDR further inflamed the situation by denying Japanese ships access to the ‘neutral’ Panama Canal, and ordering US battleships to undertake ‘routine patrols’ through Japanese territorial waters. Then on the 26th November 1941, FDR sent an ultimatum to Japan, implying a military threat, demanding that Japan withdraw all of its troops from China and Indochina as a pre-condition for lifting the trade embargo.

On the day before the highly provocative communication was sent, Secretary of War Henry Stimson (a bankster-controlled CFR member) recorded, in his personal diary, the topic of a meeting with FDR as follows, “The question was how we should manoeuvre them (Japan) into the position of firing the first shot.”

And the answer was . . . to temptingly dangle the bait for the Japanese fish to bite. The tasty bait that the bankster-controlled FDR and his equally traitorous military supremo, George Marshall dangled, was the American Pacific fleet, or at least the ‘surplus-to-requirements,’ expendable portion of it, which was deliberately left vulnerable and unprotected at the naval base of Pearl Harbor, in the US territory of Hawaii on 7th December 1941.

Occasionally, a bankster-owned puppet does actually speak the truth . . .

Chapter 10

World War Two – The Reaction

Sunday, 7th December 1941 – Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

Pearl Harbor

“December 7th [the attack on Pearl Harbor] was . . . far from the shock it proved to the country in general. We had expected something of the sort for a long time.” Eleanor Roosevelt, NY Times Magazine, 8th October 1944

“Yes, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, but we [the US] pulled off an international sting operation to trick them into doing it. Roosevelt actually moved the shipping lanes so that the Japanese fleet would not be discovered and reported by some uninvolved ship’s captain. Our own early attempts at radar picked up the incoming Zeros but that was explained as just a flock of birds, which given the unknown capabilities of radar at the time was believable. The fact remains that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked because we had broken the Japanese code. Pearl Harbor was not warned because we wanted to get rid of the WWI ships and be forced to buy new ones and because that war, like all the others was never about nation-states, it was always about the money that every nation needed just to fight in these contrived wars. It has ALWAYS been about the money. And those who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor were just the price of doing business.” Jim Kirwan, Researcher November 2010

On the evening of 5th December 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of the United States, received a message intercepted by the US Navy. Sent from Tokyo to the Japanese embassy in Washington, the message was encrypted in the top-level Japanese ‘purple code,’ but that was no problem, the Americans had cracked the code long before that. It was imperative that the President should see the message immediately because it revealed that the Japanese, under the heavy pressure of US economic sanctions, were terminating relations with the United States.

Roosevelt read the thirteen-part transmission, looked up and announced, “This means war.” He then did a very strange thing for a President in his situation . . . absolutely nothing. On 6th December 1941, at a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is.” “Yes, I know,” replied FDR, “I think we ought to tell everybody just how ticklish this situation is. We have information . . . Well, you tell them what it is, Frank,” said FDR. Knox became very excited and said, “Well, we have very secret information that the Japanese fleet is out at sea. Our information is . . . ” and then the scowling FDR cut him short. The very next day, Pearl Harbor was attacked and the rest, as they say, ‘is history.’ Well, maybe.

Pearl Harbor

At the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US was decrypting a thousand pages per day of coded Japanese communication. Following the attack, the US government maintained that there was no indication of an impending attack but the government however, still classified much of it as secret and denied access to many of the intercepted messages, to the string of enquiries which was attempting to investigate the truth behind the Pearl Harbor incident, over the years. Much of the decrypted traffic is still classified, more than seventy years after the event.

During a naval inquiry in 1944, Captain Laurence Safford, the leading cryptologist responsible for decoding intercepted Japanese messages, testified that on 1st December 1941, the US had . . . “ . . . definite information from three independent sources that Japan was going to attack Britain and the United States” and that, on the 4th December, the US received . . . “ . . . definite information from two more independent sources that Japan would attack the United States and Britain, but would maintain peace with Russia.” Early on 6th December, the cryptologist further testified that . . . “ . . . we received positive information that Japan would declare war against the United States, at a time to be specified thereafter. This information was positive and unmistakable and was made available to Military (US Army) Intelligence at this same time.” Further testimony revealed that at 5am Hawaiian time on 7th December, the U.S. received . . . “ . . . positive information . . . that the Japanese declaration of war would be presented to the Secretary of State at 1pm Washington time.”

The larger vessels on ‘Battleship Row’ in Pearl Harbor could not have been located more conveniently for the Japanese pilots, if they had arranged them themselves. Ignorance was no excuse. The US Navy was very much aware of the devastating success of carrier-borne aircraft against battleships in harbour. A few months earlier the British had destroyed almost the entire Italian battle fleet in a single action in Taranto harbour, Italy, using planes carrying torpedoes modified for shallow water and bombs from aircraft carriers, two hundred miles away.

In view of this and the obvious lessons to be learned from it, and the fact that war with Japan was already being provoked, it is difficult to draw any conclusion other than that the American ships in Pearl Harbor were deliberately arranged as ‘sitting ducks’ in order to ensure that the Japanese attack became the stunning success it certainly was. At the time of the attack, the ships were left completely vulnerable, with watertight doors and ammunition lockers open and the three more modern aircraft carriers based at Pearl Harbor, the real power and future of the Pacific fleet, were safely away at sea.

The ships sunk at Pearl Harbor were, for the most part, obsolete World War One-era types and of greatly diminished military value. Only one of the battleships, the Nevada, was capable of moving under its own power.

In spite of all the warnings and the great likelihood of an attack, anti-aircraft weapons were unmanned, ammunition was locked-away, anti-submarine measures were not implemented, combat air patrols were not flying and scouting aircraft were nowhere to be seen. Newly available, long-range patrol aircraft were not supplied to Pearl Harbor and aircraft were lined up on the ground in convenient, neat, adjacent rows, almost impossible for the Japanese to miss. Does any of this sound even vaguely familiar, perchance, in relation to a slightly more recent ‘attack’ on the US?

Japan began planning the attack on Pearl Harbor as early as January 1941 as a precaution in the event of the political situation escalating to a war footing and finally, on 26th November 1941 a fleet including 6 aircraft carriers with 423 aircraft aboard, 17 other war ships, 8 oilers, 30 submarines, and 5 midget submarines left Hitokappu Bay in the Kuril Islands of Northern Japan, for Oahu. The sneak attack was pre-planned to occur early on Sunday morning, 7th December 1941, with the main intent of knocking out the US Pacific fleet. However, history has proven that this apparently successful attack was in reality the undoing of the Japanese Empire’s desire for Pacific and Asian dominance.

The Commander of the task-force, Admiral Nagumo’s mission was to . . . “ . . . advance into Hawaiian waters, and at the very opening of hostilities, attack the main force of the US Fleet in Hawaii.” After leaving Japan, the Japanese attack fleet headed eastward until directly north of Hawaii on 3rd December where they turned south, taking them to 230 miles north of Oahu by the early morning of the 7th December and it was from there that the ‘surprise’ attack began . . .

Japan’s first wave of 183 aircraft, both fighters and bombers, was launched from six aircraft carriers 230 miles north of Oahu at 6.20 am. The plan was obviously to disable the US ability to get fighters in the air, in response to the aggression and the first wave included a destructive collection of aircraft, including 40 torpedo bombers, 51 dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zero fighters.

A warning of the coming attack occurred as the USS Ward destroyed an incoming Japanese midget submarine and a second warning came at 7.02 am when Army radar operators at Kahuku Point detected a large formation of planes coming from the north on their radar screen, but mistakenly believed it to be American B-17 bombers heading-in from California.

The second wave involved an additional 167 fighters and bombers, which delivered another heavy bombardment to all of the same targets, striking ships, aircraft, buildings and personnel whilst they were still desperately trying to recover from the first round of bombings.

At 7.40 am, at this time over Kahuku Point, Japanese Commanding Pilot Lt. Commander Mitsuo Fuchida, the leader of the first wave, signalled the attack to begin and as pre-arranged, the 183 planes of the first wave broke formation. Dive bombers headed upwards to 12,000ft, horizontal bombers to 3,500ft and torpedo bombers plunged to sea level then into mountain passes to avoid detection as they headed for their targets.

Fuchida then radioed his carriers the now famous command, “Tora! Tora! Tora!” as his aircraft rounded Barbers Point and headed towards Pearl Harbor. Their primary target was Battleship Row.

The Air Stations of Oahu were also bombed and strafed simultaneously at the outset of the Japanese raid. This included Air Stations at Ford Island, Kaneohe, Wheeler Field, Ewa, and Hickam plus Bellows Army Air Field and the Marine Air Base at Ewa. This almost eliminated US air response capabilities for the entire duration of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

USS Nevada attempted to escape to the open Ocean but her Captain had to beach her to prevent her sinking in the harbour channel and blocking it. The vessel had been struck by one torpedo at mooring and five 250kg bombs along the way. Tugs helped her across the channel where she was beached off the Waipio Peninsula and one year later the repaired ship re-joined the Fleet, and went on to take part in the Normandy invasion, the invasion of Southern France, and the Battle of Okinawa.

Within minutes of the first wave attack, the battleships, Arizona, Utah, California, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Nevada were essentially sunk, and Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania were badly damaged by torpedoes and bombs.

USS Arizona was the most badly damaged of all of the ships attacked. A 1756lb bomb detonated near the forward munitions magazine, resulting in an incredible explosion that destroyed the front half of the ship, and caused it to sink in nine minutes, resulting in 1177 deaths and only 377 survivors. The unsalvageable ship was left on the bottom of the harbour and remains there to this day as a ghoulish tourist attraction and more importantly, the tomb of all the sadly-deceased crewmen.

USS Arizona destroyed

As the second wave’s attack was completed, Commander Fuchida signalled a return to the carriers. 21 vessels had been damaged or destroyed, and most of the aircraft on Oahu’s airfields were destroyed. By noon, all but 29 of the Japanese aircraft had returned to their carriers and Japanese commander, Admiral Chiuchi Nagumo, felt the mission was now successfully accomplished. Fearing reprisals from American aircraft carriers, now suspiciously out at sea somewhere, the planned third wave attack was cancelled and thus despite US claims to the contrary, Japanese naval and air forces had actually failed to destroy America’s Pacific Fleet.

Personnel casualties included 218 US Army personnel killed in action, and 364 wounded. The Navy lost 2,008 servicemen killed, and 710 wounded and the US Marines lost 109 killed in action, and 69 were wounded. Civilians were also impacted by the attack, including 68 killed and 35 wounded. The total casualty-count was 3581 killed and wounded.

Japan lost 29 aircraft and five midget submarines, and suffered 65 killed and wounded.

Of course, the intelligence regarding the Japanese intent to attack Hawaii, never reached the people who really needed to hear it the most, Admiral Husband Kimmel, Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor Hawaii, and the unit’s commanding general, Walter Short. It was common military knowledge that Pearl Harbor was where the Japanese would strike, if anywhere and the ‘surprise’ attack was just that, a complete surprise to Kimmel and Short and all the American servicemen and civilians who died. It was however, not a surprise to FDR, Generals George C. Marshall, Leonard T. Gerow, Admirals Harold R. Stark and Richmond Kelly Turner. They were the military’s ‘top brass’ in Washington and the only officers authorised to forward such sensitive intelligence to outlying commanders. But the decoded war declaration was deliberately prevented from reaching Kimmel and Short until after the attack.

Internal army and navy inquiries in 1944, found Stark and Marshall in dereliction of duty for keeping the Hawaiian commanders in the dark, but the military successfully buried those findings.

As far as the public knew, the final truth was uncovered by the Roberts Commission, headed by Justice Owen Roberts of the Supreme Court, and convened eleven days after the attack. As did the Warren Commission, headed by a Supreme Court justice on a different topic more than twenty years later, the Roberts Commission appeared to have identified its culprits in advance and manipulated the facts to make the suspects appear guilty. The scapegoats were Kimmel and Short, who were both publicly crucified, forced to retire, and denied the open hearings they desired. One of the Roberts Commission panellists, Admiral William Standley, referred to Roberts’ performance as, “crooked as a snake.”

There were altogether, eight investigations of the Pearl Harbor incident. The most spectacular was a joint House-Senate probe that reiterated the Roberts Commission findings. At those hearings, Marshall and Stark testified, incredibly, that they ‘could not remember’ where they were the night the war declaration was received but a close friend of Frank Knox, the secretary of the Navy, later revealed that Knox, Stark, and Marshall spent most of that night in the White House with Roosevelt, awaiting the bombing of Pearl Harbor and relishing the chance for America to join World War II.

From there, a further, widespread cover-up ensued. A few days after Pearl Harbor, historian John Toland reported that Marshall informed his senior officers, “Gentlemen, this goes to the grave with us.” General Short had once considered Marshall his friend, only to learn that the Chief of Staff was the one who had ‘framed’ him. Short later remarked that he pitied his former friend because Marshall was the only general who would not be able to write an autobiography.

Indeed, of the multiplicity of warnings of the attack concealed from the commanders at Pearl Harbor, the ‘Winds Code’ was perhaps the most shocking. This was an earlier transmission, in a fake weather report broadcast on a Japanese short-wave station. It was simply “east wind, rain.” The Americans already knew that this was the Japanese code for war with the United States but the response of the senior US military was to deny that the message existed and to destroy all records of its being received. But it did in fact exist and it was received.

US cryptography apart, the Australian intelligence service had also located the Japanese fleet heading for Hawaii, three days prior to the attack. A warning was immediately sent to Washington where the spin by Roosevelt was that it was a politically motivated rumour circulated by the Republicans. Also, a British double-agent, Dusko Popov, learned of the Japanese intentions and desperately tried to warn Washington too, to no avail. And there were several others.

So why would Roosevelt and the senior military commanders sacrifice the US Pacific Fleet, not to mention thousands of servicemen’s lives – which of course was a deliberate act of treason, not to mention mass-murder? As previously related at length, they had concluded long before Pearl Harbor that they wanted to join in the war against the Axis powers and a ‘surprise,’ and ‘unprovoked’ attack (of which it was neither) on Pearl Harbor would surely convince American public opinion to accept a war they would have otherwise rejected. In addition Roosevelt would have a strong ‘get-out’ clause for reneging on his ‘no European war,’ empty promise.

Roosevelt believed also, that provoking Japan into an attack on Hawaii was the only way that he could overcome the powerful ‘America First,’ non-interventionist movement led by aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. These anti-war views were shared by 80 percent of the American public from 1940 to 1941. Thus a small group of men, revered and held to be most honourable by millions, had convinced themselves that it was necessary to act dishonourably, commit treason, in effect murder in cold blood, thousands of fellow-Americans and incite a war that Japan had tried to avoid. All at the behest of that their ultimate masters – the Zionist banksters.

Immediately after the Japanese attack, the government of Britain and the Netherlands government-in-exile in Britain declared war on Japan – even before the US itself had done so. The US, shortly afterwards, duly declared war on Japan but, contrary to popular myth in the US, not on Germany or Italy. Even the isolationists could not resist the war fever caused by what FDR referred-to as “an unprovoked attack.”

“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” FDR, 8th December 1941.

Tens of thousands of patriotic American men, oblivious as to how these events were engineered by the banksters, blinded by patriotic fervour and propaganda and overcome by a sense of ‘duty,’ flocked to volunteer for military service. A few days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler allowed his personal dislike of Roosevelt to overcome his better judgement and made one of his greatest tactical errors and declared war on the United States, thus saving Roosevelt the time and trouble to do the same.

When Germany and Italy fulfil their Tripartite Treaty obligation to Japan, by announcing that a state of war now existed between the Axis nations and the US, (though in reality, neither country had any way of actually attacking the US mainland) Congress then followed suit with additional war declarations upon Germany and Italy.

Then on the 19th February 1942 — FDR’s Executive Order 9066 condemned 110,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry to serve the rest of the war years in prison camps. Of those interned, 62% were actual American citizens. One hundred percent of all the Japanese-Americans in the state of California were interred, as well as many in Oregon, Washington, Arizona yet only about 1% of those in Hawaii.

Two-thirds of the total, were American citizens and yet despite that, they unjustly lost their freedom and most of their property, all without due process of law and without having actually done anything wrong other than to be born of the wrong ethnicity.

However, the FBI, unlike the President, the generals, the newspaper editors and the Supreme Court, were against the internment. They had already rounded up all the Japanese-Americans who may possibly present a threat, just as they had rounded up all the German and Italian-Americans who might be a threat too. The FBI knew that apart from a few, isolated extremists, Japanese-Americans were not a danger.

Pearl Harbor will always be remembered in the history books, the TV documentaries, as well as the majority of bankster-influenced and / or controlled websites, such as Wikipedia™, as the Japanese ‘surprise attack’ on the United States that resulted in America being dragged unwillingly and unavoidably into WWII. The idea and the documented fact that it was really engineered by the banksters, aided and abetted by the treasonous Zionists and covert Communist-sympathisers within the US and British governments as part of their long-term global plan still, more than seventy years later, has still not yet resulted in the public ‘waking-up’ to that very fact.

Even with both the declassification and leakage of WWII secrets, it still has taken a very long time for historians to re-examine Pearl Harbor and, what really adds ironic insult to all the treasonous betrayal and unnecessary, horrific death and injury in all this, is that the Japanese Navy could not have done the deed, without the prior help of the British Royal Navy.

In 1918 the Japanese approached the Royal Navy with a view to obtaining information regarding the new British aircraft carriers. At the time Japan was a close ally of Britain, but nevertheless, the Admiralty refused. They wanted to keep their plans for this new technology secret. However, unfortunately for the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the Foreign Office had different ideas and believed that here was a potential for large sums of money to be made. And so it was that William Forbes-Sempill was sent to Japan in 1920 to lead a civilian delegation to assist the Japanese with their aircraft carrier ambitions.

This was successful and a huge boost for Japan, who’s military now had a potential worldwide capability. This alarmed the US even at this point in history, and they voiced their concerns at the Washington Conference of 1922, eventually leading to the termination of the Anglo-Japanese alliance.

However, the damage had now already been done and all Japan now needed was for their pilots to be trained in aircraft carrier techniques and tactics. Luckily enough for them, one Frederick Rutland made himself available. He had risen through the ranks to become a Squadron Leader and was one of the best carrier pilots in Britain. But, as recorded in an MI5 statement two decades later, Rutland believed in the hype that WWI had been the ‘war to end all wars’ and believing that war was a thing of the past, left the military and moved to Japan where he began work for the Japanese government, designing planes and training pilots.

So, thanks to the help received from both Sempill and Rutland, Japan made rapid developments in naval aviation and by the 1930s had a carrier fleet equal to the Royal Navy. This in effect gave Japan the capability to wage war virtually anywhere and indeed in 1931 Japan’s war began when they invaded Chinese Manchuria. Britain’s response to this worrying development in the Pacific was to spend £50 million on turning her Pacific base of Singapore into the largest and most fortified naval base in the world. However, unfortunately for the British, it was discovered a year later that one of the Japanese spies operating in the area purchased plans of the new base from a British serviceman named Roberts, totally compromising British security in the region.

The Fall of Singapore

British Singapore fell to Japanese forces on 15th February 1942. 100,000 British troops were taken prisoner and in Britain, during a secret session, MPs demanded an enquiry to explain how this had happened. Churchill refused. Rutland was eventually deported to Britain, where he ended-up committing suicide whilst Sempill continued to work for the Admiralty until his death in 1965. Despite the mountain of incriminating evidence against him, he was never charged.

British Malaya had been considered a strategic stronghold within the eastern Empire, and the island of Singapore, 273 square miles, on the southern tip of Malaya, was known as the ‘Gibraltar of the East.’ Acquired by Sir Stamford Raffles for Britain’s East India Company in 1819, Singapore became a full British possession five years later, in 1824. Rumours of a Japanese attack were dismissed as nonsense; these ‘Japs’ with their notoriously poor eyesight could hardly shoot straight, let alone pose a threat to the might of the British Empire – or so it was popularly believed by the arrogant British ruling classes.

An impressive naval defensive system consisting of huge guns had been built at great cost during the 1920s, facing south out to sea. To the north of the island, on the mainland, lay hundreds of miles of dense Malayan jungle and rubber plantations considered by the British to be impenetrable. Stationed on the island, there were almost 100,000 British, Canadian, Australian, Indian and a few local Malay troops.

Without the benefit of air support, the British ships were easily torpedoed and sunk with the loss of 840 lives. 1,285 survivors were taken prisoner but the Japanese, by contrast, lost only four planes. Years later, Winston Churchill wrote, “In all the war, I never received a more direct shock.”

The Japanese simply executed their invasion plan with ruthless efficiency and were already ashore before any orders to counter the attack were able to be issued. All elements of British strategy, command of the sea and air and an occupation of important ground, had failed to be executed.

The Japanese had advanced south from Kota Bahru with their infantry soldiers on bicycles, and using tanks which the British had thought totally impractical within the dense jungle, and all ably supported by fighter planes. Their aim was to conquer Malaya and capture the island of Singapore on the southern tip of the mainland, 620 miles to the south. They found themselves hundreds of miles north of Singapore and Allied troops, consisting mostly of Indians, Australians and British, stood between them and Singapore but the Japanese quickly dominated the obsolete Allied aircraft and gained air superiority. The Japanese also conducted just enough landings behind Allied lines to tie-up opposing troops and by the end of December, the invaders were halfway to Singapore.

After a brief rally by the British, the Japanese retained the initiative in January 1942. The Allies inflicted some casualties through ambushes and fought delaying actions to enable comrades to escape capture, but the Japanese never faced a serious counterattack, let alone a counter-offensive. Additional Allied troops had arrived, but not enough to stop the onslaught and so, within six weeks of landing in Malaya the Japanese, with total air superiority, were within striking distance of Singapore.

With the loss of only 2,000 of his men, the commander, Yamashita had conquered Malaya in little more than seven weeks. Now there was just the small matter of Singapore, but Yamashita was worried – his supply lines were stretched, he was lacking ammunition and with only 20,000 men, his forces were outnumbered.

Responding to pleas from Australia and New Zealand that Singapore be better defended, Churchill sent reinforcements. These included the 18th British Infantry Division and 44th Indian Brigade, the latter only partially trained, as well as nearly 50 Hurricane fighter planes. Then on 10th February, the hero Churchill, from safely behind his desk in London, ordered . . . “The battle must be fought to the bitter end at all costs . . . Commanders and senior officers should die with their troops. The honour of the British Empire and the British Army is at stake.”

General Arthur Percival, the British commander in Singapore reiterated the Prime Minister’s order the following day . . . “In some units the troops have not shown the fighting spirit expected of men of the British Empire . . . It will be a lasting disgrace if we are defeated by an army of clever gangsters many times inferior in numbers to our men.”

I find it genuinely staggering that people of this ilk, those who willingly send men to die for virtually nothing (unless you count the banksters’ dreams of even more power and wealth,) can simultaneously berate them for not dying quickly enough for their masters’ cause and yet have this regarded as ‘normal’ behaviour by the uncomprehending majority. Either the world is completely insane or I am – and I am genuinely not sure which. But should it turn out to be me after all, then to be frank, I much prefer insanity.

The Allies fought to hold on to the high ground at Bukit Timah, the location of their food and fuel depots, but lost the position on the 11th. With the Japanese threatening Singapore city, the Allies withdrew their troops from the eastern section of the island on the 12th, a move that left Singapore’s water reservoirs in Japanese hands.

The British, although running short of food and water, were well equipped with ammunition, unlike the Japanese who were quickly running short. And with 80,000 men at his disposal, Percival’s position seemed favourable. But despite Churchill’s severe, yet totally characteristic orders, British discipline broke and panic ensued as the Japanese bombed the island and Singapore city was flattened.

His subordinates urged Percival to surrender to save further loss of life. He refused. But the last ships had gone and there was no escape as the Japanese army ran riot, showing no mercy to either soldier or civilian, bayoneting and killing civilians, women, children and hospital patients, alike. The worst atrocity occurred at the Alexandra Hospital, where the Japanese first bayoneted to death a British officer carrying a white flag, then proceeded to massacre 320 staff, nurses and patients.

By 12th February, eighty per cent of the island lay in Japanese hands but Percival did not realise that the Japanese were down to their last few hours’ worth of ammunition. At this point, now seeing further resistance as futile, on 14th February, Churchill reluctantly reversed his stance and authorised the surrender of Singapore. Now even Percival had to seek surrender terms but the Japanese commander, Lt. Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, told him that any surrender would be unconditional. Percival agreed and reports of the number of troops surrendered to the Japanese ranged from 60,000 to 100,000 men.

The final fall of Singapore was, in Churchill’s words, the . . . “ . . . worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history.” What Churchill omitted to say however, was that Singapore was not about humiliating and murderous defeat, but betrayal. Although of course, Churchill and his Zionist bankster-masters were experts in the art of betrayal.

Surrender did not bring an end to the suffering, which simply entered a new phase. The Japanese executed, tortured, and killed thousands of prisoners. Other prisoners of war were worked to death and even civilians fared no better. Any amazement or joy of the Japanese victory over their English colonial masters was quickly forgotten under Japanese rule and citizens starved as the Japanese exported their food supplies elsewhere to feed their troops. Japan’s post-war estimate of civilian deaths was 5,000, but other sources placed it as high as 50,000.

The myth of the invincibility of the European soldier was shattered and over 80,000 British and Commonwealth troops were forced to spend the rest of the war in captivity, suffering appalling hardship. Indeed more than half of them would never return home.

Yamashita later said of the surrender meeting with Percival . . . “I realise now that the British Army had about 100,000 men against my three divisions of 30,000 men. They also had many more bullets and other munitions than I had. I did not know how long we could carry on with our munitions very low. I was preparing for an all-out last attack when their surrender offer came, it was a great surprise. In my heart, I was afraid that they would discover that our forces were much less than theirs and that was why I decided I must use all means to make them surrender without terms.”

That surely is the real irony of what Churchill considered to be the British’s ‘greatest defeat in history.’ However the shattering defeat of Malaya and Singapore was even more crushing and humiliating for the British because their superiority had been smashed by a weaker, inferior, Asiatic army one third the size of the defending armed forces.

The Battle of Midway

On the 4th to 7th June 1942, the Battle of Midway, the most important naval battle of the Pacific campaign, was fought. The US Navy, under the command of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, decisively defeated the Japanese, inflicting irreparable damage upon the Japanese fleet. Indeed after Midway, Japan’s Pacific defence perimeter of islands steadily shrunk as Japan could not replace its lost ships and aircraft as quickly as could the US navy.

Soon after Pearl Harbor, the armed forces of Japan made various incursions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, such as the invasions of Guam, the Philippines, Wake, Corregidor and other strategic island strongholds. These hostile movements all stemmed from the growing need for raw materials in Japan, especially oil. After signing the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, which as Charles Mercer states, “ . . . promised to enter into war if any of the three was attacked by a new enemy,” Roosevelt, feeling threatened by Japanese involvement in the war, had suspended all oil sales to Japan, and also convinced France and Britain to do likewise. By doing so, Roosevelt had taken away almost all of the crude oil that Japan was importing, which in turn halted the Japanese imperialistic ambitions in Asia. Oil, after food, is the most important resource available to modern armed forces, as without it, any heavy equipment such as tanks and ships will not run.

In an effort to prevent Japanese advances towards New Guinea, the US Navy sent a carrier task force under the command of Vice Admiral Fletcher, who would later participate in the Battle of Midway. They were to harass the enemy invasion forces and to deal out as much damage and punishment as possible to the marauding Japanese. Although the invasion force provided no significant resistance, a Japanese carrier force that lurked behind the transports attacked the American carriers, and the resulting battle, known as the Battle of Coral Sea, became the first engagement between two carrier forces.

Each side lost one carrier and had another damaged. Although considered a stalemate, the battle effectively prevented the invasion of New Guinea and demonstrated to the Japanese high command the potentially lethal threat that the American carrier groups posed. Stung by his setbacks at Coral Sea, Admiral Yamamoto, fleet Admiral of the Japanese Navy and mastermind of the Pearl Harbor raid, decided to lure the American forces into a trap and crush them once and for all.

Thus was the plan set for Midway. Yamamoto had chosen Midway as his intended battleground because of its distance from the US, and believed that with Midway fully-occupying the US naval forces, the Japanese could stage further raids on Pearl Harbor and even the continental US. As in the original Pearl Harbor raid, Vice Admiral Nagumo’s First Air Fleet would be the striking arm of the operation and although without two of his veteran carriers, Nagumo’s force was nevertheless a formidable one.

The Battle of Midway, was more than just a military legend, it was a major feat of intelligence. This operation was almost kept top secret, and would have remained unknown to the Americans, had it not been for the code-breakers at ‘Hypo,’ the intelligence installation in Hawaii. Led by one of America’s most talented code-breakers, Commander Joseph Rochefort, the intelligence team was able to deduce the location of the Japanese invasion by the letters ‘AF.’ Because most of the US island bases had closed wire communications, Rochefort assumed that AF was Midway, and told them to send a ‘trap’ message back to Hawaii, un-encoded saying that Midway was running low on fresh water. Shortly afterwards, Hypo intercepted a Japanese message re-iterating that AF was running low on fresh water, thus confirming the intended location of the proposed Japanese assault.

On 4th June, the Japanese carrier aircraft began their attacks on Midway. Although they were relatively successful in shooting down American fighters, they inflicted only insignificant damage to the island installations themselves. After the first wave of Japanese fighters returned to their carriers to re-arm, the Midway defenders launched several attacks of their own against the Japanese. Although these attacks did nothing to damage the Japanese ships, they did tie up the Japanese fighters and forced them to land to refuel.

The fateful decision to have all the carrier-based planes land and refuel at the same time was suggested by one of Yamamoto’s most highly regarded subordinates, and was enacted by Admiral Nagumo. This left the carriers vulnerable and without fighters to fend off attackers and by sheer luck, the American carriers had launched their dive bombers just as the Japanese were refuelling, catching them unawares, and setting fire to three of the four carriers. And so with this incredible piece of luck, the Americans now had the upper hand in the battle.

The Japanese force had been dealt a crippling blow. Of the three carriers that were set ablaze, two sank without further intervention, whilst the third was scuttled by its crew to prevent it falling into American hands. And as for the remaining Japanese carrier, the planes of USS Enterprise and USS Hornet attacked, thereby ending the Japanese resistance.

This one battle that lasted for three days, in effect had decided the fate of Japan in the war. With their carrier air-power completely negated, they could no longer compete on equal terms with the three remaining US Pacific carriers and even with the Pearl Harbor battleships out of commission, the Japanese Navy were no match for US carriers.

The psychological effect upon the Japanese Navy was immense and Yamamoto sunk into a deep, depression in which he lost much of his former ingenuity and bravado. The battle had little negative effect upon Japanese public morale, however, because of the cover-up, propaganda campaign by the government. Indeed, most of the Japanese nation believed that the battle was a great victory.

As far as the Americans were concerned though, Midway was the huge climax to a series of morale-boosting events, from the Doolittle Raids, to Coral Sea and finally Midway. The uplift in morale also resulted in an increase in production of the materials of war and of course, Midway was the turning-point in the Pacific war. It destroyed the Japanese dominance of the Pacific, and it also badly affected the confidence of the Japanese high command.

But although Midway marked a significant turning point in the Pacific war, the US was to sustain many more casualties as the Japanese tenaciously defended their Pacific strongholds, often to the last man, for many months to come.

The Battle of Stalingrad

In July 1942, the Battle of Stalingrad, between the Germans and the Soviets was fought for control of the strategically vital Russian city that Stalin had named after himself and which is today known as Volgograd. The battle was one of the bloodiest battles ever fought in the entire history of warfare, with combined deaths on both sides of almost 2 million.

Hitler had amassed a massive army consisting of tanks and infantry, known as ‘Army Group South,’ whose purpose was to attack southwest Russia and procure the oil fields. Army Group South consisted of the 6th and 17th armies, and the 1st and 4th Panzer armies. However, Hitler’s problem was that his forces were spread too thinly to successfully subdue all of South Western Russia.

The Germans utilised the successful tactic of Blitzkrieg once again, in their attack on Stalingrad of which the first phase consisted of the Luftwaffe’s bombing of the city for several days, almost reducing it to rubble. Over 10,000 tons of bombs were dropped on the city and this was followed by an artillery bombardment and the storming of the city by the 4th Panzer army and the 6th army. It took several months for the Germans to take the majority of the city, but they never quite managed to break the last Soviet defensive line on the west bank of the Volga River and this was to prove crucial in the final analysis.

Following the initial German offensive which had managed to capture most of the city, the US bankster-supported and Lend Lease-equipped Red Army eventually wore-down the Germans down with bloody house-to-house fighting.

The city’s civilian population also fiercely resisted the Germans. Stalin’s commandos had dressed in captured German uniforms and committed atrocities against his own people and as intended, this ‘false flag’ terrorism inflamed the civilian population and made them even more determined to annihilate the Germans.

Unfortunately for the German army, its flanks were also poorly defended, leaving them vulnerable to Russian counter-attacks. Once the Soviets realised this fact, they quickly ‘out-flanked’ and surrounded the German troops within the city, and completely destroyed them all to the last man, showing no mercy whatsoever. The enormous losses sustained by the Germans, rendered victory in Russia totally impossible as one of the most powerful armies in the world had just been destroyed. A complete army group was lost at Stalingrad and 91,000 Germans were taken as prisoners.

In the United States, the bankster controlled and run, Time magazine announced the genocidal maniac Josef Stalin as 1942’s ‘man of the year.’ The accompanying citation concluded, “Stalin’s methods were tough—but they paid off.” A few months later, Life magazine described Stalin’s secret police, the NKVD as “a national police similar to the FBI.” Of course most Americans knew nothing about Stalin’s genocidal purges or the deportations of hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens, an ignorance that the banksters were of course keen to maintain. After all, the Soviet Union was bearing the brunt of the war, and Stalin was one of their most important allies.

“It was necessary for the American leadership, the government, the President, to have a sense of realism about the Soviet Union and the public at large, it was not really essential for the public at large to know that. We’ve got to win the war. That’s what counted.” George Elsey, Naval Intelligence Officer, the White House

The Dieppe Raid

Like Dunkirk, the Dieppe Raid on 19th August 1942, known as Operation Jubilee was a military disaster promoted by the propaganda-masters as a victory. In total there were six thousand troops involved including 5,000 Canadians, the rest consisting of British Commandos, a few Frenchmen, and a token force from the US Ranger battalion. In fact their raid on Dieppe was a bloody massacre and humiliation for the allied forces.

The operation was spearheaded by Churchill’s new Chief of Combined Operations, the incompetent, bisexual paedophile, Lord Louis Mountbatten, who chose the Canadian 2nd Division to lead the attack. The objective was to seize and hold a major French Channel-port, test new amphibious equipment, gather intelligence from prisoners and to gauge the Germans’ reaction to a sea-based invading force.

Churchill also hoped that the use of Canadian troops would satisfy the Canadian commanders following the long inactivity of Canadian forces in England. General Andrew McNaughton, who commanded the First Canadian Army and General H.D.G. Crerar, commander of the Canadian troops, conscienceless warmongers all, eagerly embraced this chance for Canadian soldiers to get some combat experience. They had been stationed in England for two years without having ever engaged the enemy in a major operation. Canadian public opinion, no doubt stoked by the controlled government and media, was starting to question this inactivity.

Churchill also needed some good news to counter the defeats in Africa earlier in the year. The British press, were also clamouring for further action, the Soviets were pushing Roosevelt to open a second front in Europe, and the overconfident Americans in turn were pressurising Churchill to mount some kind of high-profile operation. The British Prime Minister, was reluctant to agree to a full-scale assault with a poor chance of success, but he nevertheless sanctioned Mountbatten’s sheer folly.

So on the evening of 18th August, almost 240 ships left British ports but as they approached the French coast the next morning, things began to go wrong. The ships carrying No.3 Commando ran into a German convoy, which alerted coastal defences at Berneval and Puys, thus meaning that there would be even less chance of success. The vessels carrying No. 3 Commando were scattered and most of the unit never reached shore and those who actually did were quickly overwhelmed. One small party of twenty commandos got within 180 metres of the German shore battery and their accurate sniping prevented the guns from firing on the assault ships for two-and-a-half vital hours, before they were safely evacuated.

At 05.00 am, 2 km east of Dieppe, the Royal Regiment of Canada made their approach to the narrow beach at Puys, a small seaside village. They were behind schedule and had lost the advantages of surprise and darkness and as the sun rose, the well-entrenched German defenders opened fire on the landing craft that were still ten metres from the beaches. At 05.07 am, the first craft lowered its ramp and exiting Canadian soldiers were met with an intense storm of machine-gun and mortar fire, and fell in great numbers, mowed down by bullets and shrapnel. Indeed, those few who made it to the heavily barb-wired seawall were taken prisoner after a short, but ultimately useless resistance.

A total of 200 were killed and 20 died later of their wounds; only 33 made it back to England; the rest were taken prisoner. It was the heaviest toll suffered by a Canadian battalion in a single day throughout the entire war.

The failure to clear the eastern headland enabled the Germans to liberally strafe the Dieppe beaches which condemned the main frontal attack to abject failure from the start.The main attack took place at 05.30 am, thirty minutes after the flanking assaults, the tanks being deployed in the centre with the Essex Scots to the east and the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry to the west.

The western assault gained a brief foothold on the shore-front but few soldiers made it across the bullet-swept boulevard and into the town. When the twenty-seven tanks of the Calgary Regiment were landed, only fifteen managed to climb the shingle banks under intense fire. The six that reached the esplanade were then completely stopped by anti-tank traps and destroyed. Unable to leave the beach, all the remaining tanks could do was provide fire support and cover the inevitable retreat.

Then at around 07.00 am, the disaster was compounded as the Canadian reserve troops – 600 men of Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal – were deployed to the beach due to a mistaken signal that the advance troops had gained a foothold in the town. The Canadians came under intense bombardment and machine-gun fire and only 125 men made it back to England. On White Beach, 369 men of No. 40 Commando, Royal Marines landed under intense fire, and none of those few who actually got ashore, achieved more than a matter of yards. At 10.50 am a general order to retreat was issued and as the tide rose, the sea was stained with red, and many helpless wounded were also carried away by the waves with the dead.

Despite all of this, British archive papers released in 1972 showed that Mountbatten, had informed the War Cabinet that the raid had gone “very satisfactorily.” This statement begs the question, ‘for whom exactly?’ Certainly not for those unfortunates who lost their lives in this utterly unnecessary folly and neither, one presumes, for their wives, sweethearts, mothers and fathers or children.

Not unexpectedly, the American Press went even further by giving the impression that the Americans had spearheaded the raid on Dieppe and opened up Europe for the Allies. “We Land in France,” gloated the New York Times whilst the New York World-Telegram declared, “Tanks and US Troops Smash to the French Coast.” But perhaps the most accurate summary of ‘Dieppe,’ was actually written by a German, who when visiting a nearby Luftwaffe station afterwards wrote . . . “As executed, the venture mocked all the rules of military logic and strategy.”

In fact, 907 Allied troops were killed, 2,460 were wounded, and 1,874 were taken prisoner. Of the 2,210 who did make it back to England only 36 were unhurt despite the fact that 200 had not even made it to the French shore. During the raid, Allied air power suffered its biggest single day loss of the war when 106 aircraft were destroyed. Without a single exception, every tank crew member was a casualty and overall, 60% of the invading force became casualties whereas the plan had estimated just 10%. In his report, the deluded warmonger Mountbatten wrote that the “ . . . planning was excellent, air support faultless and naval losses extremely light.” He added that “ . . . of the 6,000 men involved, two-thirds had returned to Britain.”

German losses were 500 dead and there were very few prisoners of war taken. That so few were taken prisoner may have had something to do with the Allied propensity for casually shooting prisoners. A Canadian observer had personally witnessed one such incident when Canadian troops shot eight German prisoners-of-war.

During the raid on Dieppe the local population assisted the Germans in fighting off the attacking British and Canadian (and a few American) troops. The port’s German defenders were bolstered by locals braving the fighting to bring them water, food, and in some cases, ammunition. Indeed, such was the German appreciation of the townfolk’s actions during the raid that Hitler later approved the repatriation of French POWs to the region soon afterwards. An act of generosity he had never felt previously obliged to offer.

Dieppe was a pathetic failure and even now, more than seventy years later, it seems obvious that it was a bizarre operation with no chance of success whatsoever and likely to result in a huge number of casualties.

Adolf Hitler personally ordered that members of British raiding parties be summarily shot whether they had surrendered or not. This is true enough but as usual, only half the story. The order was only given after a British Commando raid on the Channel Island of Sark went wrong and a number of German prisoners had been taken but the attacking force had to withdraw in a hurry under heavy German fire. The bodies of four German prisoners were later found with their hands still bound – and their throats slit from ear to ear and it was only after this horrendous event and in reprisal, that the German leader issued his order.

The Casablanca Conference

In January 1943, FDR, Churchill and the exiled ‘Free French’ Generals, Henri Giraud and Charles de Gaulle met in Morocco. At this event, FDR announced a proposal of ‘unconditional surrender’ for Germany, Italy, and Japan and the others readily agreed to this without question. ‘Unconditional surrender’ in effect meant that the Allies expected the Axis nations to not only stop fighting, but to also hand over complete political control and subjugate themselves fully to the invading Allied armies.

However, in the following years, this hard-line policy of complete conquest had the (possibly intentional) effect of inspiring the Japanese and Germans to fight on, long after all hope of victory had gone.

The opening months of 1943 marked a significant turning-point in the war. The combination of America’s awesome naval, air, and land power, a Jewish/Red partisan guerrilla war, merciless air bombardment of German civilians, and the massive Red Army, armed by the might of America’s manufacturing capabilities, all combined to inflict a heavy toll on Germany.

In February, the Germans finally surrendered at Stalingrad, 200,000 German troops having been killed or died of starvation or cold since Stalingrad was first besieged and many more, later died in Siberian labour camps. Then in May, the campaign in North Africa ended as German troops evacuated. That same month, Admiral Donitz withdrew all remaining German U-boats from the Atlantic after 41 of them were destroyed in just 3 weeks.

This was in fact the beginning of the end for the sworn enemies of the banksters and from this point on, Germany was now limited to defensive operations only, as the US, UK, and USSR slowly tightened their oppressive Globalist noose around the neck of Hitler’s ‘Thousand Year Reich.’

‘The Dambusters’ Raid

In May 1943, the ‘Dambusters Raid,’ was one of the most blatant examples of wartime spin and propaganda. RAF Wing Commander Guy Gibson and his pilots of 617 Squadron were carefully selected to carry out a ‘daring and innovative’ bombing raid on five major dams in the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s manufacturing heartland. The dams were widely publicised by the Allies as being ‘essential to that country’s defensive capabilities.’

Using a specially-designed ‘water skipping bomb’ invented by Barnes Wallace, two of the dams, the Moehne and the Eder, were actually breached to their foundations and as the news broke, Britain’s joy was almost orgasmic. “Floods roar down the Ruhr Valley,” gloated the Daily Express headlines. The Daily Mirror, not to be outdone also enhanced the story . . . “Hundreds of square miles of devastation have spread through the Ruhr, Germany’s most densely populated industrial area, by the RAF’s staggering attack on the Moehne and Eder dams.” It was also gleefully and sadistically reported that 10,000 Germans had died.

The make-up of 617 squadron consisted of airmen from the RAF, RCAF (Royal Canadian Air Force,) RNZAF (Royal New Zealand Air Force,) and the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) and the targets chosen were located in the Ruhr Valley, which was also the Ruhr Industrial Region, the primary site of Germany’s mining and steel production. The main targets were the Moehne and Sorpe Dams with the Eder Dam being regarded as a secondary target.

Attacking these targets was anticipated to inflict catastrophic damage upon Germany’s industrial output, and cause devastating flooding to the region. It was also determined that the Lancaster bombers would attack from an altitude of 60 ft. and at an air speed of 240 mph, the attacks being conducted at night, to ensure less vulnerability to the German defences.

And so the attack was carried out by 19 Lancaster’s, divided into three groups to attack the Moehne, Eder, and Sorpe Dams respectively and on the 16th May the bombers departed at intervals, flying on three different routes in order to evade German flak concentration along the coast and the inland areas, but also flying low to avoid radar detection. They made landfall on the Dutch coast and skirted around Eindhoven and several Dutch cities, before heading east into Germany.

The attacks on the Eder and the Moehne were successful in breaching the dams, while the attack on the Sorpe resulted in only minor damage. The breaching of the Eder and the Moehne caused the destruction of two hydroelectric plants and the destruction or damaging of several factories and mines. However the Germans were able to return to normal levels of production in as little as four months, and by September of 1943. The British lost eight aircraft, and 53 airmen whilst the Germans suffered approximately 1,600 deaths as a result of flooding from the breaching of the two dams.

In 1972, upon examining newly-released Second World War documents, the author and journalist Bruce Page wrote . . . “ . . . the truth about the raid was that it was a conjuring trick, virtually devoid of any military significance, the ‘skipping bomb’ just a gimmick. The real story of the raid was of sloppy planning, narrow-minded enthusiasm, and misdirected courage . . . apart from the aircrews, the only people to emerge from the story with real credit are a handful of people in the Ministry of Economic Warfare who tried to calculate in advance whether the raid would damage the German war economy. They calculated accurately that it would not, but they were ignored.”

The only dam whose damage could potentially have seriously damaged the German war effort was the Sorpe Dam, yet only a token force had attacked it and the resultant damage was minimal.

Certainly the breaching of the Moehne and Eder dams caused flooding, but this mainly affected agricultural land, the one asset that Germany had in abundance. After World War I, 800,000 civilians had died of starvation during the 1919 Royal Naval blockade of war-ravaged Germany and the new German government had seen to it that the nation would be self-sufficient; in fact Germany was one of the few nations in Europe capable of feeding itself. But contrary to Allied propaganda, the raid did not affect hydro-electricity production because the Moehne Dam had negligible electrical capacity and the Eder had none.

The actual loss of life was 1,600 mainly working-class civilians, the majority of whom were non-Germans; the displaced Ukrainian civilians, mostly women and children who were housed in camps downstream of the Moehne Dam.

However, it was a huge propaganda victory, the stuff that encourages and perpetuates the seemingly never-ending supply of young men volunteering and clamouring to die for the banksters.

Hamburg Fire-Storms

In July 1943, the firebombing of Hamburg created a tornado of flames so intense that it actually ‘sucked’ hundreds of people from the streets and deposited them into the fire. Those who were not burned to death suffocated by their thousands in underground shelters as the intense firestorm above them consumed all the oxygen from the air. Hundreds of US and UK aircraft added to the raging inferno with wave after wave of incendiary bombings. The evil planners of this genocidal, ethnic-cleansing actually had the callous and brazen audacity to code-name the arson attack ‘Operation Gomorrah,’ after the biblical city destroyed by fire and brimstone.

The Allies mercilessly bombed Hamburg with high explosive, incendiary, phosphorous and napalm bombs and the resulting firestorm was so powerful that “ . . . with hurricane force, 150 mph winds were sucked into the oxygen vacuum created by the fire, ripping trees out by their roots, collapsing buildings, pulling children out of their mothers’ arms. Twenty square miles of the city centre burned in an inferno that would rage for nine full days. . . . ” The temperature in the firestorm reached 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and everything that was flammable, including human flesh, burst spontaneously into flame.

The Royal Air Force alone, dispatched 3,000 bombers in four separate raids on Hamburg during that one night, dropping 9,000 tons of bombs. This affected 22 square kilometres or 8.5 square miles of the city, killing an estimated 60,000-100,000 people, according to the US bomber survey.

The results of this night of infamy were that at least half the city lay in ruins whilst two-thirds of the remaining population were evacuated, leaving almost 1 million homeless.

But of course the bombing of Hamburg was promoted as a huge success by the British . . . “None of our other attacks had produced effects that were a tenth as destructive as the effects of a firestorm.”

Air Vice-Marshall, Sir Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris stated . . . “In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method . . . there is no proof that most casualties were women and children.” German records indicated however, that approximately 65% of those killed were women and children.

When people think of the Allied bombing of Germany, Dresden automatically springs to mind, not Wesel, Nuremberg or Würzburg or the hundreds of other obliterated German towns and cities. While people debate the death toll at Dresden, attention is diverted from the 45,000 to 50,000 civilians murdered in the bombing of Hamburg, the 10,000 people intentionally burned alive in Kassel, the fact that 20% of Nordhausen’s civilian population was killed in a mere fifteen minute attack or that one out of every three people in Pforzheim was murdered and thousands more hideously injured from an unnecessary bombing campaign based purely on a rumour.

We were led to believe that a campaign which dropped environmentally catastrophic bombs with the force of major earthquakes, bombs which actually changed weather patterns, endangered whole species of birds and insects and altered the shape of the map were all within the normal range of warfare and implemented for the ‘greater good’ and carried out only in cases of sheer necessity to ‘shorten the war’ and gladly accepted the faulty premise that the carefully planned incineration of thousands of innocent women and children was justified. We accepted the preposterous notion that there was only one villain in this conflict, one supreme face of evil which absolved all others of any wrongdoing and were led in this direction by a relentless effort (still being carried-out) to both conceal activities prejudicial to the saintly image of our ‘heroes’ and to excuse their own criminal behaviour.

Until recently, no-one understood fully that the terror-bombing of German civilians was not a ‘friendly-fire’ mistake, or the result of a bomber missing its mark. We believed the lies that schools, churches, cathedrals and castles were attacked only when ‘enemy soldiers were firing from them’ or because some fanatical Nazi, small town mayor ‘refused to surrender.’ Until the Internet provided us with uncensored, unfiltered information, most of the truth, the grim images and graphic accounts of the horror which befell Germany were hidden away and free from scrutiny, judgement or condemnation. However, mortality figures from Allied bombing, kept top-secret for many years, have now become publicly available, as have photos, personal accounts and old newspaper clippings.

We were also led to believe that the Allied bombings of Germany were a legitimate response to an equal number of bombings Germany was delivering on Britain, and that the only images of wartime bombings we were (and are) exposed to, were those carried out by Germany, mainly of the Blitz. In reality, Germany bombed Britain with a mere five percent of the tonnage that Britain inflicted upon Germany, and more British bombs fell upon the city of Berlin alone than German bombs fell on the whole of Britain during the entire war. The targeting of residential Hamburg was a calculated, well-planned mass murder of civilians, and British and US bombers killed over a hundred times as many civilians in that one event as Britons died from the German raid on the heavily defended, major industrial centre of Coventry, England, which resulted in the loss of around 400 civilian lives.

Initial RAF bombing of military targets was largely unsuccessful. Only one out of five bombs fell within five miles of its intended target and nearly half of British bombers were being shot down. Therefore, the British leadership was already coldly studying the idea of terror-bombing city centres instead. Contrary to public denials, in September 1941, deputy chief of the Air Staff Norman Bottomley urged “saturation by incendiaries to break the morale of the population.” His superior, Charles Portal, boasted to Winston Churchill in late 1941 that if Bomber Command was provided with a force of 4,000 planes, huge damage could be inflicted on Germany, including the destruction of six million homes and “civilian casualties estimated at 900,000.”

A bit short of his mark in 1941, Portal wrote . . . “We have caused death and injury to 93,000 civilians. The result was achieved with a fraction of the bomb-load we hope to employ in 1943.” By early 1942, there were open suggestions that bombing be directed against German working-class houses, leaving factories and military objectives alone. This policy was implemented in full in 1942 when, upon his taking over the entire UK Bomber Command, Arthur Harris issued the following directive . . . “It has been decided that the primary objective of your operations should now be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular, of industrial workers.” Harris prepared a list of 60 German cities he intended to destroy first . . .

“The aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised community life through-out Germany. It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy, they are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.”

The first, intentional cultural attack of a historic city was the RAF bombing attack on Lübeck on 28th March 1942. This attack by over 200 heavy bombers was ordered by Harris, not to destroy military targets in Germany, but as an experiment to test whether bombing timber-framed buildings could start an inferno large enough to be used as an easy aiming-point for later waves of bombers. In his own words . . . “I wanted my crews to be well-blooded, as they say in fox hunting, to have a taste of success for a change.” It destroyed 80% of the city’s historic timber-framed core.

The destruction of Hamburg came on the night of 27th July 1943 and followed a smaller bombing campaign three days earlier. In this second attack, a mix of munitions was used which had a higher proportion of incendiaries, including deadly phosphorus. It was here, not Dresden that the term ‘firestorm,’ was first used, and at least 45,000 to 55,000 civilians were intentionally murdered in a deliberately engendered firestorm that trapped the population within the city, leaving them no possible escape route.

The horrific, ten day-long firebombing not only murdered thousands, it left a million people homeless and the historic ancient city almost entirely obliterated. An astounding 30,000 of those killed in Hamburg were women and children and 1.2 million refugees fled the city in the immediate aftermath, many of them with mental and physical injuries. The choreographed inferno circled the city and spread inward, creating a swirling column of super-heated air which generated ferocious 150 mile per hour tornado-like winds capable of hurling helpless people into the raging fires. Many people were literally melted on to the pavements or slowly choked by poison gases or lack of oxygen in cellars. At the same time the US military denied to the American public that any terror-bombing was taking place, they were supplying the British with the napalm-like phosphorous to burn German civilians alive. The chemical cannot be extinguished once ablaze, and these bombs sprayed their contents on people in such a way that a horrible death was the inevitable outcome.

Beginning with Hamburg, the Allied media, turned the mass murder of German civilian populations into an ‘acceptable’ and ‘legitimate’ method of warfare, and aside from the normal terror-bombings, cities incinerated by these manufactured firestorms included Dresden, Wuppertal, Hamburg, Remscheid, Kassel, Braunschweig, Kaiserslautern, Saarbrücken, Darmstadt, Stuttgart, Heilbronn, Ulm, Pforzheim, Mainz, Würzburg and Hildesheim, all of which suffered horrendous civilian casualties. 10,000 died in Kassel’s firestorm. Darmstadt, a harmless classic centre of German culture, produced less than two-tenths of one percent of Germany’s total war production, yet, a minimum of ten percent of Darmstadt’s population died as a result of the intentional firestorm inflicted upon them. Pforzheim lost one-third of its people. Würzburg was 89% destroyed with 90,000 people left homeless and 5,000 civilian deaths with women and children making up 81 percent of that figure. From July 1944 to January 1945, a low average of 14,000 German civilians, not including countless undocumented refugees, were killed from bombings every month in just the western German areas.

In February, 1945, the Yalta Conference created the blueprint for the deaths and relocation of millions of German civilians in the east. Even in January 1945, when German defeat was clearly imminent, Harris and Portal further advocated even more destruction being visited upon Leipzig, Magdeburg, Chemnitz, Dresden, Breslau, Posen, Halle, Erfurt, Gotha, Weimar, Eisenach, and the rest of Berlin, in other words, all the cities to which refugees were fleeing.

When ordering the bombing of Chemnitz following the destruction of Dresden, the Allied commander stated the motive to his pilots . . . “The reason you are going there tonight is to finish off the refugees who managed to escape Dresden.” Women, children and the elderly were now to be shot at and incinerated under the approved guidelines which both the British and Americans had set in place and implemented to eliminate the future ‘refugee problem’ for their Soviet allies. City after city was destroyed well after Germany’s defeat was obvious, and under ‘Operation Clarion’ smaller towns and cities were incinerated under the flimsiest of pretexts. Nuremberg was attacked because it was an ‘ideological’ centre, and likewise, Bayreuth and other small, ancient cities.

“We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. You either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can’t just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.” US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt

This was echoed by Winston Churchill . . . “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.”

Centuries old castles, cathedrals and medieval villages were needlessly destroyed at this late stage of the war. The birth houses of Bach, Durer and Goethe, Martin Luther landmarks, Leipzig’s ancient book district, libraries and universities were all targets. Allied bombing destroyed well over one third of all German books as its universities and libraries and museums were unnecessarily obliterated. Towns with no military significance and having little or nothing to do with the war effort were simply blown away at this point in devastating attacks on vulnerable civilian populations. The mounting devastation of European heritage had already been raised in vain in British parliament by the Bishop of Chichester on 9th February 1944. The Bishop begged for a more humane approach . . . “In the fifth year of the war it must be apparent to any but the most complacent and reckless how far the destruction of European culture has already gone. We ought to think once, twice and three times before destroying the rest.” His words fell on deaf ears and he was ruthlessly vilified.

In March 1945, after the smoke had cleared and hundreds of German cities and towns lay in bloody ruins, Churchill, disingenuously distanced himself from the homicidal bombing campaign after the destruction of Dresden and which had generated some unfavourable publicity. He wrote that . . . “ . . . the destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied Bombing.” Even though he had personally sanctioned it. And even with the German military/industrial complexes already in ruins, the British and Americans compiled new ‘hit lists’ which included immoral attacks on undefended, mainly small, rural towns that had not yet been assaulted and whose populations were praying for peace.

US General Frederick Anderson explained that these late-stage terror-bombings were NOT carried out to shorten the war but rather to teach the Germans a lesson . . . “ . . . if Germany was struck all over it will be passed on, from father to son, thence to grandson, as a deterrent for the initiation of future wars.”

The most intense bombing destruction occurred in the months of February and March 1945, just weeks prior to German surrender when German defences were minimal or absent and the war was all but over. Over 80 million incendiary bombs were dropped on German cities between this time and the end of the war. The full human death toll may never be known, but to this day continues, inexplicably and unforgivably, to be intentionally lowered to an unbelievable and unrealistic level by whichever current formula is popular among conformist social scientists and easily digested by a public unwilling to either learn or accept the real truth.

“The aim of Bomber Command should be . . . publicly stated: the destruction of German cities and the killing of Germans.” Sir Arthur Harris, head of Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force, October 1943

‘Bomber,’ or should that be ‘butcher?’ Harris served as the head of RAF’s Bomber Command from February 1942 until the end of the war when he became chief of the RAF. Through his loyal, blind and utterly ruthless devotion to his so-called ‘duty,’ he had served Churchill and his Zionist-bankster masters well. But there was even ‘some criticism’ of his ruthless methods in Britain, and after the war, when he requested that Bomber Command crew receive a campaign medal for their efforts, this was refused. ‘Some criticism . . . ?’ A truly British understatement if ever there was one, and I will return to Harris and his crimes against humanity, later.

The Allied Invasion of Southern Europe

Upon the successful conclusion of the Allied North Africa campaign and the retreat of Germany from the continent, the Allied invasion of the southern Italian island of Sicily commenced using much the same British personnel as those involved in North Africa plus the addition of the large American contingent. It was another stunning success for Generals Patton and Montgomery and German and Italian resistance was once again overwhelmed. Within four weeks of the initial air and sea assault, Axis troops had to be evacuated to the Italian mainland.

The Italian leader Benito Mussolini was, soon after this, removed from power by his own Grand Council, was arrested by the new government who promptly made peace with and surrendered to the Allies. This left Germany with the sole task of halting Patton’s advance northwards up the Italian peninsula and with Italy now under Allied control, Hitler was rightly worried that the Allies would invade Yugoslavia and the Balkan nations, cut off Germany’s oil supply, and advance north upon Germany from the “soft underbelly of Europe,” as it was referred-to as by Churchill. Then in August of 1943, the British Royal Air Force, departing from bases in southern Italy, began the systematic heavy bombardment of the Ploesti oil fields in German-allied Romania.

However, inexplicably, Allied Commander Eisenhower and Army Chief of Staff George Marshall (who had promoted Eisenhower over scores of his senior officers) insisted upon making preparations for an invasion of heavily fortified Northern France the following year. Well I say ‘inexplicably,’ but maybe not, if you are in tune with the ongoing agenda. This decision, deliberately or not, had the effect of prolonging the war whilst buying the Soviets much-needed time to move westwards, and eventually enabling Stalin to occupy and annex all of Eastern Europe. ‘Blunders’ such as this, make for extremely happy banksters and enhance their despicable agenda.

The Bari Raid – A Chemical Warfare Cover-Up

On the 2nd of December 1943, the SS John Harvey was one of the 2,710 American ‘Liberty Ships’ built during WWII and had been assigned to deliver a shipment during the invasion of Italy. On her final voyage (as it turned-out to be,) she was carrying a secret cache of chemical weapons. All the combatants in WWII had implicitly agreed not to use chemical weapons, but nevertheless FDR had chemical weapons shipped to the Mediterranean theatre ‘just in case they were needed,’ and so the John Harvey found itself in the seaport of Bari, Italy with a hold containing more than 2,000, 100lb mustard gas shells.

As Bari was one of the principal ports supplying the Allies during the invasion of the Italian mainland, the ship was waiting for its cargo to be offloaded for quite a while and unfortunately this never happened, as on the 2nd December the port was subjected to a major German air raid, with 105 Stuka dive-bombers, complete of course, with their General Motors engines. The twenty-minute raid was so massive that it put the port out of commission for more than two months and seventeen of the thirty ships attacked were sunk. The John Harvey was not hit directly, but it was showered with flaming debris and soon caught fire and exploded, unleashing its deadly cargo on its crew and indeed the unsuspecting town.

Every member of the Harvey’s complement and who knew what was in the hold was killed, so rescuers dealing with the casualties had no idea with what they were dealing. Mustard gas needs to be countered before contact with a very specific treatment or, preferably, the entire area needs to be washed down with bleach or a mixture of substances named DS2. Not realising that this was required (of course,) many rescuers succumbed to the attack whilst trying to save the victims. For example, HMS Bicester took thirty casualties out of the water but, being damaged itself, was towed to nearby Taranto for repairs. By the time it got there many of its crew, were suffering from chemical burns and blindness.

By the time that the symptoms of mustard gas manifest themselves, it is too late to do anything, but even at that point the medical personnel could not understand what was going on, partly due to the secrecy of the cargo and partly because very few doctors had seen the consequences of mustard gas on the human body. An expert on chemical warfare, Lieutenant-Colonel Stewart Alexander, was sent by the Deputy Surgeon General of the US Army to discover what was going on. Lt.-Col. Alexander ran every test he could think of and eventually pinned down mustard gas as the culprit; he also used the technique pioneered by Dr. John Snow, of mapping the location of Cholera casualties in order to pinpoint the source of the problem and determined that the John Harvey was the culprit.

War-time secrecy gagged the official accident reports, but too many had witnessed the tragic event to make for a permanent cover-up operation and the US Army eventually had no option but to admit, a few months later, that the John Harvey had indeed been carrying that deadly cargo. Nevertheless, the incident remained lost in the chaos of 1944 and documents pertaining to it were not declassified until 1959.

In all there were 628 known casualties, including 86 deaths, but there were probably many more. As well as the port, the town itself had also been affected by the cloud of vapourised mustard gas that had drifted almost unnoticed across the landscape, in all the smoke and mayhem. The civilian population of Bari had scattered into the countryside during the raid and presumably would have had to deal with the effects of the slow-burning chemical alone, far away from where anyone could either offer assistance or take official notice.

Although US records did mention mustard gas, Winston Churchill insisted that all British Medical records were expunged and that mustard gas deaths and injuries were merely listed as the result of, ‘burns due to enemy action.’

The Bari raid was a disaster on two fronts for the Allies. Firstly it was dubbed the ‘Second Pearl Harbor,’ with 17 ships totalling 75,936 tons sunk, and another 7 ships with a total of 27,289 tons, heavily damaged by the German aircraft. This was the only known poison gas incident associated with WWII, rendered far worse by the inherent secrecy involved.

But the deadly, dirty secrets of World War II did not end there . . .

The Slapton Sands Debacle

On the 27th / 28th April 1944, more American soldiers died in a D-Day rehearsal, than on the 6th of June at Utah Beach. Attacks by German torpedo boats and ‘friendly fire’ cost as many as 1500 American servicemen’s lives, and yet the incident was kept secret for almost fifty years.

During the months leading up to the D-Day landings in France on June 6, 1944, the Allies secretly trained for the invasion, code-named Operation Overlord. Slapton Sands beach in Lyme Bay on the southern coast of England was chosen for its resemblance to Utah beach, where, along with Omaha beach, the Americans would be invading. In the autumn of 1943, approximately 3,000 villagers in the area were evacuated -- many against their will -- so that the beach landings could be held in total secrecy.

As ‘D-Day’ approached, the training became more vigorous and involved more and more ships and men. ‘Exercise Tiger,’ planned for 22nd- 30th April 1944 was a full dress-rehearsal for ‘D Day,’ involving 30,000 men and many ships, including nine large tank landing-ships known as LSTs, fully loaded with men, tanks, fuel and other military equipment. LSTs were designed to run-up onto the beach and open their front cargo doors, allowing its cargo of tanks and vehicles to exit onto the sand.

The Royal Navy patrolled the entrance to Lyme Bay with two destroyers and five smaller boats, whilst across the Channel, they had motor torpedo boats (MTBs) patrolling the waters around Cherbourg, France, to keep watch for marauding German E-boats.

E-boats were large, 100-foot-long, fast torpedo boats which could reach speeds of 40 knots (around 47 mph) and had been intercepting ships in the English Channel. The German designation was S-boot, for ‘Schnellboot,’ literally ‘fast boat.’ Their home-base in Cherbourg had noticed the increased radio traffic emanating from the area around Slapton and sent nine E-boats to investigate after having managed to evade the British torpedo boats patrolling Cherbourg.

In the early hours of 28th April, as the eight LSTs were returning to Slapton Sands in a column, the nine German E-boats discovered what they thought was a convoy, prepared to attack and at about 2.00am, LST-507 was torpedoed and burst into flames. It’s surviving crew abandoned ship but a few minutes later, LST-531 was torpedoed and sank in only six minutes, trapping most of its occupants below decks. The other LSTs and the two British destroyers opened fire on the German E-boats, but without success, following which, LST-289 was then torpedoed and badly damaged. At least one other LST was struck by a torpedo, but it managed to somehow survive.

By 4.00 am it was all over and the E-boats escaped back to France. Two LSTs had been sunk and at least one was one badly damaged, managing to limp back to port. Flaming oil covered the waters, burning to death many who had abandoned ship, while many who escaped the flames perished from hypothermia in the cold waters of the English Channel. All other ships were ordered to continue the exercise, leaving the dead and dying to their fate, but the captain of LST-515 disobeyed these orders and lowered boats and threw cargo nets over the side to pick up survivors, saving more than 100 men. When it was all over, 749 soldiers and sailors had been killed. No figures have ever been published for the number of men wounded in the attack.

In his CIA interrogation following the end of the war, Heinrich Mueller, Chief of the Gestapo, claimed that an agent had alerted them to a massive exercise involving many men at Slapton Sands and also that the Germans had returned to base with the invasion plans taken from the corpse of a US army officer. “ . . . this information which indicated that Normandy was the main target was sent on to higher commands but was not acted upon.” ‘Gestapo Chief: The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Mueller,’ ed. Gregory Douglas, p. 142

On the Allied side, the disaster was compounded by a long list of highly conspicuous ‘failures.’

US naval commanders did not establish liaison with counterparts in the Royal Navy.
Royal Navy radar picked up movement of the Nazi E-Boats but did nothing.
Escort Corvette HMS Azalea knew about the E-Boats but did not inform the LSTs
Radio frequencies given to Americans were changed without notice.
The one-sided battle had been watched by Royal Artillerymen at Blacknor Fort, high on Portland’s western cliffs. The men had the E-boats in their sights, within range, but were ordered not to fire by an American officer, because of the number of Allied personnel fighting for their lives in the water.
There was no emergency training so life jackets were not worn correctly. They flipped the wearer upside-down with his head in the water.

Whilst the military, down the years, has acknowledged the aforementioned facts, there are additional allegations that revolved around the order from Supreme Allied Commander General Eisenhower, that real ammunition be used during the exercise in order to acclimatise the men to actual battlefield conditions. It is alleged that later, as the exercise continued, HMS Hawkins, a British cruiser, fired live shells while the surviving American soldiers stormed the beach. The soldiers were meant to proceed no further than a white taped line that had been set up, but, in the confusion, many soldiers went straight-on through it resulting in a further 200 to 300 men being killed by friendly fire.

The accounts of those present that day indicate that, as thousands of GIs swarmed ashore from the landing craft, they were cut down by bullets fired by comrades playing the role of German defenders, who had for some reason been given live ammunition, but not informed of this fact. Letters revealed how Lieutenant-Colonel Edwin Wolf, from Baltimore, heard several shots “zinging” past his ear as he observed the exercise from a vantage point nearby, and also saw “infantrymen on the beach, fall down and remain motionless.” Under a hail of fire, Wolf quickly retreated.

Live bullets also whizzed past Hank Aaron from West Virginia, driver to a general who was observing the exercises. Aaron scrambled away from the line of fire, then looked-up and saw five men, dead. Generals Omar Bradley and Eisenhower watched “the murderous chaos” and “were horrified and determined that details of their own mistakes would be buried with their men.” Royal Engineer, Jim Cory watched dumbfounded from an observation post as soldiers streaming from landing craft were “mown down like ninepins.”

Yet there is not a single, official mention in Army records of any bodies being found on Slapton Sands and nor has the Pentagon ever mentioned any ‘friendly-fire’ disaster in Devon that spring. What happened to the bodies provides another twist to the secret of Slapton Sands. Witness statements suggest they were interred, at least temporarily, in a mass grave nearby, despite the fact that there was no shortage of potential burial sites in the remote fields behind the beach. Suspicion that US troops dumped bodies in hastily built graves around nearby Blackawton was first aroused 20 years ago, when Dorothy Seekings, a baker’s daughter who supplied bread to the troops during the exercises, said she had seen large numbers of GI bodies being buried near the village.

Seekings was ridiculed at the time, yet her description and the location now seems to match closely that of farmer Francis Burden, who sold the Americans fresh milk. One morning in April 1944, Burden stopped short as he crossed a narrow lane leading out of Blackawton. A huge pit, up to two acres in size, had been dug by US troops and large enough to take hundreds of coffins. Boxes big enough to hold a man were stacked nearby. Today, a discernible mound marks the location.

After the war, the field belonged to farmer Nolan Tope and just before he died, Tope was asked if US troops had ever been buried on his land. He replied enigmatically, that Seekings “knew only a small part of it,” but nevertheless vowed to take his secret to the grave. What more was he hiding and why was he so reluctant to tell, I wonder? I would say that there is a strong chance he was threatened that if he ever told what he knew, then it would be the last thing he would ever do, and maybe his family, too.

Detailed records kept by the stationmaster at Kingsbridge railway station, five miles away, revealed that three trains were secretly loaded with the bodies of GIs under military guard between July and August 1944. The trains, each able to carry at least 100 corpses, were “crammed with men dug from mass graves,” said local rail historian Ken Williams. The historian’s father, George, who served in the Royal Navy during the war, soon realised he also saw the bodies of dozens of men washed ashore on the sands. “He told me how the sea turned red,” Ken said. The families however were told that their loved ones had died in the Normandy landings, six weeks later.

Local author Ken Small, whose book ‘The Forgotten Dead’ broke the story of the E-boat attack, dismissed the rumours until just before he died. He then told the historian Williams that Seekings had been right. “I was stunned,” said Williams.

Even so, many people still refuse to accept that hundreds of US soldiers may have been interred in the sleepy Devon countryside 70+ years ago. Such scepticism fails to explain the account of former land girl, Joyce Newby, who helped to make hundreds of coffin lids at a nearby timber yard in spring 1944. She said they were for victims of “friendly fire at Slapton.” Or indeed that of former US serviceman Harold McAulley, who told of dragging dead soldiers off the sands and later helping to bury corpses – their faces black with oil and burnt – in a mass inland grave.

In any case, everyone involved, including the doctors, nurses and other personnel in nearby military hospitals filling-up with wounded and burned men, were sworn to secrecy on pain of court martial. The invasion was almost called-off because ten officers who knew the locations of the actual invasion beaches, were missing and it could not be certain whether any of them had been captured by the enemy. However, the invasion was soon back on schedule, after all ten of their bodies were found. As a postscript to the sorry affair, when the survivors of ‘Exercise Tiger’ stormed Utah Beach on D-Day, 200 were killed or wounded.

Admiral Donald Moon was made the scapegoat and he paid the ultimate price three months later, on 5th August 1944, when he shot himself. Close friends said that he never recovered from the disaster at Slapton Sands.

To this day, the only memorial to the incident is in the village of Torcross, Devon where locals erected a plaque commemorating the dead, along with a Sherman tank that was raised from the waters. Although the military eventually erected another memorial thanking the villagers for evacuating their homes during this period, there is no ‘official’ memorial to those killed during Exercise Tiger. Survivors of the horror of that night still make pilgrimages to Torcross, but their numbers are now drastically dwindling as ‘Father Time,’ little by little, continues the job started inadvertently by their comrades on that now long-gone-night in April 1944.

D-Day, 6th June 1944

Otherwise known as ‘Operation Overlord,’ D-Day was the day that the Allied forces based in England, successfully crossed the English Channel to begin the final advance towards Berlin which would culminate in the total German defeat eleven months later. The cost of the operation in manpower was very high, as nearly 10,000 men were killed storming the fortified beaches of Normandy, but the invasion established an initial beachhead consisting of 100,000 troops. It was from this ‘foothold’ in Normandy that the Allies would be reinforced for the push eastwards towards Germany.

Churchill was not convinced by the idea of a Normandy invasion, instead preferring to supplement the ongoing attack northwards from the ‘soft underbelly of Europe,’ where Allied troops had already firmly established themselves and were relentlessly pushing the Germans back towards home. Indeed the Normandy landings plan made no kind of logical or tactical sense, but when has that ever stopped the bankster-warmongers from wreaking their bloody havoc upon humanity?

Germans along the coast of France were already aware of the huge build-up of American troops, ships and equipment in southern England in April-June 1944, and knew that an invasion was imminent at some point. The only question being ‘where and when?’ As a defensive measure, they had begun building the Atlantic Wall, an elaborate system of heavy cement fortifications that spanned the entire French coastline along the English Channel, but as the spring of 1944 gave way to summer and the invasion appeared imminent, it was only around half-finished. To compensate for this, the Germans planted a million mines, laid mile upon mile of barbed-wire, and installed thousands of jagged underwater obstructions designed to rip holes in the hulls of landing craft.

Field Marshals Gerd von Rundstedt and Erwin Rommel, in charge of staving-off any attempted invasion, thought that the Allies would probably land at Calais, the narrowest distance between southern England and the coast of France, a distance of only 20 miles. Their assumption was confirmed by the deceptive, heavy build-up of Allied troops in the seaports directly opposite Calais. In truth, these were fake manoeuvres, cleverly combined with false intelligence leaked by the Allies to convince the Germans they had guessed correctly. Rommel and von Rundstedt therefore positioned the bulk of their troops, fifteen infantry divisions, around Calais, while a smaller number was stationed about 200 miles to the west near the Normandy beaches, which they considered a far less likely landing point.

Even the Allies plans faltered slightly when on the chosen invasion day, Monday, 5th June, the seas were far too rough. The American, British and Canadian landing troops may have ended-up at the bottom of the Channel, or land on the beaches too stricken with sea-sickness if they even survived the crossing. But the problem was, should the invasion be postponed by more than a day or two? The entire force had to stand-down, the next possible date may perhaps be mid-July, or even later, due to the immense amount of logistical coordination involved.

Eisenhower was desperate for a break in the inclement weather. Even in summer in northern Europe, the weather is very unpredictable and sometimes even summer days can be cold, windy or wet – or all three. Checking and rechecking the weather maps, his chief meteorologist calculated that a window of opportunity was emerging for Tuesday morning, 6th June, although conditions would still not be absolutely ideal. After receiving this update, and upon consulting with his landing force commanders, Field Marshal Montgomery and General Bradley, Eisenhower made the decision to go.

And so, in the pre-dawn hours of 6th June, American paratroopers of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions along with the British 6th Division parachuted into Normandy, attacking rear positions of the German 7th Army, while British glider troops seized key bridges. Additionally, BBC radio broadcasts included short declarative sentences which were special encoded messages to the French resistance, encouraging them to sabotage German communications throughout France.

Then at dawn on D-Day, the greatest seaborne invasion force ever assembled, approached the Normandy Coast, taking the German defenders there by surprise. Four thousand assault vessels ferried the troops, whilst over 2,000 American and British warships bombarded the landing zones, five beaches stretching along a sixty-mile front. The British 2nd Army landed toward the east at beaches code-named Gold, Juno and Sword and the American 1st Army landed toward the west at beaches named Utah and Omaha.

At Omaha Beach, the Americans were confronted with absolute carnage. This was by far the best defended of the five landing-points. A soldier of the 116th Infantry Division recalled . . . “I got out in water up to the top of my boots. People were yelling, screaming, dying, running on the beach, equipment was flying everywhere, men were bleeding to death, crawling, lying everywhere, firing coming from all directions. We dropped down behind anything that was the size of a golf ball. Colonel Canham, Lieutenant Cooper, and Sergeant Crawford were screaming at us to get off the beach. I turned to say to Gino Ferrari, ‘Let’s move up, Gino,’ but before I could finish the sentence, something spattered all over the side of my face. He’d been hit in the face and his brains splattered all over my face and my stuff. I moved forward and the tide came on so fast it covered him and I no longer could see him.”

The immediate question for the Germans was whether or not the Normandy landings, and earlier attacks by parachutists, were all part of an elaborate Allied ruse to draw their attention away from Calais. No one could say for sure and the result was indecision by Hitler and the High Command. This bought precious time for the Allied landing troops now inching themselves forward in the sand.

At Gold, Juno and Sword beaches, British and Canadian troops under Montgomery met less initial resistance and rapidly advanced a mile or so inland. Meanwhile, German field commanders on the scene waited for authorisation to utilise their reserves and counter-attack. Field Marshal Rommel, the man who was supposed to command the entire coastal defence, was completely out of touch at the moment, rushing back by car from his home, in a 400-mile journey that would take most of the day. Flying was out of the question due to the risk posed by Allied fighters which now enjoyed total air supremacy.

As the hours passed and Calais remained completely quiet, German field commanders phoned High Command for permission to rush all available reinforcements including two nearby Panzer divisions to Normandy, but Hitler said to wait until the overall situation became clearer. In the meantime, British and Canadian troops continued to advance inland while the Americans broke-free of Omaha and moved inland too. Late in the afternoon, with still no action at Calais, Hitler finally gave the go-ahead to deploy reinforcements, but it was too late.

By nightfall, over 150,000 Americans, British and Canadians had landed in France against all odds, suffering 9,000 casualties in the process and within a week, a half-million men had arrived and the five landing beaches were joined in a unified front-line. With the beachhead now secured, two floating seaports were assembled offshore to enable the importing of a gigantic arsenal of American-made weaponry including thousands of Sherman tanks that would be used by the armoured divisions to advance inland.

Field Marshals von Rundstedt and Rommel, met with Hitler on Saturday, 17th June 1944, hoping to thrash out some positive tactics to repel the invading forces. Initially Rommel asked to withdraw his troops from the Normandy coast so they could regroup for an inland counter-offensive, out of range of the Allied warships. Hitler refused but tried to pacify Rommel with promises of newly developed super-weapons including jet-powered planes that would sweep the Allies from the sky and self-propelled flying-bombs that would spell the demise of Britain.

By late June, American troops under General Bradley had liberated Cherbourg at the tip of the Normandy peninsula, whilst taking 25,000 German prisoners. This was followed by intense fighting during the Battle of the Hedgerows throughout July in which American tanks pierced the German southward defences and broke-free of the peninsula entirely. Meanwhile, British and Canadians under Montgomery overcame stiff opposition to capture the city of Caen to the east, following an air raid by two thousand Allied bombers. Soon afterwards, the Americans reached Avranches, in the south of Normandy, then circled eastward to meet up with Montgomery at Falaise, trapping the remnants of the German 7th Army inside a narrow pocket, resulting in 50,000 more prisoners.

At the same time, the Soviet Red Army, fully-armed with state-of-the-art American weaponry, inexorably advanced upon Germany from the east. With Italy also under Allied occupation, Germany was defending three fronts as its cities, railways, dams, factories and civilian population also endured relentless bombardment and Partisan sabotage.

But then with the Allied advance towards Germany from the east, progressing ahead of schedule, and in order to allow Stalin more time to conquer Eastern Europe (which of course was the plan all along,) Generals Eisenhower and Marshall repeatedly delayed the advance of General Patton’s 3rd army, even resorting to the ceasing of vital shipments of fuel to Patton’s army. Patton was incandescent with rage at this action. He knew what the ‘game-plan’ was and had long-since reached the conclusion that the Allies were fighting the ‘wrong’ enemy.

But to backtrack in time slightly, under temporary, wartime German occupation (1940-1944), life in Northern France was peaceful for French civilians. The conduct of the German occupiers was impeccable and many French women fell in love with German soldiers. But, with the Normandy invasion, the peace and security of France was completely shattered. To support the cross-channel invasion, and push the Germans eastwards, the Allies unleashed a ferocious aerial bombardment campaign. Entire towns were mercilessly carpet-bombed and destroyed, as were cultural icons and precious, historical works of art, 65,000 French civilians were killed and 150,000 were injured, and at least 500,000 left homeless. Incredibly, twice as many French civilians were killed during only a few months in mid-1944, than the total amount of British civilians killed during the entire war. (But of course, these numbers paled in comparison to the 1 million+ German civilians who were killed by Allied bombings.)

The Allied/bankster invasion of France was largely an American operation with a strong British and other allies supporting cast. In the US, the enraptured public was given the strong impression by the media that their sons, brothers and husbands were a band of liberating angels welcomed by a grateful population, but of course this was very far from the truth.

Covering these events much later, the legendary NBC anchor-man Tom Brokaw for once spoke the real truth and belied the general myths of the invasion when he said . . . “The bloodied landscape of France (and) Belgium was American-made. The crimes committed by individual American soldiers – rape, thievery and murder – surpassed the crimes of the ‘Nazis’ in every respect. Even American generals were stealing from French civilians. During one period over 500 rapes a month were being reported and it got so bad that General Eisenhower threatened hangings, but it was an empty threat.”

Before the invasion, the Allies had dropped over 590,000 tons of bombs on France, equal to almost half the amount of bombs dropped on Germany during the entire course of the war. Over 1 million French homes were destroyed by Allied bombing attacks and some cities such as Caen, Saint-Lo, Carentan, Montbourg and Valgnes, virtually ceased to exist. For every German soldier who lost his life resisting the American invasion of Europe, the lives of four Frenchmen were lost also. Whereas German troops had wandered at will during their occupation of France, the British and the Americans were repeatedly confined to barracks or had their movements restricted because of the French antagonism to their presence on French soil.

Even newly commissioned, Second Lieutenant John Eisenhower, son of the Supreme Commander, commented . . . “The attitude of the French was sobering, indeed. Instead of bursting with enthusiasm they seemed not only indifferent but also sullen. There was considerable cause for concern whether these people wished to be liberated.”

There is indeed evidence to suggest that many of the films and photographs of joyful French citizens greeting the British and American ‘liberators,’ were in fact, staged for propaganda purposes. Most of the French population were seething with indignation, if not downright hatred for the Allied troops in the aftermath of the utter carnage inflicted upon their country by their so-called ‘allies.’

Meanwhile, in the east, Stalin’s plot to conquer all of Eastern Europe was greatly facilitated by Eisenhower and Marshall’s curious obsession with invading Europe from England, instead of simply incrementing the advance from southern Europe. Stalin also wanted the Soviet hordes to crush Berlin and by July 1944, the murdering and raping Reds had reached Poland, seriously threatening Germany’s eastern borders. Terrified German civilians now began a mass exodus away from the marauding Red savages, fleeing westward by land and also via the Baltic Sea.

The Banksters’ Bretton Woods Conference

Also in July 1944, the chaos wrought by WWII presented a great opportunity for the Globalist-banksters to restructure the world’s monetary system towards a ‘global economy.’ And so from 1st to 22nd July, at the Mount Washington Hotel in New Hampshire, the ‘Bretton Woods Conference,’ took place, hosting 730 delegates from 44 nations in order to instigate new rules for commercial and financial relations.

The US was represented by the Zionist, Assistant Treasury Secretary, Harry Dexter-White (originally Weiss.) He was the son of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire and several years after ‘Bretton Woods,’ Dexter-White was exposed as a Soviet spy. The senior British delegate was the legendary Fabian Socialist (secret Communist,) economist, the abusive life-long sexual deviant and paedophile, John Maynard Keynes. The Fabian homosexual circle was incredibly successful in gaining influence in a wide area of activities, mainly because they as a whole and especially Keynes, were very easy for the banksters to control, due to their lifestyles.

Keynes, a ‘legend’ of economics, was characterised by his male ‘sweetheart,’ Lytton Strachey, as “A liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.” His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys and in communications to his homosexual friends, Keynes advised that they should go to Tunis, “ . . . where bed and boy, were also not expensive.” As a paedophile-sodomite, he often travelled throughout the Mediterranean area in search of boys for himself and his fellow socialist/communists.

Just before the Bolshevik Revolution, Keynes had made a hurried trip to the United States for the British Government. Here, he made contact with the American Fabians who were similarly entrenched, via the Frankfurter-Lippmann group, in key positions of the Wilson Administration.

At Bretton Woods, Keynes suggested the creation of a World Currency, to be issued by a Global Central Bank, but at the time the conditions were not ready for such a radical step towards The New World Order and so instead of a global currency, it was agreed as a first step toward that ultimate goal, that each nation would link its currency to the US Dollar. Both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, were conceived at Bretton Woods.

So, the Bretton Woods Agreement established the dollar as the world’s ‘reserve currency,’ which meant that international commodities were priced in dollars. The agreement, which gave the United States a distinct financial advantage, was made under the condition that those dollars would remain redeemable for gold at a consistent rate of $35 per ounce. The fixed dollar to gold convertibility rate established a stable platform for global economic growth and as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, the United States promised to print dollars in direct proportion to its gold reserves. However, this promise was based on ‘honour’ since the Federal Reserve refused to allow any audits or supervision of its printing presses.

The ‘Liberation’ of Paris

After the German surrender of Paris on the 25th August 1944, there was another kind of invasion of France; on this occasion by the vengeful and humiliated, ill-disciplined forces led by Charles De Gaulle. As soon as the American forces had made it safe for the ousted French general and his followers, these brigands – for that is precisely what they were – sought revenge for their earlier humiliation at the hands of the Germans.

The most appalling massacres of civilians began, whilst American and British troops stood idly by. Generally the British media ignored these awful events but one English journalist among others of various nationalities, recorded these sad, desperate events . . .

“There has never been, in the history of France, a bloodier period than that which followed the liberation of 1944-1945. The massacres of 1944 were no less savage than the massacres of Jacquerie, of St. Bartholomew, of the revolutionary terror, of the Commune, and they were certainly more numerous and on a wider scale . . . The American services put the figures of ‘summary executions’ in France in the first months of the liberation at 80,000 and a former French Minister, Adrien Tixier, later placed the figure at 105,000.”

With the collapse of the Vichy French regime, de Gaulle and the bankster-sponsored, Communist sympathising French, imposed a new ‘Reign of Terror.’ Cruel punishments were meted-out against those labelled as ‘Nazi collaborators,’ whose only crime was in making peace with Germany, or to have fought against the Soviets on the eastern front as foreign members of the German SS units. The ‘Gaullists’ murdered as many as 40,000, and imprisoned 100,000 of their countrymen and French women who dated German soldiers during the occupation were humiliated by having their heads shaved.

Less than one-quarter of 1% of the French people wanted anything to do with the ‘Resistance.’ The Resistance movement had a total membership of 100,000 at its height, whilst France had a population at that time of over 40 million. From this we can deduce that 99%+ accepted or supported the German occupation, which in any case was confined only to those territories that would facilitate an Allied invasion.

Throughout the war, American prisons held 16,000 conscientious objectors. This ‘conscientious objection’ was widely publicised and denounced, presumably to deter others from taking the same decision and yet, there was no publicity given to the 20,000 or so American servicemen who went AWOL as soon as they landed on the French beaches. Many lived rough and subsisted by occasional sorties back to their encampments and stealing their own Army’s supplies.

American renegade black-marketeers sold whole trainloads of clothing, food, fuel and other essential commodities. Indeed, the American revisionist author James J. Martin said . . . “No army is ever free of looting but it is questionable if any other army ever looted itself on the scale of ours.” He also recounted how . . . “US Army trucks were backed up the whole length of the Champs-Elysees with GIs selling gasoline and cigarettes openly to the French populace.”

In total, over 40,000 Americans ‘deserted’ during WWII, and some 100,000 British. As in all wars, it is a phenomenon only to be expected but the cruel, shameful irony was that the banksters made it a crime to refuse to kill your fellow man or die in the name of their profits and power. Conscripted into a mass-murdering conspiracy of evil, those that refused to take part in it were forever branded ‘cowards’ or ‘traitors.’ They were meant to do their ‘duty’ and obey without question whilst feeling honoured to serve the cause. This is exactly what their fathers had done, and their father before them and so on, ad nauseum, into the past.

The ‘liberators’ disregard for French social norms led to their having sex in public with prostitutes and sexually assaulting women, openly on the streets. Immediately following D-Day, the conditions for the ensuing tragedy were perfect. The Allied bombing had killed more French than the Germans had and most of the young men of France were in German prisons or in hiding. The country had fallen to the Germans in an embarrassingly short time and suffered occupation for four years. Then finally, the American conquerors arrived, handsome, well-armed, and comparatively speaking, rich. One look at the beautiful French girls, and the GIs thought they were in heaven, but the honeymoon-period did not last very long.

France was by this time, starving. American soldiers possessed an endless supply of food, and especially chocolate and cigarettes, which the deprived natives craved and as a result, almost overnight, sex became the currency and French women quickly realised that offering sex was practically the only way to survive.

As a result, the French came to be regarded as an immoral, subservient people and in the summer of 1944, all the women of France in effect, became prostitutes for the benefits the practice brought, and to stay alive. Americanisation had turned hungry women into nothing more than tarts. The generals ‘looked the other way’ whilst American military authorities tried their best to ignore both the disastrous effects on French society and the escalating incidence of venereal disease among their troops. The Army privately believed that sex was good for fighting men, but had little regard for the women who were reluctantly providing this ‘relief’ to their soldiers.

The ‘Battle of the Bulge’

The ‘Battle of the Bulge’ or the ‘Ardennes Offensive’ was fought over the winter months of 1944 – 1945, and constituted the final, major German offensive against the Allies in WWII. The battle was a last-ditch attempt by Hitler to halt the Allies in their drive towards Germany and destroy their ability to supply themselves

The Battle of the Bulge began on 16th December 1944. Hitler was still convinced that the alliance between Britain, France and America was fragile and that a major attack and defeat would break-up the pact. He therefore ordered a massive attack against what were primarily American forces, which was originally known as the Ardennes Offensive but because the initial attack by the Germans created a bulge in the Allied front line, it became more commonly known as the Battle of the Bulge. In fact it was the largest battle fought by the Americans in WWII with 600,000 American troops involved.

Hitler’s plan was to launch a massive attack on the Allies using three armies which would, in his view, destabilise their accord and also capture the port of Antwerp through which a great deal of Allied supplies were being transported. Thick snow and heavy fog prevented the Americans from employing their air-power and the German advance of 250,000 men quickly, initially drove the American line backwards whilst German troops, dressed in captured American uniforms and driving captured US jeeps, caused confusion and within five days the Germans had surrounded almost 20,000 Americans at Bastogne. Their situation was desperate but when the German commander gave his American equivalent, Major-General Anthony McAuliffe, the chance to surrender, McAuliffe answered with just the one word, ‘nuts.’

Meanwhile Patton moved reinforcements into Bastogne and relieved its desperate defenders and Montgomery ‘did his bit’ by preventing the Germans from crossing the River Meuse.

By the 22nd December, the weather had begun to clear, thus allowing the Allies to bring their air-power to bear and on the following day, the Americans initiated a counter-attack against the Germans.

On Christmas Eve, the Allies were subjected to the first ever attack by jet-bombers. Sixteen German Me-262 jets attacked railway yards in an attempt to disrupt the Allies supply-lines. However, without fuel for their armored vehicles, any air successes were almost meaningless. The German offensive had seen them advance 60 miles in two days, but from that point-on, an attritional stalemate ensued with ferocious fighting from both sides. As 1944 became 1945, the Germans attempted to start a second front in Holland but the weather at this time of year in the Ardennes was often brutal and indeed a period of intense cold and rain ensued. The foot soldiers on the ground in particular, faced very difficult conditions and on both sides of the divide, trench foot was a common problem for infantrymen, as was exposure.

The Americans used the lull to re-group and then suddenly counter-attacked; the Germans ran out of fuel and thus the bulge was burst. The Ardennes Offensive delayed the Allied advance by several weeks, but it was merely a postponement of the inevitable. The Germans began their retreat on the 22nd of January and by the 28th the front-line was back to where it had been on the 16th December. But the cost had been high. The US lost over 80,000 men killed or wounded and the Germans lost over 100,000 and, vitally, much of its aircraft and tanks which, at that stage of the war, with the German armaments industry now decimated, were impossible to replace. The march towards Berlin was back on . . .

The Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff

On the 30th January 1945, with the murderous, rampaging Red Army bearing down on them, the German civilians of East Prussia, desperate to escape, fled to the Baltic ports hoping to be evacuated by sea. Many of those caught in the maelstrom of the Soviet advance had already been murdered and raped.

Wilhelm Gustloff

The Wilhelm Gustloff, along with many other serviceable ships, was pressed into service to aid the evacuation of German civilians from the Eastern zone. With forty-eight hours’ notice before departure, there were scenes of chaos and blind panic in the frozen German port of Gotenhafen as people, frantic for a place, fought on the dock and surged aboard the ship.

Wilhelm Gustloff, weighing 25,000 tons and almost 700 feet in length, was an impressive sight, and could carry almost 2,000 passengers and crew. Launched in 1937, it began its life as a luxury cruise liner for the German workers of Hitler’s Third Reich. For the first year of the war she had served as a hospital ship before being held in dock in the port of Gotenhafen on the Baltic coast (modern-day Gdynia) where, until early 1945, it had served as barracks for U-boat trainees.

When the Gustloff left the relative protection of the harbour at Gotenhafen on 30th January 1945, the weather was extremely poor with a wind strength of 7, it was snowing, the temperature was minus 10 degrees Celsius, and there were copious amounts of sea-ice. In short, the chances of human survival in water in those conditions were zero, with or without a life-preserver. Once underway, the Wilhelm Gustloff began to battle its way through the choppy, blustery Baltic Sea, un-escorted and with its only protection being the few anti-aircraft guns it had on-board. However, against a submarine attack the Gustloff was powerless.

According to the ships own records, the list of passengers on the 30th included 918 Naval officers and men, 173 crew, 373 members of the Woman’s Naval Auxiliary units, 162 wounded, and 4,424 refugees, an ‘official’ total of 6,050 people. This however fails to take into account the many hundreds of other people that one way or another were able to make their way onto the seemingly safe haven of the Gustloff. In fact, new research has now shown that the total number of people on the Gustloff at the time was actually 10,582 souls (40% of whom were children.) In their blind panic, they had crammed themselves onto a ship designed for less than 2,000 passengers.

When the captains (there were four on board) were informed of a German minesweeper convoy coming towards them, they decided, after much argument, to switch on the navigation lights to avoid colliding into the convoy, but by doing so the ship also became visible to a Soviet submarine lurking nearby.

Then, at 9.08pm, the Soviet submarine S-13, commanded by Alexander Marinesko, hit the Gustloff with three torpedoes. She immediately listed to starboard, righted herself, and then listed once again, launched rescue flares and broadcast an SOS message. Less than 50 minutes later she was gone, sunk beneath the icy black waters of the Baltic, along with 9,343 men, women and children. Amazingly, 1,239 people were saved by the heroic and selfless work of a number of smaller German ships in the area but the losses were six-times greater than those of the Titanic.

When the Gustloff sank, it was an event unlike any in naval history, if for no other reason, because of the sheer scale of the tragedy. Many ships have sunk with terrible loss of life, but never before or since have so many lives been lost on a single ship. As with all maritime tragedies, the scene was one of absolute and complete horror. The suffering of those on board the Gustloff was unspeakable and whether these people were ‘enemies’ or not is irrelevant, they were fellow human beings, the vast majority of them ‘innocents,’ i.e. non-combatants. It was such a horrific loss of human life, and one of which even today, few people are aware.

Indeed, Marinesko deserves the epithet ‘war criminal,’ more than many other recipients of that label. He knew very well that the Gustloff was an innocent refugee ship and this in my view typifies the disgraceful, inhumanity shown by the Soviets as a nation, despite their being portrayed as the ‘good guys,’ by the bankster-controlled media at the time.

The sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff remains the greatest maritime disaster in history. So why is hardly anyone aware of it and why has bankster-controlled and run Hollywood never made a movie of it? This is of course a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious and that is that Hollywood is run by the same group of people today as it was at that time and anything that hints at sympathy for Germans or paints its adversaries in a bad light, is always ‘brushed under the carpet,’ whilst anything to the opposite of those is constantly promoted and presented in a positive light.

The Yalta Conference

This was held in the Black Sea resort of Yalta, at the Livadia Palace. At the conference, FDR and Churchill at the banksters’ behest, made massive concessions to Stalin as they began the re-organisation of the World’s political landscape to fall in-line with the banksters’ ambitions.

With the Zionist-Red spies Alger Hiss and Harry Hopkins influencing the now ailing Roosevelt, it was decided that after Germany’s defeat, that the Soviets would occupy Eastern Europe until ‘free elections’ could be held. The Soviets would also join the war against Japan and would be supplied with US arms to facilitate their efforts. After Japan was defeated, the Soviets would occupy northern Korea (without Korea’s approval,) and Manchuria in China (also without China’s approval.) Millions of Russian POWs captured by the Germans, as well as Russian refugees fleeing Stalin, would be forcefully returned to Stalin and Germany would be divided in two, as would Berlin.

The main objective of both Winston Churchill and Stalin was the capture of Berlin, the capital of Germany. However, coached by his bankster bosses, Roosevelt did not agree and this translated itself into a decision by the US military commander, General Eisenhower, to head south-east to Dresden, thereby ensuring that Soviet forces would be the first to reach Berlin.

Dresden – An appalling War Crime

On the night of 12/13th February 1945, over 1000 allied bombers attacked a non-military, civilian target in Germany, the town of Dresden. Dresden was (and is still) famous for its china pottery industry and at that time towards the end of the war, was the adopted home of several hundred thousand refugees from the far east of Germany, who were attempting to flee the marauding Russian hordes, rapidly advancing westwards towards Berlin.

There were no military installations in Dresden, no military headquarters or camps, no munitions factories and no heavy engineering of any kind that could have been linked to Germany’s by this time seriously crippled war efforts. In short, Dresden was a medium-large sized, rural, historical town with no strategic importance whatsoever.

By February 1945, the outcome of the war in Europe was already determined. Germany was effectively defeated and would formally surrender within three months. The murderous firebombing of the beautiful city of Dresden, the ‘Florence of the North,’ was as cruel as it was unnecessary and in an apparent gesture, mocking the mainly Christian Germans, the Zionist-banksters chose the day of ‘Ash Wednesday’ to turn Dresden into ashes. And what happened in the space of those twelve terrifying hours should live forever in the annals of the shame of the human race. It is thought by many credible commentators that as many as 4 to 500,000 innocent people died that night. Far more than double the two atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. In many cases, theirs was not a quick death but a slow agonising death through being ‘eaten alive’ by the phosphorus and subsequent firestorms generated by the half-million+ incendiary bombs dropped by the Allies.

More than 12,000 houses in the centre of the city were reduced to dust, not rubble, dust during the hellish firestorm. In view of the fact that, in addition to the 600,000 inhabitants of Dresden, another 5-600,000 people, all refugees, had found shelter in the overcrowded city, one can safely assume that each of these 12,000 houses contained no fewer than 20 people. But of these houses virtually nothing remained and the people who had been sheltering in them were transformed into ashes due to a heat of greater than 1600 degrees Celsius being generated by the fire-bombs.

The ‘official’ figure of 35,000 dead only represents the small part of the victims who could be fully identified. Erhard Mundra, a member of the ‘Bautzen committee’ wrote in the daily German newspaper ‘Die Welt’ on 12th February 1995 . . .

“According to the former general staff officer of the military district of Dresden and retired lieutenant colonel of the Bundeswehr, D. Matthes, 35,000 victims were fully and another 50,000 partly identified, whereas a further 168,000 could not be identified at all.”

Dresden: Leichenverbrennung auf dem Altmarkt. (Bild: Ullstein)

It also goes without saying that the hapless children, women, invalids and old people whom the firestorm had transformed into nothing more or less than ashes, could not be identified either.

At the time of the attack, Dresden had no anti-aircraft guns and no military defence. It possessed no military industry at all and served as a shelter for refugees from the East, many of them ill, starving, emaciated and disabled. Indeed, many roofs of buildings where they were housed were marked with huge red crosses.

On that terrible night from 12th to 13th February 1945, one of the greatest war criminals of all time, Winston Churchill, was complicit, indeed instrumental in the senseless, pointless mass-murder of around half a million unarmed, helpless citizens, mostly women, children, the disabled and the aged.

“It cannot be disputed that the principles of international law forbade total carpeting bombing . . . ..The historians considered the indiscriminate bombing as an abomination, but refused to lay the whole guilt on Air Marshall Sir Arthur Harris or the Bomber Command. According to them, the entire staff of the RAF, but even more the political leaders, especially Churchill and Roosevelt, plus the majority of their peoples shared the burden of guilt.” The joint conclusions of military historians from five countries at a conference in Freiburg, 1988

On the 13th February 1990, exactly forty-five years after the destruction of Dresden, the British historian David Irving, spoke in Dresden. In his speech, Irving quoted the banksters’ stooge and war criminal, Churchill, thus . . . “I don’t want any suggestions how to destroy militarily important targets around Dresden. I want suggestions as to how we can roast the 600,000 refugees from Breslau in Dresden.”

But for Churchill, simply ‘roasting’ Germans was nothing like enough. On the morning after the firebombing of Dresden, he personally gave the order for low-flying planes to machine-gun the survivors on the banks of the river Elbe where they had dragged themselves to try and find shelter from the suffocating heat by water immersion.

However, to backtrack slightly, as the morning of the 12th February 1945 dawned in Dresden, the streets and squares were filled with refugees and the meadows and parks had been transformed into huge camps. When the fatal hour approached, about 1,130,000 people were living in Dresden.

Dresden’s citizens barely had time to reach their bomb shelters, but as it would turn-out, these shelters became death traps anyway. The first bomb fell at 10.09pm and the attack lasted 24 minutes, leaving the inner city a raging sea of fire. Precision saturation bombing had created the desired firestorm.

A firestorm is engendered when hundreds of smaller fires join together and become one vast conflagration. Huge volumes of oxygen are drawn-in to feed the inferno, causing an artificial tornado. Those persons unlucky enough to be caught in the rush of wind can be hurled down the entire length of a street into the flames. Those who seek refuge underground often suffocate as oxygen is extracted from the air to feed the blaze or they perish in a blast of white heat, intense enough to melt human flesh and bone, leaving no visible trace. Indeed, such was the power of the conflagration that night that air was sucked from basements and sewers where the populace hid in large numbers, suffocating many hundreds or even thousands, to death.

Another eyewitness who survived told of seeing, “young women carrying babies running up and down the streets, their dresses and hair on fire, screaming until they fell down, or the collapsing buildings fell on top of them.”

There was a three-hour pause between the first and second raids. The lull had been calculated to lure civilians from their shelters into the open again. To escape the flames, tens of thousands of civilians had crowded into the ‘Grosser Garten,’ a beautiful area of parkland nearly one and a half miles square in area.

The second raid came at 1.22 am with no warning as the early warning sirens had been destroyed in the first attack, probably along with their operators. Twice as many bombers returned with another massive payload of incendiary bombs. The second wave was intended to spread the raging firestorm into the Grosser Garten and it was a complete success. Within a few minutes a sheet of flame ripped across the grass, uprooting trees and littering the branches of others with everything from bicycles to human limbs. For days afterward, they remained bizarrely strewn about as grim reminders of Allied sadism.

At the start of the second air assault, many were still huddled in tunnels and cellars, waiting for the fires of the first attack to die down. At 1.30 am an ominous rumble reached the ears of the commander of a Labour Service convoy sent into the city on a rescue mission. He described it this way . . .

“The detonation shook the cellar walls. The sound of the explosions mingled with a new, stranger sound which seemed to come closer and closer, the sound of a thundering waterfall; it was the sound of a mighty tornado howling in the inner city.”

Others hiding below ground died, but they died painlessly — they simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness and as the heat intensified, they either disintegrated into ashes or melted into a thick liquid, three to four feet deep in places. Shortly after 10.30 am on the morning of the 14th of February, the last raid swept over the city. American fighter-bombers pounded the rubble that had been Dresden for a full forty minutes, but this attack was not nearly as heavy as the first two.

However, what distinguished this raid was the cold-blooded ruthlessness with which it was carried out. US Mustangs appeared low over the city, strafing anything that moved with machine gun fire, including a column of rescue vehicles rushing to the city to evacuate survivors. One assault was aimed at the banks of the Elbe River, where refugees had huddled together during this terrible night.

In the last year of the war, Dresden had become a hospital town. During the previous night’s massacre, heroic uninjured individuals had dragged thousands of the devastatingly injured to the banks of the Elbe to escape the worst ravages of the firestorm. The low-flying American Mustangs machine-gunned those people and their helpless charges, as well as thousands of elderly and children who had escaped the city and when the last plane had departed, Dresden was a scorched ruin, its blackened streets filled with corpses. The city was not even spared further horror. A flock of vultures that had escaped from the ruins of the zoo, fed on the carnage and rats also swarmed over the piles of corpses.

In Dresden, the Allied airmen under the orders of the Elite butchers fronted by the sadistic Churchill, murdered several hundreds of thousands people in one single, hellish night and destroyed countless cultural treasures. Women who were giving birth to children in the delivery rooms of the burning hospitals jumped out of the windows, but within minutes, these mothers and their children, who were still hanging at the umbilical cords, were reduced to ashes too. Thousands of people whom the incendiary bombs had transformed into living torches, jumped into the ponds, lakes and rivers, but phosphorus continues to burn even in the water and is indeed ‘fed’ by water. Even the animals from the zoo, elephants, lions and others, desperately headed for the water, together with the humans. But all of them, the new-born children, the mothers, the old men, the wounded soldiers and the innocent animals from the zoo and the stables, horribly perished in the name of ‘liberation’.

What justification is there for this utterly repugnant behaviour? Is it revenge, hatred, blood-lust or ritual sacrifice? I believe it is a mixture of all of these, but I do know one thing for sure and that is that no sane, balanced, rational human being behaves in this disgraceful, cowardly fashion. The people who order these grotesque atrocities are undoubtedly clinical psychopaths with no empathy for the plight of their fellow man, whatsoever.

All German towns and cities with a population greater than 50,000 were from 50% to 80% destroyed. Cologne with a population greater than Glasgow’s was turned into a moonscape. Hamburg was totally destroyed and as any as 50,000 civilians died in the most appalling circumstances. As Hamburg burned, the winds feeding the three-mile high flames reached twice hurricane speed to exceed 200 miles per hour. On the outskirts of the city, trees three feet in diameter were sucked from the ground by the unnatural forces of these winds and hurled miles into the city-inferno, as were vehicles, men, women and children.

The Zionist-German émigré Professor Frederick Lindemann, Churchill’s friend and scientific advisor had by the closing period of the war, become Lord Cherwell. He submitted a plan to the War Cabinet on 30th March 1942, urging that German working-class houses, being closer together yielded a ‘greater flesh-incineration-per-bomb,’ so they should be targeted in preference to military objectives, the latter being more difficult to hit. Middle-class homes had too much space around them, he explained. He was of course, not prosecuted for this ghastly new war-crime, hitherto undreamt-of. Lindemann enthusiastically supported the infamous Morgenthau Plan, which Churchill subsequently enthusiastically endorsed.

Lindemann met with Churchill almost daily during the war and wielded more influence than any other civilian adviser. Whilst Lindemann and Churchill agreed on most matters, however, when they did not, Lindemann reportedly worked unceasingly to change Churchill’s mind. He was no lover of humanity, as illustrated by the following quotes . . . “To consolidate the rule of supermen –to perpetuate the British Empire [i.e. the NWO] – one need only remove the ability of slaves to see themselves as slaves.” Lindemann suggested that science create a race of humans with “the mental make-up of the worker bee . . . ” that would do all of the menial work while not being concerned about individual rights. “ . . . placid content rules in the bee-hive or ant-heap.”

One of Roosevelt’s first great feats as President had been the gigantic gold swindle (otherwise known as the Gold Trading Act of 1934,) which officially committed the US government to support the Zionist banksters in their manipulation of the price of gold. It was FDR and his openly Zionist Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., who were instrumental in bringing this plot to fruition, after a tussle with the Supreme Court. Morgenthau later said . . . “If the Supreme Court had decided against us, we had legislation ready to push through Congress which would have given us the same result.” This Morgenthau was the son of the Henry Morgenthau who paid Woodrow Wilson’s way into the White House in 1912 so that Wilson could appoint him as US Ambassador to Turkey, where world Zionists were completing the details of the Communist Revolution in Russia.

Morgenthau was also the author of the infamous Morgenthau Plan which proposed wiping-out the German race in 1944, and which was also broadcast to the German army and caused the lives of thousands of British and Americans to be sacrificed, because the Germans were forewarned as to what would happen after they surrendered. This Plan, so determined in its ruthlessness that it aroused the horror of the entire non-bankster civilised world, was absolutely typical of Jewish/Communist efforts to slaughter whole nations.

Churchill, the unspeakable monster who ordered the Dresden slaughter, was knighted, and the rest is ‘history.’ The cold-blooded sadism of the massacre, however, was brushed aside by his many biographers, who still can never quite bring themselves to inform the world how the desire of one madman to ‘impress’ a group of even madder-men, led to the genocide of up to a half million men, women and children in one truly appalling night.

The Fire Bombing of Tokyo

Tokyo after the incendiary raids

On the 10th March 1945, 334 American B-29s rained incendiary bombs on Tokyo, sparking a firestorm that killed upwards of 100,000 people, burned a quarter of the city to the ground, and left a million homeless.

Although it would later be overshadowed by the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Tokyo was just as deadly in its initial death toll. This terror-bombing utilised the same incendiary type explosives dropped on Dresden one month earlier, and yielded similar, horrific results. The raid also represented a tactical shift, as the Americans switched from high-altitude precision bombing to low-altitude incendiary raids.

Tokyo was the first of five incendiary raids launched in quick succession against the largest Japanese cities. Nagoya, Osaka and Kobe were also targeted, with Nagoya being hit twice within a week and by the end of the war, more than 60 Japanese cities had been laid waste by firebombing.

The Tokyo raid, codenamed Operation Meetinghouse, was part of an aerial onslaught so effective that the American air command concluded by July 1945 that no further, viable targets remained on the Japanese mainland. But if the American objective was to shorten the war by demoralising the Japanese population and breaking its will to resist, it certainly did not work. What had proven true in Germany proved equally true in Japan. Morale was shaken by bombing, but once the shock had passed, the war effort continued.

The Americans began increasingly looking towards the use of incendiaries as their stockpiles of those weapons increased, and also because the typically cloudy weather conditions that prevailed over Japan made precision bombing difficult at best. Major General Curtis LeMay, who had been appointed commander of the 21st Bomber Command in the Pacific in January 1945, became the primary architect of this new policy. He was a strategic innovator, and the most quotable spokesman for the US policy of callously burning enemy cities to the ground, just as was his RAF counterpart, Sir Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris.

The intention of the Tokyo mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill as many of its citizens as possible and instil abject terror into the survivors and this relentless attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential, succeeded beyond the planners’ wildest dreams. Whipped by fierce winds, the flames rapidly spread across a fifteen-square-mile area of Tokyo, once again generating immense firestorms.

LeMay, unleashed 496,000 incendiaries in a single raid, and argued that incendiary bombing would be particularly effective, because Japanese cities contained a lot of tightly-packed, wooden structures that would burn easily when set alight. And so, in preparation, the B-29 bombers for the Tokyo raid were stripped of their defensive weapons and packed with various incendiary explosives, including white phosphorus and napalm, a new gasoline-based, fuel-gel mixture developed at Harvard University of all places. Isn’t education a wonderful thing?

As opposed to the high-altitude precision bombing, which the Allies practiced with only mixed success over both Germany and Japan, incendiary raids were carried out at low altitudes between 5,000 and 9,000 feet. The attackers were helped by the fact that Japanese air defences were almost non-existent by that point in the war and in fact, only 14 B-29s were lost in the Tokyo raid. As was the case in Europe, pathfinder planes flying ahead of the bombers marked the target with a flaming X, guiding-in the attackers. Tokyo was bombarded constantly for a period of three hours by three bomber streams that dropped roughly 2,000 tons of incendiaries near the docklands and in the industrial heart of the Japanese capital.

Tokyo, almost immediately burst into flames. The combination of incendiaries, the windy weather conditions and lack of co-ordinated firefighting on the ground, resulted in a firestorm similar to the one two years previously in Hamburg, and only a month before in Dresden. Temperatures on the ground in Tokyo reached 1,800 degrees in some places. The human carnage was appalling. Bomber crews arriving towards the end of the raid, reported smelling the stench of charred flesh as they passed over the burning capital.

Sixty-three percent of Tokyo’s commercial area, and 18 percent of its industry, was destroyed in that one raid and an estimated 267,000 buildings burned to the ground. The charred bodies of 100,000 dead Japanese citizens littered the streets, and 250,000 buildings and homes were destroyed. One million more were injured, and a further one million more, made homeless. Given a near total inability to fight fires of the magnitude and speed produced by the bombs, casualties may have been several times higher than the estimate of 100,000 deaths.

Then, following the Tokyo raid, the US extended fire-bombing nationwide and in the ten-day period beginning on 9th March, 9,373 tons of bombs destroyed 31 square miles of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Kobe. Overall, bombing strikes razed to the ground, 40 percent of the 66 Japanese cities targeted.

The bombing was driven not only by a belief that it could end the war but also by the attempt by the Air Force to claim credit for the US victory, and to justify the enormous costs of developing and producing thousands of B-29 bombers and the costs of the hundreds of thousands of bombs used.

The most important way in which WWII shaped the morality of mass destruction was in the elimination of the stigma associated with the targeting of civilian populations from the air. If area bombing remained controversial throughout much of the war, something to be concealed or denied by its practitioners, by the end of the war, with the enormous increase in the destructive power of bombing, it had become a primary war tactic of war, and therefore the international norm. This approach to the destruction of cities, which was perfected in 1944-45, wedded technological predominance with the minimisation of casualties to produce overwhelming ‘kill ratios.’

And indeed . . . Those kill ratios for the banksters as you will soon see, would go on to become even greater than ever imagined. Not just simply through their never-ending and contrived wars and conflicts, but in man-made diseases and epidemics, staged terrorism, and even the food we eat and the air we breathe.

The banksters work in very complex and often seemingly contradictory ways. FDR was certainly, as already shown, a bankster-controlled President. His infamy at Pearl Harbor, his Zionist/Communist handlers, his war-criminal record and so forth, was ample proof of that. But always remember that Churchill and Stalin were also banksters’-men, through and through.

Once the British had declared war on Germany in 1939, it was ironic that Churchill had to turn to Roosevelt and Stalin in order to make sure of saving Britain. Indeed, Churchill and Roosevelt had never been friends. Roosevelt had disliked Churchill from the very first time they met, two decades earlier.

It is also significant that Churchill sent William Stephenson also known as ‘Intrepid’ of MI-6, to head the British Security Coordination (BSC) a covert organization set up at 30, Rockefeller Center in New York City in May 1940. Its purpose was to investigate enemy activities, prevent sabotage against British interests in the Americas, and mobilise pro-British opinion in the Americas. Churchill has always been fêted as the great leader of the alliance against Germany and Japan. This is just another fantasy engendered by the bankster-elite. Churchill certainly spun some apt and catchy phrases during the war, but they were probably written for him and he had virtually nothing to do with achieving the final victory.

Meanwhile, FDR was doing all he could to reassure Stalin of America’s good intentions, and his plans to work with the Soviet Union after the war to bring lasting peace to the world. Roosevelt went out of his way to appease Stalin at every opportunity, again probably at the behest of his bankster ‘handlers.’ For example, when security officials at the 1943 Tehran Conference told him that he was not safe at the American Embassy, which was located a good distance from the centre of Tehran, he chose to accept Stalin’s offer to stay at the Soviet Embassy, rather than Churchill’s offer of the British Embassy. Roosevelt also took Stalin’s ‘side’ time after time with regard to substantive issues, and he joined Stalin in ribbing Churchill on numerous occasions. Finally, Stalin did come to trust Roosevelt, but he continued to be wary of Churchill.

Soon after the Stalingrad victory, Churchill enlisted the US bankster-corporate elite in behind-the-scenes talks with German Nazis. Allen Dulles, the OSS man in Switzerland became deeply involved in covert operations, without Roosevelt’s knowledge. Treason? Dulles indeed also helped to negotiate the terms of the secret, Operation Sunrise, later to become Operation Paperclip, under which thousands of high-ranking Germans, most them drawn from the ranks of the (apparently despised) Nazi party, became employees of the government of the United States.

Another important aspect of Dulles’ plotting was to substitute Harry Truman as running-mate in 1944 for Henry Wallace, who was even further to the left than Roosevelt. (This is known inside US government inner-circles as the ‘Vice President Trick,’ and was later used on Eisenhower and Kennedy and with somewhat less success on Ronald Reagan.

The banksters knew Truman well enough to know that he would, as President, allow them to create the first era of peacetime militarism in the United States 150 years of existence and so the planning for the assassination of FDR began at the 1944 Democratic National Convention, in Chicago, Illinois, in July. Roosevelt was running for an unprecedented 4th term and his popular Vice President was Henry A. Wallace.

After his victory, FDR gave his acceptance speech via radio from San Diego, California. He was under pressure to dump Wallace, and replace him with James Byrnes, so he stayed away from the Convention. The President’s wife, Eleanor despised Byrnes and so the ‘tug of war’ was putting tremendous stress on the President.

Vice President Henry Wallace was a plain-speaking farmer’s son from Iowa . . . and he was just too honest to engage in the conspiracy and he fully expected to be re-nominated for Vice President at the Convention. The MI-6 agent and children’s author Roald Dahl, became a close ‘friend’ of Henry Wallace but unknown to Wallace, Dahl was spying on him and sending his private papers to Sir William Stephenson at 30, Rockefeller Plaza.

“Marsh had given him a draft of a pamphlet written by his close friend Henry Wallace. Entitled ‘Our Job in the Pacific,’ it summarised the vice president’s post-war goals, among them international control of the airways, economic assistance for the industrial development of Asia, and the demilitarisation of Japan. Wallace was also in favour of ‘the emancipation of colonial subjects’ in the British Empire, including India, Burma, and Malaya. Dahl could feel his ‘hair stand on end’ and immediately realised the document’s importance, and knowing that his superiors would want to see it, he excused himself saying that he was going to finish reading it downstairs.

He quickly phoned his BSC contact, explained the urgency of the situation, and convinced him to meet him on the corner as soon as possible. The agent knew something was up and materialised on the street in front of Marsh’s house in a matter of minutes.

Dahl sneaked out of the house and handed the document through his car window, warning his partner in crime to be back in half an hour or there would be hell to pay. ‘He flashed off,’ recalled Dahl, ‘and I’m around downstairs, near the lavatory door, and if the chap upstairs had come down looking for me saying, ‘have you finished reading it,’ then I’d have been in the lavatory you see, saying ‘I’m sorry I’m caught short.’ As it turned out, the agent went straight to the BSC’s Washington offices to make copies and made it back within the allotted time. Dahl nipped back out, collected the paper, and no one was the wiser.” Conant ‘The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington’

And so it was that the British spy ring, led by Dahl, made sure that Wallace was not re-nominated for Vice President. A ferocious fight broke out in Chicago between the supporters of Vice President Wallace and the supporters of James Byrnes. Everyone seemed to somehow know that Roosevelt would not survive his 4th term, so his Vice President would then become President.

Byrnes was determined to reach the White House no matter what the cost and the refusal of FDR to make him his VP was a staggering blow to his pride, so he tried to ‘sneak in though the back door,’ via the position of Secretary of State. He arrived at the convention on the morning of 20th July, absolutely confident that he would be the next Vice President, and therefore by default the next President of the United States.

Byrnes was to face a big disappointment however, as nothing could persuade the absent Roosevelt to name him as his heir apparent. Jimmy Byrnes was one of the few people at the Convention who ‘knew’ that a new deadly weapon called the atomic bomb was under development. This weapon could be a complete ‘game-changer’ and its sole possessor could rule the world, completely unchallenged.

Roosevelt would not pledge his support to either Vice President Wallace or to James Byrnes and so a compromise candidate was ‘chosen,’ named Harry Truman. By whom he was chosen, remains a moot point, but I am sure that we all have our suspicions, eh, dear reader? Truman came to the Convention as an ardent Byrnes supporter and he had no real Presidential ambitions, FDR could not or as is more likely, would not, make a decision and so Truman was nominated ‘by default.’

The banksters recruited Bob Hannegan, a crooked political operator from Missouri, to secure the Truman nomination by covertly getting the necessary commitments months in advance from big-city organised-crime groups and their political machines in the North and from conservative Southerners, who made up a substantial block of the Democratic Party. After he was chosen, the banksters’ massive propaganda machine went into overdrive, peddling lies about how Truman would strengthen the Democratic cause etc. etc.

None of this was true – at all. Before the convention, Truman was the choice of only 2% of the voters, but Wallace was extremely popular all over the country, and especially so with farmers, who otherwise might have voted Republican. In those now far-off days, small farmers constituted 20% of the population, and they loved Wallace for what he had done for them during the 1930s when he was Secretary of Agriculture.

But FDR would soon be disposed-of anyway and the US, the UK would soon turn full circle with regard to the Soviets and on the surface at least, ‘oppose’ the evil of Communism. But suddenly something went wrong. Stalin’s spies in Switzerland discovered the Dulles operation and Stalin sent a telegram of complaint to Roosevelt. Of course, FDR knew nothing of the Dulles plot, and so in his response he expressed surprise to Stalin that he (Stalin) would distrust him. But unfortunately for FDR, that was the last action he ever undertook. Realising that they were in danger of being exposed, the conspirators decided to dispense with FDR immediately.

In fact, the conspirators had started to poison FDR with intermittent doses of arsenic tri-oxide and to add insult to injury they started the rumours about FDR being a dying man. The first dosage was apparently given to FDR at the Tehran Conference in 1943. With each subsequent dose, FDR would show the typical symptoms of such poisoning, such as respiratory difficulty and heart trouble, but then he would recover, only to take another turn for the worse when the next dose was administered. Unfortunately for him, either Roosevelt’s physicians did not suspect poisoning, or they were ‘in’ on the whole plot – most probably the latter.

In April 1944, President Roosevelt was assigned a new doctor, a young Navy lieutenant named Dr. Howard Bruenn at Bethesda Naval Hospital. It was very unusual that the President would be attended-to by such a low ranking officer, but obviously, skill in the use of poison was all that was necessary for Dr. Bruenn to possess in terms of medical prowess.

But once the plotters had made the final decision to kill FDR, they would have to use a poison that would act much more quickly than arsenic, so they settled on cyanide. Roosevelt ate around noon each day, usually a bowl of gruel and a drink to stimulate his appetite.

On 30th March 1945, President Roosevelt arrived at his hideaway home in Warm Springs, Georgia, for a 2-week break. It was the place where his security was most lax. Dr. Ross T. McIntire was the White House physician in charge of Roosevelt’s health and Dr. McIntire predicted confidently that the President would be a ‘different man’ when he returned to Washington. When Dr. Bruenn telephoned on Thursday, 12th April, his report to him was most optimistic . . .

“The President had gained back eight of his lost pounds and was feeling so fit that he planned to attend an old-fashioned Georgia barbecue in the afternoon and a minstrel show that evening for the Foundation’s patients. Every cause for anxiety seemed to have lifted, and given another lazy, restful week, there was no reason why he should not return to Washington on 20th April to greet the Regent of Iraq.” ‘McIntire, White House Physician,’ p. 240

Admiral McIntire was in Washington DC at that time, but the President’s personal physician, Dr. Bruenn, was with the President in Warm Springs. Nicholas Robbins (real name Nicholas Kotzubisky) was the driver and photographer for Elizabeth Shoumatoff, a Russian-born artist. FDR was having his portrait painted by her, when he took a break for lunch.

At twenty minutes to one, Arthur Prettyman, the valet, entered and placed a cup of gruel, a pitcher of cream, and a glass with a green fluid beside the president. FDR grimaced and without lifting his eyes from his reading, downed the latter, a vile concoction that was supposed to increase his appetite. FDR then absently took a few mouthfuls of gruel, still absorbed in his papers and then almost immediately complained of a terrible headache. The MI-6 agent Shoumatoff had resumed painting Roosevelt’s portrait when he collapsed. MI-6 agent Lucy Mercer, a long-time mistress of the President, was also present.

Shoumatoff immediately called his physician, Howard Bruenn but doctors can be deadly and a medical assassination is a lot easier to hide than a bullet in the back of the head. Bruenn had prepared the deadly cocktail or ‘cup of succession’ for the President and Dr. James Paullin, an Atlanta internist, arrived soon after the poisoning and helped Bruenn make sure that the President did not undergo a ‘miraculous recovery.’ At 3.35 pm, on the 12th April 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was pronounced dead.

Bruenn acted surprised that Roosevelt’s lungs had failed. He had said that the President would die from heart trouble, but his heart kept beating for five minutes after his breathing stopped. Lung failure and FDR’s other dying symptoms are definitely those indicative of cyanide poisoning, so once again the banksters had discarded another one of their ‘useful idiots’ and made ready to replace him with another.

Shoumatoff, and Mercer were quickly hustled out of the house by the US Secret Service. Shoumatoff returned to New York whilst Mercer went to find her priest to obtain ‘absolution’ for her complicity in the assassination of the President of the United States. Totally violating Georgia state law, no autopsy was performed on the President, as his body was rushed back to Washington DC for an indecently hasty funeral. ‘Twas ever thus! After death by poisoning, a human body soon begins to emit a terrible odour and burial must be done rapidly but of course, the official cause of death was a cerebral haemorrhage. In fact, FDR was buried at the Roosevelt estate in Hyde Park, New York and from death to burial took less than three days.

And so, Harry S. Truman was sworn in as the 33rd President, immediately after the assassination of Roosevelt and James Byrnes was appointed Truman’s Secretary of State. This position put Byrnes just one small step from the Presidency.

Truman soon realised that he could be the next Presidential victim of the poison cup, so he called on Congress to immediately change the law back to the original, 1792 order of succession . . .

President.
Vice-President.
President pro tempore of Senate.
Speaker of the House.

Byrnes totally dominated Truman who knew absolutely nothing about the top-secret atomic bomb project, as Roosevelt had deliberately failed to keep him informed.

And so, the stage was now set for the next phase of the banksters’ long-term plan for world domination . . .

On the same day of FDR’s funeral, General Montgomery reasoned that there was now nothing to prevent the Allies from entering Berlin from the west, thus securing the German capital before the advancing Soviet army could get there. However, Eisenhower had other ideas. As he had done time and time again, Eisenhower employed his stalling tactics in order to delay the Allied advance and thus buying time for Stalin’s advance from the east. He issued a ‘Halt’ order on the 15th April, forbidding all allied forces in the west from crossing the Elbe River.

On 28th March, Eisenhower had already sent a message to Stalin, confirming that the US/UK advance would focus on western Germany, allowing him a free rein in the east . . . including Berlin. But what was Eisenhower’s motivation for these seemingly bizarre actions, you may well ask? Well, we shall see, very soon! Stalin immediately ordered an immediate all-out assault on Berlin with absolutely no consideration for the casualties involved, resulting in a further 80,000 Russians being killed, and 275,000 wounded, plus innumerable German soldiers and civilians. Berlin was finally entered by the Russians on 2nd May 1945.

As previously stated, Eisenhower’s two subordinates, the Generals Montgomery and Patton were deeply puzzled and angered by this sudden order to halt the Allied advance, thus condemning Berlin, and all of Eastern Europe, to Soviet barbarism.

The Goya

Before the final fall of Berlin, as was the Wilhelm Gustloff, the Goya was a German transport ship carrying more than 7,000 wounded soldiers, but mainly terrified refugees, westwards in the vain hope of escaping the Red Terror. However, the Soviet submarine Captain, Vladimir Konovalov discovered the Goya and ordered it to be sunk by torpedoes. The Goya foundered extremely quickly, plunging its passengers into the icy Baltic Sea and less than 200 survived, the final death toll being about the equivalent of 5 Titanics.

For this murderous ‘war crime,’ Konovalov was awarded the Soviet Union’s highest military decoration, Hero of the Soviet Union. This must be some rare definition of the word ‘hero,’ of which I was not previously aware.

Mussolini

With total defeat looming in Europe, Mussolini attempted to escape to neutral Switzerland. However, he was quickly captured and summarily executed near Lake Como on the 28th April 1945, by Italian Partisans (Communists).

Mussolini’s 1922 takeover of Italy had probably saved Italy from Communism and to be fair, there were positive economic and social developments during his rule. But in the end, ‘Il Duce’ and his rampant ego had caused many disastrous problems for the Italian and German military campaigns. His reckless decisions and actions made Italy a huge encumbrance to German strategy.

After death, Mussolini’s body and that of his mistress, Clara Petacci and several close companions were transported to Milan, where they were hung upside-down in public in order to both posthumously humiliate them and also to provide confirmation of their deaths.

Hitler

With the situation in Berlin hopeless, it was reported that Hitler married his long-time mistress Eva Braun on 30th April 1945. The two then committed suicide, Eva by poison, Hitler by gunshot. Hitler’s dog, Blondie was also poisoned. The staff were then ordered to burn the bodies and escape Berlin before the Soviets captured them . . . or so the ‘official’ story goes.

But one thing is certainly true and that is that the day before ‘committing suicide,’ Hitler dictated his final Political Testament, in which he truthfully denied any responsibility for instigating the war.

“It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests . . . Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America. Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen.”

But, the above, apocryphal story about Hitler and his wife Eva Braun’s ‘suicides’ and subsequent home-made cremations with a can of petrol in the grounds adjoining the ‘fuhrerbunker’ at the end of April 1945 is simply Soviet Russian propaganda in collusion with British and American wartime High Command and the banksters – and nothing more.

Even the mainstream, politically correct, bankster-controlled History Channel’s own investigation in the early 2000s proved beyond reasonable doubt that the skull portion and dental fragments in the possession of the Russians, retrieved from the burial of the burnt corpse of ‘Hitler’ could not have belonged to him. And this was after an extensive forensic investigation lasting more than a year, during which his authenticated dental records were meticulously compared with the burnt tooth and bone fragments.

At the time, the Russians did not wish to admit that Hitler had evaded capture as they believed it would reflect extremely badly on them and so their propaganda machinery went into overdrive and concocted a credible story to deflect criticism from them, over the sorry affair. As time went on, the propaganda as always, came to be regarded as ‘fact’ and the real story died, along with the propaganda’s perpetrators. In fact, the usual bankster modus operandus.

It is well known that Hitler had more than one ‘double,’ just as in more recent times there have been several Saddam Husseins and Osama bin Ladens and thus how easy would it have been to surreptitiously execute one of them and burn his body in a pit? I personally find it beyond incredible to seriously suggest that in the last months of the war when the Russians were rampaging through eastern Germany towards Berlin that no arrangements had been made either through his own efforts or on his behalf by third parties, to evacuate him and Eva Braun to safety. Are we really supposed to believe that he just remained there in the bunker awaiting his ultimate and inevitable fate? All the other major Nazi figures (with the possible exception of Josef Goebbels and family – and even that is by no means certain) made good their escapes whilst there was still time enough to do so, albeit that several of them were ‘captured’ in the following weeks and months.

In accordance with my research, I firmly believe that Hitler and Braun were secretly flown via Hamburg to Vigo on the west coast of Spain, where they were transported to South America (probably Argentina) by U-boat. According to contemporary Pravda (the Soviet newspaper) reports, several U-boats full of German high-ranking officials left Spain for Argentina during the period from the end of April to early May 1945.

Hitler aged 90 in 1979

So, the five German U-boats reached Argentina with no less than 50 officials on board including Hitler and Braun. During the trip they even sank a US battleship and the Brazilian cruiser Bahia with a death toll of more than 400, including many US naval personnel.

The co-operative Argentinians established a ‘freedom zone’ to allow the Germans to disembark without being worried by customs officials, but was Adolf Hitler definitely a passenger on one of these U-boats? It is believed by several respected researchers that Hitler, Eva Braun, her sister Gretel Braun and Martin Bormann escaped via this clandestine operation, however it does still remain unclear whether Hitler specifically landed in Argentina or not.

The Gestapo chief Heinrich Mueller told his US CIA interrogators in 1948 that he personally arranged Hitler’s escape from Berlin and that Hitler together with Eva Braun flew to Spain on the 26th April 1945.

“We know for sure that Hitler fled either to Spain or to Argentina.” Josef Stalin in conversation with the US Secretary of State, James Byrnes in late 1945

“We have not been unable to unearth one bit of tangible evidence of Hitler’s death. Many people believe that Hitler escaped from Berlin.” General Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1946

“Russia must accept much of the blame that Hitler did not die in May 1945.” Michael Mussmano, presiding judge at the Nuremburg trials, 1946

Colonel W.J. Heimlich, former Chief of United States Intelligence, stated for publication that he was in charge of determining what had happened to Hitler and after a thorough investigation his report was that . . . “There was no evidence beyond that of hearsay to support the theory of Hitler’s suicide . . . On the basis of present evidence, no insurance company in America would pay a claim on Adolf Hitler.”

“We did not identify the body of Hitler. I can say nothing definite about his fate. He could have flown away from Berlin at the very last moment.” Marshall Zhukov, Commander in Chief of the Soviet army, 1945

And Zhukov would certainly have known the truth and would have had no motive whatsoever for lying as it would have reflected very badly on him indeed, in the eyes of Stalin.

Do not those quotations alone tell us everything that we need to know? If these people genuinely believed he had escaped, how does this reconcile with the popular myth of his death in the bunker? The simple answer is that it does not. These claims of suicide and cremation on waste land are provably false and were no doubt spread as deliberate disinformation in the aftermath of the war to prevent the truth from reaching the masses. This of course is more compelling evidence of the systematic falsification of history at work, by the banksters and their stooges.

Chicago Times 16th July 1945

Apparently Hitler, once he had reached his final destination, Argentina went into seclusion. He spent the rest of his long life in Mendoza in the northwest of Argentina, protected by the indigenous Jewish community (how ironic, but how appropriate.) Hitler reportedly died in December 1985 at the age of 96 and his remains were buried in a public cemetery in Palmero, thirty miles southeast of Mendoza. The fate of his wife, Eva Braun is unknown.

On the 8th May 1945, jubilant crowds throughout the UK and the US celebrated Victory in Europe Day upon the news that Germany had surrendered unconditionally, the previous day. Admiral Karl Donitz, named in Hitler’s final testament as the new ‘Fuehrer’ (leader) of Germany, signed the surrender agreement and remarked that . . . “With this signature, the German people and armed forces are for better or for worse, delivered into the victor’s hands.”

But there was to be no mercy for the German people, whose government had dared to defy the New World Order, and, for a while, had actually come close to defeating the bankster-sponsored forces of evil. Indeed, Germany’s nightmare was only just beginning as the spiteful, vengeful Globalist-Communist-Zionist alliance-of-Evil imposed a collective punishment upon Germany that completely eclipsed the severity of the post-WWI Versailles Treaty, in all but monetary considerations.

The United Nations

At the San Francisco Conference that established the banksters’ next One-World-Government attempt, the ‘United Nations,’ the American official serving as Secretary General of the conference was the Zionist-Communist Alger Hiss.

Hiss was a ‘rising star’ in US politics. The Harvard graduate was a talented lawyer and negotiator who had been closely identified with FDR’s Communist-Socialist ‘New Deal’ in the 1930s. Experience in international diplomacy brought him the honour of temporary Secretary-General of the United Nations, and he had just become president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Then suddenly, it was claimed that this talented and hitherto respected man was a spy, sending the Russians, sensitive information from the highest levels of American politics. The allegations emanated directly from Whittaker Chambers, a senior editor of Time magazine, and an ex-communist eager to expose his former compadres. Chambers was testifying before Senator Joseph McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Committee, the Republican anti-communist witch-hunting committee which (accurately) claimed that numerous actors, politicians and officials were secretly communist agitators. These damaging allegations were often extracted from colleagues under investigation who found it expedient to name names in order to divert the spotlight away from themselves.

Chambers’ version of events was that Hiss and several other named people were members of a communist group during the 1930s. This was a particularly damaging allegation to someone in Hiss’ position, and so the lawyer sued the journalist for libel.

Chambers then expanded his claims by saying that Hiss had acted as a spy for the Russians. According to him, Hiss had brought State Department documents home, had them re-typed by his wife, and passed these copies to Chambers while the originals were returned. Chambers had photographed the papers and sent them to a Russian agent. Further evidence was then produced by Chambers after a visit to his Maryland farm, when he returned to the HUAC with 35mm film stored, he claimed, in a hollowed-out pumpkin. On the film were various State Department documents and so both men were called before a grand jury investigating these claims of espionage.

If Hiss was a spy, the negative implications were endless. He had attended the post-war Yalta Conference in 1945, rubbing shoulders with Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill and the same year he was made director of the Office of Special Political Affairs, responsible for formulating plans for the United Nations and other aspects of the peace settlement. The Russians would have benefited enormously from his information about American strategy at this time, and from the other inside information that passed across Hiss’s desk. Now the Cold War had set in, and America’s fears were now firmly directed at their former ‘ally,’ the Soviet communists and yet here was an ‘Ivy League’ man who was assisting the new enemy. If this was true, it was a major scandal.

A key piece of evidence was the typewriter on which his wife was said to have typed the documents. The prosecution produced forensic evidence showing it indeed was the machine on which the copies produced by Chambers were typed but nevertheless, the jury at the first trial failed to reach a verdict. However, a second trial found Hiss guilty on 21st January 1950 and he received a five-year jail sentence. He was released on 27th November 1954, and protested his innocence up until his death in 1996. If he was guilty, which appears likely from the evidence, then he paid a very low price for someone who had given state secrets to an enemy foreign power, the usual penalty for high treason, being death.

So in October 1945, the United Nations was instituted, replacing the League of Nations as the foundation-stone of the banksters’ New World Order. Its purpose ostensibly, is to ‘prevent another world war,’ but this is pure hyperbole and propaganda in order to justify its existence.

The huge propaganda campaign surrounding the UN’s establishment was pervasive and intense. It was argued that ‘isolationist’ America’s refusal to join the League of Nations after World War I was the tragic mistake that led to World War II. That mistake ‘must not be repeated.’ So, within 30 days, the US Senate approved the UN treaty by a vote of 89 to 2. The embryonic World Government was to be based in New York, on 18 acres of prime real estate donated by the Rockefellers, no less. What more needs to be said?

The Manhattan Project

The Manhattan Project, led by the US and with participation from the UK, which resulted in the first atomic bomb. The project grew out of the Einstein-Szilard letter to FDR in 1939.

The great ‘scientific genius,’ Albert Einstein had achieved world fame in the previous decades for his still unproven ‘Theory of Relativity,’ which itself is now highly suspected to be plagiarised from the work of an Italian physicist. Einstein was a vociferous advocate of world government and was also linked to numerous Communist front groups in Germany. He had always sought fame and fortune, in fact he was a pathological attention-seeker, woman abuser and a fraud. The great satirist H. L. Mencken referred to him as “ . . . that fiend for publicity.” Einstein had fled Germany in 1933 not because he was Jewish, but because he was a politically active Marxist, holding membership of several Communist front-groups. An apparent ‘pacifist,’ in the 1930s, he suddenly became a fierce advocate for total war against Germany. The famous Einstein-Szilard letter, in which the two Zionist scientists urged the Zionist bankster-owned Roosevelt to develop an atomic weapon, was actually written during peacetime in the August of 1939 and falsely accused Germany of developing an atomic bomb and urged FDR to beat the Germans in a race to develop a nuclear military capability.

Ironically, and very significantly, Einstein was not given clearance to be part of the Manhattan Project, as he was deemed by the FBI and military, as being ‘too great a security risk.’

The effort to build an atomic bomb, began on a small scale later that year, and between 1942 and 1946, the US, Great Britain, and Canada spent the equivalent of $26bn and employed 130,000 people in the ‘race’ to create the very first atomic weapon. The first ever test detonation of a nuclear device was conducted at the Alamogordo Range in New Mexico on the 16th July 1945.

From the beginning, there were concerns about the Project’s security. Physicist Gregory Breit, an important researcher, left the project team in 1942 because of ‘lax security procedures’ and the Zionist-Communist physicist, J. Robert Oppenheimer firstly assumed Breit’s role and was then appointed to head the secret weapons laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Under his leadership, many Soviet spies and Communist sympathisers infiltrated the project, Enrico Fermi and Klaus Fuchs, to name the two most prominent.

As Oppenheimer convenient turned a blind-eye, Red spies liberally passed America’s nuclear secrets to the Soviets resulting in 1954, in Oppenheimer’s security clearance being revoked. But by that time, the Soviets already had everything they needed to build their own nuclear weapons.

On the 26th July 1945, the Pacific war was reaching its bloody climax and on this day, President Truman issued the Potsdam Declaration, which called for Japan’s unconditional surrender. He had already been informed of the successful detonation of the first atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, ten days earlier and the Japanese were warned of the consequences of continued resistance by the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, signed by President Truman and by Prime Minister Attlee of the United Kingdom and with the concurrence of Chiang Kai-Shek, President of the National Government of China. However it was not specified to Japan exactly what form the promised ‘prompt and utter destruction’ would take in the event of their not agreeing terms.

When Japan rejected the ultimatum, hoping instead for a conditional surrender, Truman immediately authorised use of the bomb. Secretary of War Stimson felt that the decision to deploy the atomic bomb against Japan would be the ‘least abhorrent choice.’ This would be weighed against sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers. Military advisers had told Truman that a potential loss of about 500,000 American soldiers was at stake. This was however, purely propaganda, the big ‘official lie,’ to justify the dropping of ‘Little Boy’ and ‘Fat Man’ on the innocent, unsuspecting civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is a popular, albeit cynically engendered misconception that credits the dropping of the two atomic devices on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6th and 9th August 1945, respectively, with ending the war months early and thereby saving the lives of millions.

With WWII rapidly coming to a close, the banksters needed an excuse to move into the next phase of their ‘great work of ages,’ the ‘Cold War.’ The attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a clear message to the Soviets and indeed the rest of the world and it was known by the American branch of the banksters that the Soviets would not sit idly by and let American military technology intimidate them. The Soviets had already begun work on their own version of the terror weapon, helped enormously and probably intentionally by the wholesale leaking of atomic secrets by double agents within the Manhattan Project. Within a year or so of the end of the war, the Russians had their own atomic devices and thus was born the ‘Cold War’ and the great ‘Arms Race’ of the second half of the twentieth century, designed solely to terrify and as an excuse to suppress the populations of the whole world in much the same way as the contemporary, bogus ‘war on terror’ works today.

The Americans and British blatantly and repeatedly ignored desperate Japanese attempts to surrender, because firstly they wanted to drag-out the war for as long as possible and also they needed an actual demonstration to the world, of the devastating effects of the atomic bomb, otherwise the planned, coming ‘Cold War’ could not have generated the same terror in people’s minds, had they not seen for themselves, the deadly weapon’s capabilities.

“Our entire post-war programme depends on terrifying the world with the atomic bomb. We are hoping for a tally of a million dead in Japan. But if they surrender, we won’t have anything.” US Secretary of State, Edward Stettinius Jr., the son of a JP Morgan partner, early 1945

According to the historian Eustace Mullins, President Truman, whose only real job before Senator had been a Masonic ‘organiser’ in Missouri, did not make the fatal decision alone. A committee led by James Byrnes, the bankster, Bernard Baruch’s puppet, instructed him. Baruch was the Rothschild’s principal agent in the US and a Presidential ‘advisor’ spanning the era from Woodrow Wilson to John F. Kennedy.

Baruch, who was also chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, spearheaded the ‘Manhattan Project’ named after Baruch’s home town. He chose life-long Communist, Robert Oppenheimer to be Research Director. It was very much the ‘banksters’ bomb.’

On 6th August 1945, a Uranium bomb (isotope U-235) of 20 kilotons was exploded 1850 feet in the air above Hiroshima, for maximum explosive effect. It devastated four square miles of the ancient, historical city and killed outright 140,000 of the 255,000 inhabitants. This figure does not account, however, for the many thousands seriously injured and the many thousands more that would die in agony from radiation in the succeeding months and years.

In the United States the news of the bombing of Hiroshima was greeted with a mixture of relief, pride and shock, but mainly joy. Apparently it was reported that Oppenheimer himself walked around like a prize-fighter, clasping his hands together above his head in triumph when he heard the ‘good’ news.

But this was not the end. Another bomb was assembled at Tinian Island on the 6th August and two days later, the order issued from the 20th Air Force Headquarters on Guam, called for its use the following day on either Kokura, the primary target, or Nagasaki, the secondary target.

On the 9th August, three days after Hiroshima, the B-29 bomber, ‘Bockscar’ piloted by Major Charles W. Sweeney, reached Kokura, but abandoned the primary target because of smoke cover and changed course for Nagasaki, an industrial city with a natural harbour. At 11.02 am, the atomic bomb, ‘Fat Man’ exploded at 1,800 feet above the city in order to achieve maximum destructive effect. Buildings collapsed, electrical systems were shorted and the city was enveloped in flames.

Energy released by the explosion of the type of atomic bomb used at Nagasaki was roughly equivalent to the power generated by exploding 40 million pounds of TNT, or the quantity that would fill two large cargo ships.

In the early stages of the explosion, temperatures of tens of millions of degrees were produced and emitted light that was around ten times the brightness of the sun. During the explosion, various types of radiation such as gamma rays and alpha and beta particles emanated from the explosion. These radioactive particles may last years or even centuries in those dangerous amounts, causing thousands of cases of radiation sickness in Japan. Firstly the blood of the victim was affected, and then the blood-making organs were impaired including the bone marrow, the spleen and the lymph nodes. Then finally, the organs of the body became necrotic within a few days, causing certain death within a very short period of time.

The total death toll of the two bombs was greater than two hundred thousand, almost all of whom were civilians. In addition to this being a ‘war-crime,’ although they are obviously not counted as a war-crime when ‘we,’ the ‘good guys’ commit them, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also an experiment to determine the differences in yield and effect between the two types of nuclear bomb which had been developed . . . the uranium 235 bomb dropped on Hiroshima versus the plutonium type dropped on Nagasaki. The deceptively-named US ‘Department of Energy,’ still lists the nuclear annihilation of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as ‘tests.’

Now facing what Truman called a ‘rain of ruin,’ Japan, like Germany before her, had to make a choice between unrestrained civilian genocide at Allied hands, or unconditional surrender and occupation. And so adopting the lesser of the two evils, Japan surrendered on 15th August 1945, henceforth to be known as ‘VJ Day.’

It should also be noted that General Macarthur felt that the atomic bombing was unnecessary, Macarthur later stated . . . “My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was already on the point of collapse and surrender.”

But for the banksters, the atomic bombings served a strategic purpose. The threat of nuclear war would, in the years to come, do much to terrify and then consolidate, the nations of the world into political, economic, and military alliances. The Global fear of ‘the bomb’ was very good business for the evil banksters.

American Concentration Camps 1945-47

We have been conditioned over the years to believe that during the Second World War the Germans and Japanese were the only ones capable of atrocities whilst ‘our boys’ were good, moral upstanding people who would never dream of committing immoral and repugnant acts or serious crimes against humanity and our ‘illustrious’ and heroic leaders especially, even more so. The problem with this view is that it does not stand up to even cursory scrutiny. The number of Germans, civilian and military, murdered, starved and tortured to death in the two-year period following VE day, far exceeded the worst excesses of Nazi brutality including the so-called ‘holocaust.’ War is horrific and the atrocities committed on both sides in every conflict are inexcusable but at the same time are inevitable consequences of the hatred engendered by propaganda from the banksters and their puppet politicians, fear of the enemy, and also the misguided desire for retribution.

Unfortunately, Germany’s defeat in May 1945 and the end of World War II in Europe did not bring an end to the death and suffering for the already vanquished German people. Instead the victorious Allies ushered in a terrible new era of destruction, looting, starvation, rape, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and mass killing.

A contemporary edition of Time magazine referred to this period as “ . . . history’s most terrifying peace.”

Even though this unknown ‘holocaust’ is ignored in our motion pictures, documentaries, literature and education and by our political leaders, the facts are nevertheless well established. Most historians are in basic agreement about the scale of this unspoken human catastrophe. For example, American historian Alfred de Zayas, along with other scholars, has established that in the years 1945 to 1950, more than 14 million Germans were expelled or forced to flee from large regions of eastern and central Europe, of whom more than four million were deliberately or negligently killed or otherwise lost their lives.

British historian Giles MacDonough details in his book, ‘After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation,’ how the ruined and prostrate German Reich (including Austria) was systematically raped and robbed and how many Germans who survived the war were either killed in cold-blood or deliberately left to die of disease, cold, malnutrition or starvation. He explains how some three million Germans died unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities — about two million civilians, mostly women, children and elderly and about one million prisoners of war.

Some may take the view that, given the (alleged) wartime record of the Nazis, some degree of vengeful violence against the defeated Germans was inevitable and perhaps justified. A common response to reports of Allied atrocities is to say that the Germans ‘deserved it’ but however valid or otherwise that argument may be, the appalling cruelties inflicted upon the totally helpless German people went far beyond any ‘understandable’ retribution.

It is also worth noting that they were not the only victims of post-war Allied brutality. Across central and eastern Europe, the brutality of Soviet suppression continued to take lives of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Ukrainians and many other nationalities in great numbers. As Soviet troops advanced into central and eastern Europe during the war’s final months, they imposed a reign of terror, pillage, rape and killing without comparison in modern history. The horrors were summarised thus;

“The disaster that befell this area with the entry of the Soviet forces has no parallel in modern European experience. There were considerable sections of it where, to judge by all existing evidence, scarcely a man, woman or child of the indigenous population was left alive after the initial passage of Soviet forces; and one cannot believe that they all succeeded in fleeing to the West . . . The Russians . . . swept the native population clean in a manner that had no parallel since the days of the Asiatic hordes.” George F. Kennan, historian and former US ambassador to the Soviet Union

In a report that appeared in August 1945 in the Washington DC Times-Herald, an American journalist wrote of what he described as “ . . . the state of terror in which women in Russian-occupied eastern Germany were living. All these women, Germans, Polish, Jewish and even Russian girls ‘freed’ from Nazi slave camps, were dominated by one desperate desire – to escape from the Red zone. In the district around our internment camp . . . Red soldiers during the first weeks of their occupation raped every woman and girl between the ages of 12 and 70. That sounds exaggerated, but it is the simple truth. The only exceptions were girls who managed to remain in hiding in the woods or who had the presence of mind to feign illness – typhoid, diphtheria or some other infectious disease . . . Husbands and fathers who attempted to protect their womenfolk were shot down and girls offering extreme resistance were murdered.”

In October 1945, a New York Daily News report from occupied Berlin told readers . . .

“In the windswept courtyard of the Stettiner Bahnhof, a cohort of German refugees, part of 12 to 19 million dispossessed in East Prussia and Silesia, sat in groups under a driving rain and told the story of their miserable pilgrimage, during which more than 25 percent died by the roadside and the remainder were so starved they scarcely had strength to walk.

A nurse from Stettin, a young, good-looking blonde, told how her father had been stabbed to death by Russian soldiers who, after raping her mother and sister, tried to break into her own room. She escaped and hid in a haystack with four other women for four days . . . On the train to Berlin she was raped once by Russian troops and twice by Poles. Women who resisted were shot dead, she said and on one occasion she saw a guard take an infant by the legs and crush its skull against a post because the child cried while the guard was raping its mother. An old peasant from Silesia said . . . victims were robbed of everything they had, even their shoes. Infants were robbed of their swaddling clothes so that they froze to death. All the healthy girls and women, even those 65 years of age, were raped in the train and then robbed, the peasant said.”

In November 1945 an item in the Chicago Tribune told readers . . .

“Nine hundred and nine men, women and children dragged themselves and their luggage from a Russian railway train at Lehrter station in Berlin today, after eleven days travelling in boxcars from Poland. Red Army soldiers lifted 91 corpses from the train, while relatives shrieked and sobbed as their bodies were piled in American lend-lease trucks and driven off for internment in a pit near a concentration camp. The refugee train was a like a macabre Noah’s ark. Every car was packed with Germans . . . the families carry all their earthly belongings in sacks, bags and tin trunks . . . Nursing infants suffer the most, as their mothers are unable to feed them and frequently go insane as they watch offspring slowly die before their eyes. Today four screaming, violently insane mothers were bound with rope to prevent them from clawing other passengers.”

Although most of the millions of German girls and women who were ravished by Allied soldiers, were raped by Red Army troops, Soviet soldiers were not the only perpetrators. During the French occupation of Stuttgart, a large city in southwest Germany, police records show that 1,198 women and eight men were raped, mostly by French troops from Morocco, although the prelate of the Lutheran Evangelical church estimated the number at 5,000.

During WWII, the United States, Britain and Germany all broadly complied with the international regulations on the treatment of prisoners of war, as required by the Geneva Convention of 1929 even though Germany did not formally recognise it. But at the end of the fighting in Europe, the US and British authorities unilaterally scrapped the Geneva Convention. In violation of solemn international obligations and Red Cross rules, the American and British authorities stripped millions of captured German soldiers of their status and their rights as prisoners of war by strategically reclassifying them in true Orwellian fashion as so-called ‘disarmed enemy forces’ or ‘surrendered enemy personnel.’

Accordingly, British and American authorities denied International Red Cross representatives access to camps holding German prisoners of war. Moreover, any attempt by German civilians to feed the prisoners was punishable by death. Many thousands of German POWs died in American custody, most infamously in the so-called ‘Rhine meadow camps,’ where prisoners were held under appalling conditions, with no shelter or sanitation and inadequate food.

Both during and after the war, the Allies extensively tortured German prisoners. In one British centre in England, ‘the London Cage,’ German prisoners were subjected to systematic ill-treatment, including starvation and beatings. The brutality continued for several years after the end of the war and treatment of German prisoners by the British was even harsher in the British occupation zone of Germany. At the US internment centre at Schwäbisch Hall in Southwest Germany, prisoners awaiting trial by American military courts were subjected to severe and systematic torture, including long stretches in solitary confinement, extremes of heat and cold, deprivation of sleep and food and severe beatings, including the crushing of testicles and kicks to the groin.

Most of the German prisoners of war who died in Allied captivity were held by the Soviets and a much higher proportion of German POWs died in Soviet custody than perished in British and American captivity. (For example, of the 90,000 Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned to their homeland.) Up to ten years after the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of German prisoners were still being held in the Soviet Union. Other German prisoners perished after the end of the war in Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries. In Yugoslavia alone, authorities of the Communist regime killed as many as 80,000 Germans. German prisoners toiled as slave labourers in other Allied countries, often for many years. There is no doubt in my mind that all these acts were a not-so-subtle attempt to ‘ethnically cleanse’ the German nation.

At the Yalta conference in early 1945, the Allied leaders had agreed that the Soviets could take Germans as forced labourers, or ‘slave labour,’ contrary to common human decency and morality. It is estimated that a further 874,000 German civilians were forcibly abducted to the Soviet Union. These were in addition to the millions of prisoners of war who were held by the Soviets as forced labourers. Of these so-called ‘reparations deportees,’ 45% perished.

For two years after the end of the fighting, the Germans were victims of a cruel and vindictive occupation policy, one that meant slow starvation of the defeated population. To sustain healthy life, a normal adult needs a minimum of about 1800 calories per day. But in March and February 1946, the daily intake per person in the British and American occupation zones of Germany was between one thousand and fifteen hundred calories.

In the winter of 1945-46, the Allies forbade anyone outside the country to send food parcels to the starving Germans. The Allied authorities also rejected requests by the International Red Cross to bring in provisions to alleviate the suffering.

Very few persons in Britain or the United States spoke out against the Allied policy. Victor Gollancz, an English-Jewish writer and publisher, toured the British occupation zone of northern Germany for six weeks in late 1946. He publicised the death and malnutrition he found there, which he said was a consequence of Allied policy. He wrote:

“The plain fact is . . . we are starving the Germans and we are starving them, not deliberately in the sense that we definitely want them to die, but wilfully, in the sense that we prefer their death to our own inconvenience.”

Another person who protested was Bertrand Russell, the noted philosopher and Nobel Prize recipient. In a letter published in a London newspaper in October 1945, he wrote:

“In Eastern Europe now, mass deportations are being carried-out by our allies on an unprecedented scale and an apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow and agonising starvation. This is not done as an act of war, but as a part of a deliberate policy of peace.”

As the war was ending in what is now the Czech Republic, hysterical mobs brutally assaulted ethnic Germans, members of a minority group whose ancestors had lived there for centuries. In Prague, German soldiers were rounded up, disarmed, tied to stakes, doused with petroleum, and set on fire as living torches. In some cities and towns, every German over the age of six was forced to wear on his clothing, sewn on his left breast, a large white circle six inches in diameter with the black letter N, which is the first letter of the Czech word for German. Germans were also banned from all parks, places of public entertainment and public transportation and not allowed to leave their homes after eight in the evening. Later all these people were expelled, along with the entire ethnic German population. In the Czech Republic alone, a quarter of a million ethnic Germans were killed.

In Poland, the so-called ‘Office of State Security,’ an agency of the country’s new Soviet-controlled government, imposed its own brutal form of ‘de-Nazification.’ Its agents raided German homes, rounding up some 200,000 men, women, children and infants, 99% of them non-combatant, innocent civilians. They were incarcerated in cellars, prisons, and 1,255 concentration camps where typhus was rampant and torture was commonplace. Between 60,000 and 80,000 Germans perished at the hands of the ‘Office of State Security.’

We are ceaselessly and unremittingly reminded, by the thousands of books and documentaries still being produced, of the Third Reich’s wartime concentration camps, but few are aware that such infamous camps as Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz were kept in operation after the end of the war, only now packed with German citizens, many of whom also perished miserably.

Justice, as opposed to vengeance, is a standard that is assumed to be applied impartially but in the aftermath of World War II, the victorious powers imposed standards of justice that applied only to the vanquished. The governments of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union and other member states of the so-called ‘United Nations,’ held Germans to a standard that they categorically refused to respect themselves.

Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-46, privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman, that the Allies “ . . . have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of German prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them for forced labour in France. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.”

Germans were executed or imprisoned for policies that the Allies themselves were carrying out, sometimes on a far greater scale. German military and political leaders were put to death on the basis of a hypocritical double standard, which meant that these executions were essentially acts of judicial murder dressed up with the trappings and forms of legality. If the standards of the Nuremberg Tribunal had been applied impartially, most American, Soviet and other Allied military and political leaders would also have been hanged.

An awareness of how the defeated Germans were treated by the victors helps in understanding why Germans continued to fight during the final months of the war with a determination, tenacity and willingness to sacrifice that has few parallels in history, even as their cities were being smashed into ruins under relentless bombing (Dresden for example,) and even as defeat against numerically superior enemy forces seemed inevitable.

But two years after the end of the war, American and British policy toward the defeated Germans began to change. The US and British governments began to treat the Germans as potential allies, rather than as vanquished enemy subjects and to appeal for their support. This shift in policy was not prompted by an awakening of humanitarian spirit. Instead, it was motivated by American and British fear of Soviet Russian expansion and by the realisation that the economic recovery of Europe as a whole required a prosperous and productive Germany.

Oswald Spenger, the German historian and philosopher, once observed that how a people learn history is via its form of political education. In every society, including our own, how people learn and understand history is determined by those who control political and cultural life, including the educational system and the mass media. How people understand the past and how they view the world and themselves as members of society, is set by the agenda of those who hold ultimate power, the Elite. This is the reason why, in our society, death and suffering during and after World War II of non-Jews, Poles, Russians and others, and especially Germans is all but ignored and why, instead, more than six decades after the end of the war, Jewish death and suffering above all, what is known as the ‘Holocaust™’ is given such prominent attention, year after year, in our classrooms, documentaries and motion pictures and by our manipulated and controlled political leaders.

The ‘unknown holocaust’ of non-Jews is essentially ignored, not because the facts are disputed or unknown, but rather because this reality does not fit well with the Zionist bankster, Judeo-centric view of history that is all but obligatory in our society; a view of the past that reflects the banksters’ Jewish-Zionist hold on our cultural and educational life.

This means that it is not enough simply to ‘establish the facts.’ It is important to understand, identify and counter the power that controls what we see, hear and read in our classrooms, our periodicals and in our motion pictures and which determines how we view history, our world and ourselves, not just the history of what is called the ‘Holocaust,’ but the history and background of World War II, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East turmoil and much, much more.

History, as the old saying goes, is written by the victors. In our society the victors, that is, the most important single group that sets our perspective on the past through its grip on the media, and on our cultural life, is the organised bankster community.

An awareness of ‘real history’ is in itself not enough. It is important to understand the ‘how and why’ of the systematic falsification of history in our society and the power behind that distortion. Understanding and countering that power is a critically important task, not merely for the sake of historical truth in the abstract, but for the sake of and the future wellbeing of all humankind.

The true facts regarding the events at the end of WWII, are never mentioned in either contemporary or present-day literature and are not taught in schools or memorialised in countless films and documentaries or even museums endlessly, unlike the so-called Jewish ‘holocaust.’ The question should be asked as to why this and many other similar events are conveniently air-brushed from history, whilst others are continually alluded to, dramatised and sensationalised.

According to the testimony of a former American GI, in late March or early April 1945 he was sent to guard a camp full of German military and civilian prisoners near Andernach on the River Rhine, one of the infamous ‘Rhine meadows’ camps. He had studied German in high school for four years and so was able to talk to the prisoners, although this was actually strictly forbidden. Eventually however, he was used as an interpreter and asked to try to discover those who had been members of the SS.

In Andernach about 50,000 prisoners of all ages were held in an open field surrounded by barbed wire. The women were kept in a separate enclosure. The men had no shelter and no blankets and most had no coats. They slept in the mud, wet and cold, with inadequate slit trenches for use as toilets. It was a cold, wet spring and their misery from exposure alone was evident.

Even more shocking was to see the prisoners throwing grass and weeds into a tin can containing a thin soup. They did this to help ease their hunger pains but they soon grew very emaciated. Dysentery was rife and soon they were sleeping in their own excrement, too weak and crowded to reach the slit trenches. Many were begging for food, sickening and dying before the eyes of their captors who had ample food and supplies, but did nothing to help them, even refusing them medical assistance.

Outraged, he protested to the officers and was met with hostility or bland indifference. When pressed, they explained they were under strict orders from ‘higher up.’ No officer would dare do this to 50,000 men if he felt that it was ‘out of line,’ leaving himself open to charges. Realising that his protestations were useless, he asked a friend working in the kitchen if he could smuggle out any extra food for the prisoners. He too said they were under strict orders to severely ration the prisoners’ food and that these orders came from ‘above.’ But he said they had more food than they knew what to do with and would see what he could do.

When he threw this food over the barbed wire to the prisoners, he was caught and threatened with imprisonment. After repeating the offence, one officer angrily threatened to shoot him but he assumed this was a bluff, until he encountered a captain on a hill above the camp shooting down at a group of German civilian women with his .45 calibre handgun.

When asked why, he mumbled ‘target practice’ and fired until his pistol was empty. The women ran for cover, but at that distance it was not possible to see if any had been hit. He soon realised he was dealing with cold-blooded killers filled with moralistic hatred that considered the Germans subhuman and worthy only of extermination.

These German prisoners were mostly farmers and working men, as simple and ignorant as many of the US troops. As time went by, more of them lapsed into a zombie-like state of listlessness, while others tried to escape in a demented or suicidal fashion, running through open fields in broad daylight towards the Rhine to quench their thirst. They were mowed down by machine gun fire.

On the 8th May 1945, VE Day, he decided to celebrate with some prisoners he was guarding who were baking the bread the other prisoners occasionally received. This group had all the bread they could eat and shared the jovial mood engendered by the cessation of hostilities. Everyone thought that they would be going home soon, which as it turned out was far from the truth. At this point in time however, they were in what was to become the French zone of occupation, where he soon would witness the brutality of the French soldiers when the prisoners were transferred to them for their slave labour camps. On this day, however, all were happy.

“ . . . it is hard to escape the conclusion that Dwight Eisenhower was a war criminal of epic proportions. His policy killed more Germans in peace than were killed in the European Theatre.” Peter Worthington, the ‘Ottawa Sun,’ 12th September 1989

‘So what’, some may say? The enemy’s atrocities were worse than ‘ours.’ It is true that he experienced only the end of the war, when the Allies were already the victors. The German opportunity for atrocities had ended, but two wrongs do not make a right. Rather than mimicking an enemy’s crimes, in some form of misguided revenge, should we not aim to break the cycle of hatred and vengeance that has always plagued and distorted human history? In any case it is well worth bearing in mind that the alleged atrocities of the Germans were hyped-up far beyond what was the actual truth. It is not my intention to claim that the Germans were not guilty of any atrocities whatsoever, but we must always apply the accurate maxim, ‘history is always written by the victor,’ in order to inject reality into any such claims.

We can reject government propaganda that depicts our enemies as subhuman and encourages the kind of outrages that the GI witnessed. We can protest the bombing of civilian targets, which still goes on today in places like Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya and we can refuse ever to condone our government’s murder and torture of unarmed and defeated prisoners of war and helpless civilians.

The abuses committed by the forces of the occupation in Germany reached such bestial extremes that various people in the Allied command structure opposed it, or tried to. Charles Lindbergh mentioned how the American soldiers burned the leftovers of their meals to keep them from being scavenged by the starving Germans who hung around the rubbish bins.

Lindbergh also wrote:

“In our homeland the public press publishes articles on how we ‘liberated’ the oppressed peoples. Here, our soldiers use the word ‘liberate’ to describe how they get their hands on loot. Everything they grab from a German house, everything they take off a German is ‘liberated’ in the lingo of our troops. Leica cameras are liberated, food, works of art, clothes are liberated. A soldier who rapes a German girl is ‘liberating’ her.

There are German children who gaze at us as we eat . . . our cursed regulations forbid us to give them anything to eat. I remember the soldier Barnes, who was arrested for having given a chocolate bar to a tattered little girl. It’s hard to look these children in the face. I feel ashamed. Ashamed of myself and my people as I eat and look at those children. How can we have gotten so inhumane?”

Colonel Charles Lindbergh was regarded as a national hero of the United States and was proposed as a candidate for the presidency of his country. He served in the USAF and was no Nazi or Nazi sympathiser, but simply recognised the injustices committed by man against his fellow man, supposed enemy or not.

The Nuremburg Trials

The Nuremberg Trials were created by the banksters in order to prosecute the German general-staff and thereby eliminate anyone in authority that was aware of the pact signed between the Zionists and Hitler in 1933. The end of the German resistance in WWII was only the end of the first stage of the political ploy by the Zionists to illegally found the new home for themselves inside Palestine.

That the trials were a fair and impartial hearing seems very unlikely. That the evidence used against the defendants was very dubious and obtained by even more dubious methods is however, very clear. An example of the techniques employed is described by the distinguished English historian, David Irving in his book, ‘Nuremberg: The Last Battle’ . . .

“Garnering usable documentary evidence became a mounting nightmare for Jackson [the chief prosecuting attorney.] He had become disenchanted with the productivity and intelligence of General Donovan’s OSS. They had promised much but delivered little. What Donovan regarded as evidence, he certainly would not. ‘I never had any feeling that anybody had trapped me into the thing,’ Jackson commented later. ‘But I was in the trap!’”

It soon became clear that the OSS (CIA) had intended all along to stage-manage the whole trial along the lines of a Soviet NKVD show-trial, with Jackson engaged as little more than a professional actor. As part of the stage-management they proposed to run a pre-trial propaganda campaign in the United States with ‘increasing emphasis on the publication of atrocity stories to keep the public in the proper frame of mind.’ To this end the OSS devised and scripted for the education of the American public a two-reel film on ‘war crimes,’ called ‘Crime and Punishment,’ it was designed to put the case against the leading Nazis. Jackson declined to participate. He refused even to read the speech that the OSS had scripted for him to read into the cameras. ‘As you know,’ he wrote to the OSS officer concerned, ‘the British are particularly sensitive about lawyers trying their cases in the newspapers and other vehicles of communication.’

The film proposal was followed by an explicit OSS suggestion for launching ‘black propaganda’ during the course of the trial, with agents in selected foreign countries starting rumours designed to influence public opinion in favour of the trial and against the defendants. This would be far more effective, they pointed out, than mounting a straightforward public relations campaign which would obviously be seen as emanating from the powers conducting the trials. One of Jackson’s staff secretly notified him that the suggestion was “ . . . fantastic, if not entirely dangerous,” and Jackson himself pencilled a pithy comment on the letter . . . “The scheme is cock-eyed. Give them no encouragement.”

Vestiges of the unsavoury methods of the OSS can still be seen among the earlier Nuremberg records. For instance, at the pre-trial interrogations the defendants were not accompanied by lawyers and were frequently persuaded by trickery or intimidation to subscribe to testimonies incriminating others which we now know to have been false. The files are full of obvious chicanery of various kinds, for example anonymous, typed extracts of documents instead of the originals and sworn statements by witnesses like Höss, commandant of Auschwitz, in which all the ‘witnesses to his signature’ have signed, but not Höss himself. Indeed it is well known that Höss’s confessions were all obtained by torture. The Americans also submitted as exhibit ‘1553-PS’ a file of invoices for substantial consignments of Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide pellets) supplied to the pest-control office at Auschwitz but they concealed the fact that the same file contained invoices for identical quantities of Zyklon B delivered to the camp at Oranienberg near Berlin, where it was never alleged there had been any ‘gas chambers.’

These examples are of course only a very brief overview of the innumerable deficiencies of the ‘evidence’ presented at Nuremberg. The overwhelming Zionist-Jewish presence behind the scenes as prosecutors, judges, interrogators, jailers and torturers is covered elsewhere in Irving’s excellent, but far from complete, study but the examination of techniques employed however, is more than sufficient to demonstrate that truth was never the objective of the orchestrators of the trial. The key point in evaluating Nuremberg is that all the evidence, real and faked at the trial, was evidence in pursuit of a pre-determined verdict. It was regarded desirable to demonstrate that the Germans were uniquely evil, that the Germans alone had waged aggressive, illegal war, that the Germans had committed great ‘crimes against humanity’ and that the greatest of these alleged crimes was the alleged, yet absolutely unprovable, systematic extermination of six million Jews. To reach these pre-determined verdicts, the court manipulated and distorted evidence on a massive scale. Therefore, any honest assessment of the German National Socialist government built on Nuremberg conclusions is inherently flawed. It is another supreme example of the art of writing history based on the propaganda of the victor.

The Summary

World War II was the product of the desire of the Zionist-banksters to achieve several goals . . .

The primary one was the elimination of Germany and especially Hitler, who openly opposed their plans for the financial and political conquest of the world and had desperately tried in vain to inform the world of the dangers posed by this murderous group. To this end, Hitler had severely clamped-down upon and restricted the Jewish Communist sympathisers within his own borders, who in return had cajoled and rallied world Jewry into the open declaration of war on Germany in March 1933, thereby instigating and subsequently escalating the conflict.

This was also a convenient basis for the justification, exacerbated by the alleged ‘holocaust,’ of the so-called, ‘Jewish homeland’ of Israel which had been promised more than twenty years earlier but which promise had remained unfulfilled. Subsequently the expropriation of Palestine for this cause, was completed in 1947 amongst much intrigue and further bloodshed, through the engendering of a huge outpouring of sympathy for ‘Jewish suffering.’

In addition, the vast, unimaginable profits generated for the bankster-military-industrial complex during the period 1939-45 at the expense of the lives of almost 75 million people, in the funding of both sides of the conflict, cannot be discounted as a key by-product.

As always, we are constantly drip-fed outright lies and propaganda about the causes of the war and even the individual elements of it are bent and distorted to fit the official story. I refer to such distortions as:

Germany attacked itself to generate an excuse to provoke the outbreak of the war.

German brutality and genocide was endemic but the Allies always played by the rules.

Hitler was hell-bent on conquering the world.

The Germans wished to totally eradicate the Jews from the face of the Earth.

The Japanese categorically refused to surrender and it was only the use of the atomic bombs that ended their resistance.

All these ‘facts’ and many more inaccuracies, have become embedded in our psyches as the absolute truth after decades of bombardment with them by the lapdogs of the bankster-controlled media in all its forms.

In truth, WWII was no different to all the other wars of the last five hundred years in that there was the same two-fold, underlying agenda. Firstly, the furtherance of the grand master plan, the great work of ages, and secondly to further concentrate even more wealth and power into the hands of the banksters.

The deployment of the atomic bombs upon the Japanese civilian population further served to enable the next phase of the master plan; the atomic arms race, leading to the almost half-century stand-off now known as the ‘cold war,’ designed to further subjugate and keep the world’s unsuspecting populace in a constant state of fear and trepidation.

The exact number of people killed or seriously injured over the course of the war will never be known for sure. Relatively good records were kept for the Allied and Axis servicemen, but civilian deaths and injuries were so widespread and so frequently unreported that they were nearly impossible to tabulate with any accuracy. Tens of thousands of people in all the major theatres remain missing and unaccounted-for to this day.

Germany lost an estimated 3.25 million military personnel plus an estimated further 4 million civilians, over the course of the war. Italy lost 300,000, and Japan, more than 1.5 million from 1937 to 1945.

And then, there is that certain, particular figure of ‘6 million’ Jews . . .

Chapter 11

World War Two – The (Final) Solution

Of all that you have been presented with so far, all the death and suffering from all the wars and strife that the banksters have caused and from which they greatly profited, a less well-known, but almost equally insidious tactic has been the using of Jewish people in promoting the evil bankster agenda known as Zionism.

The plight of the so-called ‘6,000,000’ Jews in Germany’s concentration camps, has become the very cornerstone of the Zionists’ cause, enabling them to continually get away with even more mass murders and despicable crimes. And all the while, the sacred figure of 6,000,000 has become a perverted symbol of human suffering, to be exploited and used to silence any criticism of those that oppose the actions of the Zionists’ bankster masters.

The obsessive invocation of the ‘6,000,000 dead or dying Jews,’ dates back at least four decades prior to the events of WWII, and directly undermines and betrays the notion that 6,000,000 Jews perished in Europe between 1939-1945, as the Zionists have claimed. It was a lie the first time around and indeed all the subsequent times it was used, and is still a lie today.

The entire world, for decades, has been inundated and inculcated with an endless onslaught of holocaust-themed Hollywood movies, television shows, ‘docudramas,’ books and memoirs, in conjunction with the mandatory ‘holocaust education’ in schools across North America and Europe. The primary function of this insidious global propaganda campaign is to quite simply, brainwash the world into a state of complete, ‘sympathetic’ paralysis whilst we are ideologically, economically and physically enslaved by the bankster-Zionists. The campaign is also designed to de-legitimise all criticism of Jews and the Zionist State of Israel and to ensnare non-Jews into adopting a pro-Jewish, pro-Zionist worldview. With their hateful, holocaust lies, Zionist myth-makers are systematically indoctrinating all school children to hate all Germans, and European whites for their appalling treatment of the Jews during WWII.

Unfortunately, these children, (and indeed their brainwashed teachers) not knowing any better and unable to think for themselves, blindly believe this deliberate falsification of history and never question what they have been told when they become adults, by which time it is often impossible to undo the effects. The indoctrination of our children with Zionist ‘holocaust’ fiction is permanently damaging the minds of young people. Force-feeding young children and teenagers, distortions and outright falsehoods about World War II, so that they sympathise with treacherous Zionist causes such as Zionism and Communism, is immoral, destructive, harmful and abhorrent as well as criminal.

I assume that like me, when this information first came to my notice, that your mind is now absolutely rejecting this entire premise as either utterly impossible, deluded garbage or the views of some crazy, ‘neo-Nazi apologist?’ If so, I do not blame you at all, it is extremely difficult and traumatic to dispense with our learned ‘norms,’ without a struggle, but please remember the expression from the very beginning of this book . . . ‘Cognitive Dissonance.’ If you have never been confronted with this concept before, then actually believing that the whole scenario is a complete invention, is an extremely difficult task. I urge you to strongly resist the temptation to throw this book into the garbage and labelling me as an inhuman monster of some kind, and read on . . .

A pertinent question that you might ask is, ‘ . . . what is the significance of the ‘six million’ figure and where did it originate?’

The totally mythical ‘six million™’ figure has intriguing origins indeed. Jews have staunchly emphasised the 6,000,000 figure in atrocity propaganda from 1890 through to the present day. World War II ended in 1945, and since that time the apocryphal 6,000,000 figure has now reached sacrosanct status. This has been achieved through a sleazy and deceptive campaign of repetitive propaganda in the news and entertainment media, centred in Zionist Hollywood. As the Jewish-Communist, mass murderer, Vladimir Lenin, once said . . . “ . . . a lie told often enough becomes the truth.” This campaign of Zionist deceit has steadily intensified over the years.

World leaders, Presidents, Prime Ministers, ceremonial Kings and Queens, Popes, Priests and Holy Men of all faiths, genuflect in grovelling reverence to the myth of the six million, who certainly did not perish in ‘Nazi gas chambers,’ as such entities did not exist and are easily provably to have been an impossibility.

Research has shown that the reason for this bizarre Jewish fixation on the number 6,000,000 primarily stems from an ancient religious prophecy in the Torah, the Jewish holy book. Within its pages, the prophecy clearly states that before the Jewish homeland called ‘Israel,’ can be established, 6,000,000 Jews would first have to perish in a fiery burnt offering, i.e. the ‘Holocaust,’ as a sacrifice to their bloodthirsty tribal deity, YHWH (Yahweh – or God.)

Jewish prophecies in the Torah require that six million Jews must ‘vanish,’ before the state of Israel can be created. “You shall return minus six million,” it states and this is the reason that Tom Segev, an Israeli historian, declared that the ‘six million’ is an attempt to transform the Holocaust story into the official state religion. Those six million, according to prophecy, had to disappear in “burning ovens,” which the judicial version of the Holocaust now authenticates. As a matter of fact, Robert B. Goldmann writes, “ . . . without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish State.” But as history has now been ‘adjusted’ to claim that six million Jews were gassed in WWII and ended-up in the ‘burning ovens’ then the prophecies have now been ‘fulfilled’ and Israel can therefore be regarded as a ‘legitimate state.’ In addition, the American Zionist leader, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, accidently let it slip that the Zionist agenda behind the holocaust fabrication was to promote public sympathy for Zionism (the Jewish takeover of Palestine.)

It is also noteworthy that the authors of the vast majority of the following propaganda articles were the richest of Wall Street’s Jewish banksters as well as leaders of Zionist pressure groups . . .

1902. Under its entry on ‘anti-Semitism,’ the tenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to ‘six million Jews’ of Rumania and Russia being ‘systematically degraded.’

1905. A Jewish preacher declared that if the (Jewish-led) Communist uprising in Russia succeeded in its long-time goal of overthrowing the Tsarist government, Zionism would be obsolete. The figure of ‘six million Jews’ is also mentioned.

1906. A Jewish publicist addressed an audience in Germany where he claimed that the Russian Government had a ‘solution to the Jewish Question’ and that this solution entailed the ‘murderous extermination’ of ‘six million Jews.’ Of course, the Russians never had any such plans.

1910. In the American Jewish Committee’s annual report it was claimed that since 1890 Russia has had a policy to ‘expel or exterminate ‘six million Jews.’ Source, the American Jewish Yearbook pg. 15

1911. Max Nordau, co-founder of the World Zionist Organization together with Theodore Herzl, made an astonishing pronouncement at the tenth Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland. He claimed that ‘six million Jews would be annihilated.’ This was twenty-two years before Hitler came to power and three years before World War I began.

1915. The Jewish leader, Louis Marshall proclaimed . . . “In the world today there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than six million are in the heart of the war zone: Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are subjected to every manner of suffering and sorrow . . . ”

1919. Shortly after the end of World War I, Zionists claimed a ‘holocaust’ of ‘six million Jews’ is imminent in Europe in a deceitful campaign to raise money for Jewish charities and also to distract public attention from the Jewish origins of Communism, the Bolshevik atrocities in Russia and the Armenian Genocide.

1921. Russian patriots gained ground on the Jewish-Bolshevik usurpers of their nation. In a vain attempt to hide their heavy involvement in the brutal Bolshevist atrocities being committed in Russia, Jews reeled-off the ‘six million’ myth once again.

1922. The Zionist leader, Nahum Sokolow, boasted about organised Jewry’s globalist ambitions when, at a Zionist conference in Carlsbad, California, he proclaimed . . . “The League of Nations is a Jewish idea, and Jerusalem someday, will become the capital of the world’s peace.”

1931. Zionist-Bolshevik Jews demand that Gentiles hand over their food to the poor, innocent, starving ‘six million Jews’ whilst they simultaneously murder millions of Christians, and ship millions more off to Gulag slave camps in Communist Zionist-controlled Russia.

1936. Zionists who originally coined the phrase ‘Final Solution of The Jewish Question,’ somehow already knew that exactly 6,000,000 Jews had “neither hope nor future.”

1940. Jewish leader Nahum Goldmann, predicted “six million” Jewish victims before Nazi concentration camps had even been constructed.

1944. In September, eight months before the end of WWII, US Communist-Jewish Union leaders proclaimed that . . . “ . . . nearly ‘six million Jews have been killed,” long before that could have been known or calculated. And at least three newspapers printed stories informing their readership of the deaths of “six million Jews.” All of these propaganda articles were based on the lies of Ilya Ehrenburg, a Jewish propagandist in the USSR.

1945. In January, still many months prior to the end of the war, before any official body-counts for any group could have reasonably been calculated or ascertained, the Zionist, Ilya Ehrenburg, a notorious Jewish propagandist in the USSR who agitated for genocide against Germans and incited the mass-rape of German women by the Red Army, prematurely proclaimed that . . . “ . . . the world now knows that Germany has killed six million Jews,” before anyone could have known that was the number (even had it been remotely true.)

So could it possibly be just ‘coincidental’ that the flimsy and farcical story of ‘six million Jews’ being murdered in gas chambers and burned in ‘ovens,’ gave the Zionists the impetus and PR ammunition they needed to make their return to the ‘promised land’ at the end of the war and establish the racist/apartheid ‘Jewish state’ of ‘Israel’ in 1948? And this all just happens to fit the previously cited ancient Torah prophecy to the letter? Not yet convinced? Please do not write it all off as an unconvincing fantasy at this point, I am not even out of the proverbial ‘starting blocks’ yet.

Zionism is a major strand of the Elite control structure imposed upon this entire planet. It is an undeniable fact that most large organisations are controlled and run by the Zionist banksters, primarily Jews. Zionist Jews have an almost absolute monopoly in the media in all its forms and also in the entertainment industry, from Hollywood to the major recording labels etc. as well as finance and banking.

“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, 3rd October 2001.

“You know very well and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they [Americans] do to us? We control Congress, we control the media, we control showbiz and we control everything in America. In America you can criticise God, but you can’t criticise Israel . . . ” Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache.

“These are the facts of Jewish media control in America. Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy. I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least. Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mould our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests. Interests, which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people. By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.” Pakalert Press, 2011.

“In off-the-record comment to journalists, embassy spokeswoman Adi Farjon, said that Israel had no interest in full normalization of relations with Germany. A spokeswoman for the Israeli embassy in Berlin recently told Israeli journalists it was in the country’s interest to maintain German guilt about the Holocaust, and that it isn’t seeking full normalization of relations between the governments. Embassy spokeswoman Adi Farjon made the comments in a closed briefing session with journalists at the embassy. ‘We were all in shock,’ said a female journalist present at the briefing. ‘The spokeswoman clearly said it was in Israeli interests to maintain German guilt feelings. She even said that without them, we’d be just another country as far as they’re concerned.’ Others present at the event confirmed the journalist’s account. Some added that the Israeli ambassador himself, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman, was present for some of the briefing, as were other embassy workers who don’t speak Hebrew. Another journalist commented, ‘It was so awkward. We couldn’t believe our ears. We’re sitting there eating peanuts, and behind the spokeswoman there are two German women sitting there who don’t understand a word of Hebrew – and the embassy staff is telling us they’re working to preserve the German guilt feelings and that Israel has no interest in normalization of relations between the two countries.’ The Israeli foreign ministry denied the allegations and said the diplomats were falsely accused of saying these things. This year is a special one for the German and Israeli governments, with Berlin and Jerusalem marking 50 years since the start of diplomatic relations between the two countries. German support for Israel also appears to be at an all-time high – particularly in light of Israel’s ongoing battles with the European Union over labelling of products from West Bank settlements and its troubled diplomatic standing in the world.” davidduke.com, October 2015

“Goebbels was somewhat of a prophet pariah, he understood organized Jewry like few Americans do today, he understood that their collective calls of anti-Semitism directed at the Nazi leadership and indeed the German people themselves was a technique they had successfully used, even perfected, in order to advance their interests while at the same time suppressing any dissent from the gentile majority. We see this same technique at work today, all around the world, anytime anyone honestly divulges the actions of a Jew in some crime; they are immediately smeared with the label of ‘anti-Semitism.’” Curt Maynard, researcher.

This ‘label’ of ‘anti-Semitism’ is actually utterly meaningless, yet it has been hijacked by a small group of people to inhibit you (and indeed everyone) from criticising their actions. To fully comprehend this point, it is firstly necessary for me to define three commonly misunderstood or even possibly unfamiliar terms.

Judaism – The Jewish religion. Jews can be split into two distinct main sub-groups, Ashkenazi (Khazarian) Jews who comprise by far the majority (over 90%) and Sephardic Jews. These two sub-groups are racially as different as chalk and cheese and so, despite what you may believe or more accurately have been urged to believe; Judaism is a ‘religion’ and not a ‘race.’ In fact many people of Jewish background and parentage are not even religious and so their being described as ‘Jews’ is actually erroneous.

Zionism – a political movement that was originally established to lobby for a Jewish homeland and now exists to promote the superiority of Israel above all other countries, with the ultimate goal of a one-world government based in Tel Aviv. Zionism is comprised primarily of Jewish people, but many non-Jews are Zionists and indeed many Jews are anti-Zionist.

Semitism – Not the state of being Jewish as is generally believed and promoted by Zionism for its own ends but simply the racial group to which inhabitants of a small area of the Middle East belong. Semites may be Sephardic Jews or they may be Arabs, there is no racial difference between the two. However Ashkenazi Jews, despite their loud and raucous protestations to the contrary are definitely not Semitic.

“ . . . it is important that you understand what Zionism really is. Zionist propaganda has led the American people to believe that Zionism and Judaism are one and the same and that they are religious in nature. This is a blatant lie.” Jack Bernstein, assassinated by the Mossad (the Israeli Secret Service.)

“The meaning of the term ‘anti-Semite’ has significantly changed in recent years. There was a time when this term referred to those who despised Jews. Later, the term referred to those who promoted myths about a global Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Today the term ‘anti-Semite’ is used by the ruling elite to lambast human rights activists who advocate equal rights between Jews, Christians and Muslims, the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the vision of a common, democratic state for both Palestinians and Israelis. The word ‘anti-Semite,’ which initially conveyed a negative and even sinister meaning, refers now to positive and highly commendable attitudes that can be carried with honour. One may lament this change of meaning, but one should remember that a word does not carry any particular meaning. It is merely a conventional symbol that refers to external contents. By convention, society could agree to name animosity towards Jews ‘xakaculca’, democracy ‘zbzb’ and elephants ‘democracy.’ Inasmuch as the term ‘anti-Semite’ now refers to human rights advocates and radical democrats, I declare myself a radical anti-Semite.” Elias Davidsson, June 2011.

“Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.” Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism in the 19th century.

It is important here to make the point that Zionists are not the friends of the Jews in any way despite what many Jews believe. Jews worldwide have been and continue to be used, often unknowingly in the Zionists plotting and scheming for world domination.

Ashkenazi Jews originated from the plains of South-Eastern Europe / Western Asia and were originally a large nomadic tribe, the Khazars, who inhabited these regions in the Dark and early Middle Ages. They converted en-masse to Judaism, not through faith but simply in order to bring respectability to their previously god-less reputations when integration with other societies became necessary, more than a thousand years ago. This was the group of ‘Jews’ who were discriminated against for centuries and expelled from many European nations for their usury, anti-social practices and their own discriminatory practices against non-Jews. I repeat that these people had no racial or genetic ties to the ‘Holy Land’ whatsoever and so the oft-repeated cries for a Jewish state in their ancestral ‘homeland’ in the early to mid-twentieth century, was simply Zionist propaganda and deception. Sephardic Jews however, are native to the Holy Land or Palestine and were the original ‘biblical Jews.’

So, in effect the Zionists have deliberately blurred the boundaries, between race, religion and politics to prevent criticism of their actions. They have hi-jacked the term ‘anti-Semitism,’ strictly speaking an accusation of racism and managed over time to associate this with discrimination against Jews in general by deceitful social engineering, whilst also turning the distinction between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’ into a grey area, to the same effect. How have they achieved this? Their almost total control of banking, industry, media and the entertainment industries makes this task fairly straightforward via their vast propaganda machine. Many Hollywood movies subtly promote the superiority of the Jews and the weakness and immorality of non-Jews. Anyone who criticises or stands up to them in any way is subtly and sometimes unfortunately, not so subtly, destroyed. At the very least their detractors are accused of being, (shock-horror,) ‘anti-Semitic’ with all the attendant stigma this terminology carries. Anti-Semitism is closely related and linked to Nazism in the minds of most people today. The immense power of propaganda, social engineering and mind control should be underestimated only at one’s peril.

“We must distinguish between political and racial anti-Semitism. It’s obvious that organized Jewry has a political program synonymous with the Rothschild satanic world government agenda.” Henry Makow, Jewish-born researcher and author of ‘A Cruel Hoax.’

Think about this for a moment. Political criticism is valid today (at least for now anyway) whilst racial criticism (racism) is totally frowned upon and even legislated against. In making their cause a racial rather than a political one by rendering the two distinctly separate terms ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’ interchangeable, they have succeeded in duping the world and protecting their own insidious views and actions from any form of censure on pain of being branded by them as an anti-Semite and therefore by implication, a ‘Nazi sympathiser.’

Personally speaking, I am not anti-Semitic (or anti-Jewish, to be clear.) Jews have been duped and suffered at the hands of these wolves in sheep’s clothing more than any other group and in many ways still are. I believe strongly in the freedom of all to do as they choose as long as it harms no-one, but I am definitely anti-Zionist politically, as their actions and beliefs are calculated to cause maximum harm to those who do not share their insidious views and visions for the world. However, the views expounded herein will no doubt have me labelled as anti-Semitic by the Zionist attack-dogs. If anti-Semitism did not exist, the Zionists would have to invent it. Actually, they already have done so.

Of course there are anti-Jewish people in the world (anti-Semites if you will?) To deny that fact would be ridiculous. But there are also anti-British, anti-American, anti-Muslim and anti-almost-anything-you-can-name elements abounding throughout the world today, too. However, in my view it is highly significant that to be ‘anti-anything-else,’ does not carry the same stigma as being ‘anti-Semitic.’ This has been successfully inured into our culture to become a heinous act far more serious than any other form of prejudice, primarily thanks to the impact of Holocaust propaganda.

But the Zionists are not content with merely labelling you or I as a ‘Nazi’ for any criticism, overt or implied, of their actions and policies. No, by using their enormous influence over western societies and governments alike it has now actually become illegal not just to deny that the holocaust of WWII took place but to even question their sacred number of 6 million dead. Yes you did read that correctly, it is illegal in many countries in the Zionist-bankster-controlled EU where communitarian European law now trumps that of each individual nation. It is also illegal in Canada, Australia and New Zealand (amongst other places) to merely question the myths and legends of the holocaust on pain of a mandatory prison sentence. Although you could not actually be prosecuted in the UK or the US, yet, for the thought-crime of holocaust denial, a UK citizen can certainly be extradited to Germany to face charges even if the ‘offence’ was committed for example, in England.

Please now think a moment on this extremely important point . . . Why does the truth need to be protected by law? If something, anything is the truth then it is surely a simple matter to prove it, is it not? If this is not the case, then the question needs to be asked why this course of action is not taken rather than passing laws to protect a point of view.

Is it illegal to question or criticise any aspect of Christianity or Muslim culture? Is it illegal to stand in the streets and state that that Christianity is just a made-up fantasy? Is it illegal to question the numbers of American dead in Vietnam or the numbers of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan or even the victims of 9/11 for example? Is it actually specifically illegal to simply question anything else at all? You may well be unjustly criticised by your masters and even your peers for having the sheer audacity to question Government-approved figures, but illegal? The spirit of ‘1984’ and the ‘thought-police’ is alive and well.

“You can tell if something’s the truth or not by this one criterion. If they pass a law that says you have to believe a certain story in a certain way, you can be certain that that certain story they’re trying to get you to believe is a lie.” John Kaminski, researcher, ‘A Certain Truth,’ 28th January 2011.

“What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?” John Swinton, editor New York Times, 1863.

“What they did with their holocaust laws was to make the questioning of their version of what happened during ‘the war’ sacrosanct and undeniable. What this means is that it doesn’t matter how many irrefutable facts you may have, the law says you can’t question, period. This fact escapes many people. You are not allowed to mount a defence and it is inadmissible in any and all cases.” Les Visible, researcher, April 2011.

Stifling open discussion and debate on the ‘holocaust’ also does a gross injustice to the other, many non-Jewish victims of the concentration camps; the Romany people, black people, Polish and Russian soldiers and citizens, Jehovah’s Witnesses, assorted political prisoners, homosexuals and the mentally and physically disabled. Ask yourself why the Jews are the sole recipients of all the outpourings of sympathy and none of the other groups?

The real threat to the Zionists posed by ‘deniers’ is that others might be influenced to undertake further in-depth study and thereby uncover embarrassing facts that would refute Israel’s ‘victim’ status. This would threaten Israel’s moral legitimacy to exist, currently underpinned by the world’s supposed, collective shame for ‘looking the other way,’ while six million Jews were murdered in cold blood. It is highly significant that all it takes to invoke that shame is the term ‘anti-Semite,’ either stated or implied.

The previously well-respected British historian, David Irving was first labelled a Neo-Nazi and then jailed for 3 years in the last decade for daring to question ‘official’ holocaust dogma – all at the behest of the bankster-Zionist thought-police through their corrupt and controlled legal and courts systems. In fact, most such ‘revisionist’ historians are of the opinion that Irving does not go far enough with his questions regarding the validity of the Zionist’s claims. Irving merely publicly queried the six million number, not the event itself.

“If the Holocaust undoubtedly occurred as alleged, then why are laws needed to support said allegations? Why not simply confront deniers with facts instead? Recent court cases in Germany have shown that judges are unwilling (unable?) to present facts; they hide behind ‘Offenkundigkeit’ (obviousness). Their claim: The Holocaust obviously happened, so there’s no need to substantiate it any further. In any other legal trial, ‘obviousness’ would not stand up in court; the defendant is always allowed to present his/her evidence. One has to also wonder why, if all is ‘obvious,’ this book had to be written? If the Holocaust has been investigated and evidence exists proving without any doubt that mass murder was committed, then why not present this evidence — why the laws?” Inconvenient History, 18th February, 2011

On 13th May 1988 the respected historian, Professor Ernst Zündel was sentenced by Judge Ronald Thomas of the District Court of Ontario, in Toronto, to nine months in prison for having distributed a revisionist booklet entitled, ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’

“No-one in the USA was more knowledgeable about the functioning of [penitentiary] gas chambers than Fred A. Leuchter, an engineer from Boston. I went to visit Leuchter on February 3 and 4, 1988 and found that he had never asked himself any questions about the ‘gas chambers’ in the German camps. He had simply believed in their existence. After I began to show him my files, he became aware of the chemical and physical impossibility of the German ‘gassings’ and he agreed to examine our documents in Toronto.

After that, at Zündel’s expense, he left for Poland with a secretary (his wife), a draftsman, a video-cameraman and an interpreter. He came back and drew up a 192-page report (including appendices). He also brought back 32 samples taken, on the one hand, from the crematories of Auschwitz and Birkenau at the site of the homicidal ‘gassings’ and, on the other hand, in a disinfection gas chamber at Birkenau. His conclusion was simple: there had never been any homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek.” Robert Faurisson, historian

“After reviewing all of the material and inspecting all of the sites at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, your author finds the evidence as overwhelming. There were no execution gas chambers at any of these locations. It is the best engineering opinion of this author that the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have then been, or now, be utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.” Fred Leuchter 1988, p.33; Leuchter et al 2005, p.57

Dr. Fredrick Töben, an Australian scholar and educator, was taken into custody in Mannheim, Germany on 8th April 1999 and detained without bail, for having disputed holocaust extermination allegations. Töben is a leading holocaust revisionist writer and publicist in Australia, where he founded and directed the Adelaide Institute, a prominent revisionist research and publishing centre.

At the conclusion of his three-day trial on 10th November 1999, a Mannheim district court found Töben guilty on charges of incitement to racial hatred, insulting the memory of the dead and public denial of genocide, because he had disputed holocaust extermination claims in writings sent to persons in Germany. Presiding Judge Klaus Kern said that there is no doubt that Töben is guilty of ‘denying the holocaust’ and that because there is no sign that he would relent his views and activities, a prison sentence was required. The court then sentenced him to ten months imprisonment.

Taking into consideration the seven months he had already served in custody, Judge Kern ruled that Töben could be released on payment of a fine of DM6000 (about US$3500 or £2200) in lieu of the three months remaining of his prison sentence. German sympathisers raised this money and he was freed within 24 hours of the verdict.

A really disturbing neo-Orwellian by-product of Töben’s imprisonment was that his defence lawyer was also indicted for the same ‘offence’ merely for having the audacity to attempt to defend him. So, to be clear, apparently not only is it a crime to merely question the supposed ‘truth’ and put forward an opposing viewpoint, it is also by implication now a crime to attempt to legally defend someone who has committed this so-called crime. Would we condemn the legal defender of a murderer or other criminal in this way as being complicit in their crimes? Absolutely not. Truly outrageous, I am sure you will agree.

How can a political opinion, especially when backed by factual evidence be treated as a crime in the civilised society in which we are supposed to live? Sadly, the answer is that we do not live in a civilised society any longer, if indeed we ever have done so. We exist in a quasi-police state, governed by dupes and shills whose sole aims are to fulfil the whims and orders of their bankster masters whilst totally subjugating its own citizens and eliminating all forms of dissent in any way deemed necessary either within or if necessary, outside the laws of the land. Even if all these ‘dissenters’ are genuinely mistaken, after rationally considering all the evidence, surely prison is not the answer to so-called ‘thought-crimes’ and differences of opinion.

Step by step, this is how we are being slowly but surely condemned ultimately to a life of slavery under the banksters’ agenda. Amazing is it not how the people who dare to question or speak out against their blatant lies, deceptions, statements, proclamations and motives have somehow become the ‘Nazis,’ the ‘terrorists’ or whatever other label they wish to pin on them, thus enabling the guilt to be deflected from themselves onto their detractors and by so doing give them an inside track through to their ultimate goals, virtually unchallenged? I would suggest that the holocaust, playing the role it was originally designed to play, has been another major leap down the route of fulfilling their sadistic agenda.

However, for the biggest ‘shock to the system’ and de-bunk of all the propaganda and lies disseminated by the Zionists, it is necessary to backtrack a little once again, to the mid-1930s.

The simple truth is that the Zionists in their quest to set-up a Jewish homeland in Palestine were funded covertly by the Nazis. Yes, you did read that correctly. Captured SS records after the war documented an agreement between the SS and the Haganah, the forerunner of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF.) Under this arrangement the Haganah was permitted to run training camps for Jewish youths inside Germany. These young people, as well as many other Jews were financially encouraged to immigrate to Palestine.

Haganah, in return, agreed to provide the SS with intelligence about British activities in Palestine. Captured German records claimed that Haganah’s view was that by wild exaggeration of the Nazi persecution of the Jews, this could be turned to Zionist advantage, at least temporarily, by compelling Jewish immigration to Palestine and that the Haganah commander’s sole source of income was by way of secret funds from the SS. Thus, German brutality against and repression of the Jews was openly encouraged and embraced by Zionists.

It is also known that the Nazi regime actually offered all of Europe’s Jews to the Zionist leadership, unharmed on condition that they were re-settled somewhere outside Europe. For instance, Madagascar was proposed at one stage but this was turned down out of hand by the Zionists on the basis that six million dead Jews would be more likely to fulfil their twisted agenda than several million merely displaced ones.

European Jews were in fact betrayed by the Zionist leadership. Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to victimise and expel Jews and conspired to manipulate the facts of the holocaust in order to strengthen the case for a Jewish homeland through sympathy for ‘Jewish suffering.’ Furthermore, Zionists in effect were responsible for the creation of Hitler as a ‘bogeyman’ to fulfil the role of the persecutor of the Jews, simply in order to build up a strong case for a Jewish homeland.

The vast majority of German Jews vehemently rejected Zionism as an enemy from within as they saw themselves as Germans, first and foremost. 80,000 German Jews had fought in the trenches of WWI and 12,000 died. “Nowhere was the opposition of Jews to Zionism so widespread, principled and fierce as in Germany.” a Zionist historian wrote.

In order to manipulate Jews into leaving for Palestine, Germans had to be painted with a racist nationalist ideology just like Zionism and in fact, Julius Streicher and other Nazis admitted that their ‘Master Race’ ideology was modelled on Zionism. Through their bogus, contrived ‘conflict,’ Zionism and Nazism were subsequently able to advance the banksters’ goal of establishing a private army, secret service and nuclear arsenal in Israel.

Past Jewish suffering at the hands of these Elite-controlled Zionists, exhibits parallels with today. Their leadership was usurped by Freemasons (ie. Zionism is a Masonic order) bent on sacrificing them to advance the banksters’ grand plan and now we are all in the same situation. The banksters today are using debt to disinherit and enslave us. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Sarkozy et al, are all 33rd degree Freemasons who agreed to assume trillions of dollars of ‘debt’ on behalf of us all, from the Zionist-masonic banksters who are in reality all working towards the same ends.

If our so-called leaders represented the interests of the ordinary people, they would let the banks fail as they did in Iceland and default on all the debt created by banksters out of ‘thin air.’ This is a warning to us all and we will continue to be permanently enslaved (and much worse) as long as we continue to elect and accept leaders who are 100% in league with the Elite-Zionists.

The Holocaust – the real truth

As long as most of us can remember, we have had this almost sacred figure of six million dead Jews constantly force-fed to us until it has become indelibly imprinted in our psyche and woven deeply within the very fabric of our culture to such an extent that it has become unthinkable that it may be a fabrication.

“The Western World has been inundated with Holocaust documentaries, Holocaust movies, Holocaust museums, Holocaust books, and Holocaust curriculums. The aim? To immunise Jewry and Israel from valid criticism and most conveniently, to obscure the Allied war crimes perpetrated against millions of German civilians. Perhaps the ‘Holocaust fatigue’ now infecting German youth will create a thirst for what REALLY happened during World War II and an appreciation of their own, factually-substantiated, Holocaust. And that, ironically to say, will be a very ‘inconvenient’ history lesson for world Jewry.” Nathanael Kapner, October 2011.

The six million figure is quite easily proven as false and this is not just mere supposition or statistical juggling on my part. Consider this for a moment . . .

In the 1950s, a plaque was placed at the entrance to the so-called ‘death camp’ at Auschwitz. Firstly, it categorically stated that 4.1 million Jews died there. Then some time later it was surreptitiously replaced with one denoting a figure of 2.6 million. Now, the plaque has been changed again to claim that ‘about 1.5 million, mainly Jews’ died in Auschwitz and discussions are already being mooted to decide whether or not this figure should be further lowered to around 700,000. Is it not strange indeed then that these reductions never seem to be deducted from the sacrosanct six million total still quoted and treated as indisputable today? Meticulously administered, independently audited Red Cross figures after the war had ended, stated that around 280,000 European Jews actually perished from all causes including ‘old age’ during the war whilst noting the fact that the Jewish population of Europe actually increased by around half a million between 1939 and 1945. How strange. However in the mid-1990s the Red Cross, of course by this time now totally infiltrated and controlled by the Zionists anyway, ‘apologised’ for this previous statement.

My research has led me to conclude that approximately 65-75 million people in total, lost their lives in WWII, so it seems incredibly strange to me that we are meant to honour and laud one tiny percentage of that figure and ignore the other 60 or 70 million that died the most futile of deaths in a war waged to secure a Jewish homeland amongst other reasons. Perhaps all those other people’s lives were not as important? Yes, that must be the reason.

For more than seven decades now, the world has been held under political blackmail with the story of the slaughter of millions of Jews in the gas chambers of the Third Reich and this has received the full treatment of the Zionist propaganda machine, primarily via Hollywood and the media, which still continues to this day in the form of the seemingly endless and innumerable ‘holocaust’ and WWII movies and documentaries emphasising the suffering of the ‘six million’ and the brutality of the Germans, still being relentlessly churned-out. Apparently, there are around one million Jewish survivors of the death camps still living today 70+ years after the event and still claiming reparations payments from Germany whilst Germany’s own Zionist leadership happily continues to fund them.

From whence did all these ‘millions’ originate when it is known for certain and recorded by several independent and impartial sources that there were only 500,000 Jews in Germany prior to the war and only approximately two million in total in the countries bordering Germany?

As related already, this was not the first time that similar ‘holocaust’ stories had been propagated by these people. There are literally dozens of other examples. In the Talmud (a Jewish holy book,) Gittin 57b claims that four million Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 57b also claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. Thirdly and more recently, the precise figure of six million saw light of day for the first time shortly after WWI. “Six million [Jewish] men and women are dying” in the Ukraine, announced The American Hebrew periodical on the 31st October 1919, the very same claim that the Zionists made twenty-odd years later. It would appear that the tendency for extreme exaggeration, if not downright lies, remains alive and well in certain quarters.

“Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill’s ‘The Second World War’ (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954) and the Mémoires de Guerre de General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found. Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de Guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.” Dr. Robert Faurisson, historian and historical document expert

“It is certain that if there had been ‘killing factories’ in Europe murdering millions of civilians, then the Red Cross, the Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower and many others would have known about it and would have often and unambiguously mentioned it and condemned it. They didn’t. Winston Churchill wrote the six volumes of his monumental work, ‘The Second World War,’ without mentioning a program of mass-murder and genocide. Maybe it slipped his mind? Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir ‘Crusade in Europe,’ also failed to mention gas chambers. Was the weapon used to murder millions of Jews unworthy of a passing reference? Was the future President being insensitive to Jews?” Unknown source

Moreover, there are apparently no media references to any ‘holocaust’ of any kind nor radio, film newsreel or newspaper stories until towards the end of the war when the myth had been propagated and was just beginning to gain momentum. Is it really credible that this supposed heinous act was taking place so openly without the knowledge of the Allies and their vast intelligence network in Europe at that time? I believe not. Had it really been happening, the Allied propaganda machine against the Germans would have been cranked-up into overdrive and stories of the atrocities would have been widespread. Why would the Allies need false stories of German atrocities if there were real ones to be had? The railway lines to and from the ‘death camps’ would also have been destroyed, especially in the latter stages of the war when the Allies were attacking targets both military and civilian all over Germany and Eastern Europe with impunity and with little danger of retaliatory attacks due to German defences being in total disarray or non-existent. In fact the transport trains themselves, rather than the tracks specifically, were often the victims of Allied attacks and many Jews in transit died as a result of these.

Auschwitz has become synonymous with the holocaust, as the place of methodical extermination of the Jews. Such is the power of propaganda that if anything, true or false, is repeated often enough and forcefully enough, it becomes accepted without any real attempt to verify the facts. Surely ‘they’ would not lie to us on this scale would they? Err, yes they would, actually and ‘they’ have done so many, many times over the millennia and will no doubt continue to do so.

Could such an alleged house-of-horrors as Auschwitz is popularly depicted have been equipped with (for the use of the inmates) a post office, a library, a theatre complete with its own resident orchestra, a hospital staffed by 20 Jewish doctors and 300 nurses complete with an intensive care unit and operating theatre? There was also a swimming pool where inmate swimming galas were known to have been regularly organised in the summer months and the camp also staged regular soccer matches complete with its own mini-leagues? There was also a fully-equipped court room for the trial of prisoners accused of misdemeanours. Strange is it not that the Germans would actually bother with trials when they were supposedly randomly murdering millions of people indiscriminately and without need of a trial? How about brothels too? Auschwitz is known to have had a brothel for the inmates staffed by female Jews and as it was illegal and punishable by death for a non-Jewish German to have sexual relations with a Jew, this could hardly have been a facility for the use of the SS guards. Indeed, they had their own similar ‘facility’ in any event, populated by ‘good Aryan stock.’

Are we also supposed to believe that the thousands of babies and children survivors from Auschwitz and other ‘death camps,’ would not have immediately been selected for extermination upon arrival at the camp, as we are told over and over in Zionist propaganda that the only ones to survive the ‘selection’ process were ones who were able to contribute to the Nazi war effort? They could hardly have been used as work-horses for the Nazi war machine as were the other survivors, yet many survived. For example, take the case of Anne Frank of ‘diary’ fame. She was sent to Bergen-Belsen a so-called ‘death camp’ in late 1944 where she lived for at least two months before finally succumbing to Typhus along with many thousands of others. As a (by this time) very sickly fifteen year old girl, surely she should not have survived the alleged ‘selection’ process?

Indeed, all the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the Jewish inmates were not able to work but nevertheless were not killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated 4th September 1943, from the chief of the Labour Allocation department of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA,) reported that of approximately 25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work and that all of the remaining Jewish inmates, some 21,000+ or about 85 percent, were unable to work.

In response to the deaths of many inmates due to disease, especially typhus, the German authorities responsible for the camps ordered firm counter-measures. The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated 28th December 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It sharply criticised the high death rate of inmates due to disease and ordered that “ . . . camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps.” Furthermore, it ordered . . . “The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past, the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the various labour places are improved as much as possible . . . The Reichsfuehrer SS [Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced.”

Official camp regulations also made it abundantly clear that Auschwitz was not an extermination centre. They stated . . .

“New arrivals are to be given a thorough medical examination and if there is any doubt about their health, they must be sent to quarantine for observation.

Prisoners who report sick must be examined that same day by the camp physician. If necessary, the physician must transfer the prisoners to a hospital for professional treatment.

The camp physician must regularly inspect the kitchen regarding the preparation of the food and the quality of the food supply. Any deficiencies that may arise must be reported to the camp commandant.

Special care should be given in the treatment of accidents, in order not to impair the full productivity of the prisoners.

Prisoners who are to be released or transferred must first be brought before the camp physician for medical examination.”

Not exactly what one would expect of a ‘death camp’ is it? The truth is that Auschwitz-Birkenau was in fact a labour camp (the preserved sign over the entrance is somewhat of a clue, the almost Orwellian, ‘Arbeit Macht Frei,’ (work will make you free) and included many different races, religions and political persuasions. There is no dispute that many thousands of people died miserably in Auschwitz and all the other so-called ‘death camps’ before, during and after the war, but the simple fact is that no-one died in gas chambers.

A problem that always faces any group of people living in unsanitary conditions, severe privation or close confinement is lice and the multitude of diseases they cause. Auschwitz and the neighbouring camp at Birkenau had a serious outbreak of typhus in the summer of 1942, during which many people died, both inmates and guards. To contain the outbreak, the only ‘gas chambers’ in existence were used for disinfection of the inmates’ clothes using the ‘Zyklon B’ disinfectant. And towards the end of the war when the German nation was on the point of collapse, the fact that the transportation system was in disarray, as a result incidentally of the Allies indiscriminate carpet-bombing of civilian road and rail transport links, totally contrary to the Geneva Convention, and that no supplies of any kind, neither food nor medical assistance were getting through, only exacerbated the situation. Hundreds, if not thousands of innocents subsequently died of starvation and hunger-related diseases (on both sides of the divide.)

“Mike’s real name was Olitsky and he was a Lithuanian Jew who’d fled into Germany to escape Stalin’s Red Army. He wound up in Dachau for four years. He inadvertently introduced me to Holocaust ‘revisionism’ when I ventured to ask him about his experience. He shrugged and said, ‘It was a factory. We worked during the day and stayed in a dormitory at night.’ ‘But what about the, uh, the . . . ?’ ‘The what?’ ‘You know, the killings.’ ‘I never saw any of that.’ Four years in Dachau, and never saw any of that? OK, he did see the US Army ‘liberate’ the camp in April 1945. The SS and Alpine troops recuperating there had negotiated surrender to the Americans, who entered the camp and started shooting the guys who thought they were surrendering. Then the Americans marched the surviving soldiers (all the prison guards had fled days earlier) up to a wall near the hospital and set up a machine gun. Three hundred and forty-six German soldiers on R&R [rest and recuperation] were slaughtered in a few minutes, five hundred and twenty in all, that morning.” J. Bruce Campbell, ‘Veterans Today’

Yes, I am afraid it is all an elaborate hoax. We have all been ‘propagandised’ and duped over the decades into believing that six million Jews were systematically and brutally exterminated by a Jew-hating race (the Germans) for no other reason than their religion (race.)

“Were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel’s propaganda armoury would disappear.” Professor William Rubinstein, Melbourne University.

The enormity of this utter lie and the abundant evidence available to counter the physical practicality of it, is so overwhelmingly huge that I barely know where to start. However, here are a few simple facts to consider (in no particular order) . . .

Many detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau on several random days in 1944 (during the height of the alleged extermination period there) were made public by the CIA in 1979. These photos show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematoria chimneys or masses of Jews awaiting death, things that have been repeatedly alleged and all of which would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz had been the busy extermination centre it is alleged to have been, despatching thousands of Jews daily.

The Germans were known as an efficient race and indeed still are. They were the kind of people who meticulously and methodically documented every single action they took. Why then amongst the hundreds of tonnes of official Nazi documents recovered after the end of the war is there not a single document in existence that even alludes to the ‘final solution’ being a genocide of the Jews? Could it have been because the Germans destroyed them all before they could fall into Allied hands? This I believe is highly unlikely. Surely at least one or two would have evaded destruction as with many other incriminating policy documents that were painstakingly unearthed by the Allies.

Then could it have been because the Germans did not document their policy of genocidal gassings for fear of it being discovered after the war? Also unlikely in the extreme. At the time the ‘final solution’ was allegedly proposed at the Wannsee conference in January 1941, the Germans were comfortably winning the war and it is simply unrealistic to assume that they considered that they would ever end-up, let alone forward plan for being, on the losing side. Indeed, war crimes trials were the last thing they would ever consider as there was no such concept until 1946. War crimes trials had never been utilised to deal with the losers in past wars. The Nazis had no reason to try to create an illusion for posterity because they thought they were going to be posterity. They never, ever imagined that they would need to answer to anyone for anything they did and yet are we now supposed to believe that even in 1941 they were planning ahead to a post-war era in which it would become necessary to cover up their actions?

“The ‘Final Solution’ spoken of in the German documents, was a program of evacuation, resettlement, and deportation of Jews with the ultimate objective of expulsion from Europe. During the war, Jews of various nationalities were being moved east, as one stage in this Final Solution. The legend claims that the movements were mainly for extermination purposes.” Arthur Butz, ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.’

“If there were documents covering the whole sequence of events, then there would be no such thing as revisionism. The problem is that the documents one would expect to find do not exist. We have documents relating to every aspect of the war, including every aspect of the holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. It is not possible to gas six million people, or to do anything else involving millions of people, without leaving a paper trail. If the gassing happened, there would be thousands of documents to verify it, starting with the planning stages and continuing throughout the course of events. But no such paper trail exists.” geniebusters.org

On the contrary in fact, a paper-trail making the whole scenario impossible does exist, and more of that shortly.

If there were photographs of the entire sequence of events, including photographs of piles of corpses in gas chambers, then the question would be a non-issue and revisionism would not even be an issue. That would absolutely and definitively settle the matter immediately. The problem is that no such pictures exist. We have photographs of every aspect of World War II, including every aspect of the ‘holocaust,’ except for the gassing of the Jews. There are photographs of Jews being coerced on to the trains, disembarking from the trains, photographs of Jews in the camps and photographs of bodies in mass graves and piled in heaps on the ground (many of which incidentally are the remains of German soldiers and civilians murdered by starvation by the Allies after the war), but there are no photographs at all of anyone being gassed, thus rendering all the other evidence merely circumstantial. We already know that the Nazis transported thousands of Jews (and others) in cattle wagons and we already know that there were piles of bodies at camps after outbreaks of disease and extreme food shortages. We also know that Jews were taken to de-lousing facilities and made to undress en-masse, so what exactly do these photographs prove, I would venture to ask?

In 2011, I sat through the full ten hours of the ‘epic’ 1970s, supposedly definitive, but in my view frankly risible, Hollywood docudrama-cum-Zionist propaganda-piece ‘Holocaust,’ for research purposes – not in a single-sitting I may add, I value my sanity a little more than that. This abject piece of over-sentimentalised, corny, nonsensical, melodramatic drivel actually ‘won’ no less than eight ‘Emmys’ (TV’s equivalent of ‘Oscars’) – hardly surprising really when we take into account who runs the TV and film industry, I suppose. Its historical inaccuracies are numerous, but that does not really matter as it serves its purpose extremely well in aiding the re-writing of modern history and the propagandising of the masses. Indeed, I would argue that it was this series that was responsible almost single-handedly for the propagandisation of my entire generation, the so-called ‘baby-boomers,’ into all things ‘holocaust,’ such was the impact that the programme made upon western society.

In one of the last scenes, at or near the end of the war, the fictional character, SS Major Erik Dorf played by the American actor Michael Moriarty, is confronted by his American captors who show him a sequence of photographs depicting the various stages of the supposed extermination process. Dorf is shown photographs of the Jews being rounded-up, deported on the trains, being ‘selected’ for gassing, being led to the ‘gas chambers’ and undressing, all of which are shown ‘on camera’ and then . . . whilst his American interrogator is saying ‘being gassed,’ the camera immediately cuts from the series of photographs to the horrified face of the Dorf character and then immediately resumes the photographic sequence . . . bodies being moved to the crematoria etc. etc. Obviously and unfortunately for them, the Zionist/Jewish producers of this slick piece of propaganda, unsurprisingly as there are none, could not find one single appropriate photograph for this particular part of the alleged event.

What about the thousands (millions?) of eye-witnesses though? Not only were six million Jews supposedly exterminated but there also, even in the second decade of the twenty first century, more than 70 years after the event, seems to be many millions more ‘survivors’ still alive. Incredible really when there were only probably a maximum of 4 million Jews in the entire continent of Europe in 1939 according to official, audited Red Cross figures.

‘Holocaust’ historian Lucy Dawidowicz similarly noted that . . . “ . . . the survivor’s memory is often distorted by hate, sentimentality, and the passage of time. His perspective on external events is often skewed by the limits of his personal experience.”

Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz, who was himself interned in the ghetto of Kaunas in Lithuania during the war, criticised what he called the ‘hyper-historical’ nature of most Jewish ‘survivor testimony.’ He wrote that . . . “ . . . most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, grapho-manic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophising, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumours, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.”

And Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of the Israeli government’s Holocaust centre, Yad Vashem, confirmed in 1986 that more than half of the ‘testimonies’ of Jewish ‘survivors’ on file there are “unreliable.” Many survivors, wanting “ . . . to be part of history, may have let their imaginations run away with them,” Krakowski said. “Many were never in the places where they claimed to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers.” He confirmed that many of the testimonies on file at Yad Vashem were later proved to be inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an historian’s expert appraisal.

There are also six other important points that need to be made about so-called witnesses to the events.

The witnesses are far from consistent in their allegations. Some witnesses said nothing at all about gas chambers. For example, Jan Karski wrote a report in the autumn of 1942 in which he stated that he visited the camp at Belzec to investigate rumours of extermination. He said that Jews were being killed by electrical shocks in a room with a metallic floor and in 1944, he published a book in which he said that the Jews were being loaded into wagons filled with quicklime and left to die outside the camp. Neither the article nor the book says anything about gas chambers. And of course, the ‘official’ history of Belzec now says nothing about electrical shocks or wagons filled with quicklime. We are now supposed to believe that the Jews at Belzec were killed in gas chambers but Jan Karski, who was there at the time (so he said,) said nothing at all about gas chambers.
Many witness testimonies about gas chambers do not stand up to close examination. For example, one of the most well-known witnesses quoted as an authoritative source is Dr. Miklos Nyiszli, the supposed author of ‘Auschwitz, a Doctor’s Eyewitness Account.’ Dr. Nyiszli did actually exist. He was a Hungarian doctor who was sent to Birkenau (not Auschwitz,) where he worked in the pathology laboratory under the command of the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele. After the war, he testified at the Nuremburg trials and he died in 1949, ‘his’ book being published in 1951. Throughout the book, the author says he was in Auschwitz and that there were four crematoria at Auschwitz. In fact, there was one crematorium at Auschwitz, and four at Birkenau. Obviously anyone who was there would know that and also they would doubtless know which camp was which. At the end of the book (page 206,) in the section describing the evacuation of Auschwitz in the January of 1945, the author says:
“We left, filled with the feverish sensation of liberation. Direction: the Birkenau KZ, two kilometres from the crematoriums.”

Dr. Nyiszli certainly did not leave Auschwitz and go in the direction of Birkenau as he was already in Birkenau. This is one of the most glaring impossibilities in a book full of much impossibility and as a result of this I would strongly suggest that this book was not written by Dr. Nyiszli at all. It certainly could not have been written by anyone who was there and yet this book is cited by apologists as one of the most authoritative of all witness statements.
Witness testimony alone proves nothing. Suppose a hundred thousand witnesses claim that something happened, does that constitute absolute proof that it happened? There are probably more than one hundred thousand people who claim to have ‘seen a UFO’ at one time or another in the last fifty years. Does that prove that flying saucers exist? Our bankster-controlled media would say ‘definitely not,’ in that example, yet there are thousands of people who say they have not only seen UFOs, they have been abducted into them. They will tell you in vivid detail about their experiences and these people have no obvious motive for lying, unlike holocaust ‘survivors.’
Witnesses can easily be ‘bought’ and influenced by the promise of large amounts of money in the form of ‘holocaust reparations’ and it is my firm view that this is exactly what enticed most of them. It is also fairly easy to convince someone that an event happened in a certain way and encourage them to link these fictional events to their own experiences. This will then have the effect of creating a false memory which over time becomes more and more embellished until that person actually believes those events really happened.
To the contrary, many former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of extermination at Auschwitz at all. For example, an Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations with a Polish forced labourer. Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. But instead of gas, it was only water that came out of the shower heads.
Auschwitz was certainly no holiday-camp, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the death of many fellow inmates by hunger and disease, particularly typhus and more than a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings or of any extermination programme.

A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly being gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of ‘gas chambers,’ during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later, after the war had ended.

Some Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were even released and returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top-secret extermination camp, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who ‘knew’ what was happening in the complex.
Elie Wiesel is one of the most celebrated eye-witnesses to the alleged Holocaust, yet in his supposedly autobiographical book Night, he makes absolutely no mention of gas chambers at all. He claims instead to have witnessed Jews being burned alive, a story now dismissed by all historians. Wiesel gives credence to the most absurd stories of other ‘eyewitnesses’ and he spreads fantastic tales of 10,000 Jews sent to their deaths each day in two flaming pits in Buchenwald – one for the adults and another for the children.

Conventional historians account for the lack of photographs and documents by claiming that the holocaust was so secret that no photographs were ever taken, and no incriminating documents were allowed to exist. This is supposed to have been true even when the ‘Final Solution’ was alleged to be in the planning stages, as far back as 1941. However, Hitler talked about exterminating or annihilating the Jews on many occasions. For example, here is a sentence from Mein Kampf. Hitler wrote . . .

“The nationalisation of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggles for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.”

So we are supposed to believe that Hitler announced to the world that he would have liked the Jews to be exterminated and yet at the same time went to great lengths to maintain the pretence that they were not being systematically exterminated? The intention was declared openly, but the action itself was so secret that the Nazis never even discussed it among themselves? This is abject nonsense akin to clutching at straws I am afraid.

He also said this:

“If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary, twelve thousand scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of millions of Germans, valuable for the future.”

At this point the ‘secret’ was now out. Having alluded to the idea of gassing the Jews in Mein Kampf, it would make no sense for Hitler to pretend it was not happening, if he was actually doing it, but there is no other reference to gassing in anything else he ever said or wrote.

There are voluminous records of everything Hitler, Himmler, and the other senior Nazis said in public and much of what they said in private and there is no mention of gassing anywhere, even on occasions when they were talking about getting rid of the Jews. For example, when Himmler addressed a private meeting of the senior officers of the SS (the Poznan speech,) even if he wished to refrain from mentioning gassing publicly, he would have felt free to speak plainly at a private meeting of the SS. But the fact is that nothing was said about gassing, even though he was discussing the transportation of the Jews to concentration camps.

The Nazis were certainly not coy about killing people. There are pictures of Nazi soldiers shooting Jews (and other prisoners) in cold blood and laughing about it and these pictures were not taken surreptitiously by someone else, they were taken by the Nazis themselves, but we are supposed to believe that the gas chambers were so secret that no photographs were ever taken. Are we also supposed to believe that it would be possible to cover up an action involving six million people or that they would not openly flaunt the fact that the killings were taking place? Really?

The mechanics of the extermination process are alleged to have been . . .

A train-load of Jews arrives at Auschwitz railway station or indeed any other alleged ‘death camp.’ They are then immediately separated into two groups, the so-called ‘selection’ of those who are fit for labour and those who are not. The latter group is led directly to the gas chambers immediately. Firstly they enter the changing room, where under protest they are told to remove their clothes and leave behind their possessions. They are then led into another room, which is ‘mocked-up’ to resemble a shower room or a delousing room. Once in this room, they are locked-in and gassed using Zyklon B granules poured through an open hatch or window in the roof or the top of the wall, the deadly fumes supposedly emanating from the fake shower-heads or even just simply being poured-in directly. A few moments later the guards enter, hose down the bodies (the last act of any victim of asphyxiation/gassing is to involuntarily defecate and urinate) and then drag the bodies out and take the saturated bodies to the ovens on handcarts to be cremated and immediately make the gas chambers ready for the next batch of victims to keep the ‘conveyer belt’ rolling.

Firstly the commonly described and widely accepted, casual approach to the manual ‘pouring-in’ of Zyklon B granules is utterly risible. As will be demonstrated later, this dangerous substance, a) once it is stimulated to produce cyanide gas is absolutely and totally deadly and could not safely be handled by anyone using such a casual approach, even whilst wearing a gas mask and b) in order to make the substance unstable enough to begin vapourising, it has to first of all reach the relatively high temperature of at least 26 degrees Celsius (Centigrade) again unachievable by the simple act of pouring directly from a can by hand.

So, if six million Jews were gassed, this scenario must have been repeated thousands of times. Even being generous, if on average 100 at a time were gassed (a much higher average figure than claimed), this scene must have played-out sixty thousand times at all the different camps, over a period of several years.

Zyklon B granules

Assuming for purposes of illustration of the point that these were split equally over 10 ‘death’ camps, that is six thousand events per camp and over a time period of 3 years (1942-45.) This means that on average at each camp there were 2000 gassings per year of 100 people at a time. Break these figures down even further and this produces an average figure of 550 people per day, every day, gassed and cremated for 3 years at every single camp. I submit that this is totally ludicrous in the extreme and such figures if presented as evidence in any impartial court of law would quite rightly be rejected as nonsensical. In addition, please consider that these figures only take account of the alleged six million Jews and not all the hundreds and thousands, if not millions of non-Jews said to have suffered the same fate but obviously not emphasised to the same extent.

In 1998 Frederick Töben the historian, visited all the major death camps still in existence in order to inspect the facilities and gather information. He was not alone. He also took with him, several independent scientists and engineers in order to elicit their opinions about the practicalities of the Zionists’ claims. In conjunction with his many years of intensive study of documents and eye-witness testimonies he had already concluded that the collaboration between the Zionist leaders and the Nazis had led to the establishment of the camps in the first place as evacuation or emigration would not produce the Zionists desired results i.e. the inception of a Jewish homeland.

Concentration camps were not unique to the Nazis, neither were they their invention. In the Boer War in South Africa, another manufactured conflict at the behest of the Elite banksters, the British occupiers constructed several camps resulting in the deaths of several hundred thousand Boer men, women and children through disease and malnutrition. Even in WWII, the Americans herded thousands of Japanese-American citizens into camps as did the Australians with their Japanese residents. The Swiss also had such camps for refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe.

Worse still, in the aftermath of WWI, Poland built several dozen camps to house the ethnic German residents of the formerly German territories they ‘acquired’ as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, many of whom suffered terribly from disease and starvation, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths of innocents.

However back to the subject in hand, the prisoners of Auschwitz and all its ‘sister’ camps scattered through eastern Germany and eastern Europe, were given rations of 1300-1700 calories per day, according to captured documents and whilst this is nowhere near the standard, modern diet of today especially for those partaking in gruelling physical labour, it is considerably better than the average German citizen received in the last two years of the war. They were lucky to receive 1000 calories per day and often had to make do with much less.

Töben’s conclusions about the gas chamber scenario may be summarised as follows:

The rooms and buildings named as being those which were used for the executions of millions of people, firstly were easily provable as fakes. Giveaways such as non-airtight doors, the lack of holes or shafts down which to administer the Zyklon B granules, the lack of any kind of heating equipment to stimulate the emission of the gas, ventilation or extraction systems to deal with the deadly fumes are but a few of the improbabilities, if not downright impossibilities noted by Töben in his research.

For example, are we also expected to believe that the gas chamber, open to the public at Auschwitz which is a mere twenty metres from the Commandant’s quarters and the SS dining hall was actually used in anger? The dangers of this particular arrangement should be apparent to anyone who understands the way hydrogen cyanide gas kills. Every time the doors were opened, hundreds of cubic metres of deadly fumes would have leaked outside, instantly killing anyone and any other living thing in its path. There were provably no filtration units to automatically safely disperse or neutralise the ‘used’ gas, either then or now.

The real gas chambers used at Auschwitz, Töben believes, were nothing more or less than fumigation chambers for the delousing of clothes and bed sheets. These are also available for inspection by the public and are placed well away from the inhabited areas of the camp and are fitted, as one would sensibly expect, with all the necessary heating (for the raw granules,) pumping and filtration equipment. However as stated previously, the alleged ‘human’ gas chambers contain no evidence whatsoever of any of this equipment.

Zyklon B was used worldwide in the 1920s, 30s and 40s as a pesticide against rats, fleas and lice. Its primary reason for being in situ at the camps was to save human lives and not to kill.

After Zyklon B has been used, according to the manufacturer’s own instructions, which still survive intact, the room or chamber must be thoroughly aerated for at least ten hours before entering and gas masks would have been effective for 10 minutes only, before the poison saturated the filters, killing the wearer. It is also known however, having had access to all supply requisitions, invoices and manifests that there were no gas masks of any kind present at Auschwitz. Another telling argument against the practicality of its large scale use is that the granules only begin to emit the deadly cyanide gas at a temperature sustained at over 26⁰ Celsius, equivalent to a very hot summer day. There is no evidence whatsoever that the rooms named as human gas chambers were ever even heated at all and Central Europe experiences some bitterly cold winters with temperatures often in double-figures below zero.

Dr. Töben interviewed on film, an Australian expert on crematoria and the disposal of human bodies without actually explaining to him the background reasons for his questions to avoid possibly compromising the answers with pre-existing prejudices of any kind. The expert maintained several opinions and divulged facts that proved absolutely fatal to the gas chamber myths and legends.

Modern, present day crematoria ovens burn at 800-1000⁰ Celsius (whereas the Auschwitz ovens were probably able to manage around half that temperature with the available technology of 70+ years ago).

One single corpse takes around two hours to burn to ash at this temperature (1000⁰) and even then it does not fully incinerate the bones. The bones have to be powdered as a further separate exercise. If the corpse is excessively cold or wet it would take almost twice as long to incinerate. If two or more corpses were burned together then these times would be increased in ratio. (Remember that according to the myth, all the bodies were thoroughly hosed-down immediately prior to transportation to the crematoria.)

Regarding the oft-cited by so-called eye-witnesses ‘body-burning pits,’ simply pouring copious amounts of fuel on a pile of bodies and setting them alight is just simply fiction. Living and recently deceased bodies contain at least 75% water and this severely impacts on their flammability meaning that witnesses (and there are many, including one of the most fêted, Elie Wiesel) who blithely state that they saw the Germans pile thousands of bodies in large pits, liberally dose them with petrol (gasoline) and burn them to ashes in a few hours (some have said 20 minutes!) are nothing less than outright liars and charlatans.

Auschwitz KZ was constructed on extremely wet, marshy land, sited as it was at the confluence of three rivers and with an unusually high water-table, making it impossible to bury bodies in the ground due to the extreme danger of polluting the drinking water, which was extracted from small reservoirs in the surrounding land. It is this wetland environment that encouraged the proliferation of diseases and the vermin that cause them. Over 74,000 people, both friend and foe were officially recorded as Typhus victims alone, at Auschwitz.

It is a well-known scientific principle that a fire needs free oxygen (i.e. not oxygen mixed with hydrogen in the form of water) in order to burn and that is one major ingredient that would be completely missing once we go further down than the top-most layer of bodies. The amount of fuel that would be needed to incinerate one small pit of bodies would probably be considerably more than the entire German army would use in one day, one suspects. Petrol (gasoline) or indeed any other fuel will always burn itself out long before it has had time to cause combustion in predominantly water-based substances such as human bodies. And this of course all pre-supposes that the pits themselves were dry which is of course impossible due to the presence of the aforementioned, abnormally high water-table. Indeed the whole scenario would be truly laughable were it not so serious a subject.

The crematoria expert also made the point that even in the most fiercely-burning house fires and for example, after a plane crash, bodies are only superficially charred and not reduced to ash, even after being subjected to direct flames for many hours.

In addition, Ivan Lagace, manager of a large crematorium in Calgary, Canada, testified in court in April 1988 that the Auschwitz cremations story is technically impossible. The allegation that 10,000 or even 20,000 corpses were burned every day at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944 in crematoria and open pits is ‘simply preposterous’ and ‘beyond the realms of reality,’ he declared under oath.

However, another issue fatal to the credibility of this huge improbability is the absolute impossibility of the disposal of all the bodies in crematoria in the time allowed and by the methods deemed to be used. A single body according to our expert, requires 40kg (90 lbs) of coke to incinerate it whilst still leaving the bones to be disposed of separately. Put another way, one tonne of coke could incinerate 25 bodies. If the body was damp or wet then it would require as much as double this amount, so the following facts and figures are all absolutely, exceptionally generous, best-case scenarios.

We know how many tonnes of coke were ordered by the quartermasters at Auschwitz because all the invoices and delivery manifests are all still in existence. The period of greatest consumption of coke was an 8 month period including the winter of 1942-43, where 641 tonnes of coke were ordered and consumed. 641 tonnes of coke is the equivalent of 16,025 cremations, erring grossly on the generous side. 16,000+ cremations in 8 months and this is the busiest period at by far the largest, most prolific camp? The numbers simply do not stack-up. These figures, extrapolated over the three years that the alleged gassings took place, would produce a grand total of 72,000 cremations only. Furthermore, it is known for a fact that the camp’s heating system and food ovens were coke-fired. These figures account for no coke being set-aside for use in the heating boilers and the food ovens.

Also, generously assuming that the Zionist-quoted death figures are correct, how were the literally millions of unburned bones destroyed? There is no evidence whatsoever at Auschwitz, or any other camp, of any machinery designed to perform this task nor is there any evidence of the requisitioning or delivery of such a machine.

Furthermore, as proof of the reluctance of even bone-dry substances to burn freely and easily, Dr. Töben enlisted the services of a skilled pyrotechnic expert in order to try to replicate, albeit on a much smaller scale, the body-burning pits alleged to have been in use at Auschwitz. A small dry pit was dug – around 0.5 cubic metres in size and in it were placed four dry, normal size telephone books one on top of the other. A fire was then set using a liberal amount of a mixture of methylated spirits and highly flammable oil. The fire burned quite strongly for about 10 minutes then slowly petered-out. When the pit contents were then examined it could be seen that the top 10% only of the top book had burned, but even then only around the very edges. When the pages were fully opened, the middle portions were entirely untouched by fire. So, another attempt was made, this time the proportional equivalent of 1500 litres (totally impossible at Auschwitz) was used and the fire indeed became a raging inferno, albeit a relatively small one. Twenty minutes passed and again the fire burned itself out. Even with the air able to circulate freely, less than half of the top book was burned and again the bottom three books remained virtually untouched apart from the exposed edges which were slightly scorched – and all this please remember, was dry paper under totally dry conditions. Wet bodies upon wet bodies in wet earth would have no chance whatsoever of burning to ashes.

Töben also set-up another experiment, again on film, whereby two volunteers were locked in a tiny room about the size of a small garden shed, complete with a stone surface, upon which a generous amount of hydrogen cyanide (exactly like Zyklon B,) granules were manually poured – mere inches from their exposed faces. They wore no protective clothing, no gas masks of any kind and were locked in the room for a total of two hours. The room was then unlocked and they casually walked out, laughing and talking as normal. How is this possible? It is easily possible when the ambient room temperature is maintained at less than 26⁰ Centigrade.

The granules are only stimulated to produce the deadly gas once this critical temperature is attained. Until that specific point, the granules are entirely harmless and as the volunteers knew that this temperature would not be reached, they were perfectly happy to take part.

However, let the last words on the subject be these, from P. Samuel Foner in ‘The Spotlight,’ Volume XIX No. 2, 31st May 2004 . . .

“In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum admitted on camera that ‘Krema 1,’ the alleged ‘homicidal gas chamber’ shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union – apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin.

What Piper said — in effect and on camera — was that the explosive 1988 Leuchter Report was correct; no homicidal gassings took place in the buildings designated as ‘homicidal gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.

With this admission by none other than the respected head of the Auschwitz State Museum, one of the most sacred ‘facts’ of history has been destroyed. This ‘gas chamber’ is the major historical ‘fact’ on which much of the foreign and domestic policies of all Western nations since WWII is based.

It is the basis for the $100+ billion in foreign aid the United States has poured into the state of Israel since its inception in 1948 – amounting to $16,500 for every man, woman and child in the Jewish state and billions more paid by Germany in ‘reparations’ – not to mention the constructing of Israel’s national telephone, electrical and rail systems . . . all gifts of the German people. It is the basis for the $10 billion ‘loan’ (read ‘gift’) made to Israel for housing its immigrants in the occupied territories . . . while Americans sleep on the streets and businesses are bankrupted by the thousands. As of 2004, not a single ‘loan’ of US tax money made to the state of Israel by Washington has ever been paid back.

Germany is paying ‘reparations’ – the United States is making major contributions – to atone for the ‘gassings at Auschwitz’ and elsewhere. If the ‘homicidal gas chambers’ were post-war creations of the Soviets, in which no one was gassed regardless of race, creed, colour or country of national origin, then these ‘reparations’ were unnecessary, and were based on fraud.

The videotape on which Dr. Piper makes his revelations was made in mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole and follows twelve years of intensive investigation by dozens of historians, journalists and scientists who have tried to get to the bottom of what really happened at Auschwitz.

Like most Americans, since his youth, Cole had been instructed in the ‘irrefutable fact’ that mass homicidal gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. The number of those executed – also declared irrefutable – was 4.1 million.

Then came the Leuchter Report in 1988 which was followed with an official, ‘re-evaluation’ of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.5 million.) As a budding historian – and a Jew – Cole was intrigued.

Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted or questioned the official 4.1 million ‘gassing’ deaths at Auschwitz was labelled an anti-Semite or neo-Nazi at the very least. Quietly, because of revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.5 million. No mention was made of the missing 2.6 million.

The Cole videotape interview proves that the people who run the Auschwitz State Museum had made a practice of fabricating ‘proofs’ of homicidal gassings. Keep in mind that over the years, millions of tourists have been told that ‘Krema 1’ is in its original state, while officials knew that ‘original state’ is a lie.

The political, religious, financial and historical ramifications of this proof of no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz cannot be measured. Coupled with the Leuchter Report, the Cole interview with Dr. Piper on videotape proves that what Western governments have taught about the Auschwitz gas chambers since WWII is a lie. It proves that what televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been telling their flocks is simply not true.

No one, regardless of race, creed, colour or country of national origin was gassed to death in any building so designated at Auschwitz. And without ‘homicidal gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, where is the reasoning for the special treatment of the state of Israel?”

Suffice to say that David Cole has been in hiding, in fear of his life for the past, almost 20 years, labelled by the Zionists, as is their custom in these circumstances as a ‘self-hating Jew.’

The Zionist, Ilya Ehrenburg, a notorious Jewish propagandist in the USSR who agitated for genocide against Germans and incited the mass-rape of German women by the Red Army, along with another Communist-Jewish propagandist Vasily Grossman, are considered by many revisionists, to be the brains behind the Holocaust hoax. Together they penned ‘The Black Book,’ a work of pure fiction dressed-up as fact, inundated with unconscionable, anti-German hate and propaganda horror stories that are physically impossible, and have since been thoroughly discredited.

The one, significant and yet obvious question that the Zionist banksters will NEVER answer, is that if they care so much for the Jewish people, why did they finance the rise of the very same ‘evil Nazis,’ they constantly vilify and who they claim have gassed ‘six million’ of their fellow Jews? The simple answer really is that the banksters do not care at all about any race, religion or political belief, the poor masses, be they Jewish or otherwise, are just there to be exploited in whatever way they see fit.

And as for the real ‘holocausts,’ they were perpetrated by the Zionists, on the civilian populations of Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Tokyo, to name just a few cities totally annihilated by ‘fire.’ There are also their non-fiery ‘holocausts,’ such as the mass butchery of the Communist Soviets against 80 million Russian Christians and all those that opposed communism, Katyn, the Holodomor and the many other atrocities and genocides, that we are definitely not meant to know about and indeed are never discussed openly.

But as regards the alleged ‘holocaust’ of the Jews, merely writing or saying that you do not believe it happened, questioning the sacred ‘six million’ number, or even just wishing to debate the facts, can get you arrested and thrown in jail in many ‘civilised’ countries.

The Zionist-Jews, who created the ‘thought-crime,’ of racism and are always preaching ‘tolerance,’ certainly do not tolerate any debate on the ‘holocaust.’ They created the so-called ‘hate speech’ laws, as the perfect shield for their evil lies. Questioning them or their motives, will at best bring you an accusation of anti-Semitism, but possibly far worse than that.

Whereas I, enthusiastically encourage you to follow-up with your own research on anything and everything presented to you within this book . . . The real TRUTH should always be pursued but when it becomes a crime to seek it out, then that is the time to step-up your pursuit of it.

When one thinks of the Holocaust, almost invariably, images come to mind of helpless Jews, languishing in despair within the confines of a German concentration camp. Such compelling imagery, thanks to decades of media brainwashing and subtle indoctrination, has become so deeply ingrained in the psyche of the average person, that not only will any attempt to question the veracity of this narrative be met with strong suspicion, any suggestion that there may have been other ‘holocausts’ in the past far more horrific than that involving the Jews during WWII, would be quickly dismissed by many as ‘anti-Semitic’ or a mere ‘conspiracy theory.’

Responsible media coverage of past human tragedies can often serve as a very useful and effective tool to convince an otherwise lethargic public to show more compassion for the oppressed and become more aggressively intolerant of all forms of inhumanity wherever and whenever they occur in our world. However, when the plight of the Jews during the ‘holocaust’ of WWII garners the lion’s share of media coverage to the exclusion of comparable tragedies that have affected other peoples, it indicates a chilling double-standard that puts forward the view that the only episode of human suffering worthy of public attention is that which was visited upon the Jews within Nazi Germany.

It goes virtually without saying that most of what has been written and published about Nazi Germany has been negative. Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, has been demonised in every ‘mainstream’ history book to such a degree that WWII Germany became and continues to be the veritable poster-child for the denunciation of every form of tyranny and oppression imaginable. It is true that all governments have their dark side, irrespective of what political system they adopt for their people, but often the details that shape the real course of human events lay buried beneath the weight of unscrupulous political ambition of special interests.

During WWII, Germany conducted a pre-emptive round-up millions of civilians, both Jews and non-Jews, in an effort to protect the country from the threat of potential spies, secret combatants, saboteurs and subversives. However this was also true of Britain and the USA too. They also imprisoned their dissidents although we never get to hear about the conditions that they had to endure, do we? Germany placed their dissidents in internment camps for the duration of the war and had plans to move them to places like Madagascar at the war’s end. There was never a secret plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe. The so-called, ‘final solution’ was intended to move the Jews out of Germany, not to annihilate them.

However, large numbers of the Jewish population placed in those camps were indeed saboteurs, owing to their extreme leftist political affiliations. A significant number of them were bona fide Marxists and Communists and therefore, most of them were sympathetic to Soviet Russia, a bastion of Judaic-Zionist power and Germany’s main adversary. Their ultimate objective was to engineer the total collapse of Germany as a world power and for those reasons, as well as the Germans’ fear of the powerful Zionist banksters’ attempt to bankrupt the German economy, they had to be detained at in camps as potential subversives and collaborators with the enemies of the State. This was absolutely no different to what happened in the US and Britain, other than the fact that the bulk of British and US detainees, were not actively working to bring those states down from within.

The question that this engenders is maybe, ‘but what justified all the deaths that occurred in the camps?’ First of all, it should be understood that the vast majority of those placed in the camps died during the closing months of the war. The estimated death toll was probably, less than 600,000 as opposed to that recurring Zionist figure of ‘six million’ quoted ad nauseum in the history books and elsewhere.

And as previously related, to explain the deaths in the camps, please recall the fact that from late 1944 to early 1945, Allied forces were engaged in a relentless campaign of genocidal bombardment of civilian and military targets that left Germany in an utter shambles. Roads, bridges, rail systems and the entire industrial infrastructure, needed to remain intact in order to guarantee an uninterrupted flow of supplies to both the civilian communities and the camps, but these were mostly destroyed. Consequently, Germany suddenly found itself unable to provide sufficient food, water and medical supplies to its own civilian population, let alone those placed in the internment camps. Ultimately, many people died of starvation throughout the German civilian population, as well as those living in the concentration camps.

There is one survey of the Jewish question in Europe during World War Two and the conditions of Germany’s concentration camps which is almost unique in its honesty and objectivity; the three-volume Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on its activities during the Second World War, Geneva, 1948, which I will refer to as, ‘the Report.’ This comprehensive account from an entirely neutral and impartial source incorporated and expanded the findings of two previous works, ‘Documents sur l’activité du CICR en faveur des civils detenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945’ Geneva, 1946, and ‘Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the ICRC during the Second World War’ Geneva, 1947.

The team of authors, headed by Frédéric Siordet, explained in the opening pages of the Report that their object, in the tradition of the Red Cross, had been strict political neutrality, and herein lies its great value. The ICRC successfully applied the 1929 Geneva military convention in order to gain access to civilian internees held in Central and Western Europe by the Germany authorities. But by contrast, the ICRC was unable to gain any access to the Soviet Union, which had failed to ratify the Convention. The millions of civilian and military internees held in the USSR, whose conditions were known to be by far the worst, were completely cut off from any international contact or supervision.

The Red Cross Report is of value in that it firstly clarifies the legitimate circumstances under which Jews were detained in concentration camps, (i.e. as enemy aliens.) In describing the two categories of civilian internees, the Report distinguishes the second type as “civilians deported on administrative grounds who were arrested for political or racial motives because their presence was considered a danger to the State or the occupation forces” Vol. 111, p. 73. These persons, it continues, “were placed on the same footing as persons arrested or imprisoned under common law for security reasons.” P.74. The Report confirms that the Germans were at first reluctant to permit supervision by the Red Cross of people detained on grounds relating to security, but by the latter part of 1942, the ICRC obtained important concessions from Germany.

They were permitted to distribute food parcels to major concentration camps in Germany from August 1942, and “from February 1943 onwards this concession was extended to all other camps and prisons” Vol. 111, p. 78. The ICRC soon established contact with camp commandants and launched a food relief program which continued to function until the last months of 1945 – letters of thanks for which, came pouring in from Jewish internees.

The Report further states that “ . . . as many as 9,000 parcels were packed daily. From the autumn of 1943 until May 1945, about 1,112,000 parcels with a total weight of 4,500 tons were sent off to the concentration camps” Vol. III, p. 80. In addition to food, these contained clothing and pharmaceutical supplies. “Parcels were sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Flöha, Ravensbrück, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and to camps near Vienna and in Central and Southern Germany. The principal recipients were Belgians, Dutch, French, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Poles and stateless Jews” Vol. III, p. 83.

During the course of the war, “The Committee was in a position to transfer and distribute in the form of relief supplies over twenty million Swiss francs collected by Jewish welfare organizations throughout the world, in particular by the American Joint Distribution Committee of New York” Vol. I, p. 644. This latter organisation was permitted by the German Government to maintain offices in Berlin until the American entry into the war. In fact, the ICRC complained that the obstruction of their vast relief operation for Jewish internees came not from the Germans but from the tight Allied blockade of Europe. Most of their purchases of relief food were made in Rumania, Hungary and Slovakia.

The ICRC also had special praise for the liberal conditions which prevailed at Theresienstadt up to the time of their last visits there in April 1945. This camp, “where there were about 40,000 Jews deported from various countries was a relatively privileged ghetto” Vol. III, p. 75. According to the Report . . . “The Committee’s delegates were able to visit the camp at Theresienstadt which was used exclusively for Jews and was governed by special conditions.”

From information gathered by the Committee, this camp had been started as an experiment by certain leaders of the Reich . . . These men wished to give the Jews the means of setting up a communal life in a town under their own administration and possessing almost complete autonomy . . . two delegates were able to visit the camp on 6th April 1945 and they confirmed the favourable impression gained on the first visit.” Vol. I, p. 642.

The ICRC received a voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the period of the Soviet occupation, when many of the internees were evacuated westward. But the efforts of the Red Cross to send relief to internees remaining at Auschwitz under Soviet control were futile. However, food parcels continued to be sent to former Auschwitz inmates transferred west to such camps as Buchenwald and Oranienburg.

One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. The Report states that . . . “In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government informed the ICRC on 1st February 1945 . . . In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the SS Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp . . . ” Vol. III, p. 83.

Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross is quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested strongly on 15th March 1944 against “the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies.” Inter Arma Caritas, p. 78.

By the 2nd October 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.

In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis-occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the ‘six million’ legend.

Like the Vatican representatives with whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate was concerned, the Report pointed out that “ . . . most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps.” Vol. I, p. 204.

Typhus was common in prisons and in crowded conditions where lice spread easily, where it was known as Jail fever and often occurs when prisoners are frequently huddled together in dark, filthy rooms. Typhus was a real problem in the concentration camps and in the typhus epidemic in the summer of 1942 in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp from 1st to 19th August, 4,113 deaths were registered, on average 216 per day. This was the main cause of the deaths in Belsen (also Typhoid from contaminated water, and diarrhoea). Typhus victims were stripped after death in order to burn the clothing and destroy the typhus-bearing lice.

All photographs of heaps of corpses were taken in Western camps around the end of the war, such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, where historians now agree no mass murders took place and significantly, there are no such photographs taken at the camps in which mass murder is alleged to have occurred (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek.)

These eastern camps were all in areas which came under Soviet control at the end of the war and it is extremely significant that the Soviets released no pictures of mass graves or heaps of corpses and allowed no journalists, medical professionals, or other experts to examine the camps.

Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities. Again, the Report makes nonsense of this allegation . . . “Not only were the washing places, but installations for baths, showers, and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged.” Vol III, p. 594.

Concerning the gas chambers, they did exist but, contrary to mainstream historical accounts, were used to disinfect the prisoners so as to control the spread of typhus. Zyklon B was the principle chemical agent used to achieve this purpose. It was the standard disinfecting chemical agent commonly used throughout Europe at that time and there is absolutely no basis for any suspicion as regards to what use it was put. For example, there is only one large gas chamber found at the infamous Auschwitz camp and it is now openly admitted that it was built after the war by the Russians for propaganda purposes. This fact was acknowledged by the Polish government and do not forget that Auschwitz is located in Poland, not Germany.

There is no blue staining or concentrations of hydrogen cyanide residue as would be expected as a result of repeated exposure to hydrogen cyanide gas in some of the facilities said to have been used for mass extermination, yet there is significant and clearly visible blue staining, as well as high levels of hydrogen cyanide residue, in the facilities where Zyklon B was used for delousing. This blue staining is resilient and penetrating enough that it can be abundantly clear even on the exterior walls of an enclosure that has been exposed to weather for 70+ years.

The alleged washing of the gas chambers, as mentioned in the prior point, is used to explain the lack of blue staining on the walls and the hydrogen cyanide by-products found in test samples in the alleged gas chambers. However, those making this claim are apparently not aware that 1) water apparently has the opposite effect, making the cyanide residue penetrate deeper into the wall, and 2) the humidity as a result of evaporation from the washing would have greatly reduced the rate at which the hydrogen cyanide gas evaporated from the Zyklon B pellets, thereby making subsequent gassing operations dramatically less efficient.

Furthermore, if we put aside the science that indicates otherwise and assume that water would have washed away the cyanide residue and the blue staining with it, then why is there significant blue staining present in the gas chamber at Majdanek, which is known to have been a gas chamber, but not at Auschwitz, which is alleged to be a homicidal gas chamber? If the gas chamber at Majdanek were used for homicidal purposes as alleged, would not it too have been washed down after the gassings?

Volume III of the Red Cross Report, Chapter 3 deals with the “aid given to the Jewish section of the free population,” and this chapter makes it quite plain that by no means all of the European Jews were placed in internment camps, but remained, subject to certain restrictions, as part of the free civilian population. This conflicts directly with the ‘thoroughness’ of the alleged ‘extermination programme,’ and with the claim in the forged Höss memoirs that Eichmann was obsessed with seizing “every single Jew he could lay his hands on.”

Not only did large numbers of the three million or so European Jews avoid internment altogether, but the emigration of Jews continued throughout the war, generally by way of Hungary, Romania and Turkey. Ironically, post-war Jewish emigration from German-occupied territories was also facilitated by the Reich, as in the case of the Polish Jews who had escaped to France before its occupation.

“The Jews from Poland who, whilst in France, had obtained entrance permits to the United States were held to be American citizens by the German occupying authorities, who further agreed to recognise the validity of about three thousand passports issued to Jews by the consulates of South American countries” Vol. I, p. 645. As future US citizens, these Jews were held at the Vittel camp in southern France for American aliens and the emigration of European Jews from Hungary in particular proceeded during the war unhindered by the German authorities.

“Until March 1944,” says the Red Cross Report, “Jews who had the privilege of visas for Palestine were free to leave Hungary.” Vol. I, p. 64. As for the so-called Eastern Front, it is true that many Jews were killed there as well. However, it is important to realise that after their invasion of the USSR in 1941, Germany was confronted with not only Soviet troops but tens of thousands of partisan fighters, most of whom were Jewish and thus loyal to the cause of the Soviets. In response to their attacks the German fighters were successful in capturing and killing most of them. So, to allege that these partisans were ‘innocent victims’ is totally absurd. Those Jews were Soviet assets who actively engaged in guerrilla warfare against the German troops. It was only natural that Germany should defend itself against its enemies.

The lesson to be learned here is that the Zionists have exaggerated the truth about the Jewish death toll and suffering under the Nazis. They have used the ‘six million’ figure solely as an effective marketing tool and source of propaganda to sell to the world the notion of Jewish victim-hood. As a consequence, Jews in general, worldwide have garnered an incredible amount of sympathy that has always worked to their political advantage. The reason for this being because once a nation’s people are viewed as helpless victims, unsuspecting communities of nations who buy into the propaganda tend to become blind to the moral excesses of that group and, in the case of Israeli Jews, be supportive of any human rights violations they may commit against whoever represents their opposition.

Indeed, the cold, hard truth is that the Allies probably killed more Jews from their cruel, relentless targeted bombing of civilians, and the bombing of the Red Cross relief supply trains to the concentration camps that caused prisoners to starve, than the Germans ever did.

So what proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews?

None at all. All we have is post-war testimony, mostly of individual ‘survivors.’ This testimony is extremely contradictory, and very few claim to have actually witnessed any ‘gassings.’ There are no contemporaneous documents or hard evidence, no mounds of ashes, no crematories capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no ‘human soap,’ no lamp shades made of human skin, and no credible demographic statistics.

But what evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?

Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure.

Did Simon Wiesenthal state in writing that “there were no extermination camps on German soil?” Yes. The famous ‘Nazi hunter’ wrote this in Stars and Stripes, 24th January 1993. He also claimed that ‘gassings’ of Jews took place only in Poland.

If Dachau is in Germany, and even famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do many American veterans say it was an extermination camp?

After the Allies captured Dachau, many GIs and others were led through the camp and shown a room alleged to have been a ‘gas chamber.’ The mass media widely, but falsely, continues to assert that Dachau was a ‘death’ camp.

What about Auschwitz? Is there any proof that gas chambers were used to kill people there?

No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a room was reconstructed to look like a large gas chamber.

If Auschwitz was not a ‘death camp,’ what was its true purpose?

It was an internment centre and part of a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used as a workforce.

How did German concentration camps differ from American and British internment camps in which Japanese-American and German-British citizens were interned during WW II?

The main, significant difference was that whereas the Germans only interned persons on the basis of being real or suspected security threats to the war effort, the US and British governments interned persons on the basis of ethnicity alone.

Why did the German government intern Jews in camps? It considered Jews a threat to national security. (Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion.) However, all suspected security risks, not just Jews, were in danger of internment.

If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?

After the war, millions of Jews were still living in Europe, and 2,000 were still living normal lives in Hamburg. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps as many as one and a half million) had died of all causes during the war. Others had emigrated to Palestine, the United States, and other countries. Still more Jews left Europe, after the war.

How many Jews fled or were evacuated to the Soviet Union?

More than two million fled or were evacuated by the Soviets in 1941-1942, and thus never came under German control.

How many Jews emigrated from Europe prior to the war, thus putting them outside of German reach?

Perhaps a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).

If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Höss, confess that it was?

He was tortured by British military police, as one of his interrogators later admitted.

Is there any evidence of American, British and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners to extract ‘confessions’ for use at the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?

Yes. Torture was used to produce fraudulent ‘evidence’ for the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other post-war ‘war-crimes’ trials.

How does the Holocaust story benefit Jews today?

It helps protect Jews as a group from criticism. As a kind of secular religion, it provides an emotional bond between Jews and the Zionist leaders. It is a powerful tool in Jewish money-raising campaigns, and is used to justify billions of dollars of foreign aid to Israel.

How does it benefit the State of Israel?

It justifies the billions of dollars in ‘reparations’ Germany has paid to Israel and many individual ‘survivors.’ It is used by the Zionist/Israeli lobby to dictate a pro-Israel American foreign policy in the Middle East, and to force American taxpayer aid to Israel, totalling billions of dollars per year.

How did it benefit the Communists?

It completely diverted attention from Soviet war mongering and atrocities before, during and after the Second World War.

Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered the extermination of Europe’s Jews?

No, none whatsoever.

For what purpose was ‘Zyklon B’ manufactured?

It was a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and buildings to kill typhus-bearing lice and other pests.

Was this product suitable for mass extermination?

No. If the Nazis had intended to use poison gas to exterminate people, far more efficient products were available. Zyklon is a slow-acting, high temperature-only fumigation agent.

How long does it take to ventilate an area after fumigation with Zyklon B?

Normally up to 20 hours. The whole procedure is very complicated and dangerous. Gas masks must be used, and only trained personnel are employed.

Auschwitz commandant Höss said that men would enter the ‘gas chambers’ to remove bodies ten minutes after the victims had died. How do you explain this?

It cannot be explained because had they done so they would have suffered the same fate as the victims. Höss’s statements and confession were obtained through extreme duress and torture.

Höss said in his ‘confession’ that men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled bodies out of gas chambers, ten minutes after gassing. Isn’t hydrocyanic gas explosive?

Yes. The Höss confession is provably false.

How could a mass extermination programme have been kept secret from those who were scheduled to be killed?

It could not have been kept secret. The extermination stories originated as wartime atrocity propaganda.

About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?

The International Red Cross audit to January 16, 1984 records a total 282,077 registered deaths of all internees (of whom Jews were very much the minority) in all German Concentration Camps from all causes.

How did they die?

Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe during the war, as well as from starvation and lack of medical attention during the final months of the conflict, when virtually all road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.

Holocaust historians claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about ten minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body, according to professional crematory operators?

About an hour and a half, although the larger bones still remain intact.

Why did the German concentration camps have crematory ovens?

To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses of those who had died.

Given a 100-percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematories were in operation? About 430,600.

Can a crematory oven be operated 24/7?

No. Fifty percent of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per day.) Crematory ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when in heavy operation.

How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?

After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.

If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?

That has never been explained. Six million bodies would have produced many tons of ashes, yet there is no evidence of any large ash depositories at or around any of the camps.

Do Allied wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz (taken during the period when the ‘gas chambers’ and crematoria were supposedly in full operation) show evidence of extermination?

No. In fact, these photographs do not reveal even a trace of the enormous amount of smoke that supposedly was constantly over the camp, nor do they show evidence of the ‘open pits’ in which bodies were allegedly burned.

What was the main provision of the German ‘Nuremberg Laws’ of 1935? They forbade marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today.

Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many US states had enacted laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races.

What was the role of the Vatican during the time six million Jews were allegedly being exterminated?

If there had been an extermination programme, the Vatican would most certainly have been in a position to know about it. But because there was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it, and indeed it did not.

What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an on-going Jewish extermination program?

None at all.

Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?

As early as 1933, Hitler’s government signed an agreement with the Zionists permitting Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, taking large amounts of capital with them. And remember, it was the Zionist banksters that financed the Nazis.

What about the familiar photographs and film footage taken in the liberated German camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these all faked?

Photographs can easily be faked, even 70 years ago, but it is much easier merely to add a misleading caption to a photo or commentary to a piece of footage. Piles of emaciated corpses do not necessarily mean that these people were gassed or deliberately starved to death. Actually, these were tragic victims of raging epidemics or of starvation due to a lack of food in the camps toward the end of the war.

Are films such as ‘Schindler’s List’ or ‘The Winds of War’ accurate?

No. Such films are fictional dramatisations very loosely based on history. Unfortunately, many people accept them as accurate historical representations. Oskar Schindler’s widow repeatedly stated that the movie ‘Schindler’s List’ was untruthful.

What about the charge that those who question the Holocaust story are merely anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?

This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest arguments. Scholars who refute the Holocaust story claims are of all political persuasions and ethnic-religious backgrounds (including Jewish.) There is no correlation between Holocaust revisionism and anti-Semitism or neo-Nazism. A number of Jewish scholars openly admit the lack of evidence for key Holocaust claims. They are usually referred to by the rabid Zionists as ‘self-hating Jews,’ as is their practice.

At the end of the war in 1945 it was said that exterminations occurred regularly at 22 camps throughout Germany and Poland using methods which included electrocution, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, steam and even boiling water. A mere five years later that figure was officially reduced to just 6 camps, all of which were located in Poland where they could not be properly examined because of their location behind the ‘Iron Curtain’ and which were controlled by the Soviets.

It is a well-known and acknowledged fact that the allies faked hundreds of photo images after the war, for the purposes of psychological warfare against the German people. These images were part of the ‘re-education programme,’ which also included such ridiculous hoaxes as the Nazis using Jewish-skin for lampshades and their fat for soap – stories that are now thoroughly discredited – even by the mainstream.

The American Lieutenant in charge of documenting Buchenwald (where the infamous ‘shrunken heads’ story originated) was an operative of the Psychological Warfare Division of the Allied Forces. Albert G. Rosenberg was German-Jewish, born and raised in Germany and had only recently become an American. ‘Psychological Warfare Division’ is quite a giveaway for a department that was to historically document a concentration camp for future generations, is it not?

Rosenberg was given the go-ahead to confiscate the villa belonging to Baldur Von Schirach, who had been the wartime mayor of Vienna and used the villa, along with several former Buchenwald inmates as a base, to document the ‘history’ of the camp. The former inmates were all Jewish Communists, except for one non-communist, an Austrian Catholic named Eugen Kogon. Kogon compiled the report whilst Rosenberg supervised the overall project. One could say that the documentation of Buchenwald, is largely a story of liberated communists working under the supervision of a German-Jewish, Psychological Warfare Division Lieutenant. In other words, complete objectivity was assured, of course!

The Soviets were in fact already faking pictures during the war, for the purpose of propagandising their own people.

An original, ordinary photo can very easily become a vile piece of propaganda

The fakery was later exposed, but still, the perception of the truth, lingers on regardless

For example, the idea that Nazi Germany made soap out of Jewish body-fat was largely engineered by the legendary Nazi hunter and Mossad agent, Simon Wiesenthal, co-founder of the Jewish Historical Documentation Centre in Austria, and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California. The idea was so popular then that it was later uncritically accepted as fact in popular history books such as ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ by William L. Shirer.

Even before that, the most famous Jewish propagandist of that era, Ilya Ehrenburg, stated in his book ‘The Complete Black Book of Russian Jewry,’ that “ . . . in another section of the Belzec camp was an enormous soap factory. The Germans picked out the fattest people, murdered them, and boiled them down for soap. The Gestapo thugs never denied the existence of a ‘production process’ of this kind. Whenever they wanted to intimidate a Jew, they would say to him, ‘We’ll make soap out of you.’”

Wiesenthal, according to the secular ‘Standard,’ is a ‘Nazi Holocaust hero.’ He was nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, until 2009 no one was able to decipher the complete hoaxes and frauds fabricated by Wiesenthal. As the noted British writer, Guy Walters documented . . .

“His reputation is built on sand. He was a liar — and a bad one at that. From the end of the Second World War to the end of his life in 2005, he would lie repeatedly about his supposed hunt for Eichmann as well as his other Nazi-hunting exploits. He would also concoct outrageous stories about his war years and make false claims about his academic career. There are so many inconsistencies between his three main memoirs and between those memoirs and contemporaneous documents, that it is impossible to establish a reliable narrative from them. Wiesenthal’s scant regard for the truth makes it possible to doubt everything he ever wrote or said. For his untruths are not the only shocking discoveries I have made researching the escape of Nazi war criminals. I found a lack of political will for hunting them. Many could have been brought to justice had governments allocated even comparatively meagre resources to their pursuit.”

When Norman Finkelstein wrote ‘The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,’ in 2000, he argued that Holocaust ‘hoaxers’ namely Jewish organisations, have exploited what happened in Nazi Germany in order to obtain millions of dollars from Swiss banks. Finkelstein calls those Jewish leaders a “repellent gang of plutocrats, hoodlums, and hucksters.”

Amazingly, the German government ended up settling claims with 400,000 ‘survivors,’ shortly after WWII, and then in 1965 over 3 million more Jews claimed to be ‘survivors,’ in order to receive the payments. These were all settled without question as to have not done so would have brought severe criticism upon a country trying desperately to rebuild its world standing, from the international community. For ‘international community,’ read the ‘Zionist international community.’

As the Zionists extorted and enslaved the world, created and profited from all the wars, depressions and famines . . . Their next step was to create the mythology of the so-called holocaust, to foist upon us, to make us believe in it without question, just as we have been conditioned to believe and accept that for example, paying taxes is legal, and that genocide is justified (but only when they indulge in it.)

The Zionists have been engaged in a psychological war against us from the very beginning, but most of us are not even aware of it. It is this monumental ignorance and blind faith that has allowed them to control generation after generation of we, the ‘sheeple.’

Without the holocaust, there would be no Israel. Without Israel, there would be peace in the Middle-east. Without the Zionist-bankster control of our governments, our laws, education and media, there would be peace and prosperity everywhere in fact. And without the holocaust there would be no ‘guilt’ to use as a lever for the extraction of money and to gain sympathy. For as much as the Zionist-banksters use, divide and manipulate all of us, they continue to use the ordinary, hardworking, peace-loving Jewish people most of all.

As I have clearly shown, the Zionist-banksters set-up Germany for two World Wars, simply to vilify and tear them down again, in order to reap enormous financial gain and reshape the world to their own model. It also allowed them to create the state of Israel, the instigator of so much strife and mayhem in the Middle-east and indeed worldwide, thus enabling the further and on-going profits that permanent war brings.

As the banksters already control what we see, hear and read about, is it any wonder that they would like to dominate what we think as well? The fabricated idea that ‘six million Jews’ in Europe were being exterminated by the Germans and others, was regularly promoted by Jewish propagandists and their allies in the West beginning in 1915 during WWI. This slanderous, entirely false accusation had been and continues to be endlessly promoted to the often gullible and susceptible Western public, resulting in extremely negative anti-German sentiment. Many people still ‘hate’ the German nation for its alleged transgressions in the two wars.

During and immediately following WWII, deceitful propagandists continued to level this ‘atrocity propaganda’ against the Germans in order to demonise them and prepare the Western world for the institutionalisation of the myth of ‘six million Jews’ murdered by the Nazis.

Zionist-bankster-controlled Western and Soviet propagandists, including psychological warfare specialists in the United States Army and individuals connected to Hollywood, were heavily involved in manufacturing ‘evidence,’ including the construction of fake gas chambers, altered or otherwise misrepresented photographs and videos, ‘human lampshades,’ ‘shrunken heads’ and other absurd props – all of which were used to demonstrate to the world that the Germans did in fact commit outrageous atrocities during the war, particularly at the various concentration camps and industrial facilities under their administration.

The propaganda used to sell the idea of a ‘Jewish Holocaust’ is extremely emotionally and psychologically exploitative, resulting in psychological trauma and an inability of the masses to objectively evaluate the information they are being presented with. This will be discussed in more detail shortly.

This photo (above,) depicts Captain Alfred de Grazia, who was the Commanding Officer of the Psychological Warfare and Propaganda team attached to the US Seventh Army during World War II. He is standing in front of a pile of bodies outside the ‘Baracke X’ building at Dachau on 1st May 1945. The men in America’s Psychological Warfare and Propaganda military unit were mostly Jewish immigrants from Germany, who had been trained at Camp Ritchie in Maryland; they were also known as the ‘Ritchie Boys.’

Propaganda, as a weapon of psychological warfare is in even wider use today but Communists were absolute masters of the art. Often they used a direct approach, just as often they employed distraction tactics to focus the eyes and ears of the world in directions other than where the real conflict was being waged. For many years, through propaganda alone, the non-existent threat of Hitler and Nazism had been constantly held before the public in a diversionary tactic which kept attention from being directed towards the actual threat of Stalin, Khrushchev and Communism in general.

The Diary of Anne Frank

The story contained within Anne Frank’s diary, that world famous testimony to the sufferings of a Jewish family during World War II, may well be a true story as far as it goes, but it is one hundred percent certain that what was published and subsequently became a worldwide best seller was not written by Anne Frank herself.

Now, I would be the last to admit to being a handwriting analyst but there can surely be no doubt that those two samples (below) were written by two completely different individuals. I do not believe it possible that one’s handwriting could change that much over an entire lifetime let only in someone of poor Anne’s tender years. And just to further prove the point, it is strange is it not that the latter example purporting to be her original diary is written in ballpoint pen? Ballpoint pens were invented by a Hungarian by the name of Laszlo Biro in the mid-1940s and did not become commercially available until 1951, well after Anne’s death at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp from typhus at the age of fifteen in 1945.

Anne’s letter to an American ‘penpal’ Anne’s diary

Of the above examples of Anne’s handwriting, the first example was written to an American pen-friend who introduced the letter to the world after Anne had become posthumously famous and recognised the name – and the other is supposedly taken from the pages of Anne’s diary, purportedly written shortly after the first sample.

‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ was first published in 1952 and immediately became a bestseller. It has been re-published in paperback, with over forty re-printings and it is impossible to estimate how many people over the last sixty-plus years have been touched and moved in some way by the subject matter.

An interesting question to consider is, why the trial involving the father of Anne Frank, bearing directly on the authenticity of this book has never been officially reported by the overwhelmingly Zionist media? In royalties alone, Otto Frank profited greatly from the sale of this book, purporting to depict events in the tragic life of his family, but is it fact, fiction or propaganda or a combination of all of these? It certainly claims to be the truth but to what degree does it appeal to the emotions through misrepresentation? It was certainly convenient for Otto Frank that he was the only family member to survive the war – and I mean that in the sense of there being no-one left alive to corroborate or deny the story and in no way to diminish the anguish he must have suffered at the loss of his entire family.

School-book publishers have promoted this book for young people for many years, presenting it as the actual work of Anne Frank. Advertising in advance of the release of the movie certainly promoted the drama as being factual but do not writers of such editorials and promoters of such advertising in this way, keep alive the prejudices and hatred they profess to deplore and could this in fact, be the actual objective?

The Franks were upper-class German Jews, both parents emanating from wealthy families. As children, Otto and his siblings lived on the exclusive Meronstrasse in Frankfurt and Otto attended a private preparatory school and also the Lessing Gymnasium, the most expensive school in Frankfurt. Upon leaving school, Otto attended Heidelberg University from whence he eventually graduated.

In 1925 Anne’s parents married and settled in Frankfurt, Germany where Anne was born in 1929. The Frank’s family business included banking, management of the springs at Bad Soden a famous spa and the manufacture of cough sweets. Anne’s mother, born Edith Holländer, was the daughter of a wealthy manufacturing family and in 1934 Otto and family moved to Amsterdam where he bought a spice business, Opekta, which manufactured pectin, a form of gelatine used in the making of household jellies.

In May 1940, after the Germans occupied Amsterdam, Otto remained in the city where his company did business with the German Wehrmacht, whilst his mother and brother moved to Switzerland to escape the German occupation. From 1939 to 1944, Otto sold pectin to the German army to be used as a food preservative, a disinfectant balm for wounds, a thickener for increasing blood volume in blood transfusions and also as an emulsifier of petroleum to be used in the manufacture of fire bombs and flame-throwers. However, by supplying the Wehrmacht, Otto Frank became, in the eyes of many of his Dutch friends and neighbours, a Nazi collaborator. None of this aspect of the official story of course is ever mentioned or even alluded-to.

And also, perhaps significantly, the very fact that the Nazi occupiers were happy to conduct business with a well-known, prominent member of the Jewish community tends to belie the accepted mythology of the definitive persecution of the Jews by the Nazis.

On the 6th July 1942, Otto moved the entire Frank family along with two family friends into the so-called ‘secret annex.’ The annex was within a three storey townhouse that shared a garden park with fifty other apartments facing inwards to form an approximate square, but was not visible from the street. Whilst allegedly still in hiding, Otto Frank continued to manage his business, venturing downstairs to his office at night and at weekends. Anne and the others would also periodically go to Otto’s office and listen to radio broadcasts from England.

The purported diary begins on 12th June, 1942 continuing through to the 5th December 1942. In addition to this first diary, Anne also supplemented it with personal letters. Otto said that Anne heard Gerrit Bolkestein, a Dutch broadcaster, in a wireless programme, ask his listeners to keep a diary and he would publish it after the war and that is why, Otto claimed, she rewrote her diaries for the second time in 1944. In this second edition, the new writer, Anne or whoever it was, changed, rearranged and occasionally combined entries of various dates.

When Anne allegedly rewrote the diaries, she apparently used a ball-point pen (confirmed in Otto Frank’s court hearing) which was extremely enterprising of her, since such a device did not exist in 1944 and also the diary was written with literary standards far surpassing those of which even the brightest of fourteen year old children would be capable, reading more like a professionally written documentary than a child’s diary.

In 1944, the German authorities in occupied Holland determined that Otto Frank’s company had been defrauding them via his extensive and very lucrative Wehrmacht contracts and subsequently the police then raided his offices where during a thorough search the annex was discovered and the eight occupants were sent initially to the Westerbork transit camp and forced to perform manual labour. Otto was later sent to Auschwitz and Anne, her sister Margo and her mother subsequently died in one of the frequent outbreaks of typhus in Bergen-Belsen two weeks before liberation by the Allies.

In 1945, after being liberated from German custody, Otto returned to Amsterdam, where he claimed he found Anne’s diary cleverly hidden in the rafters of the annex. However, another version of the story tells of a Dutch friend, Meip Geis finding Anne’s diary whilst caretaking the building in the Franks’ enforced absence, which she then gave to Otto Frank upon his return. Otto took what he claimed were Anne’s letters and notes, edited them into a book, which he then gave to his secretary, Isa Cauvern to review. Isa Cauvern and her husband Albert Cauvern, a writer, subsequently authored the first version of the diary.

Upon submitting the diary for publication, questions were raised by some potential publishers as to whether Isa and Albert Cauvern, who assisted Otto in typing out the work, used the original diaries or whether they took it directly from Mr. Frank’s personal transcription, but it is known for certain now that the American author, Meyer Levin wrote the third and final edition which became the finished end-product. Meyer Levin was a Jewish author and journalist, who lived for many years in France, where he met Otto Frank around 1949.

If ever file number 2241-1956 in the New York County Clerk’s office is opened to public view and its contents widely publicised, then the true nature of this work will be exposed for all to witness. Misrepresentation, exaggeration and falsification has too often coloured the judgment of otherwise decent people and if Frank used the work of Meyer Levin to present to the world what we have been led to believe is the literary work of his daughter, wholly or in part, then the truth should be exposed. To label fiction as fact can never be justified nor should it be condoned.

Otto sued two Germans, Ernst Romer and Edgar Geiss in 1980 for distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery. The subsequent court case produced a study by official German handwriting experts that determined that everything in the diary was written by the same person but noted that this person (whoever it was) had used a ballpoint pen throughout! Unfortunately for Frank, as stated previously, the ballpoint pen was not available commercially until 1951 whereas Anne was known to have died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen in February 1945.

Because of this lawsuit in a German court, the German state forensic bureau, the Bundes Kriminal Amt (BKA) forensically examined the manuscript (which at that point in time consisted of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook) with specialised forensic equipment. The results of these tests, performed at the BKA laboratories, showed that ‘significant portions’ of the work, including the entire fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen and since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded those sections must have been added subsequently and fraudulently.

More importantly perhaps, the BKA investigation clearly determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne’s handwriting. The German magazine, ‘Der Spiegel’ published an account of this report alleging that some editing post-dated 1951 and an earlier expert had determined that all the writing in the journal was by the same hand and thus that the entire diary was a post-war fake.

This BKA exposé, as a result of the frantic lobbying of Jewish/Zionist interests was immediately retracted but later ‘inadvertently’ released to researchers in the United States. I invite the reader to draw his / her own conclusions from this fact.

For what reasons could this fraud have been perpetrated? Were the reasons simply for financial gain or was there a more sinister motive underlying its execution? Could it be part of the overall conspiracy to gain sympathy for the Zionist cause by exaggerating Jewish suffering and casting further aspersions on Nazi activities or is this proposition too unrealistic to contemplate seriously? You decide, but whatever the reason for it, the end result is that the memory of an innocent child-victim has been sullied by being blatantly used either for personal, monetary gain or on behalf of a minority but widely influential group, Zionism in order to surreptitiously benefit certain vested interests. However, perhaps more importantly, this shameful episode further demonstrates how simple is the process by which it is possible to deceive huge numbers of people on virtually any subject one could name by the simple expedient of powerful and persistent propaganda techniques and the constant, incessant repetition of statements designed to create a lasting impression.

But still, the world refuses to believe the truth about the holocaust.

And speaking of ‘holocausts,’ there was actually a ‘holocaust’ of sorts during and shortly after WWII, but of course we never hear about this particular one . . .

The ‘Rhine Meadows death camps’

To date, the only fully-documented intentional mass-extermination programme in the concentration camps of WWII was actually targeted at Germans. From April, 1945, five million Germans were rounded-up after surrendering, and deliberately mistreated until well over one million had died, in the French and American-run Rhine Meadows concentration camps.

Again, this is the kind of history, the dirty secret that you were not taught in school.

One month before the end of WWII, General Eisenhower issued special orders concerning the treatment of German Prisoners and specific within the language of those orders was this statement, “Prison enclosures are to provide NO shelter or other comforts.”

Eisenhower’s biographer Stephen Ambrose, who was given access to the his personal letters, stated that he proposed to exterminate the entire German General Staff, thousands of people, after the war. It is clear from Eisenhower’s personal letters, that he did not merely hate the Nazi Regime, and the few who imposed its will down from the top, but that he hated the German race, period and it was his personal intent to destroy as many of them as he could, and one way to achieve this was to exterminate as many prisoners of war as possible.

Of course, that was illegal under International law, so he issued an order on 10th March 1945 and verified by his initials on a cable of that date, that German Prisoners of War be re-designated as “Disarmed Enemy Forces” referred-to in reports as DEFs. He ordered that as these Germans were now not officially ‘prisoners of war’ and therefore did not fall under the Geneva Rules, that they were “not to be fed, nor given any water or medical attention.” The Swiss Red Cross was “not to inspect the camps,” as under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction. Many months after the war was officially over, Eisenhower’s special German DEF camps were still in operation forcing the men into confinement, but still denying that they were ‘prisoners.’

The book, ‘Other Losses,’ by James Bacque, found its way into the hands of a Canadian news reporter, Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun. He did his own research through contacts he had in Canada, and reported in his column on the 12th September 1989, the following . . . “ . . . it is hard to escape the conclusion that Dwight Eisenhower was a war criminal of epic proportions. His (DEF) policy killed more Germans in peace than were killed in the European Theater. For years we have blamed the 1.7 million missing German POWs on the Russians. Until now, no one dug too deeply . . . Witnesses and survivors have been interviewed by the author; one Allied officer compared the American camps to Buchenwald.”

It is known, that the Allies had sufficient stockpiles of food and medicine to care for these German soldiers but that these were deliberately and intentionally denied them. Many men died of gangrene from frostbite due to deliberate exposure.

Colonel James Mason and Colonel Charles Beasley who were in the US Army Medical Corps, published a paper on the Eisenhower death camps in 1950, in which they stated . . . “Huddled close together for warmth, behind the barbed wire was a most awesome sight; nearly 100,000 haggard, apathetic, dirty, gaunt, blank-staring men clad in dirty gray uniforms, and standing ankle deep in mud . . . water was a major problem, yet only 200 yards away the River Rhine was running bank-full.”

In 1945, Martin Brech was an 18 year old, Private First Class in Company C of the 14th Infantry, assigned as a guard and interpreter at the Eisenhower camp at Andernach, along the Rhine River. He stated for Spotlight, in February 1990, that . . . “My protests regarding treatment of the German DEFs were met with hostility or indifference, and when I threw our ample rations to them over the barbed wire. I was threatened, making it clear that it was our deliberate policy not to adequately feed them. When they caught me throwing C- Rations over the fence, they threatened me with imprisonment. One Captain told me that he would shoot me if he saw me again tossing food to the Germans . . . Some of the ‘men’ were really only boys 13 years of age . . . Some of the prisoners were old men drafted by Hitler in his last ditch stand . . . I understand that average weight of the prisoners at Andernach was 90 pounds . . . I have received threats . . . Nevertheless, this . . . has liberated me, for I may now be heard when I relate the horrible atrocity I witnessed as a prison guard for one of ‘Ike’s death camps’ along the Rhine.”

Imagine for a moment that you are a young German soldier who survived through the battles of World II. You were not really politically-minded and your parents were also indifferent to politics, but suddenly your education was interrupted and you were drafted into the German army and ordered to fight. Then, in the Spring of 1945, you see that your country and your home-town has been destroyed by the Allies, all the other cities of your country lie in ruins, and half of your family has been killed or is missing. Now, your unit is surrounded, and it is finally time to surrender. The fact is, there is no other choice.

It has been a long, cold winter and army rations have not been all that good, but you managed to survive. Spring came late that year, with weeks of cold rainy weather in Europe. Your boots are shredded, your uniform is falling apart, but they are all the clothes that you have. The stress of surrender and the confusion and uncertainty of what is to come is terrifying you, but now, your war is over and you must surrender or be shot.

So, you are taken as a German PoW along with women civilians too, into American hands. You are marched to a compound surrounded with barbed wire fences as far as the eye can see. Thousands upon thousands of your fellow German soldiers are already in this make-shift corral. You see no evidence of a latrine and after three hours of marching through the mud of the spring rain, the comfort of a latrine is upper-most in your mind. You are driven through the heavily guarded gate and find yourself free to move about, and you begin the futile search for the latrine. Finally, you ask for directions, and are informed that no such luxury exists.

Hundreds more German prisoners are behind you, pushing you on, jamming you together and every one of them searching for the latrine as soon as they could do so. Now, late in the day, there is no space to even squat, much less sit down to rest your weary legs and worse still, none of the prisoners, you quickly learn, have had any food that day. In fact there has been no food at all that any surviving prisoner can testify to. No one has eaten any food for weeks, and they are slowly starving and dying. But, you protest, they can’t do this to us! There are rules for the treatment of prisoners of war. There must be some mistake! Hope continues through that first night, with no shelter from the cold, biting rain.

Your uniform is sopping wet, and once-brave fighting men are weeping all around you, as friends begin to die from the lack of food, water, sleep and shelter from the weather. After weeks of this, your own hope turns into despair, and finally you actually begin to envy those who, having surrendered first their dignity, now also surrender life itself. More hopeless weeks go by and finally, the last thing you experience is falling, being unable to get up, and lying face down in the mud mixed with the excrement of those who have gone before.

Your body will be picked up long after it is cold, and taken to a special tent where your clothing is stripped off. So that you will be quickly forgotten, and never identified, your identity dog-tag is cut in half and your body along with those of your fellow soldiers are covered with chemicals for rapid decomposition and buried. You were no exception, for more than one million seven hundred thousand German prisoners of war died in this cruel, inhuman fashion from this deliberate policy of extermination by starvation, exposure, and disease, under direct orders of General Dwight David Eisenhower, future president of the United States.

FDR as you may recall, was controlled by Rothschild Zionist-bankster Bernard Baruch, as was Churchill, so undoubtedly it was he who gave Eisenhower his orders. Baruch had the power to set in motion, as he indeed did, a rapid succession of promotions for Eisenhower, which by-passed many officers who outranked him and who were much more competent and qualified for the posts he occupied. He quickly rose to his ultimate position as Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force for the invasion of Europe.

It was also Eisenhower, whose open hatred of everything German caused him to promulgate Operation Keelhaul, at the end of the war, when thousands of anti-Communist fighters, who had surrendered to American forces, were forced at bayonet point, back to Russia and to the tender mercies of Stalin. Hundreds of thousands of them were subsequently murdered outright, or disappeared forever into the Gulags of Russia.

In 1945, during the post-WW II period, American foreign policy was largely already in the hands of a small group of very powerful Zionists based in Washington DC, ultimately controlled by the Rothschilds. This secret, invisible government, which has been the power in America all along, was headed then by Herbert Lehman, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau. They drew up the blueprint for a plan, which bankster-puppet Eisenhower enthusiastically carried-out in Europe, which was the most monstrous policy of hate and vengeance known in the annals of ‘civilised’ history.

In order to keep a much closer ‘watch’ on Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and his MI-6 friends, made sure he fell for a beautiful ‘honey-trap,’ a British agent by the name of Kay Summersby. She was assigned as his military chauffeur and soon became his mistress, all the time that he was in London, North Africa and Europe. Although Summersby secretly despised Eisenhower, she was a loyal British subject, and she successfully carried-off the deception.

The amount of time that Eisenhower had to devote to his career, plus the loss of their first son, had driven him and his wife apart and once the war was underway and he was stationed in Europe, their relationship became even more strained and indeed downright bitter. After the war was over, Eisenhower wrote to his friend and superior, General George Marshall, asking that he be relieved of duty so that he could divorce his wife and marry Kay. But Marshall would not agree and told him bluntly that if he attempted to do so, he would, “bust him out of the army and make his life hell.”

Besides, the banksters had far more important plans for Eisenhower, but firstly, his fiercest, most vocal opponent had to be dealt with . . .

The Murder of General Patton

General Patton, perhaps the most popular of the WWII American generals had no qualms about killing enemy soldiers in combat but he absolutely ‘drew a line’ at the wholesale murder and starvation of helpless prisoners and civilians in his sector of occupation, as advocated by his superiors. However because of this, he came into serious conflict with his superior, Eisenhower and from then on his fate was sealed. It is well-known that the two had on-going, extremely animated debates about how the civilian population of Germany were being treated and Patton was in effect sentenced to death by the directors of this very scenario.

Patton’s car was in collision with a military truck in what was regarded as a very ‘strange’ accident, by its witnesses. The General was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was observed to have serious, but not life-threatening injuries. However, despite this, just as he was recovering some days later, he died of a ‘heart attack.’

His death was extremely opportune for Eisenhower. Patton had announced that upon his return to the United States, he was going to denounce publicly what was taking place in Germany . . .

“I have a little black book in my pocket and when I get back home I’m going to blow the hell out of everything.” General George Patton, August 1945

Unfortunately though, his views had conflicted with too many important people and so Eisenhower ordered that he be silenced, probably under orders himself from the very highest level. Patton’s ‘black book’ was never found.

At the Yalta conference earlier that year (1945) the banksters had agreed via their lackeys, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin that the Soviets would be the first to enter the German capital. They needed a strong Soviet presence in Eastern Europe after the war, to maintain the on-going conflict that is their life-blood, in the form of the Cold War and a Western Europe devoid of a Soviet presence would have severely weakened that strategy. Peace was not a desirable state of affairs at all. In fact, as previously related, Patton’s troops could quite easily have entered both Berlin and even Prague before the Russians, but were prevented from doing so by an order from Eisenhower.

Patton made no secret of his wish to prevent the entrance of the Red Army into Berlin and in so doing made an enemy of the ‘controlled’ Eisenhower. He was furious to be informed by his superiors that he was to refrain from taking Berlin. He, as did they, knew that it would have been simple for the Americans to reach Berlin before the Russians and thus gain control of the entire country but that would have been contrary to the Elite’s plan for the instigation of the Cold War in the succeeding years which partly hinged upon the division of Germany into the two separate states of ‘East’ and ‘West.’ The American progress eastwards through Western Europe had been much swifter than the Russians westward march. In the main this was due to the Germans’ readiness to surrender to the British and Americans as they knew that surrendering to the Russians was probably a death sentence. Hence many German units on the eastern front fought to the death of the last man in their futile bid to stop the advancing Russian juggernaut.

Patton’s difficulties with the bankster-controlled ‘powers that be’ over the occupation of Germany were so great that Eisenhower stripped him of his position as Commander of the Third Army and gave him command of a secondary, lesser unit. In fact Patton suspected that his life was in danger and confided as much to his family and close friends. He was feared because of his prestige, popularity and influence on public opinion and was undoubtedly the most renowned American combat General, whilst Eisenhower was nothing more than a ‘political soldier,’ and Patton’s words, if not curbed in some way, would alert the public to the true realities of what was happening in Germany.

Thus the aforementioned accident was arranged and carried-out, but it was not by any means the first. On the 21st April 1945, the plane on which he was being transported to General Headquarters of the Third Army in England was attacked by what was assumed to be a German fighter, but it turned out to be a Spitfire piloted by a Polish RAF pilot. Patton’s plane was shot at and badly hit, but was miraculously able to land safely. Then on the 3rd May, some days before the end of the war, the General’s jeep was charged by an ox-drawn cart, leaving Patton with light injuries.

The collision with the truck occurred on the 13th October 1945, but just as Patton appeared to be recovering after the accident, the so-called ‘heart attack’ occurred. The fact is, that after the 13th October only doctors were allowed to see Patton, with all other visitors forbidden. From the hospital, Patton contacted his wife in America in a vain attempt to get her to have him moved from the hospital because, he said, quite accurately, “They’re going to kill me here.”

For many years it was only speculation that Patton had been assassinated. But now it is known for a fact to be the truth, for one very simple reason. An agent of the OSS (the forerunner of the CIA) an American military spy, Douglas Bazata, a Jew of alleged Lebanese origin, announced before 450 invited guests; high ranking, ex-members of the OSS and CIA, in the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC on the 25th September, 1979 . . .

“For diverse political reasons, many extremely high-ranking persons hated Patton. I know who killed him because it was I. I am the one who was hired to do it. I was paid ten thousand dollars and General William Donovan himself, director of the OSS, entrusted me with the mission. I also set up the accident but since he didn’t die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital, where he was killed by me with a cyanide injection.”

Apparently, Donovan had told Bazata, “We’ve got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he’s out of control and we must save him from himself and from ruining everything the allies have done.”

The tragic fate of Patton convinced many others of his loyal colleagues and their honourable compatriots of the uselessness of fighting against the bankster-controlled war powers.

The plot to dispose of Patton was undertaken simply because the banksters wished to prolong the conflict following the end of WWII, not merely to garner more profits from arms sales and to increase the debts of fighting nations, to them, but also to allow for the emergence of the Soviet Union, as a major global power. That would guarantee future conflict for many years to come in the shape of the Cold War and a repetition of the same cycle of war through the ‘communism versus democracy’ dialectic.

In fact many reputable writers even go as far as saying that Donovan was a British agent. Bazata also believed so. In fact it was the British envoy to the US, Sir William Stephenson, himself an intelligence operative carrying the codename Intrepid, who worked towards convincing the US President, of the need for setting-up an intelligence organisation, which was then named OSS, which was the previous incarnation of the CIA. He subsequently manoeuvred to have Donovan appointed as Chief of the OSS and triumphantly reported to Stewart Menzies, the British intelligence chief . . . “You can imagine how relieved I am after three months of battle and jockeying for position that our man [Donovan] is in a position of such importance to our efforts.”

Of course, the banksters control all national intelligence agencies, deliberately engineered the two World Wars, the Bolshevik Revolution and controlled the Bolshevik leadership and also funded the Nazis. The collaboration between the OSS and NKVD during WWII, was therefore hardly surprising.

The Nuremberg ‘Trials’ – A Travesty of Justice

World War II in Europe may have officially ended in May 1945, but the period of chaos that followed, lasted for at least five more years. All across Europe, landscapes had been ravaged, entire cities ruined, and millions of people had been killed or displaced in the war. Institutions such as the police, the media, transport and local and national governments were either gone or virtually non-existent. As a result of this, crime rates soared, economies collapsed, hungry women and girls turned to prostitution as the European population hovers on the brink of starvation, and a kind of general anarchy prevails.

Communists, liberals and Jews now used this utter anarchy to impose a cruel vengeance upon their helpless prey. German civilians and their anti-Communist allies everywhere were rounded up, raped, sodomised, drowned in cesspools, tortured, mutilated, burned alive, and executed.

Further massacres and civil wars followed in Greece, Yugoslavia and Poland, as well as parts of Italy and France. In some of the worst acts of ethnic-cleansing the world has ever seen, tens of millions were expelled from their ancestral homelands, as Eisenhower’s Allied occupiers ‘looked the other way.’ The 2012 book Savage Continent by Keith Lowe, documented much of this disturbing story in gruesome detail.

But amidst all this death and destruction, the Allies somehow found time to stage the Nuremberg Trials. They were only really show trials of course, of which Stalin and Hitler themselves would have been proud. Pre-determined and as predictable as a TV legal drama, only in this case, the real perpetrators of the worst excesses of war, were not even questioned, let alone indicted. And of course, the worst of them all Joseph Stalin, perhaps the mass-murderer of the Millennium if not of all-time, was not even mentioned.

Roosevelt’s eulogists likewise avoided the subject of Stalin, for whom FDR had the highest regard, referring to him as ‘a Christian gentleman’ during the Yalta conference. He had befriended Stalin from the first year of his administration, when he extended diplomatic recognition to the murderous pariah state of the USSR and time and again, chose to help Stalin when he did not have to, appeasing him from a position of strength. Then when FDR asked Pope Pius XII to condemn Hitler, Pius sent back word that if he did so he would also have to condemn Stalin and so Roosevelt withdrew his request.

And as for Churchill, we are assured that he had no illusions about Stalin, which only makes his wartime indulgence of the tyrant harder to excuse. His 1946 complaint (in a famous speech in Fulton, Missouri) about the ‘Iron Curtain’ falling on Eastern Europe after World War II is treated as prophetic, when it was just the opposite, a totally hypocritical gesture. Anyone who did not know what to expect of Stalin by 1946, or who could believe his ‘guarantees’ at Yalta in 1945, was a moron, but Churchill was no moron, merely a cynic feigning alarm at the obvious.

Stalin had shown his true colours long before Roosevelt and Churchill took him on as their ally. Had they never heard of the Holodomor in Ukraine, the NKVD mass arrests, the Gulag camps, the purges and show trials, the murder of Trotsky, the invasions of Poland and most of the rest of eastern Europe, the Katyn Forest massacre of 15,000 Polish officers not to mention the tens of millions of his own citizens ethnically cleansed for the heinous crime of being anti-Communist or simply Christians?

All these things, and more, revealed not only the brutality of Stalin but the logic of Communism itself, which had begun its reign in Russia with the mass murder of Orthodox priests under Lenin. Communism was in essence a reversion to the principles of primitive warfare, directed not only against external enemies but against its own subjects if they resisted or were even suspected of a disposition to resist its tyranny.

The alliance with the Soviet Union was a permanent bloodstain on the Western democracies and was part of what F.J.P. Veale, a British jurist, called the Allies’ “advance to barbarism” in his mercilessly trenchant book of that title. But Veale was not as well-informed as you are now, about the role of the banksters in all of this intrigue and chicanery.

The exaltation of the ‘Stalin-lovers’ as the heroes of the century, and ‘saviours of civilisation,’ is an almost incomprehensible paradox. It is almost as though we were being asked to believe that the greatest peace-advocates of the Middle Ages, say, Innocent III, Dante and St. Francis of Assisi had been friends and admirers of Genghis Khan.

Veale ranked the Allies’ policies of terror-bombing and ‘war-crimes’ trials with ‘Hitler’s genocide’ as the distinguishing features of the “retrograde movement of civilisation” that culminated in World War II. However Veale was almost certainly unaware that Hitler’s so-called ‘genocide’ was in fact non-existent and completely invented, in order to render him and his regime a byword for evil, for evermore.

The readiness with which Churchill and Roosevelt embraced Stalin as an ally after Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 was only one indication of the new ‘morality’ of warfare that they were prepared to adopt. They unconditionally forgave Stalin’s part in the rape and destruction of Poland that began in 1939 and even entrusted him, at the war’s end in 1945, with absolute control of Poland and indeed the rest of Eastern Europe. Of course at the time it suited their own (the banksters’) agenda perfectly and was a classic example of the double-standards in politics that not only persist, but flourish, even to this day.

When the trials began at Nuremberg, there were a few ‘irregularities.’ For example, the accusers (including Soviet judges with long experience in Stalinist methods of the dispensation of ‘justice’) doubled as jurors and the court was as a result, never impartial from the outset. The accused were in fact judged guilty before the proceedings began and the evidence presented was completely one-sided, its intention being solely to provide ‘proof’ of guilt. The rules of evidence totally limited the defence in as much as the defendants were not permitted to argue that the Allies had committed the same acts of which they were being accused.

Even so, the Germans were never tried for bombing civilian areas, because the Allies did not want to risk drawing attention to the fact that they themselves had initiated this particular ‘crime against humanity.’ And the creative charge of ‘waging a war of aggression’ was never defined either, because no definition could be found that would cover the German invasion of Poland without also covering the Soviet invasions of Poland and several other countries also.

Such treatment of prisoners of war was also a departure from the previous rules, which the Allies justified by arbitrarily declaring the captured German military officers to be civilians. This made them eligible to be tried as criminals under the inchoate new rules. The purpose of the trials was not to do justice or to determine guilt according to normal standards of law (which forbade ex post-facto trials,) but to give the Allies a propaganda victory in addition to their military triumph.

In essence, the Germans were convicted of losing the war. The only real ‘war crime,’ was being defeated. The honourable German admiral Erich Raeder, for example, was convicted for invading Norway, though he had simply arrived slightly in advance of the British, on the eve of their own planned invasion.

The whole thing was a shameful, contrived farce which set its own precedents for the pursuit of aging ‘war criminals’ that still continued until recently. The only reason that this incessant pursuit has now been wound-down is that seventy plus years after the event, most of the protagonists are now long-dead. When similar trials were held in Tokyo two years later, an Indian jurist who participated decried the proceedings, thus . . . “The farce of a trial of vanquished leaders by the victors was itself an offence against humanity.” No Western jurist had ever found the courage to say as much at Nuremberg.

The Allied crimes have never been acknowledged, except maybe as wartime necessities justified by noble ends and the Allied criminals have never been brought to justice. Instead, they are still honoured as the ‘heroes’ of the twentieth century. Even the memory of the odious ‘Bomber’ Harris, long ostracised with distaste and moral embarrassment by the British Establishment for his rather unseemly enthusiasm for killing civilians, was honoured by the erection of a statue in London.

The first and most well-known of the show trials was the ‘Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal.’ This was the show trial of the twenty-four most important, captured leaders of Germany. It was held from the 20th November 1945 to the 1st October 1946. There were prosecutors and judges from the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. 100,000 documents were accepted into evidence and the transcript of the trial filled 42 volumes with more than 5 million words. According to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Allied prosecutors submitted some 3,000 tons of documents but the defence was not allowed access to any except the ones that were actually ‘used’ by the prosecution.

The entire Nuremberg International Military Tribunal trial was captured on film and shown to the world on TV and newsreels which showed the city as a pile of rubble, which had not yet been cleared when the trial started. In fact, the bodies of 20,000 German civilians were still buried under the destroyed buildings as the German ‘war criminals’ were ushered into the courtroom of the Palace of Justice. The Palace of Justice itself had suffered some damage in the Allied bombing of Nuremberg, but it had been restored by the forced labour of the conquered Germans before the trial began.

It was at these trials that the whole world learned for the first time about the ‘German atrocities,’ including all the gory details of the ‘shrunken heads,’ the ‘soap made from human fat,’ the leather goods ‘made from the skin’ of concentration camp prisoners, and the gas chambers which accounted for the majority of the deaths at Auschwitz and Majdanek, where the Russians testified that not less than 4 million people had died in the Auschwitz complex and another 1.5 million had died at the Majdanek camp. Today, the ‘official’ figures given for these camps, are 1.1 million deaths at Auschwitz and 78,000 at Majdanek, including 59,000 Jews. And as demonstrated previously, most of the Nazi ‘horrors’ were fabricated for Soviet and Allied propaganda, indeed for the banksters’ evil propaganda. A starved and diseased body looks just as wretched, just as heart-wrenching, as one presented as ‘gassed.’ But then, the trials were never about seeking the truth.

The selection of photos below, taken when the concentration camps were liberated and showing the majority of prisoners as they really were, certainly were not entered into evidence for the defence.

Liberation of Dachau | Liberation of Mauthausen | Liberation of Auschwitz

The Nuremberg proceedings violated almost all ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders and the violations were created especially for the occasion and were applied only to the vanquished. Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.

As even some leading Allied figures privately acknowledged at the time, the Nuremberg trials were organised not to dispense impartial justice, but for political purposes. Sir Norman Birkett, a British judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, explained in a private letter in April 1946 that . . . “ . . . the trial is only in form a judicial process and its main importance is political.”

Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor and a former US Attorney General, declared that the Nuremberg Tribunal . . . “ . . . is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations” against Germany. He added that the Tribunal . . . “ . . . is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional system . . . ”

Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, who presided at the Tribunal’s solemn opening session, was a vice-chairman of the supreme court of the USSR before and after his service at Nuremberg. In August 1936 he had been a judge at the infamous Moscow show trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev. At a joint planning conference shortly before the Nuremberg Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko bluntly explained the Soviet view of the enterprise, thus:

“We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments . . . The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime . . . The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment – the sentences.”

Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organising these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoirs that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort, were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added. The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings. Above all, the powerful but secretive organisation made sure that Germany’s ‘persecution of the Jews,’ was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process.

Two Jewish officers in the US Army, Lieutenant-Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David ‘Mickey’ Marcus, played key roles in the Nuremberg sham. In the words of historian, Robert Conot, Bernays was “the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg.” Indeed it was Bernays, a successful New York attorney, who personally persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial.

Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the ‘number three man in making American policy,’ in occupied Germany and as chief of the US government’s War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. (He later became a commander of the Zionist ‘Haganah’ military forces in Palestine, whose despicable, bloody exploits paved the way for the theft of that country and which eventually became Israel.

Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals, and also at some of the twelve subsequent Nuremberg Trials, and was even the presiding judge in the Hostages Trial, where twelve Germans were tried, but the severest sentence handed-down was life imprisonment.

“If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here,” he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. “The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident,” he added.

After eight months at Nuremberg, Wennerstrum gave an interview to Hal Foust, a journalist for the Chicago Daily Tribune, who was in Nuremberg covering the trials. Wennerstrum expressed his disgust about how the trials had been conducted, cautiously referring to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process . . .

“The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome . . . Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices. Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution and the defence had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to their case . . . The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.” He left Nuremberg, “ . . . with a feeling that justice has been denied.”

The journalist Hal Foust also complained that the US military had intercepted his article being transmitted back to America and how he was given a rebuttal of Judge Wennerstrum’s comments, before they had even been published. Foust also stated that it was not the first time that the US Military had incepted his articles being transmitted back to America. After sending a tele-ticker of his exposé of the corruption at the Military Government’s Rest and Recreation Centre in Garmisch, in the Bavarian Alps, he had been picked-up and interrogated by the American Military only hours later.

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, also remarked with irritation . . . “Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretence that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.” In a private letter he also wrote . . . “ . . . I wonder how some of those who preside at the trials would justify some of the acts of their own governments if they were placed in the status of the accused?”

On another occasion Stone specifically wondered, “ . . . whether, under this new [Nuremberg] doctrine of international law, if we had been defeated, the victors could plausibly assert that our supplying Britain with fifty destroyers in 1940, was an act of aggression . . . ”

In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared . . . “The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history . . . The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst.”

Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated . . . “As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States . . . A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States.”

But probably the most courageous condemnation was by US Senator Robert A. Taft, widely regarded as the ‘conscience of the Republican party.’ At considerable risk to his political career, he denounced the Nuremberg enterprise in an October 1946 speech, thus . . .

“The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice. About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials – government policy and not justice – with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.”

Milton R. Konvitz, a Jewish specialist of law and public administration who lectured at New York University, warned at the time that the Nuremberg Tribunal . . . “ . . . defies many of the most basic assumptions of the judicial process. Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department’s policy . . . The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish.”

In the years since, distinguished figures in both the United States and other countries have expressed similar views. US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote, “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post-facto to suit the passion and clamour of the time.”

While the Nuremberg trials were underway, and for some time afterwards, there was much talk about the universal validity of the new legal code established there. A new age of international justice had begun, it was claimed. Many sincerely believed that the four Allied powers would themselves abide by the Tribunal’s standards. As it happened, none of the four powers that participated in the Tribunal ever made the slightest effort to apply the principles so solemnly and self-righteously proclaimed at Nuremberg either to their own leaders or to those of any other country.

In conducting the Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments themselves violated international law. For one thing, their treatment of the German defendants and the military prisoners who testified violated articles 56, 58 and others of the Geneva Convention of July 1929. Justice – as opposed to vengeance – is a standard that should be applied equally and impartially. Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman that the Allies . . . “ . . . have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of German prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.”

In violation of the Nuremberg accusation of Germany’s, “planning, preparation, initiating or waging a war of aggression,” the Soviet Union had attacked Finland in December 1939 and was expelled from the League of Nations as a result. A few months later, the Red Army invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and ruthlessly incorporated them into the Soviet Union. The post-war French government violated international law and the Nuremberg charge of “maltreatment of prisoners of war,” by employing large numbers of German prisoners of war as forced labourers in France. In 1945 the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly agreed to the brutal deportation of more than ten million Germans from their ancient homelands in eastern and central Europe, a violation of the Nuremberg count of, “deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.”

While Allied prosecutors charged the defendants with a ‘crime against peace’ in planning the German invasion of Norway in 1940, the British government eventually had to admit that Britain and France were themselves guilty of the same ‘crime’ in preparing a military invasion of Norway, code-named ‘Stratford,’ before the German move. And in August 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied Iran, a neutral nation. Given this record, it is hardly surprising that the four governments that organised the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946 included no definition of ‘aggression’ in the Tribunal’s Charter.

Indeed, the Soviet role in the proceedings, which the United States fully supported, moved American diplomat and historian George F. Kennan to condemn the entire Nuremberg enterprise as a ‘horror’ and a ‘mockery.’

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the essential character of the Nuremberg proceedings than the appalling treatment of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy. Hess was sentenced to life imprisonment, dying in Spandau prison in 1987 where he had been kept in solitary confinement for forty years, even though he alone of leading figures of the countries involved in the Second World War risked his life in a dangerous, but ultimately fruitless effort to conclude peace between two of the warring nations. The highly-respected British historian, A.J.P. Taylor succinctly summed-up the injustice of the Hess case and, by implication, of the entire Nuremberg enterprise . . .

“Hess came to this country in 1941 as an ambassador of peace. He came with the intention of restoring peace between Great Britain and Germany. He acted in good faith. He fell into our hands and was quite unjustly treated as a prisoner of war. After the war, we should have released him. Instead, the British government of the time delivered him for sentencing to the International Tribunal at Nuremberg . . . No crime has ever been proved against Hess . . . As far as the records show, he was never at even one of the secret discussions at which Hitler explained his war plans.”

Officially Hess died by suicide on the 17th August 1987 aged 93, the last of the prisoners to be tried at Nuremberg and was one of the oldest prisoners in the world, having spent 46 years of his life locked-up. He was found in a summer house in the garden located in a secure area of the prison with an electrical cord wrapped around his neck. His death was ruled a suicide by self-asphyxiation, accomplished by tying the cord to a window latch in the summer house.

However marks on his neck found by later autopsies corresponded to strangulation or throttling rather than hanging. In the final years of his life, Hess was a weak and frail old man, blind in one eye and only able to walk stooped forward with a cane. He lived in virtually total isolation according to a strictly regulated daily routine. Regulations stipulated that prison officials could not ever call Hess by name. He was addressed only as ‘prisoner No. 7.’ Prison guards who knew him in his last years said that he was so crippled by arthritis that he could not lift his arms above his shoulders and therefore there was no way that this crippled old man could have strangled himself.

The sheer quantity of paper seized by the Allies was staggering. For example, the records of the German Foreign Office confiscated by US officials amounted to some 485 tonnes of paper. And yet, out of this great mass of paper, not a single document has ever been found that confirms or even refers to an ‘extermination programme’ of the Jews. A number of historians have commented on this remarkable ‘gap’ in the evidence. French-Jewish historian Leon Poliakov, for example, noted in his best-known Holocaust work . . . “ . . . only the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as regards its conception as well as many other essential aspects, remains shrouded in darkness.” No documents of a plan for exterminating the Jews have ever been found, he added, because “ . . . none ever existed.”

After the Nuremberg Tribunal pronounced its sentence, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop pointed out some of the obstacles erected in his own case . . . “The defence had no fair chance to defend German foreign policy. Our prepared application for the submission of evidence was not allowed . . . Without good cause being shown, half of the 300 documents which the defence prepared were not admitted. Witnesses and affidavits were only admitted after the prosecution had been heard; most of them were rejected . . . Correspondence between Hitler and Chamberlain, reports by ambassadors and diplomatic minutes, etc., were rejected. Only the prosecution, not the defence, had access to German and foreign archives. The prosecution only searched for incriminating documents and their use was biased. It knowingly concealed exonerating documents and withheld them from the defence.”

It is often claimed that the evidence presented by the prosecution to the Nuremberg Tribunal was so incontrovertible that none of the defence attorneys ever disputed the authenticity or accuracy of even a single prosecution document. This is categorically untrue. Not only did defence lawyers protest against the prosecution use of spurious documents, but some of the most important Nuremberg documents are now generally acknowledged to be fraudulent. For example, defence attorney Dr. Boehm protested to the Tribunal that Nuremberg document 1721-PS, which purportedly confirms attacks by storm-troopers against Jewish synagogues in November 1938, is a clumsy forgery.

Almost forty years after the Tribunal handed down its verdicts, Nuremberg document USSR-378 was definitively exposed as a fraud. It is a purported record of numerous private conversations with Hitler by Hermann Rauschning, a former National Socialist official in Danzig. In brutal language, Hitler supposedly revealed his most intimate thoughts and secret plans for world conquest. Rauschning’s ‘memoir’ was published in 1939 in Britain under the title ‘Hitler Speaks,’ and in the United States in 1940, melodramatically as ‘The Voice of Destruction.’ It was this US edition that was accepted in evidence at Nuremberg as proof of the “guiding principles of the Nazi regime.”

Another fraudulent Nuremberg document was the so-called ‘Hossbach protocol’ (document 386-PS), a purported record of a high-level 1937 conference at which Hitler supposedly revealed his secret plans for aggressive conquest of the world. US Nuremberg prosecutor Sidney Alderman referred to it as . . . “ . . . one of the most striking and revealing of all the captured documents,” and told the Tribunal that it removed any remaining doubts about the guilt of the Germans leaders for their crimes against peace. It was largely on the basis of this document that Göring was condemned to death.

Along with the millions of people around the world who avidly followed the Nuremberg proceedings by radio and newspaper, the defendants themselves were shocked by the evidence presented to substantiate the extermination charge. Above all, the testimonies of Auschwitz commandant, Rudolf Höss and Einsatzgruppen commander Otto Ohlendorf, made a deep impression. Contrary to what is often claimed or insinuated, however, the Nuremberg Tribunal defendants declared that they were absolutely unaware of any extermination programme during the war and indeed protested vehemently that if there had been such a policy of extermination that they would certainly have known of it. These men were, in a sense, the first ‘Holocaust revisionists.’

The principal Nuremberg defendant, Hermann Göring, who had been Hitler’s second-in-command and designated successor during most of the Third Reich years, vehemently denied knowledge of any extermination program during the war. “The first time I learned of these terrible exterminations, was right here in Nuremberg,” he exclaimed at one point. The German policy had been to expel the Jews, not kill them, he explained, and added that, to the best of his knowledge, Hitler was unaware of any extermination policy either.

Hans Frank, the wartime governor of German-ruled Poland, testified that during the war he had heard only rumours and foreign reports of mass killings of Jews. He had asked other officials, including Hitler, about these stories and was repeatedly assured that they were false.

Frank’s testimony is particularly noteworthy because if millions of Jews had actually been exterminated in German-occupied Poland, as alleged, hardly anyone would have been in a better position to know about it. During the course of the trial, Frank was overcome by a deep sense of Christian repentance. His psychological state was such that if he had known about an extermination programme, he would have said so.

The case of Albert Speer, one-time Hitler confidant and wartime Armaments Minister, deserves special mention. That millions of Jews could have been transported across Europe and killed at a wartime industrial centre as important as Auschwitz, and elsewhere, without Speer’s knowledge simply defies belief. Such testimony by the men who were most familiar with Germany’s overall Jewish policy is routinely dismissed as brazen lying. But the categorical and self-consistent nature of this testimony, sometimes by men, who knew that death soon awaited them, suggests a core of truth. On the other hand, to accept the Holocaust extermination story means giving greater credibility to the most fantastic and often demonstrably false testimonies by very questionable witnesses.

During the decades since Nuremberg, many individuals have been tried in Germany and other countries for alleged wartime participation in the extermination of the Jews. Rarely, if ever, has a defendant ever substantially challenged the Holocaust story. The accused invariably adopted the defence strategy successfully used by Speer at Nuremberg. He accepted the extermination story but denied or minimised his own personal involvement. To deny an extermination programme in trials that were organised on the working assumption that such a programme existed would have been judicial suicide.

Of the accused from the infamous first Nuremberg tribunal, the ‘war criminals,’ eleven were hanged and seven more received lengthy, or life prison terms. Hermann Goering, head of the Luftwaffe cheated his executioners by taking poison in his jail cell. It is likely that a sympathetic American guard helped Goering by smuggling the poison into his cell.

Operation Paperclıp

This is the largely untold story of the Nazis that the banksters did not want to punish, as they were too valuable to them and is of course, yet another example of blatant, political double-standards in action.

So, throughout the time that the Nuremberg Trials were proceeding in Germany, supposedly to bring the ‘evil Nazis’ to justice, allegedly in order to demonstrate to the world that no one can escape the law, a large group of German rocket scientists arrived at Fort Bliss, Texas in 1946, including Wernher von Braun, Ludwig Roth and Arthur Rudolph. The group had been subdivided into two sections; a smaller one at White Sands Proving Grounds for test launches and the larger one based at Fort Bliss for research purposes. Many of these had previously worked in the development of the V-2 Rocket at Peenemünde, Germany and were brought to the US en masse, after WWII, subsequently working on various rocket projects including the Explorer 1 and Saturn rockets at NASA.

At the end of WWII, over 1,500 Nazis escaped prosecution for their war crimes and instead of a trial at Nuremberg the top German scientists were smuggled into the United States through Boston and West Palm, Florida in a top-secret programme known as Operation Paperclip. Some ended-up working for the CIA in projects such as ‘MK Ultra’ and the LSD drug experiments of the 1960s, whilst others were assigned to Wright Air Force Base in Ohio, where they were placed in charge of the US Military Flight Medicine Program. Also, around one hundred of the German scientists were sent to Huntsville, Alabama to start the US rocket programme along with captured V-2 rockets; the rocket formerly used to terrorise South-eastern England during later stages of the war. Thus began America’s secret space programme, headed by Wernher von Braun, who subsequently became the first director of NASA.

Of particular interest to the US government, were scientists specialising in aerodynamics and rocketry, such as those involved in the V-1 and V-2 projects, chemical weapons, chemical reaction technology, and medicine. These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval and their previous service for Hitler’s Third Reich, NSDAP and SS memberships, as well as the classification of many as war criminals or security threats were deliberately ignored.

Immediately after WWII ended, the United States and Russia started searching for German military and scientific secrets. They were not only looking for designs of new aircraft, weapons and rockets, but for the men and women that designed them, as well as the scientists who worked in the fields of chemistry medicine and physics. When the first batch of rounded-up scientists arrived in the United States, it was blatantly obvious that they knew more, much more than they had been given credit for. The original idea had been to interview them, debrief them and then send them back to Germany, but on discovering the full extent of their knowledge, the plans were immediately changed as they were quite simply, far too valuable to let go.

The War Department decided they would keep these men and women in the United States and learn from them in order to update and perfect techniques hitherto unknown or unsuccessful. This was a problem because US law expressly forbade official members of the Nazi party to live and work in the United States and most of the people in the group were Nazis. The President, Harry Truman, was convinced these scientists could not only help the United States get back on its feet after the war, but that they would put the US on a path that would enable it to become a technological and scientific superpower.

And so in September 1946, Project Paperclip was sanctioned by President Truman. This allowed selected scientists to be brought into the US and although Truman ordered that none of them should be Nazi Party members, all of those in authority knew that it would be impossible to find scientists with the knowledge that the United States coveted, and yet were not members of the party. As a paper exercise, all of the dossiers on those scientists that the Joint Intelligence Agency wanted to keep were sent to the Department of Justice, who predictably refused visas on the grounds that they were ‘ardent Nazis.’ However the director of the Intelligence agency, Captain Bosquet Wev, argued that they were more of a security risk if they were sent back than they would be if they stayed and so with the full knowledge of the CIA director and bankster puppet, Allen Dulles, the files of the scientists were re-written with no mention of their Nazi Party affiliation.

By 1955, more than 750 former-German scientists had obtained US citizenship most of whom held high status within the American scientific community. Not only had these people held Nazi Party membership, but some were former members of the Gestapo.

Allen Dulles went on to open a lab at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. The operation was headed by Dr. Ewan Cameron, a psychiatrist who had served at the Nuremberg Trials and who had full knowledge of what many of the German scientists had been involved in. Cameron conducted experiments that were directly from the notes made by the Nazi scientists. Electro-therapy was used, as was sleep deprivation, memory-implantation, memory-eradication and drug-induced thought-modification. Psychotropic drugs were administered to men and women in the armed forces and experiments conducted to test radiation thresholds of unsuspecting individuals.

It was at this point, having concluded that many of the techniques worked, that MK-ULTRA was born, closely followed by MK-DELTA, MK-SEARCH, MK-OFTEN and MK-NAOMI.

These projects continued unabated into the 1970s before being allegedly closed down, although there is much evidence suggesting that they continue to this day.

And then, just as all the bloodshed, intrigue and destruction wrought by the banksters’ second world war, began to abate slightly, the world was about to be plunged into more abject terror, albeit of the psychological kind, in the shape of the 45-year, so called ‘Cold War.’ Between the two former ‘allies,’ the USA and the USSR . . .

And thus the stage was now set for a ‘new and improved’ bankster agenda of fear . . .

Chapter 12

The ‘Cold War’ Era and Israeli / American Hegemony

Having just won the British election by a landslide, the Labour party’s Clement Attlee replaced the unpopular Conservative, Winston Churchill as Prime Minister, and attended the Potsdam Conference in July 1945 along with US President Truman and Josef Stalin of the USSR.

Now, the next phase of the banksters’ plan to impose their New World Order, was to about to go into effect. This was the ‘green light’ for the inexorable rise and rise of Zionism, and yet another reconfiguration of the world as it slowly began to take shape in the image that they desired.

In 1945, the British people had voted for ‘change’ and Clement Attlee’s Labour party had some very clear policies, which they enacted almost immediately. The Bank of England was ‘nationalised’ along with the railways, coal-mining, public utilities and much of heavy industry. This of course was all part of the banksters’ master-plan. A comprehensive ‘welfare state’ was also created with the instituting of the National Health Service, entitling all British citizens to healthcare, which, funded by taxation, was free at the point of delivery. Among the most important pieces of legislation was the National Insurance Act of 1946, in which people in work paid a flat-rate of national insurance and in return, they were eligible for flat-rate pensions, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, and funeral benefit. Various other pieces of legislation also provided for free education at all levels, child benefit and support for people with no other source of income.

Britain was in many respects unable to afford such radical reforms and the government had to cut expenditure. They began this by giving independence to many British oversea colonies, firstly with India in 1947 and Palestine, Burma and Ceylon during 1948-1949. Mass immigration at the Zionist-banksters’ behest was also about to begin, initially from the West Indies. Under the post-war Bretton Woods economic system, Britain had entered into a fixed exchange rate of USD 4.03: 1.00 GBP which optimistically reflected Britain’s sense of its own prestige and economic aspiration, but was badly judged and hampered economic recovery. So, in 1949, Attlee’s government had little choice but to devalue to USD 2.80: 1.00 GBP, permanently damaging the administration’s credibility. It was US bankster loans that would eventually re-build Britain.

It had become clear by early 1946, that Stalin had no intention of allowing the occupied nations of Eastern Europe to be set-free and on the 5th March 1946, the ex-Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who indeed had greatly helped to engineer this disaster, delivered his famous ‘Iron Curtain’ speech in Fulton, Missouri:

“An iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere.”

Over the coming months and years, all of these nations, which had been ceded to Stalin at Yalta, one-by-one came under the influence of Soviet-backed Communist Parties in each nation, followed by the usual Red terror and torture tactics, aimed at the many dissenters. George Patton had been proven correct after all.

Then, with Britain weakened and in massive debt from the war, the opportunistic Zionists escalated their attacks against the British protectors of Palestine. It was the British who had stolen the nation for the Zionists’ sake, but now Britain was being betrayed and hounded out of Palestine. The bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem targeted the offices of the British Military and it was the despicable Irgun terror gang, headed by future Israeli Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Menachem Begin, who was responsible for all the death and destruction.

Zionism has created a pincer-movement on the human mind by hijacking staggering amounts of political, corporate, banking and media power on one side and by using the fear of being accused of ‘anti-Semitism,’ should you dare to state the obvious. They have been able to do this by creating the general perception that Zionism is synonymous with the ordinary Jewish people. It is not. Zionism is a political creed introduced by the House of Rothschild to advance the New World Order goals of the bankster-illuminati families that are ultimately controlled by the Rothschilds.

Zionism means Rothschild means Israel. The three are all hand in glove, synonymous almost and when we see the extraordinary number of Zionists in key positions around the world, we are looking not at manipulative Jews, but manipulative Zionists, many of whom are non-Jews, representing the interests and demands of the Rothschilds, and indeed all the banksters.

According to Yitshaq Ben-Ami, a Palestinian Jew who spent 30 years in exile after the establishment of Israel, investigating the crimes of the “ruthless clique heading the internal Zionist movement,” the Irgun had conceived a plan for the King David attack early in 1946, but the plan had only been approved on 1st July. Allegedly, the operation was personally approved by David Ben-Gurion, from his self-exile in Europe. Sadeh, the operations officer of the Haganah, and Giddy Paglin, the head of the Irgun operation under Menachem Begin agreed that thirty-five minutes advance notice would give the British time enough to evacuate the wing, without enabling them to disarm the planted explosive device.

The motive was to destroy all evidence that the British had gathered, proving that the terrorist crime waves in Palestine were not merely the actions of ‘fringe’ groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang, but were committed in collusion with the Haganah and Palmach groups and under the direction of the highest political body of the Zionist establishment itself, namely the Jewish Agency. That so many innocent civilian lives were lost in the ‘King David massacre’ is a normal part of the pattern of the history of Zionist outrages. The usual modus operandus is that a criminal act is committed, allegedly by an isolated group, but actually under the direct authorisation of the highest Zionist authorities, whether of the Jewish Agency during the Palestine Mandate or of the Government of Israel thereafter.

The King David Hotel, was an important social centre for those who could afford it. One wing was used by the Government Secretariat and the British Army and in addition to troops and Civil Servants, many Palestinian civilians worked there. The rest of the hotel operated normally with visitors coming and going in and out of the bar, restaurant and lobby. As a diversionary tactic, there was a smaller initial explosion in the street, which caused some alarm, but normality soon returned and the main explosion thereafter took everyone by surprise.

The larger bomb consisted of explosives packed into milk churns brought into the basement of the hotel by Zionist terrorists dressed as Palestinian Arabs. A British officer, Captain Alexander Mackintosh and a policeman who became suspicious, were immediately shot and killed but the alarm was raised and some of the terrorists were also shot and wounded but managed to get away and were hidden by some local Jewish sympathisers. The TNT exploded six minutes early at 12.37 pm and was devastating; the Secretariat wing collapsed as one floor fell on another and 91 people were killed immediately, British, Arabs, and 17 Jews, but many more were trapped and injured.

The Zionists claimed that warnings had been given, but bomb hoaxes were common occurrences at the time and terrorists often engineered the evacuation of a building so that people were then killed by another bomb strategically placed outside.

“The suction ripped off clothes, tore rings from fingers and watches from wrists. It sucked the windowpanes out of nearby buildings, spewing shards of glass into the street. Automobiles rolled over, small trees were uprooted, and cypresses and palms bent backward as if battered by hurricane winds. Ivan Phillips’ driver was blown onto the metal spears of the YMCA’s ornamental gate.” ‘By Blood and Fire,’ Thurston Clarke

The King David Hotel, Jerusalem 1946

The team of bombers and gunmen was able to penetrate the King David’s security cordon with ease, however escaping the hotel proved problematic in more ways than one. Despite Begin’s insistence on the thirty-minute fuses and the telephone warnings, the Irgun was now saddled with the blame for the huge death toll. From Paris, Ben-Gurion denounced it as ‘an enemy of the Jewish people,’ by implication, the Palestinians. However, this was pure hypocrisy; the attack on the Hotel had been ordered by the Haganah, which was ultimately answerable to Ben-Gurion himself. Compared to Ben-Gurion, Begin was an unsophisticated, naive idealist.

And so, the Zionist terrorists framing of Arabs for such crimes had begun in earnest and has now become established as a Zionist trademark. A fact which the Zionist-controlled and run, media and most governments never report or discuss, even to this day. In July 2006 Netanyahu and former Irgun gang members attended a 60th anniversary ‘celebration’ of this outrage, and still continue to claim that it was all the fault of the British and not the bombers.

The Truman Doctrine on the 12th March 1947 stated that the US would support Greece and Turkey with military aid to prevent their falling to Communism and Truman also declared that it is now “ . . . the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” How very charitable — and commendable, but he significantly failed to define ‘free’ and thereby left open the door for US interventionist foreign policy that was to become involved in — or cause — dozens of conflicts worldwide for the following seventy years, with no signs yet, of abating.

This latest Globalist-bankster scheme derived from the ‘Containment Policy’ proposed by the banksters’ CFR’s George Kennan one year previously. The Globalists of course had no intention of eradicating Communism, they need it as part of their Hegelian Dialectic — but neither did they want it to get too out of control either.

The goal of ‘containment’ was to keep the Red Menace alive — yet under control — allowing it to consolidate the Red world, whilst at the same time intimidating the ‘free’ world into integration. Communism was to be assisted, yet ‘contained’ at the same time — until a future point whereby both the ‘Red’ and the ‘Free’ worlds could integrate their systems into the proposed, single New World Order.

The latest scare campaign and witch-hunt in the ‘land of the free’ began in earnest in March 1947 when President Truman signed Executive Order 9835 and launched an ‘inquisition’ to search out any ‘infiltration of disloyal persons,’ in the US government.

The Federal Employee Loyalty Program was then introduced to ensure that every government employee thought only pure, capitalist thoughts and the government claimed to be “entitled to discharge any employee for reasons which seem sufficient to the Government and without extending to such employee any hearing whatsoever.” In the brave new world of the USA, ideas were now a crime and due legal process, nothing but a dream.

Between the launch of the witch-hunt and December 1952, around 6.6 million Americans were investigated by the loyalty ‘police.’ Not even a single case of espionage was uncovered but nevertheless, five hundred federal employees were fired in dubious cases of ‘questionable loyalty’ conducted with secret evidence, anonymous, paid informers and in the complete absence of judge, jury and due process.

Truman expanded the witch-hunt, demanding that federal employees swear that they have never associated with any of the seventy eight proscribed, allegedly subversive organisations. He also announced that “subversive elements must he removed from the employ of government,” whilst glibly assuring his ‘victims’ that the loyalty police exists “to safeguard their rights.” An Orwellian statement that must have brought huge relief to the five hundred newly unemployed.

An unintended side-effect of the Truman witch-hunt, was the reinforcement of the pervasive American ‘Red under the bed’ hysteria which was used by the banksters’ controlled government to intimidate and manipulate the public, justify massive transfers of wealth to the merchants of death, justify countless invasions and engineered coups around the world and silence government critics for forty years until the tired old ‘commie bogeyman’ was eventually retired and replaced by the even more frightening and pro-active, ‘Islamic terrorist bogeyman.’

“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” Goethe

On the 5th June 1947, the Marshall Plan, named after the bankster puppet and ‘war hero’ General George Marshall, a massive $15bn US foreign aid scheme for post-war Western Europe, was announced. The Globalists used every propaganda trick in the book to cleverly sell the expensive scheme to the anti-Communist US Senate, and to a gullible American public. It was devised by the CFR and sold as an economic recovery programme that was ‘needed’ to prevent nations from “falling to Communism.”

Following WWII, the United States saw an opportunity for world supremacy, which would obviously facilitate the US bankster-led push for the New World Order. Only ‘communism’ now stood in its way, politically, militarily and ideologically and so the entire US foreign policy establishment was mobilised to confront this enemy, and the Marshall Plan was an integral part of this campaign. Anti-communism had been the principal thrust of US foreign policy from the Russian Revolution up to WWII, pausing for the duration of the war until the closing months of the Pacific campaign, when Washington placed ‘challenging communism,’ ahead of fighting the Japanese. The abrupt return to anti-communism included the nuclear attacks on Japan, as a warning to the Soviets.

In contrast to the above and symptomatic of the striving for balance between at the same time, preventing and promoting Communism, Truman sent General Marshall as a special envoy to China when Mao Tse Tung’s Communists were losing the Civil War to Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists. One year after Marshall’s arrival, the situation began to radically reverse in favour of the Reds, mainly due to Marshall’s strategic interventions. He had betrayed the ‘free Chinese,’ in three critical areas . . .

Firstly, he forced the opening of the Nationalist-held Kalgan Mountain Pass into Manchuria. This allowed Mao’s forces access to stockpiles of Japanese weapons captured by the Soviets, as well as Soviet Lend-Lease arms from WWII.

Secondly, he attempted to force Chiang into a coalition government that included the Communists.

And thirdly, he embargoed all arms and ammunition shipments to the Nationalists.

Indeed, what Eisenhower had done for Stalin, Marshall did for Mao. Coincidence? You decide. As this treason in China unfolded, the New York Times and Washington Post, portrayed Chiang as ‘corrupt’ and Mao as a ‘reformer.’

The National Security Act of 1947 created the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a replacement for the OSS spy network formed during WWII. It immediately engaged in covert activities at the request of the US President. The CIA’s Directors however, have always been bankster front-men. Over the course of the following years, the CIA grew massively in its power and influence, eventually becoming involved in assassinations, election rigging, planting disinformation in the media through its many media infiltrations, the overthrowing of non-compliant foreign leaders by allegedly ‘spontaneous’ revolutions or violent coups, and the staging of ‘false flag’ terror events to perpetuate the Hegelian Dialectic.

In effect the CIA, is an offshoot, strongly linked to British bankster ‘Intelligence,’ (MI-5/MI-6) which formed the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and which was the root of all American Intelligence operations. Both the CIA and MI-6 are also intrinsically connected with Israel’s equivalent service, the Mossad. In fact, the whole perverted charade of so-called intelligence services, double-agents, triple agents, and all serving the same banksters, the same elite, is clearly illustrated by the fact that the whole Cold War circus of playing communists off against fascists, freedom fighters and patriots, was a complete fraud.

Even whilst WWII was at its height, the financial transactions between Britain, the US and Germany continued on unabated, business as usual. In ‘Trading with the Enemy,’ Charles Higham documented the role of Standard Oil of New Jersey, owned by the Chase Manhattan Bank, and IG Farben’s Sterling Products with the Bank for International Settlements. Standard Oil’s tanker-fleet plied the international sea lanes with fuel for the Nazi war-machine, unmolested by either side.

The bankster/lawyer, John J. McCloy had long been involved in the dirty world of espionage, intrigue and Nazis. During the 1930s he had been based in Paris where much of his time was spent on a legal case stemming from German sabotage in World War I. His investigations took him to Berlin, where he shared a box with Hitler at the 1936 Olympics and he was also known to have been in contact with Rudolph Hess before the Nazi leader made his infamous flight to Scotland in 1941. Prior to the war McCloy had also acted as legal counsel to IG Farben, the German chemical monopoly.

McCloy had helped conceal Klaus Barbie, the so-called ‘Butcher of Lyons,’ from the French. Barbie and other wanted ‘war-criminals’ were hidden by the 370th Counter-Intelligence Corps at Oberammergau. One of their ‘minders’ was a German-born, Jewish-Zionist immigrant of US Intelligence, Private Henry (Heinz) Kissinger. A McCloy protégé, Kissinger’s meteoric rise to power was from the very beginning, a bankster-induced move. Kissinger was every inch, the Rockefeller’s man.

In response to deliberate, wildly over-exaggerated US intelligence claims of Soviet military build-up and increased propaganda against the ‘capitalists,’ Truman immediately increased spending on weapons research, military equipment, aircraft and the space programme and ordered an increase in the development and construction of nuclear weapons. But most importantly to the CIA, began pumping millions of dollars into the ‘black’ budgets for covert operations. In the decade following WWII, the CIA consumed over $200 million dollars of ‘non-accountable’ funds.

Meanwhile, the bankster financier Allen Dulles created a money-laundering front organisation to provide cash to the imaginatively named International Rescue Committee which was being used to bring former Nazis into the US for domestic political purposes. Dulles’ latest money-laundering organisation was named, with typical Orwellian overtones, the Crusade for Freedom and fronted by none other than B-movie actor, future California governor and future US President, Ronald Reagan. Dulles later went on to become the CIA Director, from 1953-1961.

Another CIA director-to-be, William Casey managed the Nazi immigration programme on behalf of the State Department with additional funds being provided by, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. How unsurprising.

One of the CIA’s first assignments, in 1947, was to subvert democracy in Italy by interfering in elections. In order to facilitate this unwanted intrusion into the internal affairs of other countries its agents applied economic coercion in order to ensure that the Italian government remained under the control of the right wing and Fascist forces which had been allied with the Nazis during WWII. The banksters’ great fear was that if democracy was allowed to flourish in Italy, the government may fall into the hands of the left-wing, largely working class, Resistance which supported the Italian Communist Party. So, the CIA bought votes, broadcast lies, threatened and physically intimidated opposition leaders, and infiltrated and generally disrupted their organisation.

In fact, rather than returning the cash, gold, art and other treasures appropriated by the Nazis, to its rightful owners or their heirs, the CIA used it to subvert democracy in Italy and throughout the rest of Europe.

And thus did the imaginatively-named Christian Democratic Party, with its thousands of Fascists lurking within, ‘win’ the 1947 election. The CIA, along with a number of American corporations, in fact continued to interfere in Italian elections for decades, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into right wing and Fascist groups and mounting an ongoing psychological warfare against the Italian people. This strategy effectively reduced Italian politics to chaos and ensured that there was no effective, democratically-elected government in Italy. America’s successful subversion of democracy in Italy would serve as a blueprint for all future CIA covert manipulation of other nations around the world.

And the final result of all these ‘cloak-and-dagger’ exercises, games and unholy alliances was the ‘Cold War’ that lasted for almost half a century, and cost American taxpayers alone over $8 trillion.

The foundation of the illegal ‘state’ of Israel

The land variously called, the ‘Holy Land,’ Israel and Palestine is a small, area of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. During its long history, its area, population and ownership varied greatly. The present state of Israel occupies all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean ocean, bounded by Egypt in the south, Lebanon in the north, and Jordan in the East. The recognised borders of Israel constitute about 78% of the whole territory and the remainder is divided between land occupied by Israel since the 1967, six-day war and the autonomous regions under the control of the Palestinians. The Gaza strip occupies an additional 141 square miles south of Israel, and is also under the control of the Palestinian authority (at the time of writing.)

On the 29th of November 1947, a UN resolution established the basis of the modern state of Israel. Totally without the consent of the native Palestinians, the resolution recommended the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the partition of Palestine, creating two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area remaining under special international protection, administered by the UN.

The UN General assembly voted to give the Zionists control of 55% of Palestine with the remaining 45% allocated to the Palestinians. The Palestinian natives at that time represented around 70% of the population and owned 93% of the land whereas Jews constituted the remaining 30% (most of them illegal new immigrants) who had land ownership of less than 7%. In this planned ‘Jewish state,’ there would be almost an equal number of Christian and Muslim Palestinians as Jews.

The Zionists accepted the idea of a Jewish state but rejected the other parts of the proposal . . . designated borders, the internationalisation of Jerusalem, economic union, and no ‘ethnic cleansing.’ There were no viable local leaders of the Palestinians as they had all been decimated by the British between 1936 and 1939 or ‘sold-out’ by dictatorial Arab regimes. The people (the Christians, Muslim, and Jewish native Palestinians) were however largely against partition of their country. The illegal ‘vote’ at the UN which totally violated the UN charter, succeeded because of significant pressure from the Zionist-led US government. Truman pressured UN representatives to adopt it because of his need for Jewish support to enable him to remain in power.

The US Secretary of Defence at the time, James Forrestal, wrote in his diaries that . . . “ . . . the method that has been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered on scandal.”

Then in April 1948, a trend that has continued right up until the present day, began when Jewish terrorists carried out many mass-murders in the months leading up to the formal establishment of Israel. The Deir Yassin Massacre was the one most notable for its extreme brutality. Members of the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin and the Stern Gang, led by Yitzhak Shamir, Zionist terrorist groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a village of roughly 600 people where more than a hundred helpless victims, including women and children, were murdered in cold blood. Of course, both Begin and Shamir became future Israeli leaders.

Some of the victims were shot, some had their throats slit, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes. Several villagers were taken prisoner and then killed after being paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem. The strategic aim of the massacres was to terrorise the Palestinians into fleeing from their villages, which the European Jews with their adopted Hebrew names would then takeover.

14th May 1948, Israel Declared Nationhood

And so, Theodor Herzl’s plot of 1897 plot came to fruition, just over half a century and hundreds of millions of deaths later, when Israel was formally established on the 14th May 1948. Truman’s speedy recognition of the new ‘state,’ no doubt satisfied his Zionist-bankster sponsors, whose huge influence was instrumental in his victory in the upcoming election of November 1948. Ironically, a 2003 review of his diaries revealed Truman’s intense dislike of the Jews who were pressuring him. What was of course not revealed however, was the fact that the Zionists ‘owned him,’ body and soul.

Just three days after Truman’s immediate recognition of Israel, the USSR also unsurprisingly, recognised ‘the State of Israel.’ However, several Arab nations came to the defence of their Palestinian brothers. The Deir Yassin attack of the prior month, along with further murderous Zionist attacks on Tiberias, Haifa, and Jaffa, put pressure on the Arab governments to save Palestine and news of the killings aroused such public anger in the Arab world that the governments could not ignore it and attempted military intervention.

However, the Arabs were unsuccessful in their brief war, and also in their future attempts to liberate Palestine. The Zionist military and its ‘free’ arsenal of American weaponry had made Israel the dominant military power of the region.

Israel’s ultimate goal still, is to expand from Egypt to Iraq and to include all of the territory between the River Nile and the River Euphrates in Iraq and indeed this is what the two blue lines on Israel’s flag represent.

The ‘Jewish homeland’ was from the start, to be a Rothschild fiefdom orchestrated through a global secret society network of interbreeding bankster-families known, amongst other names, as the ‘Illuminati.’ The goal of these families is total cultural, social, financial, military and political domination of the planet through a world government dictatorship, a world army and a compliant population, known to its initiates as the ‘New World Order.’

The Rothschild’s funded the early European settlers in Israel, manipulated events in Germany that led to the maltreatment of Jewish people and others, and then used that as the excuse to reach their long-term goal, the Rothschild-Illuminati stronghold in Palestine using the Jewish population as fodder to be used and abused as necessary. They called their plan ‘Zionism,’ which is often, erroneously used as a synonym for Jewish people as a whole, when it is actually a political movement devised and promoted through the House of Rothschild banksters and opposed by many Jews.

The Zionists used the claim in the Old Testament that the Jews were ‘God’s Chosen People’ and that ‘He’ had gifted them the land of what was once called Israel as their justification to seize Palestine for their own nefarious ends. This of course quite neatly ends any and all arguments as to the legitimacy of Israel. As Golda Meir, yet another deranged Zionist Israeli Prime Minister, said in Le Monde in 1971 . . . “This country exists as the fulfilment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.”

And so the justification of the invasion and subversion of an entire nation was based on texts in the Bible written by person or persons unknown, thousands of years ago after the Jewish captivity in the ancient Illuminati centre of Babylon, in what is now Iraq. But of course this is in any case a complete historical fraud, because the vast majority of Jewish people, the so-called ‘Ashkenazi’ Jews, have no connection, genetic or otherwise, whatsoever to the land of Palestine/Israel at all, as the Jewish writer, Arthur Koestler detailed in his book ‘The Thirteenth Tribe.’ The Ashkenazi originated in a country once known as Khazaria in southern Russia and the Caucasus, and not the land they have used the Biblical texts to lay claim to. In fact the Ashkenazi Jews have no genetic links at all to the Sephardic Jews who were the original ‘biblical Jews.’ The Sephardic Jews are in fact genetically identical to the Arab populations of the Middle-east region.

But it was the Ashkenazi Jews who migrated north and west over the centuries into Russia and then Western Europe and these were the people targeted by Hitler and the Nazis and exploited by the Rothschilds to populate Palestine. Koestler wrote that the official story of Jewish origins . . . “ . . . begins to look like the most cruel hoax history has ever perpetrated.”

So, Jews fall into two main groups, the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic. Daniel Elazar at the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs wrote that at the end of the 11th Century, 97% of Jews were Sephardic, but the ratio changed dramatically over the centuries and by 1931, Ashkenazi Jews accounted for nearly 92 per cent of world Jewry.

The area of origin of the genetics of most of Jewry today

In the 10th century AD, the Khazarian population was an aggressive, Godless, warring tribe who decided eventually that in order to establish peaceful relations with their near neighbours and to integrate their populations into a peaceful co-existence with them, that they should adopt a religion, mainly to demonstrate some kind of respectability. Both Muslim and Christian religions were considered, but eventually the Khazarian leaders decided on Judaism, for reasons best known to themselves and so the entire region became Jewish, eventually speaking its own language of Yiddish.

Today, as a result of the illegal expropriation of Palestine, the Khazarians/Ashkenazim utterly dominate Israel society both in numbers and control. Jewish organisations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) constantly target others for ‘racism’ when Israel is a strictly and fiercely hierarchical society based on race, even amongst the Jews themselves. The Ashkenazi are at the top of the pyramid, of course, followed by the Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews. Whilst near the bottom of the pile are the black, Ethiopian Jews who have long complained of blatant racism but underneath all of these are the Palestinian Arabs, regardless of religion.

It is now well-past the time that Zionist racism and apartheid should be exposed in order to balance the endless claims of racism and ‘anti-Semitism’ that through Zionist/Illuminati fronts like the ADL and many others have been set up to brand as racist, anyone who challenges the Zionist agenda. In truth, Ashkenazi Jews are not even a Semitic people — it is the Arabs and minority, Sephardic Jewish people who are the Semites. Not that it should matter what they are, the human body is just a container for the infinite consciousness to which we all belong, but such labels are used by these people to suppress debate and so we need to counteract the propaganda.

So imagine if all this had happened in our countries. That the American and several European governments suddenly decree that ‘our’ land, where our ancestors have lived for hundreds of years, now belongs to someone else and millions of Jewish people from all over the world suddenly descend upon our country. Even worse, they do not want to just simply live among us — they believe that it is their inalienable, God-given right to assume complete control of everything and turn us into serfs or slaves. How would we react? Indeed, how would anyone react in the face of all this?

The Palestinians were supposed to just lie-down and accept this staggering injustice and when they did not, they were branded as ‘terrorists,’ by the Zionists and their controlled world press, turning the Palestinian cause into a universal campaign of hatred. But what the world seems to have forgotten, and they will certainly not be reminded by the mainstream media, is that it was through terrorism that Israel was imposed upon the indigenous Arab population.

The idea that a Jewish homeland in Israel was the result of what happened in Nazi Germany is beyond ridiculous. That was the justification used at the time by the banksters amid the wave of falsely engendered public sympathy. But the planning and manipulation began long before, in the 19th and early 20th centuries through the Rothschilds and their army of ‘gofers.’

The bankster-engendered First World War led to the ‘Balfour Declaration’ in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, declared his government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Israel. This announcement was connected to a deal to bring the United States into the war, a scam orchestrated through President Woodrow Wilson’s handlers, Edward Mandel House and Bernard Baruch. Both were Rothschild agents in America, but it was Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, who formulated with others this British government ‘declaration’ in support of a Jewish homeland.

The Balfour Declaration promised Palestine to both the Jews and Arabs, in fact. They wanted to keep the Arabs on their side for a while because they needed them to revolt against the Turks as part of their First World War strategy. They used the man known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ to lead this campaign. However, they, and Lawrence, knew it was all a ruse, a means to a very different end.

The Hitler regime was funded by Rothschild bankster agents such as the Rockefellers, Harrimans and Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of two future presidents. This allowed the German war machine to emerge in just a few years from the ashes of economic collapse and following this, World War II, the concentration camps, and the Illuminati-Rothschild manipulation of these events, to create both sympathy and guilt over Jewish suffering, to secure their long-held goal — a foothold in the Middle East to advance their evil plans far into the future.

The lands that the Rothschilds and their agents wished to occupy were populated at the time by the Palestinians, but there was only ever going to be but one fate for them. Former Israel Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, said in an uncensored version of his memoirs, published in the New York Times on 23rd October 1979 . . .

“We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’” And that is exactly what they did and are still doing.

The gang of former military, ultra-nationalists, religious bigots and racist psychopaths that run Israel today are the political heirs of the same terrorists who bombed Israel into existence in the first place. But, to challenge the legitimacy and the past and current exploits of Israel is not a condemnation of Jewish people as a whole. It is simply to expose the fact that they are caught-up in a game that most do not begin to understand — a game controlled from the start by a leadership consisting of terrorists — and if we understand and acknowledge this, past and present events begin to make far more sense.

The bankster/Israel nexus has spent decades infiltrating the government structure of the United States and this has ensured that Israel has become the recipient of one third of all US foreign aid and that it is funded to the tune of billions of dollars per year by the US to finance its huge military spending also that the United States government pursues a foreign policy of huge bias towards Israel and against the surrounding Arab states.

The creation of Israel was never meant to be an end in itself. It has always been a means to an end. All along, the plan has been to target the Islamic world in order to trigger Albert Pike’s predicted third world war that would in turn lead to the ‘solution’ of centralised control of the planet and all its peoples. In order to achieve this, they needed to create a point of conflict, a powder keg, among the Arab countries that could be exploded to start another global conflict. This is the real reason for the creation of Israel and the real reason why the United States has spent billions building-up Israel’s military capabilities.

The partition of Germany

Although the city of Berlin, in 1948, was located entirely within the eastern, Soviet sector of post-war Germany, the city itself was divided into a Soviet zone, and a Western zone. The four-way provisional government under British, US, USSR and French control oversaw Berlin, but by 1948, Stalin coveted it all. Land access through East Germany to Berlin was cut-off by the Soviets and Berliners were stranded and faced starvation unless the US, France and UK agreed to withdraw.

Not wishing the Soviets to get too out-of-control, the Globalist banksters took a stand against their Soviet partners and the US and UK military, flew food and other supplies into Berlin, landing on international airstrips, around-the-clock. The Soviets did not attempt to stop the cargo planes, presumably fearing strong retribution and so the Berlin Airlift therefore continued through to April 1949, when a report by Tass, the Soviet News agency, announced a willingness to concede and raise the blockade. Negotiations among the four occupying powers followed and on the 4th May 1949, the Allies agreed to end the blockade and curtail the airlift by 12th May. Immediately afterwards, a British convoy travelled by land through to the beleaguered city and the first train from the West in almost a year reached West Berlin by early morning that day. However Berlin remained a divided city until 1989.

The murder of James Forrestal

The Nazi financier cum US Secretary of Defence, James Forrestal had close ties with the Harriman family and had long been a partner and president of Dillon, Reed and Company, both leading financiers of the Third Reich. In 1944 when, as Secretary of the Navy, he had proposed the racial integration of the US Navy, his fellow-pillars of American society must have suspected he had gone crazy and then later, as the nation’s first ‘Defence Secretary,’ after the War Department was renamed, he confirmed everyone’s worst fears by pressing for full racial integration of the armed forces, which must have made the Harrimans, the du Ponts, the Bushes and all the other bankster elite quite nervous.

Forrestal was also in conflict with other members of the Truman regime over military budgets and was the most outspoken opponent of the creation of the state of Israel, a position which sharply conflicted with ruling class plans for domination of the oilfields of the Middle East using Israel as a military proxy in the region. Forrestal became convinced that he was being followed and that his phone was tapped. He was correct.

On the 28th March 1949, Forrestal was forced out of office and flown to Florida where he was detained at Jupiter Island, a high-security enclave of the bankster elite, including the Harrimans, Mellons, Dillons, Bushes et al, and where fellow Nazi-financier and terror-bombing advocate Robert Lovett and an army psychiatrist attended to him. He was then flown back to Washington, locked in Bethesda Naval Hospital and given insulin shock treatments for ‘mental exhaustion.’ Forrestal told his wife that he did not expect to leave Bethesda alive and all requests to see his brother, one particular friend and two priests were denied. Indeed, one priest attempted to visit him on seven separate occasions and was turned away each time. The naval authorities admitted only selected government officials, Forrestal’s estranged wife and his son who had, by coincidence, been Averill Harriman’s aide.

After threatening a lawsuit, Henry Forrestal was finally permitted to see his brother who had gained twelve pounds since his admission to Bethesda and reported that James Forrestal was “acting and talking as sanely and intelligently as any man I’ve ever known,” and made arrangements to remove his brother from Bethesda on 22nd May. However, a few hours before his brother was due to remove him from Bethesda, James Forrestal’s body was found with his bathrobe cord tied tightly around his neck, after he had apparently ‘jumped’ from a sixteenth-story kitchen window.

Why a ‘patient’ who was said to be suicidal would be placed on the sixteenth floor of a hospital with unsecured windows and why he would be allowed to retain so classic a suicide device as the cord of his bathrobe are mysteries which will doubtless remain forever unsolved. A hint, however, came from Forrestal’s doctor, who said that he was ordered by “the people downtown” to house Forrestal on the sixteenth floor, whilst he had wanted to put his patient on the ground floor of a nearby annexe. Forrestal apparently left a ‘suicide note’ which was later discovered not to be in Forrestal’s own handwriting.

Apparently, Forrestal had an interesting new companion on the night of his death, a naval man named Robert Wayne Harrison, Jr. who had replaced Forrestal’s usual guard, and who had conveniently gone AWOL. Harrison claimed that Forrestal had sent him out on a ‘brief errand’ and that during this time Forrestal had killed himself.

The chief psychiatrist at Bethesda immediately labelled Forrestal’s death a suicide and the Montgomery County coroner rushed to concur before any investigation had been conducted. Since the death occurred on US Navy premises, no police investigation was ever undertaken. An official Navy Review Board completed hearings on Forrestal’s death on the 31st May but waited until the ‘dust had settled’ and on the 12th October released a heavily-censored summary consisting of only a few lines. The version of Forrestal’s death promulgated by the mass media is, in a nutshell, that Forrestal went insane and killed himself. All very convenient, I am sure you agree.

In 1966, ‘The Death of James Forrestal,’ by Cornell Simpson, was published, raising serious questions about Forrestal’s ‘suicide.’ Inevitably and true to form, the book was almost totally ignored by the mainstream media. But in 2004, after a long battle with the National Naval Medical Center under the Freedom of Information Act, a researcher finally obtained a copy of the long-suppressed report of the Navy Review Board. The report did not even conclude that Forrestal committed suicide merely that he died from falling sixteen storeys, which again is unsurprising. Neither did it mention the much-reported suicide note.

What the report did say however, was that an eyewitness saw broken glass on the bedding in Forrestal’s room. Since he allegedly jumped out of the kitchen window, that testimony flatly contradicts the suicide theory. The report also contained statements from Forrestal’s doctors that, contrary to the rumours which were widespread at the time, he had never attempted suicide.

Earlier in his career, Forrestal had been a bankster team-player, explicitly following orders and by way of (very) small compensation, he had an aircraft carrier named after him and an unusual comment on his tombstone which reads, in effect that he died, “In the great cause of good government.” The banksters do like to have their little jokes.

Of course, it goes almost without saying that the media vilified Forrestal for opposing the creation of Israel and Truman’s pro-Red, foreign policy and the venom continues to this day in Zionist circles, which characterises him, as is their custom, as an ‘anti-Semite’ and a ‘nut.’

“For secret assassinations . . . the contrived ‘accident’ is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated. The most effective accident . . . is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stair wells, unscreened windows and bridges will serve. The act may be executed by sudden, vigorous grabbing of the ankles, tipping the subject over the edge.” Extract from the CIA Assassination Manual, released under ‘Freedom of Information.’

Then on the 3rd August 1949, the world was stunned when the Soviets exploded their first Atomic Bomb. The physicists who directed the Soviet Project, benefitted greatly from espionage at US nuclear research facilities, resulting in several subsequent arrests and executions for treason. It was actually from ‘sources’ in Oppenheimer’s Communist-infested Manhattan Project, where most of the leaks had occurred, most notably through the British-German Communist Klaus Fuchs and the American Zionist-Communist, Theodore Hall, that the USSR had obtained the vital information needed to construct their own weapon.

In fact it was as early as 1945 that Soviet intelligence had obtained rough blueprints of the first US atomic device. This was obviously no accident and now the Soviets had the bomb, the banksters could use the psychological threat of nuclear Armageddon to scare the ‘free’ world into closer military, political, and economic integration. All very convenient for them of course.

In November the victorious Mao tse-Tung declared The People’s Republic of China as Chiang Kai-Shek and his two million outgunned nationalists had escaped to the island of Formosa (now Taiwan). Chiang set-up a free and prosperous state whilst Mao turned ‘Red China’ into a genocidal tyranny fit to rival that of the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, growing opposition to the US-puppet dictatorship in South Korea was being ruthlessly suppressed by the United States with the help of its army of Japanese collaborators in the Korean Constabulary and kidnap, torture and murder were rife. With the Korean military under the direct control of the US, guided by American military ‘advisors’ and with the assistance of American firepower, the dictatorship of Syngman Rhee launched a campaign of massacre in which around half a million people were murdered, according to some sources.

And whilst the preparations for the Korean War continued apace, so did those for the Vietnam War a little over ten years later . . .

The US began to supply arms to the French colonial occupiers of Vietnam who had actively collaborated with the Japanese during WWII. The US strategy was to ensure that the Vietnamese independence movement, which had fought a valiant war against the Japanese throughout the war, would never gain control of their own country. Also, simultaneously with this activity, the CIA was busy with its plans to destabilise several other countries that it could not directly corrupt and control . . .

In Albania, the US and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the government of Albania by infiltrating hundreds of terrorists into the country. The goal was to install a pro-American government composed largely of monarchists and those Albanians who had collaborated with Italian Fascists and Nazis during World War Two.

In Burma, the CIA armed and trained 12,000 right wing Taiwanese troops in Burma to invade Red China. Whilst in China itself, the US conducted several bombing raids whilst supplying arms to right wing forces in an attempt to ensure access to Chinese resources and markets by US bankster-corporate interests.

In Colombia, the populist Presidential candidate Jorge Gaitan, threatened American Elite interests, including the Rockefeller-banksters’ United Fruit Company, as well as the wealthy right-wing in Colombia, by radically promising to use some of the country’s wealth, land and resources for the benefit of the Colombian people. He was of course, assassinated. The people of Colombia, with memories of the slaughter of United Fruit banana workers at Santa Marta in 1928 under ‘mysterious circumstances,’ still fresh in their minds, rioted in protest in Bogota and elsewhere. Three thousand people were brutally slaughtered in the capital, Bogota in the riots.

Unsurprisingly, Gaitan’s murder was blamed on the all-purpose ‘commie bogeyman’ and the US-compliant government of Colombia embarked upon a campaign of massacre and sent death-squads into the countryside. Over the next decade, which became known as ‘la violencia,’ around three hundred thousand people were murdered, but fortunately all in a good cause, as it ensured that Colombia remained a safe-haven for United Fruit.

Some speculate that the CIA, headed by Nazi-financier, Rockefeller family member and United Fruit director Allen Dulles, was behind the assassination of Gaitan and indeed, as of 2009, the CIA was still withholding thousands of documents relevant to the murder, “in the interests of US national security.”

In Eastern Europe, the CIA created its most important non-domestic propaganda network, Radio Free Europe. RFE’s broadcasts were so-filled with blatant lies, propaganda and misinformation that it was, ironically, a crime to publish transcripts of them in the land of the free, lest the American public should become aware of the ludicrous lies being told by their government.

In Greece the American journalist George Polk was murdered by the Greek military dictatorship to prevent him from investigating financial corruption within the US-armed and supported fascist regime. However, the dictatorship blamed Polk’s murder, once again on the ‘evil commies,’ a convenient fantasy with which the CIA and the US mass media were only too happy to deceive the US public. Strange is it not that ‘allies’ and ‘enemies,’ ‘terrorists’ and ‘freedom-fighters,’ are all completely interchangeable whenever convenient or expedient for those in power?

In Japan, in its position as the occupying power, the US restored the wartime ruling-class to many of their previous positions of power and as in Germany, only a handful of Japanese were prosecuted as war criminals in staged ‘show trials.’ Using a major campaign of disinformation they re-positioned the formerly vilified Emperor Hirohito as an ally of democracy and the US.

Japan’s leading gangster, Kodama Yoshio, who had worked in Japanese-occupied China during the war, looting, pillaging, selling opium and supervising the collection and shipment to Japan of industrial metals such as tungsten, titanium and platinum was released from prison courtesy of the United States, even though he had been designated a ‘Class A war criminal.’ He immediately began work for Allen Dulles’ CIA eventually becoming the chief agent in Japan for the Lockheed Aircraft Company, blackmailing and bribing politicians to buy the Lockheed F-104 fighter and the L-1011 Airbus.

In Korea, the politician Kim Koo was assassinated, very likely orchestrated by the CIA. Koo was ‘guilty’ of believing that Korea should be re-united as a single nation and not remain as the pseudo-nations of North and South Korea, as created by the US for its own purposes.

In Nicaragua the US supplied arms to its puppet Somoza family dictatorship in order to maintain it in power on behalf of US corporate and plantation interests. The Somoza dynasty lasted 43 years, beginning when Anastasio’s father, Anastasio Somoza Garcia, who had been responsible for the treacherous assassination of Nicaragua’s rebel leader Augusto Sandino in 1934, forced his way into office in 1936.

From the start he had the backing of the US government, which had already had marines stationed in Nicaragua for more than 20 years. Anastasio senior, known as ‘Tacho,’ was the subject of Roosevelt’s remark made when confronted by the horror of Somoza’s cruelty . . . “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” He eventually met his downfall at the hands of an assassin, Rigoberto Lopez Perez, in 1956 but Lopez Perez was a brave individual not a member of a revolutionary vanguard, and Tacho was simply replaced by his eldest son, Luis. The youngest son, known after his father as ‘Tachito,’ (little Tacho) assumed power when Luis died in 1967 and held it for twelve years until toppled by the Sandinista uprising.

In Peru following the election of a coalition of liberal and leftist parties in 1945, President Jose Luis Bustamente y Rivero instituted a wide range of liberal reforms including guaranteed civil rights, freedom of the press and the abolition of various dictatorial ‘rights,’ formerly claimed by the President. Of course this was not part of the banksters remit and so the United States supplied weapons to the right wing in Peru who forcibly overthrew the democratically-elected government, outlawed opposition political parties and installed a much more acceptable dictatorship.

In the Philippines, the bankster-controlled CIA undertook an assassination and propaganda campaign to overcome popular, nationalist resistance and to install the US-compliant right wing dictatorship of Ramon Magsaysay.

In Syria, the US backed a military coup which overthrew the democratically-elected government and then of course immediately ‘recognised’ the dictatorship and provided it with kill-lists of all Syrian politicians who may have been able to rally any form of resistance against the US-compliant junta.

And in the US itself, the National Security Agency (NSA) was formed to spy on international communications, including those involving Americans which similar to the CIA, is technically prohibited by law from carrying out operations within the US. Also, like the CIA, it is one of the country’s largest ‘legalised’ criminal cabals, breaking the laws of the United States countless hundreds of thousands of times and turning its spying apparatus directly on Americans. The NSA attempted to justify its criminal conduct and violation of the constitutional rights of American citizens by claiming that Americans who dissent are the “natural allies of the foreign enemies of the US.” Of course the word ‘dissent’ was deliberately left loosely defined (as indeed it still is today) in order to endow the security services with almost unlimited powers of arrest and detention.

Averell Harriman, the man who probably did more than anyone else on Earth, except perhaps the Dulles brothers, to orchestrate the takeover of Germany by Hitler and the Nazis and to give them the means to prosecute the Second World War, was made US ‘Ambassador-at-Large’ to Europe. He was a so-called ‘non-military theatre commander’ and, most significantly, the administrator of the multi-billion-dollar Marshall Plan. As one might suspect, under Harriman’s guiding hand, the bankster-sponsored Marshall Plan, turned out to be not quite the benign act of generosity we have all been led to believe.

In much the same way that it is seared into the psyche that the Revolution was all about freedom and democracy and that slave owners George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were champions of individual liberty, all westerners have been systematically programmed to believe that the post-war Marshall Plan was an act of the most extraordinary generosity on the part of a benevolent United States in assisting the war-ravaged countries of Europe. Well, hardly . . .

In fact, the Marshall Plan resulted in billions of dollars of American taxpayers’ money being transferred to large bankster-owned corporations by the government. Additionally billions of dollars of Marshall Plan ‘aid’ were used to encourage the replacement of coal, an energy source in great abundance in Europe, with oil, largely under the control of the Rockefellers and their bankster pals.

But a much more sinister use of the Marshall Plan was the subversion of democracy throughout Europe. Billions of dollars were spent sabotaging democracy and the political ambitions of the socialists and communists who had fought the Nazis and in supporting Fascist and Nazi elements to ensure that control of European governments resided largely in the hands of right-wing politicians, only too happy to co-operate in the building of the American empire.

The CIA Director Allen Dulles created a covert action and Nazi importation division of the CIA with the harmless sounding name of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). Dulles placed his crony, Frank Wisner, in charge of the OPC and apart from getting as many senior Nazis as possible into US government agencies, Wisner’s mandate was to carry out “ . . . propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the ‘free’ world.” In other words — terrorism. Wisner’s son was later to head the multi-billion dollar energy and stock market scam known as ‘Enron.’

The US State Department meanwhile produced Policy Planning Study #23. George Kennan, the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning wrote that . . .

“We have fifty percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

Well at least he was up-front about it I suppose, unlike many of his successors.

George Kennan was the Zionist agent who travelled to Russia on behalf of the Rockefellers to help instigate, finance and control the Communist revolution to facilitate the Rockefellers laying their blood-soaked hands on Russia’s oil and mineral wealth. An absolute traitor to the United States, he lived to the age of 101, and is still remembered by falsified history as a ‘great statesman.’

But, when someone decent comes along who really wants to do some good in this world . . .

A former Secretary of Commerce, Henry Wallace, snubbed by the establishment for exercising freedom of speech, decided to run for President on a third party ticket. Wallace, a staunch capitalist, who simply believed in ‘democracy and peace,’ was, inevitably, vilified as a ‘commie.’

His Progressive Party was that most dangerous of all things to the banksters, an American political party not financed and controlled by they themselves. Wallace presented the great threat of actually transforming the US into a proper democracy.

In the South, he was pelted with eggs for refusing to address segregated audiences and in Illinois, fellow Progressive Party candidate Curtis MacDougall was stoned. In Georgia, four women campaigning for Wallace were abducted and beaten and in Pontiac, Michigan, a pro-Wallace campaigner was kidnapped, beaten and his head shaved by penknife. In Birmingham, Alabama, Wallace Vice-Presidential candidate Glen Taylor was abducted and jailed for the ‘crime’ of attempting to enter a church by the ‘coloureds’ door and at universities around the country, pro-Wallace meetings were broken up by egg-throwing students shouting ‘zieg heil!’

In Chicago, a meeting of student Wallace supporters was raided by police, who arrested the participants and all throughout the ‘land of the free,’ Wallace supporters were fired or forced to resign from their jobs, whilst the use of meeting halls for Progressive Party functions was denied. The police took attendee’s names at Wallace fund-raising events and the media published lists of Wallace petition-signers in order to incite harassment. A New York judge said he would deny custody of any child to pro-Wallace parents and a Detroit police commissioner said that Wallace supporters “ . . . ought to be either shot, thrown out of the country or put in jail.”

In Charleston, South Carolina, a Wallace supporter, Robert New was killed. His murderer received a trivial sentence after stating that New was a “despicable, slick, slimy Communist prowling the waterfront.” All very democratic of course.

Beginning in 1944, the US government and its private contractors had been releasing massive amounts of various radioactive substances into the air, ground and water at its 560 square mile plutonium production facility at Hanford, Washington. As much as 75,000 square miles of Washington State was affected by the radioactivity. Then in December 1949, the US Air Force deliberately released large amounts of radioactivity into the air from the Hanford plant in an experiment called ‘Green Run.’ Tens of thousands of Washington state residents as well as Hanford workers were exposed to extreme radiation with largely unknown effects on their health. The US government kept all the radiation releases secret, and various spokesmen repeatedly lied about them, for more than four decades until a partial disclosure of the truth was forced by a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in 1986.

The Korean War

This was the first military action of the Cold War. Five years after the US ‘gifted’ North Korea to the Soviets, the Communists in the North sent 75,000 soldiers across the 38th parallel into South Korea. The CIA, however, did not take any action and in fact publicly stated that the movement was a ‘defensive measure.’ Nothing to see here folks.

Up until WWII, Korea had been one nation, known as the Korean Peninsula and part of Japan. After WWII, the victors had divided it into two countries. The Soviet Union acquired the northern part, and the US took control of the area south of the 38th parallel.

During the war, North Korea led by Choi Yong-kun, was supported by the Communist Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China whilst South Korea was supported by the United States, Great Britain and the United Nations, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Fifteen United Nations countries sent combat troops to Korea; Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Holland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey and four others sent medical assistance; India, Italy, Norway, and Sweden.

After just three months, the US had captured the North’s capital of Pyongyang and with minimal American casualties. It appeared that the war was over but the Communist and bankster agents around Truman then suddenly announced that North Korean territory “ . . . is not part of America’s defence perimeter.” This treasonous statement was in effect the signal for Red China to enter the war and unnecessarily escalate the conflict — which of course was the plan all along.

When China entered the war, MacArthur wanted the US to fight on, despite China’s overwhelming numbers, but a series of defeats compelled MacArthur to withdraw from North Korea. Then on 1st December 1950, MacArthur was asked by a reporter if the restrictions imposed on him by the administration on operations against Chinese forces were “a handicap to effective military operations,” MacArthur significantly referred to them as “ . . . an enormous handicap, unprecedented in military history.” Five days later, Truman issued a directive requiring all military officers and diplomatic officials to clear all but routine statements with the State Department before making them public, and to . . . “ . . . refrain from direct communications on military or foreign policy with newspapers, magazines, and other publicity media.”

In a war supposedly intended to bring freedom to the Korean people, the US then commenced systematically slaughtering them by the millions and laying their country to waste. American ‘war crimes’ and crimes against humanity in Korea almost defy the imagination and are still being uncovered to this day. In the first three months of the war, the US dropped almost seventy million pounds of napalm and phosphorus bombs on the people of Korea and carpet-bombed Korean towns and cities on an industrial scale. Literally thousands of small villages and their inhabitants were reduced to ash by the ‘liberating’ USA.

And so was North Korea almost completely devastated by American carpet-bombing with few buildings left standing, and in addition there seems little doubt that they also used germ warfare against the Koreans in spite of the usual vehement denials. Indeed, compelling evidence of the use of biological weapons continues to be uncovered, as near Kwangju where a US plane sprayed a powder or mist over villagers who then suffered skin discoloration and subsequently, hundreds of them died.

The US had a massive biological warfare project, based largely on the work of its favourite Japanese mass-murderer and war criminal, General Shiro Ishi, head of Japan’s infamous biological warfare programme. More than twenty captured US pilots confessed to dropping germ-warfare agents. In addition, scenes of mass executions of civilians by the US and by troops of its puppet dictatorship as American ‘advisers’ observed and recorded the murders on film, are still being uncovered. The major goal of the US bombing campaign was the wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure, which of course was and is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Using conventional bombs and napalm, the US destroyed hydroelectric stations and irrigation projects throughout North Korea in a calculated attempt to starve the Koreans to death. One rule for us and no rules for them.

At No Gun Ri, US troops massacred three hundred South Korean civilians, mainly women and children, who were hiding under a bridge after being driven from their villages and the puppet dictatorship of South Korea obediently prevented investigation of the massacre and, as was usual, the US government systematically lied about it for fifty years. In 2003, a US Air Force memo was ‘declassified’ which stated that . . . “The Army has requested that we strafe (machine gun) all civilian refugee parties that are noted approaching our positions. To date we have complied with the Army request in this respect.”

In March 1951, MacArthur issued a communiqué offering a ceasefire to the Chinese but Truman was furious with MacArthur, later stating “I was ready to kick him into the North China Sea, I was never so put out in my life.” Truman felt that MacArthur’s communiqué, which had not been cleared in accordance with the December directive, had pre-empted his own proposal. Then on 11th April 1951, Truman drafted the following order to MacArthur, which was issued under the signature of General Omar Bradley . . .

“I deeply regret that it becomes my duty as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces to replace you as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers; Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command; Commander-in-Chief, Far East; and Commanding General, U.S. Army, Far East. You will turn over your commands, effective at once, to Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway. You are authorized to have issued such orders as are necessary to complete desired travel to such place as you select. My reasons for your replacement, will be made public concurrently with the delivery to you of the foregoing order, and are contained in the next following message, especially with regard to Truman’s order to restrict military interaction with the media.”

Upon his firing of MacArthur for ‘insubordination,’ Truman immediately became the most unpopular president in US history. The banksters subsequently claimed that it was Macarthur’s aggressive actions that brought China into the Korean War but in reality, it was Truman’s treasonous restraining of both Macarthur and Chiang that had instigated Red China’s aggression. China had only entered the war against the US because he knew that the game was being ‘rigged’ by the ‘Red’ advisors of Truman.

After what had become a bloody stalemate after three years of conflict, a treaty was signed by both sides, ending the Korean War. Nothing had changed. Both countries remained separate and the border remained at the 38th parallel, with a two-mile wide de-militarised zone between the two countries in order ‘to prevent further wars.’

The US alone, officially suffered over 54,000 dead, and 103,000 wounded and South Korea, 228,000 dead, and 717,000 wounded. North Korea and Chinese forces statistics varied dramatically depending on whether we believe the Chinese or US figures, but at least 500,000 died. The US had dropped more bombs in Korea (635,000 tons, as well as 32,557 tons of napalm) than in the entire Pacific theatre during WWII.

“Over a period of three years or so . . . . we burned-down every town in North Korea and South Korea too.” General Curtis LeMay, US Air Force General

But the most important thing of course, was that South Korea was once again ‘safe’ for a murderous US puppet dictatorship which would torture, murder, terrorise and deny freedom to the peoples of South Korea for the rest of the twentieth century and beyond.

And of course, as usual, the banksters made another massive financial killing, and advanced their agenda, as was intended all along . . .

The 1950s

In 1952, following Truman’s disastrous administration, the Democrats were so weak that the much-maligned Harry Truman did not even seek re-election. The leading candidate for the Republicans was Ohio Senator Robert Taft. Like his father William before him, Taft was a conservative patriot and also like his father in 1912, he too was ‘cheated’ out of an election.

At the Republican nominations, the Globalist wing of the Party used dirty tricks and smears to derail Taft in favour of the WWII mass-murderer and friend of Stalin, Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, the ‘war hero,’ had only recently become a Republican but he easily defeated Adlai Stevenson in the Election. The Republicans, much like the Democrats, were now completely in the grip of the banksters.

The banksters’ man that smoothed the path for Eisenhower into the White House, was none other than ‘Skull and Bones’ very own, Prescott Bush, the current patriarch of the despicable dynasty. The Bush family had ‘earned’ much of its wealth and power, by serving as the principal bankrollers in America of Adolf Hitler, both in his rise to power and even after World War II was declared.

George Herbert Walker was the grandfather of the first President Bush and Prescott Bush married Walker’s daughter, and became his partner in crime in the years leading up to World War II. Prescott Bush was rewarded by the Republican Party for siding with the Nazis against the United States, with a seat in the US Senate for himself, from the state of Connecticut, and with the US Presidency for his son and his grandson. And naturally, the bankster-controlled media, as always did as they were told, and made sure that the American public never became aware of this

The real story of the Bush family power goes back to the 1920s, when the Dulles brothers and the other pirates of Wall Street were making their deals with the Nazis. It all started however, when George H. W. Bush’s namesake and maternal grandfather, George Herbert Walker, founded the banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900.

Walker was one of Hitler’s most powerful financial supporters in the United States and the relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler’s infant Nazi party. As covered in earlier chapters, there were American contributors too. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery.

According to ‘The Splendid Blond Beast,’ Christopher Simpson’s seminal history of the politics of genocide and profit, Brown Brothers, Harriman was another bank that specialised in investments in Nazi Germany. The key figure was Averill Harriman, a prominent figure in the American establishment. The firm originally was known as W. A. Harriman & Company and the link between Harriman & Company’s American investors and Thyssen began in the 1920s, through the Union Banking Corporation, which began trading in 1924. In just one three-year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors. Herbert Walker was Union Banking’s president, and the firm was located in the offices of Averill Harriman’s company at 39, Broadway in New York.

In 1926 Bert Walker granted a favour to his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush. It was the sort of favour families do to help their children make a start in life, but Prescott came to regret it bitterly. Walker made Prescott vice-president of W. A. Harriman. The problem was that Walker’s speciality was companies that traded with Germany. As Thyssen and the other German industrialists consolidated Hitler’s political power in the 1930s, an American financial connection was needed and accordingly, Union Banking became an out-and-out Nazi money-laundering machine.

A 1934 congressional investigation alleged that Walker’s ‘Hamburg-Amerika Line’ subsidised a wide range of pro-Nazi propaganda efforts both in Germany and the United States. Walker did not know it, but one of his American employees, Dan Harkins, had blown the whistle on the spy apparatus to Congress. Harkins became Roosevelt’s first double agent and kept-up the pretence of being an ardent Nazi sympathiser whilst reporting to Naval Intelligence on the shipping company’s deals with Nazi intelligence.

Instead of divesting the Nazi money, Bush hired a lawyer to hide the assets and this lawyer had considerable expertise in such underhanded schemes. It was none other than Allen Dulles.

Joseph Kennedy, the multi-millionaire bootlegger, Mafia associate, stock market swindler and founder of the Kennedy political dynasty, was also a major contributor of capital to the Nazis via Prescott Bush.

In 1951, Prescott Bush, whose recent run for the Senate had been unsuccessful following revelations about his role in the American eugenics movement, ‘hit the jackpot.’ Front man and errand boy for the Harriman and Rockefeller families in their business dealings with the Nazis from 1926 to 1951, including the period throughout WWII, Bush evaded prosecution with the legal assistance of the ever-present, fellow-traitor Allen Dulles. And instead of going to jail for treason, Bush was given $1.5 million in Nazi assets, primarily shares of the Nazi-front Union Banking Corporation, which had been seized in 1942 under the ‘Trading with the Enemy Act.’ This Nazi cash formed a large portion of the Bush family fortune and no doubt was the foundation that enabled the Bush family to go on to even ‘greater’ things in the succeeding generations.

But Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, Herbert Walker, were only minority shareholders and front-men of the Union Banking Corporation. It was really owned by none other than Roland and Averell Harriman along with a host of other Nazi operations which had been seized under the ‘Trading with the Enemy’ Act. These included the Holland-American Trading Corporation, the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation and the Silesian-American Corporation which used slave labour from Auschwitz. The estimated total of the Harrimans’ Nazi assets was three billion dollars, and this remember, was in 1951 values.

Meanwhile, in the USSR, Stalin’s extreme paranoia often led to him ‘disposing’ of any subordinates who grew too powerful in their own right and so, fearing for their own lives, the Secret Police Chief Laventiy Beria in conjunction with several others, poisoned Stalin on the 5th March 1953. In 2003, a joint group of Russian and American historians announced their view that Stalin ingested warfarin, a powerful rat poison that inhibits coagulation of the blood, pre-disposing the victim to a stroke (cerebral haemorrhage.)

Nikita Khrushchev, himself a murderous assistant to Lazar Kaganovich during his Ukrainian genocide, became the new Soviet Premier and Khrushchev wasted no time in condemning Stalin for his brutality towards his fellow Communists. As a former Commissar, Khrushchev had worked closely with the monsters, Stalin and Kaganovich and despite his later criticism of Stalin, Khrushchev had murdered faithfully for Stalin while rising up through the Soviet ranks. Several years later, excerpts from Khrushchev’s own memoirs again confirmed the Soviet love of Eisenhower . . .

“Whenever I had dealings with Eisenhower in later years, I always remembered his actions during the war. I kept in mind Stalin’s words about Eisenhower . . . Stalin invited Eisenhower to our Victory Parade, and expressed his recognition by presenting him with our highest medal, the Order of Victory. This was the first time I met Eisenhower.” Nikita Khrushchev

On 19th June 1953, the American-Jewish Communists, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for passing nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Ethel’s brother, David Greenglass had given the secrets to the Rosenberg’s while working on the Manhattan Project. Of course, the Zionists immediately denounced the execution of the Jewish Rosenberg’s an “anti-Semitic witch hunt,” conveniently ignoring the fact that the sentence was imposed by a Jewish judge.

The Rosenbergs were arrested in July and August of 1950 and tried for conspiracy to commit espionage. Ethel Rosenberg was mainly convicted on the testimony of her brother David Greenglass, a co-defendant in their trial. Greenglass was spared execution in exchange for his testimony but in 2001, Greenglass recanted all of his testimony against his sister and claimed that he had committed perjury when he testified about her involvement in the case. He said that he chose to falsely testify against his sister in order to protect his wife, who in fact was spying for the Russians.

The guilty verdict was reached on 29th March 1951, and the pair were condemned to death by Judge Irving Kaufman at their sentencing a week later. In the judge’s words, the couple had committed a crime that was “worse than murder.” Not only had they . . . “ . . . given the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted,” Kaufman told them, they had “ . . . already caused . . . the Communist aggression in Korea. Millions more than the 50,000 American casualties in Korea, may pay the price of your treason.” By their action, the Rosenbergs alone had “altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country,” the judge added.

Kaufman was so proud of his speech that he brought his son with him to the courtroom so that the 10-year-old could hear his father impose the dual death sentence, which was carried out in the electric chair at Sing-Sing Prison, north of New York City, on the 19th June 1953, amidst worldwide protest. Of course, the Rosenbergs had been sacrificed by their Zionist bankster handlers. As had been the case with so many others, they were expendable to the greater cause.

The 1956 Hungarian Uprising

The Hungarian Uprising of 1956 was a revolt against the Soviet-Communist regime of Hungary. Civilians and patriotic soldiers combined to defeat the Jewish-dominated Secret Police and Soviet troops and the Russian Premier Khrushchev and his henchmen were stunned. The Soviets considered withdrawing all troops as the ‘rebels’ waited anxiously for the ‘anti-Communist’ West to send weapons.

Hungary in 1956 seemed to represent all that the Cold War stood for. The people of Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe were ruled over with a rod of iron by Communist Russia and anyone who challenged the rule of Stalin paid a high price. The death of Stalin in 1953 did not weaken the grip Moscow had on the people of the Communist bloc and Hungary, by challenging Moscow, paid such a price in 1956.

From 1945 on, the Hungarians had been under the yoke of Moscow. All wealth of whatever nature was removed from Hungary by the Russians who showed their power by installing thousands of Russian troops and hundreds of tanks in the country. The Hungarian leader, Rakosi, was Stalin’s puppet and when Stalin died in 1953, all the people of Eastern Europe filled with hope that they might at last be free from Soviet rule. But it was of course, not to be.

However, in February 1956, the new Russian leader Khrushchev made a bitter attack on Stalin and his policies and in July 1956, in a gesture to the Hungarians, Rakosi was forced to resign. In fact, the Hungarians were not satisfied, they had expected more autonomy but this was out of the question as far as the Soviets were concerned and that, combined with a bad harvest, fuel shortages and a cold and wet autumn, all created a volatile situation.

On the 23rd October 1956, students and workers took to the streets of Budapest and issued their demands which included personal freedom, more food, the removal of the secret police and indeed, the removal of Russian control. Poland had already been granted rights in 1956 which had been gained by street protests and displays of rebellion and Hungary attempted to follow suit. Imre Nagy was appointed Prime Minister and Janos Kadar Foreign Minister. They were regarded as suitable by Moscow and this was felt to be the best way to keep the ‘hooligans,’ as the Soviet press referred to the protesters, happy. As a gesture, the Red Army pulled-out and Nagy allowed independent, political parties to re-form once again.

However, one week later, Nagy broadcast to the nation that Hungary would secede from the Warsaw Pact but this was pushing the Russians too far and Kadar left the government in disgust and established a rival government in eastern Hungary which was supported by Soviet tanks. Then on 4th November, Soviet tanks entered Budapest to restore order and killed around 30,000 protestors. In order to escape the expected Soviet reprisals, around 200,000 fled to the west, leaving all their possessions in Hungary. Nagy was tried and executed and buried in an unmarked grave and by November 14th, order had been restored and Kadar was placed in charge. Soviet rule was re-established.

Eisenhower said in response, “I feel with the Hungarian people” and J F Dulles, the American Secretary of State said, “To all those suffering under communist slavery, let us say you can count on us.” But of course, America did nothing more and even pressurised Spain and West Germany into cancelling an arms shipment to the Hungarian rebels. There was to be no weapons, nor even any symbolic words, recognising Hungary’s struggle for freedom and upon realising that Stalin’s ‘favourite’ American General from WWII was effectively endorsing a re-conquest of Hungary, the Soviets re-occupied Hungary with massive force. The leaders of the Hungarian revolt were then executed.

For almost half a century, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and virtually every US administration deliberately overstated and distorted the economic strength, military capabilities and global intentions of the Soviet Union. The psychological warfare operation was directed primarily against the people of the United States who were maintained in a state of constant fear of the Soviet bogeyman and were, therefore, willing to endure a massive transfer of wealth from the low and middle-income Americans who actually pay taxes to the US weapons industry, aka the banksters. The ‘commie bogeyman’ also served as a convenient excuse for gross violations of the theoretical rights and freedoms of American citizens by their government. The CIA grossly exaggerated Soviet military production capacity, economic figures and international conspiracies as part of its psychological warfare operation against Americans and the Pentagon manufactured phantom Soviet army divisions and invasion plans.

By 1950, the total US federal budget was about $40 billion of which about $12 billion was allocated to the military. With the carefully manufactured fear of ‘reds under the bed’ gripping the nation, by 1960 the military took an astonishing two thirds of the entire federal budget of $60 billion and by 1962, based on a series of manufactured and completely false scares about Soviet military build-ups, including a fabricated ‘bomber gap’ and a fabricated ‘missile gap,’ the United States had built nuclear weapons with the explosive equivalent of 1,500 Hiroshima-size bombs, enough to destroy every major city in the world, several times over. This represented ten pounds of TNT, for every man, woman, and child on Earth. To deliver these bombs, the US had more than fifty intercontinental ballistic missiles, eighty missiles on nuclear submarines, ninety missiles on stations overseas, 1,700 bombers capable of reaching the Soviet Union, 300 nuclear-ready fighter-bombers on aircraft carriers and 1,000 land-based supersonic fighters able to carry atomic bombs.

Although this was all supposedly due to the evil Soviets having more bombs than the US, in reality the USSR had only between fifty and a hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles and fewer than two hundred long-range bombers at the time but never mind, at least the banksters were making a colossal fortune out of arms manufacture and subduing the masses with their gross fear-mongering tactics.

By 1970, the US military budget had grown to $80 billion and the merchants of death made ever more fantastic profits with two thirds of the expenditure going to about a dozen giant bankster-owned corporations. Under the guise of national security, the vast majority of the contracts given to the weapons makers were not even subject to competitive bidding.

This psychological warfare operation was used not only to justify the relentless Cold War against the Soviet Union but also as the pretext to justify countless invasions, coups, occupations, mass murders, assassinations and genocides by the US against an almost endless list of nations and people around the world in order to ensure that their resources, their markets and their labour could be shamelessly and ruthlessly exploited by the banksters. The complicit US mass media played their designated role too, in keeping the entire world in abject terror of WWIII, during that period.

A study of US Cold War archives by the Los Angeles Times in 1991, concluded that US officials “ . . . exaggerated Soviet capabilities and intentions to such an extent that it is surprising anyone took them seriously.” What the LA Times failed to say however, was that without the eager wholesale complicity of the US mainstream media, including the LA Times, no one would have taken such nonsense seriously.

‘McCarthyism’

The McCarthy ‘witch-hunt’ for the so-called ‘Reds under the beds’ during the Cold War was generally regarded as a deeply regrettable blot on US history, but the release of classified documents revealed that Joseph McCarthy was right after all about the extent of Soviet infiltration into the highest reaches of the U.S government.

Thanks to the public release of top secret FBI decryptions of Soviet communications, as well as the release under the ‘fifty year rule’ of FBI records and Soviet archives, we now know that the much-denigrated and bankster-scorned Communist-spying which McCarthy fought against was extensive, reaching to the highest level of the State department and the White House. In fact, McCarthy was receiving a great deal of material from his friend, the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. One of Hoover’s agents William Sullivan later admitted . . . “We were the ones that made the McCarthy hearings possible. We fed McCarthy all the material he was using.”

All these documents revealed that many of McCarthy’s anti-communist investigations were in fact accurate. His fears about the effect that Soviet infiltration might be having on US foreign policy, particularly in the Far East were also well founded. It was also revealed that people such as the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss and even Robert Oppenheimer were indeed working closely with the Soviets.

McCarthy began his investigations against Communism on 9th February 1950, when he spoke at a Republican Women’s Club in West Virginia, at which he said that there were at least 57 known Communists in the US State Department, and that the State Department knew it. It has been the common charge that McCarthy launched his anti-Communist campaign for no other reason than to serve his own political career by whipping up hysteria. Yet other evidence shows him to have been a man of principle regardless of his career. In 1949 McCarthy had taken up the cause of German POWs held for allegedly gunning-down American prisoners during the so-called Malmédy Massacre. McCarthy exposed the fact that the Germans had had their POW status revoked so that the Geneva Convention did not protect them, and that they were being tortured to extract confessions. Obviously this was not the type of cause that was designed to win friends in high places and had indeed already brought condemnation upon McCarthy from the bankster-run news media.

It was in fact, the Senate that insisted that McCarthy make his list of 57 names of subversives, public, although he did not himself think it proper, yet it is McCarthy who has since been damned as the man who destroyed the innocent by public inquisitions. The final death-blow to McCarthy’s campaign was instigated by Senator Ralph Flanders (1880-1970,) who introduced the resolution for Senate censure of McCarthy. This was backed by Senator Herbert Lehman, son of Mayer Lehman, founder of Lehman Brothers international investment bank, of which Herbert became a partner.

Columbia University in its description of Lehman in regard to the Lehman Papers collection, states of the distinguished Senator . . .

“Having served as Governor of New York State between 1933 and 1942, in 1949, at the age of 71, Lehman was elected United States Senator to fill the unexpired term of Robert F. Wagner, Sr. Re-elected for a full term in 1950, Senator Lehman gave six years of distinguished service to the people of his state and nation.

His courage, moral integrity and unfaltering dedication soon made Senator Lehman one of Washington’s most respected senators; just as they had won him affection and honour in New York and on the world scene. He became known as ‘the conscience of the Senate’ as he led those who stood for liberal principles and for the rights of accused individuals in the early 1950s when Senator McCarthy’s influence was at its peak. Utterly fearless and disdainful for his own political fortunes he fought, at times almost alone, against tremendous opposition.”

Stating that Lehman stood fearless, ‘at times almost alone,’ is sheer nonsense. It was McCarthy who stood fearless and alone, while Lehman had behind him, the unstoppable might of the US Administration including the Presidency, the Washington and Wall Street banksters, and the most influential elements of the news media.

Columbia University also described the battle between Lehman and McCarthy as ‘bitter.’ According to Lehman’s biographer, Allen Nevins . . . “On at least one occasion, senatorial colleagues feared that the verbal combat between Lehman and McCarthy would lead to blows on the floor of the Senate.” Allan Nevins, ‘Herbert H. Lehman and His Era,’ 1963

Lehman, like the Warburgs and Schiffs, et al, was one of those who intermarried among the banking dynasties, marrying Edith Louise Altschul, the daughter of the head of the New York branch of Lazard Frères, the Paris-based banking house. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his campaign against Senator McCarthy, as was the anti-McCarthy cartoonist Herbert Block.

Senator Flanders as the introducer of the Senate death blow to McCarthy himself had an interesting background, not as some ‘progressive’ or liberal Democrat, but as a Republican, an industrialist and a banker. Under the guise of being an anti-Communist, Flanders stated that McCarthy was misdirecting efforts against Communism by looking inward, at subversion in the US, whereas the fight must be directed outward against Soviet expansion. This line fitted entirely with that of the US Establishment. Ever since Stalin had foiled the US proposition to create a ‘New World Order’ immediately after WWII, via the United Nations and the ‘Baruch Plan’ for the internationalisation of atomic energy, both measures which would in the Soviet opinion have assured US global hegemony, the wartime US-Soviet accord had been replaced by the Cold War. The US Establishment had sought to recruit influential anti-Soviet leftists, whom the CIA was fond of depicting as “anti-communists.” This ideological offensive was undertaken by the CIA, with backing from the banksters, in particular the Rockefellers, and primarily under the banner of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, led by pro-Trotsky intellectual, Professor Sidney Hook, another recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

McCarthy’s most dangerous enemies were not the Soviet spies and American Communist Party functionaries he was exposing, but those whom he had not even yet got around to targeting, the mighty banksters and their many, many agents.

Flanders had been president of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank for two years prior to being elected Senator for Vermont. In 1942 he was appointed to the Committee for Economic Development, which was established to formulate US post-war economic policy, including the role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In other words a major bankster’s gopher.

When he introduced his resolution of censure against McCarthy, Time reported . . . “From outside the Senate, Flanders won the support of a group of 23 top businessmen, labour leaders and educators, e.g., publisher John Cowles (Des Moines Register & Tribune,) Movie Producer Samuel Goldwyn, Financier Lewis W. Douglas (chairman, Mutual Life of New York.) They wired every US Senator (except McCarthy himself) urging a favourable vote . . . to curb the flagrant abuse of power by Senator McCarthy.” This would be quite amusing if it was not so serious a matter.

Note that those against McCarthy were the Left/Socialist/Marxists combined with big business and capital, not exactly the nexus that any student of history and geopolitics would expect. Flanders’ resolution read . . . “Resolved, that the conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin . . . is unbecoming a member of the United States Senate, is contrary to senatorial traditions, and tends to bring the Senate into disrepute, and such conduct is hereby condemned.”

Please bear in mind that at this stage, both Flanders and Lehman were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which CFR official historian Peter Grosse described as “the US foreign policy establishment.” Flanders had also been involved in a CFR study committee on post-war US foreign policy set up in 1940. Flanders was also a member of the Business Advisory Council, another association of significance that will be considered shortly.

Other CFR study group members included Lauchlin Currie and Benjamin V. Cohen both from the US State Department, Asia expert Professor Owen Lattimore, and economist Leo Pasvolsky, special assistant for post-war planning to the US Secretary of State. All of these CFR advisers were to attract the attention of McCarthy’s investigations into subversion. This CFR connection was a primary key to understanding McCarthy’s political destruction.

The individuals and associations that McCarthy targeted were not Soviet agents so much as bankster scions. Hence when McCarthy attacked US policy in China as favouring the Mao supporters, it was assumed that the interests being served were those of the USSR. It has more recently been confirmed that McCarthy was correct in pointing the finger at Far Eastern advisers such as Lattimore and others of the Institute on Pacific Relations. However the policy that was being pursued was on behalf of the American plutocratic cabal, aka the banksters, whilst Stalin did his best to resist a Communist takeover and indeed backed Chiang Kai-shek right up until his final defeat.

What McCarthy believed to be Communism and Soviet infiltration was actually the entire East Coast foreign policy establishment of the banksters, centred on the CFR and whilst a large proportion of the subversives that McCarthy was exposing were CFR members such as Lattimore, Currie, et al, there were three individuals in particular who were too well-connected to the banksters, for McCarthy to be allowed to continue his investigations and exposures.

These individuals were Cord Meyer, John J. McCloy and Robert T. Stevens and he had unwittingly steered too close to the centre of the US bankster-dominated power structure. Stevens was Secretary of the Army at a time when McCarthy was involved in his final campaign before his silencing; an investigation into Communist activities in the military. Stevens of J. P. Stevens & Co., Charles E. Wilson of General Motors as Secretary of Defence, and George M. Humphrey of M. A. Hanna Co., as Treasury Secretary, had been elevated to these posts after a meeting between Eisenhower, the international bankster Sidney Weinberg, and General Lucius Clay. Those involved were members of the Business Advisory Council (BAC,) Weinberg and Clay being on the executive committee.

The BAC had been formed in 1933 to ahem, ‘advise’ President Roosevelt on business matters, just as the CFR ‘advised’ on foreign policy. The BAC was the brainchild of Sidney Weinberg of Goldman, Sachs & Co., who recruited most of the key members. In September 1960, Harper’s Magazine published an exposé of the BAC, which it described as “America’s most powerful private club.”

McCarthy’s chief target in the Army hearings was the aforementioned Robert T. Stevens, a big player in the BAC who had become Secretary of the Army. The BAC did not pay much attention to Joe McCarthy as a ‘social menace’ until he started to pick on Stevens. Then, they went into action.

The other particularly important Establishment figure that McCarthy was getting too close to investigating was John J. McCloy, chairman of the CFR, Wall Street lawyer, adviser to Presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan, Military Governor and US High Commissioner of post-war West Germany, chairman of the Chase National then the Chase Manhattan Bank.

The New York Times wrote of McCloy . . . “Between times and often concurrently, he was board chairman of the Ford Foundation, chairman of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations and board chairman of a dozen or so other entities, including the Salk Institute and of E. R. Squibb & Sons. As a lawyer, he represented scores of corporate clients, including 23 oil companies dealing with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC.) Mr. McCloy was chairman of so many boards and had his hands in so many ventures that the political writer Richard Rovere once proposed that he was the informal ‘chairman of the Establishment,’ a group that ‘fixes major goals and constitutes itself a ready pool of manpower for the more exacting labors of leadership.’ McCloy came to McCarthy’s attention when his committee began investigating communist influences in occupied Germany under McCloy’s authority.”

Some of those questioned by the McCarthy committee declined to answer under the Fifth Amendment regarding self-incriminating testimony, or were evasive. The other major figure about to be investigated by McCarthy was Cord Meyer, an omnipresent Zionist-CIA operative who was responsible for special operations involved with recruiting and using anti-Stalinist Leftists. Meyer for example had recruited to the CIA-sponsored, phony ‘New Left revolution,’ the LSD ‘guru’ Timothy Leary and the radical Zionist-feminist Gloria Steinem who was responsible for the subversion and conversion of tens of thousands of innocent women to the bankster-sponsored so-called’ ‘feminist movement,’ which rather than promoting women’s rights, was the absolute antithesis of that philosophy.

McCarthy described the CIA as a “communist sinkhole.” Information had been given to him by the FBI on ‘leftists’ in the CIA. The so-called ‘communism fighter,’ Cord Meyer, had already been considered a communist by the FBI but was protected by the CIA, which according to Meyer’s own account refused to permit the FBI to interrogate him. In 1953 McCarthy stated he intended exposing a hundred communists in the CIA, and one of the first was to be Cord Meyer.

On the 14th June 1951, the bankster-owned media was outraged when Senator McCarthy dared to denounce one of their manufactured heroes as a traitor. During a long speech on the Senate floor, McCarthy masterfully exposed George Marshall’s pattern of ‘mistakes’ surrounding the Pearl Harbor ‘surprise attack,’ the mismanagement of WWII, the loss of Eastern Europe to Stalin, and the 1949 loss of China to Mao’s Reds. McCarthy also hinted that General Eisenhower was in league with Marshall and mocked Marshall’s media-created hero status . . . “ . . . Marshall, who, by the alchemy of propaganda, became the ‘greatest living American’ and the recently proclaimed master of global strategy.”

A media smear of McCarthy was immediately launched under the direction of Frank Wisner, the Zionist head of the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination, who marshalled CIA-connected journalists Drew Pearson, Joe Alsop, Jack Anderson, Walter Lippmann, and Ed Murrow. However, the smears against McCarthy had previously been launched, headed up by the Establishment mouthpiece, the CIA-connected Washington Post. This was at a time when The Washington Post was run by Katharine Meyer Graham, daughter of the international bankster, Eugene Meyer. Katharine’s husband Philip, the publisher, was a CIA operative and her biographer Deborah Davis wrote that . . .

“Katharine’s husband, Philip Graham, publisher of the Post until his suicide in 1963 also up until that year served as director of the CIA’s Project Mockingbird, whose object was to infiltrate the corporate news media. The CIA apparently bought around 600 journalists. Philip Graham boasted that “you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month.”

Graham also boasted that it was her paper that coined the derogatory term ‘McCarthyism.’ Whilst she conceded that the “ . . . Communist Party had succeeded in establishing a surprising network of infiltrators and even spies,” the Washington Post had already in 1947 started attacking the pre-McCarthy House Committee on Un-American Activities. Graham cited one editorial as “ . . . putting the Post’s position succinctly,” stating that the Congressional committee was “ . . . more dangerously un-American than that of any of the groups or individuals that it had investigated.” What the banksters most feared, was not McCarthy’s attacks on Soviet spies and agents, but that American ‘nationalism’ would be generated as a by-product, undermining their proposed New World Order. Both Katharine and Philip Graham were members of the CFR.

When McCarthy launched his investigations in early 1950, Phil Graham was from the start antagonistic, and his antagonism cannot be seen as anything other than a reflection of the attitude by the CIA and the US bankster-Establishment towards this ‘upstart’ who was undoing all their hitherto ‘good work.’ Katharine remarked that, “ . . . much of Phil’s time was taken up with the McCarthy menace . . . Most effective of all probably was Herb Block’s series of cartoons depicting McCarthy and his various outrageous activities. It was Herb Block who had coined the term ‘McCarthyism.’”

Herbert Block, known as ‘Herblock,’ worked as the chief editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post for 55 years, right up until the time of his death in 2001. Whilst McCarthy is of course now constant vilified by the US Establishment and its controlled media as having created the USA’s darkest period of history, Herblock is eulogised as a hero. He won three Pulitzer Prizes (1942, 1954—the year of McCarthy’s censure—and 1979, possibly for his smears against Nixon). He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1994. He was also awarded a Doctor of Arts from Harvard University and in 2000, the Library of Congress named him a ‘Living Legend.’

The other bankster-Establishment media flagship is The New York Times, which certainly did not neglect its own ‘duty’ as part of the smear-campaign to destroy McCarthy. A pamphlet written during those times, by the American patriot Joseph P. Kamp gives an alternative view of the so-called ‘McCarthy era,’ the time during which McCarthy supposedly had Americans gripped in a reign of fear. Kamp stated of The New York Times campaign . . . “The Times has pursued Joe McCarthy with a hysteria of invective far out-doing the statesman whom it falsely brands as master of the smear.”

Kamp stated that The New York Times had described McCarthy as a “traducer of reputations and mud-slinger extraordinary,” in its issue of 10th July 1952. Later it was editorialised that McCarthy “preys on fear, he stirs up hatred . . . via the route of wild charges gross distortions and assorted form of demagoguery.” As Kamp commented, this was “ . . . pure propaganda. It included not a name or fact.” However it is typical of the nonsense that has continued to this day to be heaped upon the memory of McCarthy.

By contrast, one of McCarthy’s prime subjects of interest, Professor Owen Lattimore, was heralded as a hero by The Times, featuring Lattimore’s photo on page one with a glowing review of his book ‘Ordeal by Slander.’ Kamp stated however that McCarthy’s own book ‘McCarthyism: The Fight for America,’ was blacklisted by The Times, as were all other books by McCarthy’s publisher, Devin-Adair. The Times was published during this period by Arthur Hays Sulzberger, whose other associations included serving as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and of course, membership of the CFR.

McCarthy was finally ‘done-for’ by a coalition of big Business, the CFR, the Business Advisory Council, US Administration, New York Times, Washington Post, and the CIA. However, he continued as a Senator for a several more years during which time he was ostracised and his speeches boycotted in the Senate. Indeed, McCarthy was completely emotionally and physically exhausted by the hate-campaign against him and he died in 1957 at the age of 48. E Merrill Root cogently described the situation with which McCarthy was probably unknowingly faced . . . “ . . . . I do not think that the Senator ever quite saw the real nature of the enemy within, the full scope of the Conspiracy in New York and Washington . . . ”

Joe McCarthy had been a Marine air gunner, an amateur boxer, a county judge and towards his end, under constant attack, he began to drink heavily. He had also experienced first-hand, the wrath of the Zionists when he had spoken out against the barbarous treatment of German prisoners five years earlier and that made him wary of offending them again. His investigations into Communist subversion were turning up a vastly disproportionate number of Jewish Communists, and he was afraid that the Jews would believe he was hunting Jews rather than Communists.

McCarthy’s staff announced on 10th September 1953, that there was very serious evidence of espionage at Fort Monmouth. The evidence was an extract of a report from J. Edgar Hoover to the head of Army Intelligence. The document mentioned 35 Fort Monmouth employees as security risks, most of them Jews of Russian origin who had been in contact with the atom-bomb spies, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

During the investigation at Fort Monmouth, however, attention was diverted to nearby Camp Kilmer. This was the case of the Jewish Communist Irving Peress who was an Army dentist who was proved to be not only a member, but also an organiser of Communist groups, and had sworn a false oath upon receiving his officer’s commission. Even worse, when the matter was exposed, Peress was promoted and later given an honourable discharge, thus escaping the jeopardy of a court-martial. The Peress case was a tremendous embarrassment to the Army, because it showed that security in the Army was a mere formality which was easily circumvented.

In late April 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings began. The Army had accused McCarthy of using improper pressure, evidence of this being the so-called ‘Stevens-Adams chronology.’ McCarthy counter-charged that the Army was trying to discredit his committee and stop its investigation of the Army. During the hearings Stevens was the Army’s ‘star witness.’ He ‘stonewalled’ the subcommittee, giving vague, unresponsive, and often self-contradictory testimony and it soon became clear to McCarthy that Stevens was acting under orders from Eisenhower’s staff. The Army’s case, however, already had been exposed and McCarthy essentially vindicated, when Senator Everett Dirksen, a member of the McCarthy Subcommittee, testified that the Army’s counsel, John Adams and Eisenhower’s administrative assistant Gerald Morgan had approached him on 22nd January 1954, seeking to stifle part of McCarthy’s investigation of the Army.

The White House was now clearly implicated in a conspiracy to shield subversion in the government. On 17th May, Eisenhower, in an obvious attempt to prevent his own role from being investigated further, issued what became known as the ‘Iron Curtain’ order. He claimed that it was a Constitutional principle that the President could forbid his subordinates from revealing any information to the Congress. But regardless of the legal result, biased media coverage made the Army-McCarthy hearings a propaganda victory for the pro-Communists. The Army counsel Joseph Welch, through hyperbole and histrionics, managed to convince a large portion of the public that a few peripheral issues he raised during the hearings were serious embarrassments to McCarthy.

Welch was much more of an actor than a lawyer. Later, in 1959, he played a judge in a major Hollywood production, ‘Anatomy of a Murder,’ alongside Jimmy Stewart and Lee Remick, but on this occasion, the Army-McCarthy hearings, the Senate hearing room was his stage and he played his role to the full.

But by September many of his supporters in the Congress had succumbed to the growing pressure and had deserted McCarthy. His Senate colleagues stripped him of his committee chair in November and in December 1954, the Senate voted 67-22 to condemn him for ‘conduct contrary to Senatorial traditions.’ This condemnation permanently ended his effectiveness as a legislator.

McCarthy fell ill with hepatitis in late April of 1957, and was taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital, just as his ‘suicided’ mentor, James Forrestal, had been in 1949 when working on an exposé of Soviet espionage rings in the Pentagon and treason in the Truman Administration, when he had been suddenly silenced. As is often the case on these occasions, McCarthy had begun to recover, but strangely lapsed again on the Communist ‘Holy Day’ of 1st May and died at the early age of 48, the following day, the victim of an apparent poisoning, rumoured to be carbon tetrachloride. The official cause of McCarthy’s death was listed as ‘inflammation of the liver.’

The monumental irony of Joseph McCarthy was that he was proven right after all. Unfortunately, his direct methods and accusations ruined so many good, innocent people in the process, including those that were judged guilty, simply by association. Just like everyone else in politics, McCarthy was used by the banksters to counter their rising Communist agenda. He was the charismatic leader of the controlled opposition. The banksters had their Zionist agents like Roy Cohn and George Sokolsky, watching him all the time and McCarthy was an iconic figure that was set-up to fail from the very beginning. He had become too efficient at exposing the Communist menace, and too popular with the public, so the banksters ‘pulled the plug’ on him and set their Zionist media against him. He had finally outlived his usefulness.

The immense power of the new medium of television, was clearly evident in McCarthy’s demise. Specifically, the 9th March 1954, CBS television broadcast of Edward R. Murrow’s See It Now programme, which was an attack on McCarthy and his methods.

Then the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations decided to hold hearings that became known as the Army-McCarthy hearings, televised from the Senate Caucus Room. McCarthy relinquished his chairmanship position to Republican Karl Mundt from South Dakota so that the hearings could commence and both sides of that dispute aired on national television between April and June 1954, for 188 hours of broadcast time watched by 22 million viewers.

The age of mass deception by media was about to commence . . .

Chapter 13

Weapons of Mass Deception

As was clearly demonstrated by the ‘trial by media’ of Senator Joe McCarthy, the power of television and its ability to sway and influence public opinion as to whether to buy a product or to ‘buy’ what a politician or ‘talking head,’ tells us, is immense.

The movie Network, a film that would never, ever be made today, said it best of all, way back in 1976, whereby a fictional TV news-anchor named Howard Beale, who’s on-air ‘nervous breakdown’ makes him into an instant star, the ‘mad prophet of the airwaves.’ Through him, the following is revealed to his spellbound audience . . .

“Right now there is a whole generation that didn’t know anything that didn’t come out of this tube! This tube is the gospel! The ultimate revelation! This tube can make or break Presidents, Popes and Prime Ministers. This tube is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world and woe is us if it ever falls in the hands of the wrong people.”

Well, ‘woe is us’ indeed . . . Because, from its very beginning, television has been in the hands of those ‘wrong people’ . . . the blood-drenched, money-grubbing hands of the banksters. Of course before that, they were already controlling radio from its inception, they were quick to seize the power in Hollywood, and had long since taken control of the printed word and what was portrayed on stage, and taught in the schools, colleges and Universities.

This chapter will illustrate clearly how the banksters’ crime oligarchy that controls much of the world, has been using its almost complete control of virtual everything that the average person sees on any given day, to weave an artificially-created reality with regard to politics, economics, history and science, when they are not distracting the population with sports and mindless mass-entertainment, corrupting their morals, predictively programming them, or practicing other propaganda upon them.

In the very first chapter we talked of the Rothschilds’ need to control the news, hence their purchase of the Reuters news service in the 1890s, followed by the German Wolff news agency, and the French Havas agency. Later came United Press International (UPI) and Associated Press (AP,) all of which they either own directly or by proxy, as with the newspaper/magazine chains, Hollywood film studios, TV networks, book publishers et al. The Rothschilds above all else, always shun publicity and even any mention of their names in order to perpetuate the illusion that they do not own the world. But the truth is that they have bought the world’s media just as they have bought everything else, for the purpose of control — of us all.

The insidious plan to ‘manufacture’ public opinion began in 1913 as a propaganda factory centred upon Wellington House in London. Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, installed Lord Northcliffe (Britain’s most influential newspaper magnate) as its director and Lord Northcliffe’s position was overseen by Lord Rothermere on behalf of the British Crown, (who else?) The operational staff of Wellington House consisted of Lord Northcliffe, Arnold Toynbee (the future Director of Studies at the Rothschild foreign-policy manipulation centre, the New World Order’s very own Royal Institute of International Affairs.) Also involved were the American Jews, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays, the founder of modern mass-brainwashing techniques and who promoted the ‘benefits’ of smoking to women, by hiring models to smoke at early pre-feminist demonstrations and was a nephew to the Marxist psycho-babbler, Sigmund Freud.

Funding was initially provided by the Royal family, but was also forthcoming from the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. Wellington House would eventually morph into the infamous Tavistock Institute in 1921 and as is the case with all these organisations it soon fell under Zionist control through fronts and puppets such as the Royal family.

Because of the intensive artillery barrages of WWI, many soldiers were permanently impaired by shell-shock and so in 1921, Herbrand Arthur Russell, the Marquess of Tavistock, 11th Duke of Bedford, gave a building to a group which planned to conduct rehabilitation programs for shell-shocked British soldiers and the group assumed the name of the ‘Tavistock Institute’ after its benefactor. The General Staff of the British Army decided it was crucial that they determine the breaking point of the soldier under combat conditions and so Tavistock undertook research to understand how human minds are shattered so that Tavistock ‘scientists’ could utilise similar techniques to shatter and control the ‘public mind.’ The Tavistock Clinic was founded in London as a psychological warfare research centre in 1922.

Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, a cocaine addict, and sexual deviant, was Tavistock’s first main ‘prophet.’ Edward Bernays, Freud’s nephew and another Tavistock psychologist, wrote the book, Propaganda in 1928 and pioneered the (mis)use of psychology to shape public opinion so that the public would believe that state-manufactured opinions were, in fact, their own.

The Tavistock Institute was eventually taken over by Sir John Rawlings Reese, head of the British Army’s Psychological Warfare Bureau and a cadre of highly trained specialists in psychological warfare was built up in total secrecy. After the propaganda victories of the First World War and the Federal Reserve banking system had been secured to some great extent by this agency/think-tank it was then invested with a momentum and power which it still, silently and malevolently exercises over the British people in particular and the Western world at large.

In a nation largely in awe of its Royal family, only a handful of non-elites are aware that the British Royal Family were at the centre of the planning and support for the New World Order and the plan for bankster-Zionist domination and tyranny. From a somewhat crude beginning at Wellington House, grew an organisation that was to shape the destiny of Germany, Britain and more especially the United States and that would manipulate and create public opinion, by the extensive use of what is commonly termed, ‘mass brainwashing.’ During the course of its evolution, Tavistock had expanded in size and ambition and in 1937, a decision was made to use the German author Oswald Spengler’s monumental work, ‘Untergange des Abenlandes’ (The Decline of Western Civilisation,) as a model.

Previously, Wellington House board members Rothermere, Northcliffe, Lippmann and Bernays had proposed as a guide, the writings of Correa Moylan Walsh, in particular, the book ‘The Climax of Civilisation’ (1917,) as corresponding closely to conditions that had to be created before the New World Order / One World Government could be ushered-in. In this endeavour the members of the bankster-board consulted with the British Royal family and obtained the approval of the ‘Olympians,’ the inner core of the Committee of 300, to formulate a strategy. Funding was provided by the monarchy, the Rothschilds, the Milner Group and the Rockefeller family trusts.

By 1936, Oswald Spengler’s monumental work had come to the attention of what had become the Tavistock Institute. In preparation for changing and reshaping public opinion for the second time in less than twelve years, by unanimous consent of the board, Spengler’s massive tome was adopted as the blueprint for a new working model to bring about the decline and fall of Western civilisation as was deemed necessary to create and establish the New World Order and a One World Government. Tavistock regarded Western civilisations as a major barrier to the New World Order, as did the emphasis on protection and elevation of the female sex to a place of high respect and honour. Thus the whole thrust of Tavistock was to ‘democratise’ the West by an attack on womanhood, and the racial, moral, spiritual and religious foundation upon which Western civilisation rested.

As Spengler suggested, the Greeks and Romans were devoted to the social, religious, moral and spiritual advancement and the preservation of womanhood and they were successful for just as long as they were in control and could arrange matters so that government was carried out by a limited number of responsible citizens supported by the general populace below them, all being of the same pure unadulterated race. So, the planners at Tavistock saw that the way to upset the entire balance of Western civilization was to force unwelcome changes by removing control from the deserving to the undeserving in the manner of ancient Roman leaders who were supplanted by their former slaves and aliens, whom they had permitted to work and live among them.

By 1937, Tavistock had come a long way from its Wellington House beginnings and the successful propaganda campaign that had turned the British public from being strongly anti-war in 1913 to willing participants through the arts of manipulation through the news media. This technique was also transplanted across the Atlantic in 1915/6 to manipulate the American people into support of the war in Europe. In spite of the fact that the vast majority, including at least 50 US Senators were adamantly opposed to the US being involved in what they perceived was essentially a European quarrel, the conspirators were undeterred. At that point Wellington House introduced the word, ‘isolationist’ as a derogatory description of those Americans who opposed participation in the war. The use of such Orwellian words and phrases has proliferated under the expert brainwashing of the Social ‘scientists’ at Tavistock. Seemingly innocent terms such as ‘regime change,’ (forced revolutions) and ‘collateral damage’ (the murders of innocent citizens) became accepted new concepts.

With the Tavistock plan now modified to suit American conditions, Bernays and Lippmann led President Wilson to set up the very first Tavistock methodology techniques for manufacturing so-called ‘public opinion,’ created by Tavistock propaganda. They also ordered Wilson to set-up a secret body of ‘managers’ to run the pro-war propaganda and a body of advisors to ‘assist’ the President in his decision-making.

Such was the hidden power of Wellington House that the vast majority of the American people accepted the Federal Income Tax Act that was passed on 5th September 1913, to replace trade tariffs as the source of revenue for the Federal Government. Income Tax was a Marxist doctrine absent from the US Constitution as indeed was the concept of a Central Bank. Wilson called these twin blows against the Constitution, “a fight for the people, and for free business,” and said he was proud to have, “taken part in the completion of a great piece of business . . . ” The Federal Reserve Act, explained by Wilson as “reconstructing the Nation’s banking and currency system” was rushed through Congress on a massive wave of propaganda emanating from Wellington House, in order to fund the build-up to WWI.

The deceptive language of the Federal Reserve Act was written under the guidance of Bernays and Lippman who set up a ‘National Citizen’s League’ with the infamous Samuel Untermeyer as its chairman, to promote the Federal Reserve Bank, that secured control of the people’s money and currency and transferred it to a private monopoly without the victim’s consent. In fact to this day, the American people, in whose name the disastrous measure was instituted, does not have the faintest idea how they have been connived, cheated, lied to and utterly deceived. An instrument of slavery had been imposed upon them without the victims ever becoming aware of it.

Wellington House methodology was at its height when Wilson was coached in how to persuade Congress to declare war on Germany, although he had ‘won’ his election on the solemn promise of keeping America out of the war, then raging in Europe, a great triumph for the new art of public opinion-making. It was exactly that — the poll questions were shaded in such a way that the answers reflected the opinions of the public; not their understanding of the questions, nor their understanding of the processes of political science.

In 1946, the Tavistock Institute was created as an independent body to assist the Tavistock Clinic. It was formally founded and registered as a charity in 1947 and today, the Tavistock Institute is still the central body responsible for the oversight of a global mind-control network. In its multi-faceted activities, the institute is implementing its fundamental insight: that by means of applying repeated shocks, or stressful events such as extreme terrorism, entire populations can be manipulated, conditioned, terrorised, and subdued. This is all achievable through the manufacturing of a controlled psychological environment.

A high percentage of British and American psychologists, corporate CEOs, senior social workers, and senior police, among others, are trained at Tavistock now. And today, the Tavistock Institute claims to be the authority on ritual abuse, Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Thus, Tavistock, the primary mind-control and mind-programming site in the world, pretends to be trying to solve the very problems it covertly creates.

Tavistock’s pioneering work in the ‘science’ of mass mind control also helped establish it as the world centre of ‘foundation ideology.’ Thus, Tavistock ‘scientists’ helped the Rockefellers, Rothschilds and other extremely wealthy American banksters design their tax-exempt foundations in such a way that they could simultaneously preserve their vast fortunes and mould Western societies through the new techniques of ‘social engineering.’ In turn, the CIA, in particular, has been instrumental in ensuring that Tavistock-generated foundation ideologies are translated into policy implementation by the executive, the legislative and judicial branches of the United States government.

The CIA has often been called the Central Investment Agency, not only because of the Wall Street backgrounds of Donovan, Dulles and many other principals, but because of the many commercial operations in which it has engaged (the CIA is always referred-to, not by accident, by its insiders, as ‘the company.’) A great deal of stock trading is based upon inside CIA information, buying and selling on the basis of secret intelligence gathered by the CIA all over the world. The CIA has also spent billions to influence foreign elections, always for the candidates inimical to the interests of the people of the United States, but dedicated to the programme of the New World Order.

However, its principle influence has been through its control of foundations and universities. The American people remain blissfully unaware that their Constitutional government with its separate powers of legislative, judicial and executive departments, has been entirely superseded by the foundations, which generate basic policy for all three branches. Monetary policy is generated by the Brookings Institution and implemented through the Federal Reserve System independent of Congress, which has constitutional power to regulate the monetary system. Social policies, originated by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, are enacted into law by Congress and upheld against all challenges by the Supreme Court. Foreign policy, a prerogative of the executive branch, is entirely based on foundation studies and recommendations. Staffs of all three departments are heavily infiltrated by foundation operatives and the CIA functions as the coordinating agency between the foundations and the departments of government.

Another important early Tavistock figure was the psychologist and Polish/German/American Jew, Dr. Kurt Lewin. Lewin personally introduced the neo-Marxist ideologies of the German Frankfurt School to the Tavistock Institute and then to a host of institutions in the United States. The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief — or even the hope of belief — that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the destruction of many aspects of human society and this would be designed to de-stabilise society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their secret Cultural Revolution — whilst providing no clues about their plans for the future, the School recommended (amongst many other things) . . .

The creation of ‘racism’ as an offence.
Continual change to create confusion.
The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
Mass-immigration to destroy national identity and dilute gene pools.
The promotion of excessive drinking.
Emptying of churches.
An unfathomable legal system with bias against victims rather than the perpetrators of crime.
Dependency on the state and state benefits.
Control and dumbing down of media.
Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pan-sexualism,’ the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes and the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

Attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
Abolish differences in the education of boys and girls.
Abolish all forms of male dominance — hence the presence of women in the armed forces.
Declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as their ‘oppressors.’
Encourage and promote same-sex relationships as ‘normal.’

Willi Munzenberg, a leading Communist propagandist summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus . . . “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” And also . . . “All news is lies and all propaganda is disguised as news.”

The Tavistock Institute has developed so much power in the US that no one can achieve prominence in any field, unless that person receives special training in ‘behavioural science’ either at Tavistock — or at one of its sanctioned subsidiaries.

As examples, Henry Kissinger, whose meteoric rise to power is otherwise inexplicable, was a Jewish-German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese and Dr. Peter Bourne, a Tavistock Institute psychologist, picked Jimmy Carter for President of the US solely because Carter had undergone an intensive brainwashing programme administered by Admiral Hyman Rickover at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

A single, common-denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy — the use of drugs. Roosevelt’s adviser, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg, who had financed Hitler, set-up the Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug, LSD. The result was the LSD ‘counter-culture’ of the 1960s and the student revolution, financed with $25 million dollars from the CIA.

The tax exempt Tavistock Institute currently operates a staggering $10 billion dollar-per-year network of foundations within the United States, ALL of it funded by taxpayer money. Ten major institutions are under Tavistock’s direct control, with 400 subsidiaries and 3,000 study groups and a variety of private think tanks, which conceive many of the psychological programmes to exert even more control of the New World Order over the American populace.

The Stanford Institute could be described as one of the ‘jewels’ in Tavistock’s crown in the United States. Founded in 1946, immediately after the end of WWII, it was presided over by Charles A. Anderson, with emphasis on mind control research. It is intrinsically linked to at least 200 smaller ‘think tanks’ undertaking research into every facet of life in America. This represents the emergence of probably the most far-reaching effort to control the environment of every individual in the country. At present, Stanford’s computer network is linked with 2500 ‘sister’ research centres, which include the CIA, Bell Telephone Laboratories, US Army Intelligence, The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), Rand, MIT, Harvard and UCLA, amongst many others.

It is generally considered that the mainstream media ‘psy-op’ phenomenon (a psychological operation designed to manipulate the perceptions of the masses,) is predominantly perpetuated by news and current affairs programming. However, one of the earliest examples from the mainstream media does not pertain to an earthly tale of foreign powers or political intrigue. Rather it is, perhaps unbelievably, a story about a Martian invasion of Earth that sets the stage. I refer here to the infamous American radio broadcast of ‘The War of the Worlds’ on 30th October 1938.

Of course the man behind the origin of this particular story was H. G. Wells, who published ‘The War of the Worlds’ in 1898. The novel was one of the earliest stories to detail a conflict between mankind and an extra-terrestrial race and is one of the most celebrated and popular works of the science fiction genre. To this day, it has never been ‘out of print.’ There have been numerous adaptations including several big-screen versions, television films and serials, plays and even a musical. Herbert George Wells’ contributions to science fiction, particularly ‘The Time Machine’ and the aforementioned, ‘The War of the Worlds,’ barely hid his political and social observations.

Although not the first, Wells was a pioneer in galvanising the futurist concept of the Utopian-dystopian dialectic. Most importantly, Wells played a prominent role in the agenda of global governance. He was also awarded a scholarship to the Normal School of Science (later the Royal College of Science in South Kensington, and now part of Imperial College) in London, in 1884, to study biology under Thomas Henry Huxley an early proponent of Darwinism and who was known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog.’ As an alumnus, he later helped to found the Royal College of Science Association, of which he became the first president in 1909.

Wells had a passion and enthusiasm for the elite-orchestrated collective that could administrate the masses and steer global agendas (The New World Order.) Although some may argue that his views on this vision were benevolent, orchestrated in the best interests of all mankind, there are some clues to the presence of a slightly more sinister agenda. In ‘The Time Machine,’ he observed the gap between the elite and the masses and described this world as ‘perfect’ . . . “Once, life and property must have reached almost absolute safety, the rich had been assured of his wealth and comfort, the toiler assured of his life and work. No doubt in that perfect world there had been no unemployed problem, no social question left unsolved.”

Wells is often cited by ‘truth-seekers,’ due to his authorship of the 1940 piece, ‘The New World Order.’ The book contains many hallmarks of global governance and is, in some ways, a ‘how to’ guide to its inception. In the book, Wells wrote . . . “ . . . There will be no day of days when a new world order comes into being. Step by step and here and there it will arrive, and even as it comes into being it will develop fresh perspectives, discover unsuspected problems and go on to new adventures. No man, no group of men will ever be singled out as its father or founder.”

Although some may deride the term ‘New World Order’ and its inherent implications, it is very revealing that those who occupy the world political stage have referred to this all-encompassing term on countless occasions. A cursory internet search will find videos where the likes of Ronald Reagan, George Bush (Junior and Senior,) Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Major, David Cameron et al, have all used the term in major speeches.

Wells was also an avid supporter of eugenics. In 1904 he discussed a survey paper by Francis Galton, co-founder of eugenics, saying . . . “It is in the sterilisation of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock, lies.”

There are also obvious connections between The Fabian Society and Wells. It is worth taking the time to research The Fabian Society, as this particular entity has played a huge role in shaping the last 120 years of global governance. Wells’ membership is very well documented and his views on socialism, race and eugenics were widely shared amongst earlier members of the society. With this in mind, it is possible that the contemporary ‘New World Order’ model could be, to some degree, Fabian in origin. Indeed, some researchers assert that this is actually the case. In time, Wells allegedly distanced himself from The Fabian Society and several sources show his increased critical stance toward them due to “ . . . a poor understanding of economics and educational reform.”

It should also be noted that Wells was a member of ‘The Coefficients,’ formed by early Fabians such as Lord Robert Cecil and Bertrand Russell. These ‘Coefficients’ eventually morphed into ‘The Round Table.’ The Round Table (of which H. G. Wells was also a founding member) was a think tank that gave birth to the Royal Institute for International Affairs which ultimately spawned the Tavistock Institute and its American cousin, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.) For over a hundred years now, these organisations have been extensively involved with global governance.

So to return to the primary narrative, those aspects of Wells covered here, do not wholly constitute his huge legacy in relation to the global agenda. Whether by design or by accident, it is perhaps telling that Wells,’ ‘The War of the Worlds,’ became the chosen vehicle with which to frame one of the greatest perception management ‘psy-ops’ ever conceived. On the 30th October 1938, Orson Welles (no relation) and a small group of radio actors took to the airwaves of the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network (CBS) to broadcast H. G. Wells’ ‘The War of the Worlds.’

H.G. Wells and Orson Welles

The broadcast is now legendary for its extreme psychological effects upon certain members of the public. According to many sources, a staggering number of people were affected by the show. It has been claimed that many listeners believed that the broadcast was a real ‘breaking news’ story which was reporting that the Martians really had invaded the Earth. Over time, it has become clear that there are some contradictions in the numbers of people cited as having reacted in any extreme manner to the broadcast and although it is known that an estimated six million Americans listened, stories citing large-scale panic and fear seem to have originated from sensationalist newspaper articles published in the following days and weeks. For example . . .

“A wave of mass hysteria seized thousands of radio listeners between 8:15 and 9:30 o’clock last night when a broadcast of a dramatization of H. G. Wells’ fantasy, ‘The War of the Worlds,’ led thousands to believe that an interplanetary conflict had started with invading Martians spreading wide death and destruction in New Jersey and New York. The broadcast, which disrupted households, interrupted religious services, created traffic jams and clogged communications systems, was made by Orson Welles, who as the radio character, ‘The Shadow,’ used to give ‘the creeps’ to countless child listeners. This time, at least a score of adults required medical treatment for shock and hysteria.”

It may well be the case that a large number of people did experience fear and panic, but did they really react in such an extreme manner? More substantive evidence would clearly be required to form such a definitive conclusion. However, history has quietly glossed over the fact that the CBS broadcast was far more than simply a mere artistic endeavour. At the time, a crisis of looming war was brewing in Europe and it was increasingly being speculated upon as to what role America would play if the crisis escalated into another World War. All branches of the media were gradually co-opted as a war propaganda machine (which has historically always been the case in wartime,) so the involvement of CBS in the Welles affair, with its well-documented historical association to the military industrial complex), should have at the very least, raised a few questions.

This is also interesting to learn that part of the post-event study concluded that many listeners did not think that the broadcast portrayed an invasion from Mars, but rather an invasion by the Germans! Those ultimately behind the inception of the controversial broadcast paint an even clearer agenda picture. The Radio Research Project (RRP) was a social research project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to investigate the effects of mass media on society and whilst it has always been acknowledged officially that RRP studied the broadcast in the following decade, it is now well-known that the radio play was indeed instigated at the behest of RRP and the elite Rockefeller bankster family.

The Rockefeller Foundation began funding the Radio Research Project in 1937 “ . . . to find the effects of new forms of mass media on society, especially radio.” Several universities joined-up and a headquarters was formed at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Those involved included Hadley Cantril (then a psychologist with Princeton University’s Department of Psychology,) Paul Lazarsfeld (Director of the Radio Project,) Theodor Adorno (Chief of the Music Division,) Gordon W. Allport (another of Lazarsfeld’s assistants) and Frank Stanton (then a researcher from CBS sent to help the project.) The individuals involved had a staggering degree of direct involvement with the banksters and the principles of global governance.

Theodore Adorno was also an associate of the Tavistock Institute. His name often crops-up in alternative research, due to his prominent role in the explosion of ‘youth culture’ and the pop music scene in the early 1960s. Hadley Cantril was an active and influential member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who in 1939, established the Office of Public Opinion Research (OPOR) at Princeton. OPOR conducted analysis of the effectiveness of ‘psycho-political operations’ (psy-ops) of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) — the forerunner of the CIA. His wartime work with the Rockefeller Foundation and (CFR member and CBS reporter) Edward R. Murrow, helped to establish the Princeton Listening Centre in order to study Nazi radio propaganda and how to apply such techniques to OSS propaganda. From the Listening Centre evolved a new government agency, the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS), which eventually became the US Information Agency (USIA.) The USIA was the propaganda arm of the National Security Council.

It is claimed that the inspiration for ‘The War of the Worlds’ broadcast came from Britain, specifically from a BBC piece called ‘Broadcasting the Barricades’ transmitted on 16th January 1926, in the early days of radio. The broadcast involved the BBC interrupting an academic lecture from Oxford to announce that rioters had gathered in Trafalgar Square and were proceeding to demolish ‘Big Ben’ and the Houses of Parliament. This broadcast itself is believed by some people to have been an early example of a media-conveyed experiment in mass public perceptions and reactions — assisted by some of the early Tavistock pioneers.

In 1914 in Ludlow, Colorado, a group of coalminers began striking over pay and working conditions and matters took a darker turn when a labour organiser was shot dead by men working for the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation — owned by the Rockefeller family. With the cause of the Union of United Mine Workers drawing public attention, the billionaire bankster John D. Rockefeller dispatched the National Guard to the tent colony — which housed the miners and their families. The National Guard soldiers shot and killed scores of inhabitants living in the colony — including women and children. The notorious PR baron, Ivy Lee, immediately went to work for the Rockefellers (as a kind of ‘crisis management’ consultant,) to manage public perception of the massacre. It was then that the phenomenon of the ‘press release’ was invented and Lee was given the task of creating a faux ‘friendly face’ for all Rockefeller owned assets.

Journalism should be about investigating and reporting the truth, but it has been far from that lofty ideal, for centuries now. Journalism is more about stretching the truth and fabricating a story as part of the banksters’ agenda and this is what used to be known as ‘yellow journalism.’ Yellow journalism can be manifest in different ways. It may be a very ‘biased’ story that only covers one side without pointing-out pertinent and even contradictory facts but it can also be a story that has been published strictly for propaganda and to further a specific agenda, having no basis in truth, whatsoever.

For example, as I write this chapter, cloistered away in my small ‘office’ room with dark clouds in the sky outside and the wind lashing the rain against the window in mid-November 2015, it is just six days since the so-called Paris ‘terrorist attacks’ of 11/13/15 (another neat, memorable date code to go along with 9/11 and 7/7.) Since that black day, all branches of the media have been in absolute overdrive, constantly ‘informing’ us all of the latest news of the situation and the event already seems to have already permeated almost every facet of our lives. In fact, exactly as was planned all along.

But we are also beginning to be made aware of the real truth by the ‘alternative media.’ The villains of the piece are apparently humanity’s new perennial, all-pervasive nemesis, ‘ISIS’ the alleged Muslim ‘terror group’ that has somehow managed, from nowhere, to amass great wealth and resources in order to terrorise the western world (except Israel of course which always seems to escape the attentions of the terrorists for some reason I cannot quite fathom.) It also beggars belief to me that the target of these so-called extremists is always the ‘ordinary’ day-to-day folk and NEVER the western politicians who have created the terrorists cause for complaint in the first place. Strange that.

Anyway, as my friend, the British alternative journalist, Chris Spivey (http://chrisspivey.org/) relates, we are supposed to believe that . . .

“ . . . a terrorist organisation with less ‘soldiers’ than our little country has reservists, can occupy acres and acres of captured land in the vast majority of all Middle-Eastern countries, after which they:

Take control of their oil refineries and continue to do business in oil sales to the tune of millions of pounds a day
Take control of half of Iraq’s wheat supply
Take control of massive dams and send out electricity bills to the residents of their captured territory
Take control of military bases, including jet fighters, tanks, ammo etc.
Kill thousands upon thousands of soldiers and civilians

After which they then:

Empty banks of billions of pounds — no doubt to cover the wage bills
Tax the people living in ISIS territory
Use Twitter as its own second to none propaganda wing whereas a regular reader of mine gets banned from Twitter for a post about George Clooney
Refurbish 5 star hotels, build garden centres and provide their tiny army with 15-year old British brides
Set up their own version of the NHS

And that is just for starters, but as if by magic a report has just come out in the Daily Mail today about where ISIS get their money from . . . Can they read my unpublished articles now?

Mind you, the Mail doesn’t tell you who is buying all of their stolen shit off of them . . . No surprise there then.

Bizarrely, the terrorist group who were unheard of just a couple of years ago, do their invading and looting all seemingly unopposed except by us Brits, the Americans, the French and now the Russians.

Yet not content with what they have got, they now have that much time on their hands that they are going to invade Europe — and people who consider themselves intelligent believe that shit!?

I mean, ask yourself what their aim is?

Let’s say that they are after making the world population Muslim . . . Impossible to achieve — although you wouldn’t think so to read the utter bollox in the mainstream media — but to stand any chance at all, they need to get as many people on side as possible.

So what do they do?

They try their very best to get on people’s nerves by killing innocent men, women and children — after raping and torturing a sizeable number of them first of course . . . So the Daily Mail tells me.

Meanwhile all first world politicians — who would be a ‘piece of piss’ to get at — are apparently off limits, as are Western government and historical buildings, with anywhere in Israel being a proper ‘no-no’ too.

So, before we surrender every fucking last semblance of freedom to the only terrorists that pose any threat whatsoever to us, namely our governments — who create bogeymen out of thin air to frighten stupid fucktards who think themselves intellectual, let me try and make some sense out of this nonsense . . . ”

All of which sums it up far more succinctly than I ever could. Do they think we are all stupid? No, but they know at least 99% of ‘us’ are brainwashed by all their instruments of psychological control as related previously in this chapter — hence why they are able to ‘get away’ with such abject, puerile, nonsensical garbage on a daily basis. This morning, Friday 20th November 2015, the mainstream press seems to have outdone itself yet again with the headlines in the British tabloid, the Daily Express reading, “Terrorist plot uncovered to use Poison Gas on us.” Which I have to say is really plumbing new depths of desperation in their attempts to scare the living daylights out of the unthinking masses. Does anyone actually believe this stuff? I suspect the answer is ‘yes,’ unfortunately.

And of course, within a matter of days, the French government applied the Hegelian Dialectic ‘solution’ to the ISIS ‘problem . . . ’

‘French President Francois Hollande proposed constitutional amendments and a three-month extension of state of emergency measures Monday that will severely limit the civil liberties of French citizens. After a series of coordinated terrorist attacks left 129 dead in Paris Friday, Hollande immediately declared a state of emergency, based on a rarely used 1955 law that allows the state to conduct warrantless searches of private property, impose curfews, restrict public gatherings and movements of people, confiscate weapons at will and take over the press.

By law the state of emergency should not last more than 12 days, but Hollande asked for a three-month extension on Monday. (How long before he asks for a permanent extension do you think?) He also proposed a series of constitutional amendments to increase the state’s surveillance powers and give it the power to strip convicted terrorists and bi-nationals who commit hostile acts toward France, of citizenship.

Hollande said that the amendments are necessary so the state does not have to “resort to the state of emergency,” to deal with terror threats. “We must change our constitution to act against terrorism,” he said. The proposed amendments also give the state “more sophisticated methods” to crack down on weapons trafficking, a quicker way to deport foreigners considered a threat, and the ability to bar bi-nationals considered a terror risk from entering the country.

The French authorities conducted 168 raids, turning up cash, bulletproof vests, various types of guns and a rocket launcher, reported the Wall Street Journal. Police put 104 people on house arrest and detained 23 others. Hollande also promised a ‘merciless’ fight against ISIS in response to the attack.

“The continuing hoo-hah over the rise of ISIS and its series of senseless but calculated massacres now spreading all over the world has not only led to draconian police and security crackdowns imposed by the various governments, but has also triggered a bumper crop of scepticism from astute observers who detect both inconsistencies and impossibilities in the tales that are told about these events by a mainstream press which long ago has proven itself incapable of telling the objective truth about anything . . . The funding of and then pretending to fight ISIS is a mirror image — or a next chapter — in the creation of al-Qaeda some four decades earlier, when Zbigniew Brzezinski imported Saudi Arabian terrorists into Afghanistan to bedevil the imperialistic Soviets . . .

Today, our conscientious American minds know the history of how these al-Qaeda recruits appear out of nowhere all over the world to serve the purposes of the Jewish-American war machine as it smooths out transit routes from Asia to Europe for oil and heroin. Such is the case today in Syria as it was not so long ago in Serbia.

Sometimes al-Qaeda assassins serve as bad guys to be battled as in Afghanistan, other times they are employed as convenient allies to destabilize such places as Serbia or Libya, when we want to replace independent-minded leaders such as Milosevic or Qaddafi.

These ubiquitous Islamic terrorists served as convenient patsies for the greatest false flag crime of all — the murder of 3,000 American citizens in New York City in 2001, which like a spine thrown permanently out of joint, has skewed American history ever since, and precipitated a profoundly ugly trend of government-staged false flag atrocities that rattle US society to the bone on a regular basis with cynical and bloody attempts to get Americans to give up their guns and get us all to become quiet and obedient slaves.” John Kaminski, ‘300 Spartans’ 23rd November 2015

How much more evidence do people need before they realise that this is all elaborate ‘theatre,’ designed to restrict their freedoms and increase the ‘hold’ over the population that the banksters already have in abundance?

But yet again I digress, so back now to the subject matter in hand . . .

Similarly, with the advent of the new medium of ‘moving pictures,’ in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the banksters were not slow to utilise this to their own advantage, specifically for war propaganda. ‘Real’ battle footage augmented in the cinemas by more action-packed and visceral fake footage was being produced as early as the Spanish-American and Boer Wars (1899-1901,) setting a pattern that later war photography would follow for decades. This was famously repeated in the first feature-length war documentary, the celebrated British production of The Battle of the Somme (1916,) which also mixed genuine footage of the trenches with fake battle scenes shot in the altogether safe environs of a trench mortar school behind the lines, and which played to packed and uncritically, enthusiastic houses for months.

Some of these deceptions were acknowledged. R.W. Paul, who produced a series of ‘shorts’ depicting the South African conflict, made no claim to have secured his footage in the war zone, merely stating that they had been “ . . . arranged under the supervision of an experienced military officer from the front.” Others were not quite so honest . . .

William Dickson, of the British Mutoscope and Biograph Company, did travel to the Veldt and produced . . . “ . . . footage that can legitimately be described as actuality — scenes of troops in camp and on the move — though even so, many shots were evidently staged for the camera. British soldiers were dressed in Boer uniforms to reconstruct skirmishes, and it was reported that the British commander-in-chief, Lord Roberts, ‘consented to be biographed’ with all his Staff, actually having his table taken out into the sun for the convenience of Mr. Dickson.” James Chapman, War and Film, pp.36-7

Modern cinema historians, it seems, generally distinguish fake footage from the real thing by examining the perspective. Reconstructions are typically betrayed because “action occurs towards and away from the camera in common with certain ‘actuality’ films of the period such as street scenes where pedestrians and traffic approach or recede along the axis of the lens and not across the field of vision like actors on a stage,” noted John Barnes in his study, ‘Filming the Boer War,’ suggesting a deliberate attempt at deception on the part of the film-makers.

In clips purporting to show victorious American naval actions off the coast of Cuba during the Spanish-American War of 1898, the ‘reconstructed’ footage that appeared was not a deliberate, malicious fake; it was, once again, produced as a response to the frustration of being unable to secure genuine film of real battles. The scale and complexity of naval warfare, however, put realism still further beyond the reach of the poor and ill-equipped, if imaginative, film-makers forced to confront the problem.

A crude but effective method of fakery was produced by a New York film maker, Albert Smith, co-founder of the prolific ‘American Vitagraph’ studio in Brooklyn who, according to his own account, did make it to Cuba, only to find that his clumsy cameras were not up to the task of securing usable footage at long distance. He returned to the US with little more than background shots to mull over the problem. Soon afterwards however, came news of a great American naval victory over the Spanish fleet at Santiago Bay. It was the first time an American squadron had fought a significant battle since the Civil War and Smith realised that there would be huge demand for footage showing the Spaniards’ destruction. Their solution was low-tech but highly ingenious . . .

“At this time, vendors were selling large sturdy photographs of ships of the American and Spanish fleets. We bought a sheet of each and cut out the battleships. On a table, topside down, we placed one of Blackton’s large canvas-covered frames and filled it with water an inch deep. In order to stand the cutouts of the ships in the water, we nailed them to lengths of wood about an inch square. In this way a little ‘shelf’ was provided behind each ship, and on this ship we placed pinches of gunpowder — three pinches for each ship — not too many, we felt, for a major sea engagement of this sort . . .

For a background, Blackton daubed a few white clouds on a blue-tinted cardboard. To each of the ships, now sitting placidly in our shallow ‘bay,’ we attached a fine thread to enable us to pull the ships past the camera at the proper moment and in the correct order. We needed someone to blow smoke into the scene, but we couldn’t go too far outside our circle if the secret was to be kept. Mrs. Blackton was called in and she volunteered, in this day of non-smoking womanhood, to smoke a cigarette. A friendly office boy said he would try a cigar. This was fine, as we needed the volume. A piece of cotton was dipped in alcohol and attached to a wire slender enough to escape the eye of the camera. Blackton, concealed behind the side of the table farthermost from the camera, touched-off the mounds of gunpowder with his wire taper — and the battle was on. Mrs. Blackton, smoking and coughing, delivered a fine haze. Jim had worked out a timing arrangement with her so that she blew the smoke into the scene at approximately the moment of the explosion . . .

The film lenses of that day were imperfect enough to conceal the crudities of our miniature, and as the picture ran only two minutes there was no time for anyone to study it critically . . . Pastor’s and both proctor houses played to capacity audiences for several weeks. Jim and I felt less remorse of conscience when we saw how much excitement and enthusiasm was aroused by ‘The Battle of Santiago Bay.’” Smith pp.66-8

Perhaps surprisingly, Smith’s film (which has apparently been lost) does seem to have fooled the inexperienced early cinemagoers who viewed it — or perhaps they were simply too polite to mention the obvious shortcomings. Some rather more convincing scenes of the same battle, however, were faked by a rival film-maker, Edward Hill Amet of Waukegan, Illinois, who having been denied permission to actually travel to Cuba, built a set of detailed, 1:70 scale metal models of the combatants and floated them on a 24-foot-long outdoor tank in his yard. Unlike Smith’s poor effort, Amet’s shoot was meticulously planned and his models were vastly more realistic; they were carefully based on photographs and plans of the real ships, and each was equipped with working smokestacks and guns containing remotely ignited blasting caps, all controlled from an electrical switchboard. The resulting film, which looks unquestionably amateurish to modern eyes, was nonetheless realistic by the standards of the day, and “according to film-history books, the Spanish government bought a copy of Amet’s film for the military archives in Madrid, apparently convinced of its authenticity.”

Still from Edward H. Amet’s film of the Battle of Santiago Bay (1898)

World War I marked the initial foray by the US ruling elite into promoting a war with assistance from Hollywood film companies. The challenge facing the Wilson administration was selling its imperialist agenda to the general public. Asserting the most pious and democratic motives for its military intervention was the only way that the US government could garner public support for the war. The tremendous wealth, resources and economic potential of the banksters made it possible for Wilson’s Democratic administration to preach magnanimity towards those suffering overseas. Most conveniently for Wilson, the country had in place a ready-made propaganda machine; the American film industry. What occurred during 1917-1918 was an aggressive pro-war, film-driven public relations campaign unlike any yet undertaken. The end result was a triumph for US capitalism and Hollywood and a tragedy for humanity, as 320,000 American casualties were added to millions of others around the globe.

At the time of the US entry into World War I, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Vitagraph (the forerunner to Warner Bros.) and the studios of Metro and Goldwyn were already in full swing and in the 1910s, it was still possible to make a studio film without too much ‘front office’ interference. That the director of the pacifist Intolerance could make the pro-war Hearts of the World two years later, illustrates the political and economic pressures facing US filmmakers and their corporate subsidisers after 1916. Shrewd studio leaders understood the long-term value of the war and unlike European film companies, the US studios enjoyed an unimpaired home market and predicted a decline in film imports as a result of the war. As German, Italian and British film production plummeted, Hollywood envisioned its own world market for the first time.

The first significant alliance between the US movie business and Washington, occurred on 27th January 1916 in New York City when President Wilson greeted a Motion Picture Board of Trade banquet audience of nearly 1,000 people. J. Stuart Blackton of Vitagraph spoke of the need for military preparation to protect US territories and recited a pro-war poem whose final words were “ . . . so fire your forges and dam the bills, for the wings of peace must have iron quills.”

Immediately after President Wilson declared war on Germany on 6th April 1917, Universal announced Universal Preparedness Productions, whose offerings included serials, shorts and features with such titles as Uncle Sam at Work, The War Waif, The Birth of Patriotism and Uncle Sam’s Gun Shops. The studio scored additional propaganda points by releasing Rupert Julian’s The Kaiser, The Beast of Berlin (1918) and a satire, The Geezer of Berlin (1918). The anti-Kaiser propaganda apparently did its job well and in Davenport, Iowa, a public screening of The Beast of Berlin was interrupted when a man yelled and rushed down the aisle of the theatre with a gun, firing two shots at the screen.

In early 1917, executives from Vitagraph, Famous Players-Lasky (Paramount’s official name at the time), Mutual, Fox and several trade magazines, joined Universal in sending President Wilson a telegram pledging . . . “ . . . combined support for the defence of our country and its interests.” Reminding Wilson of Hollywood’s ability to influence the opinions of its daily twelve million US cinema patrons, the signers offered to form a commission “ . . . to place the motion picture at your service in the most intelligent and useful manner.” In July of that year, Wilson appointed William A. Brady of World Film to head the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry (NAMPI), an organization allied with the government’s Committee on Public Information. Brady assured Wilson of “ . . . the undivided conscientious and patriotic support of the entire industry in America. I have the honour to be your obedient servant.”

‘Propaganda’ soon became the industry norm and as the US laid battle plans, Variety reported that film companies dealing with preparations for war were elated over the fact that the government was planning to review films “ . . . suitable to promoting the proper propaganda,” for army and navy recruiting. Distributor Louis B. Mayer (the future head of MGM) had full charge of NAMPI’s New England war campaign and told Boston theatre owners that motion pictures were “ . . . the great intermediary between the public and the government of Washington.” Widespread exhibition of films, said Mayer, provided “invaluable aid to the government and its various propagandas.” In May 1918, the director Cecil B. De Mille told a large crowd that . . . “The motion picture is the most powerful propaganda and sends a message through the camera which can’t be changed by any crafty diplomat.”

Film stars Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks jointly addressed huge crowds in New York to help sell some $18.7 billion in Liberty war bonds and subsequently toured the country individually. Personal appearances aside though, nothing advertised government war bonds better than motion pictures. President Wilson was impressed enough by these Hollywood propaganda actions to sing the industry’s praises at the National Press Club in Washington and several Liberty Loan films were subsequently screened in the rotunda of the US Capitol for senators, their wives and Senate employees.

And also, political film censorship was rampant during this time. In cities with large German-American populations, even pro-war movies were targeted. De Mille’s The Little American, starring Pickford, was initially banned in Chicago for its negative portrayals of German soldiers. Most censoring, however, occurred when films did not ‘toe’ the official government line. In Pennsylvania, the state attorney general threatened to revoke licenses for cinemas exhibiting films that could endanger enlistment. Similar measures were discussed in New York State whilst in Maryland, the governor arranged with the state censor board to recall previously approved films containing any mildly anti-war sentiments or grim scenes of battlefield carnage. The Evening Sun of Baltimore praised actions to ban “maudlin pacifist and exaggerated pictures” of war. In an unusual statement, the paper went so far as to proclaim, “Any attempts to undermine and discredit the Government now are far more harmful than the sight of some lady with too abbreviated drapery capering on the screen.”

This intense censorship climate was exacerbated by Wilson’s signing of the Espionage Act in June 1917, which attacked any forms of speech construed as critical of the war. Under such conditions, several film figures were arrested. The French citizen Frank J. Godsell was taken into custody by the US government for showing pro-German films, according to Variety. Despite Godsell having changed the subtitles (cinema was still a silent technology in the 1910s) of the original version to downplay German propaganda; and despite his picture having screened at the National Press Club in Washington, the New York attorney general’s office nevertheless seized the film.

The heavy criticism of businesses and individuals who demonstrated any pro-German sensibilities was the mood established by the Wilson administration. In late 1917, an executive at the Associated Motion Picture Advertisers introduced a resolution discouraging film companies from advertising in newspapers supportive of Germany and shortly afterwards, William Fox, the Hungarian cinema magnate who ran Fox Film Corporation, threatened to fire any Fox employee who was not “100 percent American.” Branch managers were instructed to submit confidential reports “ . . . as to anybody whom they even suspected of not being true Americans and if any employee in the Fox forces should be found to be even slightly pro-German he would be dismissed.”

The beleaguered public of the World War I years could not be fooled for long and as soon as the war came to an end, the pro-war cult collapsed. Hollywood writers and directors were equally scarred by the impact of the devastating war and responded with artistic rage. Only two years after the Armistice, Metro Pictures released Rex Ingram’s harrowing masterpiece ‘The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’ (1921.) That such a downbeat, pacifist drama could go on to become a huge success is a testament to the public-opinion backlash against the US government’s 1917-1918 propaganda campaign. Hostility towards the war continued through the Great Depression years and studios responded with such remarkable anti-war dramas as King Vidor’s ‘The Big Parade’ (MGM 1925) and Milestone’s ‘All Quiet on the Western Front.’

By the time World War II had begun, the science of propaganda, in this case getting the sons of veterans from the earlier insanity, to be suitably brainwashed to want to kill for the banksters yet again, involved new, more innovative techniques of manipulation.

As was the case with weapon systems in WWII, new technologies played a significant role in the ‘thought war’ in radio and film. These media, because of new technologies, had grown exponentially between the two wars and they offered the ability to disseminate a message that transcended borders and oceans. It was very much a case of not ‘necessity’ being the ‘mother of invention,’ but as is the case in many other areas of warfare, war itself, being ‘the mother of invention.’ The message was not limited to the domestic public, but was also directed to the battlefield, to ‘our’ troops, as well as to ‘their’ troops.

Both celebrities and soldiers became spokesmen and were employed to disseminate information in Britain and the United States. Their task was to reduce the complex to simple and using understatement to avoid the ‘feel’ of it being propaganda. Indeed, British Foreign office minutes revealed a methodology that used emphasis through ‘subtle presentation.’

In 1936, the British were keen students of the Nazi emergence, viewing their ability to effect rapid change as very impressive. The German citizens appeared to be completely behind the glorification of the state and the messages extolling the qualities of Adolf Hitler. At the same time, the British government was taking notice of some of the new German agencies. This step toward a war-time footing was now gearing-up to disseminate information and impose censorship rules. The announced intent to promote a government viewpoint included a department to handle motion pictures and radio.

In contrast to the German government’s heavy hand in its presentation of the news, the British authorities were more subtle, and their lies more believable. In ‘Mein Kampf,’ Hitler’s semi-autobiographical account of the evolution of his political philosophy, he had stated that he firmly believed it was British propaganda that in its vast superiority over the German version, had totally demoralised he and his fellow soldiers on the Western Front, leading to widespread defeatism and ultimately, their utter capitulation.

Soviet propaganda emphasised and grossly overstated German losses and minimised Russian casualties. They falsely reported large-scale German deaths whilst for example, ignoring the mass starvation of their own citizens in Leningrad. However this practice also became a tactic of the United States media, too. In April 1943, Eisenhower announced victory in Tunisia and enemy casualties over 66,000, but not a word was spoken about allied losses sustained by the 1st Armoured Division and their rifle brigade.

American counter-propaganda poster of WWII

The United States came late to the propaganda game, but quickly set up 26 distinct agencies that divided the duties between domestic and foreign. Their efforts extended to all media intent on promoting the government’s war aims and reporting on the war status. On 11th July 1941, five months before the United States entered WWII, President Roosevelt appointed William Donovan to head a new agency that would become known as the Office of the Coordinator of Information (COI.) This organisation was to become the United States’ initial entry into the field of espionage, propaganda and sabotage but within a year, the stress of attempting to co-ordinate legitimate news and factual propaganda with the various ‘dirty tricks’ of the saboteur, caused a furore which resulted in the COI being split into two new agencies.

So, on the 13th June 1942, a Presidential Executive Order abolished the COI and thereafter, all legitimate ‘white’ propaganda would be prepared by the Office of War Information (OWI) headed by Elmer Davis. White propaganda in general emanates from openly identified sources, and makes no attempt to hide its origin. This is the most common type of propaganda. Clandestine or ‘black’ propaganda was the responsibility of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS,) which was left in Donovan’s hands. Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass, lie-to or misrepresent the enemy.

The three major functions of the OSS were to be the continuation of scholastic and informal intelligence, black propaganda operations and subversive operations in collaboration with regular military authorities. The reason for two separate agencies and duplication of propaganda activities was the belief of some politicians, that all news coming from the United States should be identified, factual and verifiable. It was thought that by building a reputation for honesty, the enemy would learn to respect and believe US newscasts, newspapers and leaflets. The British Broadcasting Company, (BBC,) was often cited as an example of the kind of credibility that these officials desired and the BBC, being a well-established bankster-friendly institution, already had separate agencies for white and black propaganda.

At the same time, there were those who believed that no opportunity to attack, harm, embarrass or mislead the enemy should be ignored. They demanded that propagandists lie, cheat, spread false rumours, gossip, and fully utilise any programme or concept that might lead to ultimate victory. A covert operation, with no responsibility to identify its source, would be free to play all sorts of dirty tricks that might be seen as undesirable and immoral for a legitimate government. But then again, how can any bankster-controlled government be legitimate, let alone moral, in the first place?

As the head maestro of Britain’s ‘black propaganda’ radio programmes, Sefton Delmer, a Daily Mail journalist, used cloak-and-dagger methods to turn the airwaves into a tool for psychological warfare. Beginning in 1941, Delmer operated a fake German radio station called Gustav Siegfried Eins, or ‘GS1.’ Unlike most propaganda outfits, which merely beamed their messages into enemy territory, GS1 masqueraded as an actual Nazi radio station broadcasting to its fellow Germans from within the Fatherland. Delmer masterminded the creation of a fake radio personality known as ‘der Chef’ (‘the Chief.’) Played by a German defector named Peter Seckelmann, the character posed as a high-ranking Nazi and loyal Hitler supporter who appeared disillusioned with the rest of the party leadership. Der Chef built his credibility by criticising the British and the Russians, but he also railed against Nazi officials and generals, helping to create the appearance of a rift within the German high command. Among other tactics, he accused Nazi leaders of having tainted the party with acts of sexual deviancy ranging from rape to paedophilia.

To cement his role as a persecuted patriot, der Chef was even ‘assassinated’ on air during GS1’s final broadcast in late-1943. Delmer went on to set-up several more propaganda stations including Soldatensender Calais, which posed as a German radio station for troops in France, and Atlantiksender, which spread targeted disinformation to Nazi U-boats in the Atlantic.

Several American Nazi sympathisers worked as broadcasters for German state radio, but perhaps none was as famous as Mildred Gillars. Born in Maine, USA, Gillars was a former Broadway showgirl who moved to Berlin in 1934. She remained in Germany after the war broke out and eventually became one of Germany’s most prominent radio personalities with ‘Home Sweet Home,’ a propaganda show directed at American troops. Gillars broadcasted under the radio name of ‘Midge,’ but American GIs soon gave her a more infamous nickname, ‘Axis Sally.’

Axis Sally spoke in a friendly, conversational tone, but her goal was to unsettle her listeners. One of her favourite tactics was to mention the soldiers’ wives and girlfriends and then muse about whether the women would remain faithful, “ . . . especially if you boys get all mutilated and do not return in one piece.” Prior to the Allied invasion of France, she also starred in a radio play, called ‘Vision of Invasion,’ as an American mother whose son needlessly drowns during the attack. Like much propaganda, Gillars’ radio shows rarely had their desired effect, many GIs only listened because they found them funny, but she was still considered a traitor by the US government and when the war ended, was arrested and eventually spent twelve years behind bars.

From 1939 onwards, millions of Brits regularly tuned-in to a German propaganda broadcast hosted by a German sympathiser nicknamed ‘Lord Haw Haw.’ Several men were identified with the name, but it was most famously associated with William Joyce, an American-born Irish fascist sympathiser who had spent most of his life in the UK. Joyce was an outspoken admirer of Adolf Hitler who had fled to Berlin at the beginning of the war rather than face internment in Britain for his unwelcome beliefs. He soon joined the state broadcasting system, where he found an outlet for his particularly fiery brand of rhetoric.

Speaking in a clipped, upper-class British accent, Joyce’s Lord Haw Haw, dished out taunts and pro-Hitler rants intended to break the spirit of his listeners. In-between chastising the British army and government, he would gleefully report on the most recent casualties of the ‘Blitz,’ warning his audience to expect further punishment from the German Luftwaffe. Joyce’s influence waned in the later years of the war, and he was eventually captured near Flensburg, Germany in 1945 after occupying British troops recognised his distinctive voice. Found guilty of aiding the enemy, he was executed by hanging in January 1946 for ‘treason.’ The justice of this act was somewhat dubious. Joyce had never been a British citizen. Born in America of Irish parentage, he had lied on his British passport application, stating that he was indeed British, and despite the authorities knowing this to be the case, his execution nevertheless went ahead anyway.

However, there were other ‘Lord Haw Haws.’ Wolf Mittler was a German journalist who spoke near-flawless English, which he had learned from his mother, who had been born of German parents in Ireland. His persona was described by some listeners as similar to P.G. Wodehouse’s fictional aristocrat ‘Bertie Wooster.’ Reportedly finding political matters distasteful, he was relieved to be replaced by Norman Baillie-Stewart, who stated that Mittler “ . . . sounded almost like a caricature of an Englishman.” In 1943, Mittler was deemed ‘suspect’ and arrested by the Gestapo, but he managed to escape to Switzerland and after the war, he worked extensively for German radio and television.

More than a dozen female Japanese broadcasters were dubbed ‘Tokyo Rose,’ but the nickname was most famously linked to a Japanese-American named Iva Toguri. A native of Los Angeles, Toguri was stranded in Japan when WWII broke out, whilst visiting family. She eventually took a job at Radio Tokyo, where she found herself an on-air presenter. Using the name ‘Orphan Ann,’ Toguri soon became a legend of the Pacific Theatre and by late 1943, thousands of GIs regularly tuned in to ‘The Zero Hour,’ a radio show where she played pop music in between biased battle reports and put-downs aimed at US troops.

Toguri’s prominence saw her branded as one of the war’s most notorious propagandists, but evidence showed that she was not really a Japanese sympathiser. Not only did she refuse to renounce her US citizenship, she often wilfully undermined her anti-American radio scripts by reading them in a playful, tongue-in-cheek fashion, even going so far as to warn her listeners to expect a “subtle attack” on their morale. Nevertheless, Toguri’s programme became conflated with more vicious propaganda, and she was arrested and convicted of treason after the Japanese surrender. She was released from prison in 1956, but it would take more than 20 years before she finally received an official Presidential pardon for her role in the war.

As early as 1939, Germany began hiring expatriate Americans to host radio programmes aimed at deterring US intervention in the war. These Americans included Robert Henry Best, an ex-journalist who used the handle ‘Mr. Guess Who,’ and Jane Anderson, better known as ‘The Georgia Peach.’ Perhaps the most enthusiastic broadcaster was Fred W. Kaltenbach. A former Iowa high school teacher, Kaltenbach had been fired in 1936 after he tried to organise an American replica of the Hitler Youth and following his dismissal, he moved to Berlin and became host of one of the first German radio programmes produced for Americans. He soon earned the nickname ‘Lord Hee Haw,’ for his similarity to ‘Lord Haw Haw.’

In truth, this disinformation war was mostly ignored by its intended audience, and for many, became a source of comedy. In its simplest terms though, ‘white’ propaganda was intended to boost domestic morale and stimulate hatred of the enemy. One method that struck an emotional chord amongst Americans was the fear of ‘fifth columnists,’ home grown spies and saboteurs in the US. Although there is little evidence that the fear was justified, Americans were constantly being made aware of the consequences of divulging military secrets, especially those learned at the workplace. Every American knew that ‘loose lips sink ships.’ Whereas in Germany it was, ‘the enemy is listening,’ and in Britain, ‘careless talk costs lives’ and ‘keep mum . . . she’s not so dumb.’

Keep Mum She's not so Dumb Poster

Government sponsored posters appealed to defence-related workers to stay on their jobs and Americans were reminded that accepting the rationing of fuel, food and any resources used by the armed services was patriotic.

The Germans and Japanese were always depicted with evil-looking faces and popular films replaced the gangsters with portrayals of Nazis or Japanese villains.

In May 1944, an article appeared in the ‘Stuttgarter NS Courier.’ How it passed censorship was remarkable as the reporter wrote that the British were way ahead of the Germans in broadcasting the news. “ . . . they know how to use it as a strategy. Too much untruthful good news promotes disbelief, and the public stops trusting the reports,” it reported. Apparently, it was only echoing the sentiments that were already taking hold in the German public’s mind. In Germany and Italy, many radio sets were clandestinely tuned to the BBC for war news.

Just one day after Pearl Harbor, the Walt Disney Studios received its first military contract and full-length, animated features ceased and preparation was made to start producing promotional reels, war-bond advertisements, short training and instructional films and other propaganda material related to the war effort. The studio even designed a huge net that stretched over the nearby Lockheed Aircraft plant so that from the air it would look like farmland instead of a manufacturing site.

‘Der Fuehrer’s Face’ was a 1943 American animated propaganda short film produced by Walt Disney and released in 1943. The cartoon, which featured Donald Duck working as a slave at a factory in Nazi Germany, was made in an effort to sell war bonds and was a typical example of American propaganda during WWII. ‘Der Fuehrer’s Face’ won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film.

However, probably the most recognisable and effective creations from that period would not be the dozens of short movies or instructional films, but rather the unit ‘patches’ that the Disney team created and which GIs proudly wore into battle. Early in the war, a call came into Walt Disney Studios for a mascot for the Navy’s torpedo boats, the ‘mosquito fleet’ and courtesy of Disney, Navy boats were soon adorned with a belligerent-looking, bullet-riding mascot. A new way to serve the military was born. After this, the requests came pouring-in from units around the world, and despite being deep in the red during the war, Disney made no charge for the insignias. Instead, he assigned legendary Disney artists Hank Porter and Roy Williams to lead a five-person team dedicated to handling the volume and every single request was fulfilled. In all, over 1,200 individual insignias were created.

“Insignia helped build morale. Having a cartoon character you grew-up with on your plane or shoulder patch helped remind you of home. In my mind it was a happy diversion from the horrors of war.” David Lesjak, a former Disney employee

Lovable cartoon characters such as Thumper, Ferdinand the Bull, Dumbo, and Dopey were all featured as unit mascots over the course of the war. Even Jiminy Cricket, Pinocchio’s conscience, represented a chaplain’s unit.

“Some of these units would already have a flying mascot of some sort — a flying tiger, for example . . . We would design an insignia featuring the mascot they already had . . . sometimes we used Disney characters, but very often we would design the ones they submitted.” Dave Smith, Disney’s head archivist

During the war, the major film studios released a steady stream of war-themed cartoons starring their famous cartoon icons, with provocative titles like ‘The Ducktators’ with Daffy Duck and ‘Herr Meets Hare’ with Bugs Bunny. The talented cartoon artists at Warner Brothers created the famous ‘Private Snafu’ as a motivational character, voiced by Mel Blanc, to make soldiers laugh whilst learning an important lesson. SNAFU was a well-known military acronym for ‘Situation Normal, All Fucked Up,’ a humorous take on military inefficiency and Private Snafu would invariably make mistakes, only to then learn from the experience.

At the outset of WWII, Hollywood’s well-oiled movie machine became an extension of the nation’s war machine, capitalising on America’s love affair with the movies. Theatrical cartoons, shorts, serials and feature films produced by the major studios all began to incorporate the war culture into their productions. The military had their own filmmaking units, but as studio craftsmen were enlisted by the various service branches, the content and quality of government training and propaganda films were elevated to Hollywood levels. Many of the film world’s greatest producers, directors and stars also enlisted to do their ‘bit.’

James Stewart was reportedly the first ‘film star’ to enter military service in WWII, having enlisted a year before Pearl Harbor was attacked. He had to talk his way in due to a weight issue (he was too thin.) Colonel Stewart flew 20 combat missions and earned the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross and seven battle stars. Clark Gable enlisted at age 41 as a private in the Army Air Force after his wife, the actress Carole Lombard, died in a plane crash while on a war bond drive. Gable flew bombing missions over Europe, eventually became a Captain, and appeared in instructional films.

At the outset of the war, Army Reservist Ronald Reagan was called to active duty and appointed to the First Motion Picture Unit — in Culver City, California. There, Reagan worked in the old Hal Roach film studios, dubbed Fort Roach for the duration, on more than 400 training and propaganda films, appearing on-screen in many. Movie stars who did not join the armed forces, helped out by selling war bonds and many radio and film favourites toured in USO entertainment shows.

In early 1942, seven years after making the Oscar-winning ‘It Happened One Night,’ film director Frank Capra enlisted in the Army. He was assigned the key role of convincing the formerly ‘isolationist’ population of the US, of the critical importance of America’s participation in the global conflict. Over the next four years, Capra contributed two important bodies of work to America’s war effort. Firstly, he helped produce and direct an Oscar-winning documentary film series called ‘Why We Fight,’ and, secondly, he applied his filmmaking skills to help create and manage a bi-weekly series of motion picture short subjects called ‘The Army-Navy Screen Magazine.’

By the end of the war, the Screen magazines were being seen weekly by over four million service members. Capra and company knew that these films needed to entertain the audiences gathered at base theatres to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster and the Army-Navy Screen Magazines were a very effective shared experience for the GIs, and greatly influenced their perception of the war.

John Ford directed several documentaries, including ‘The Battle of Midway’ and ‘December 7th,’ as well as training films such as ‘Sex Hygiene,’ made to caution the soldier about the horrors of VD. William Wyler enlisted and directed a famous wartime documentary called ‘The Memphis Belle,’ and even flew several combat missions himself on the famous plane to photograph some of the scenes.

Alfred Hitchcock’s movies have been the subject of intense scrutiny for decades. Understandably, many focus on his unique cinematic language and his almost uncanny ability to move the audience into shifting and complex points of view, and also his mastery of suspense. But less well-known are the propaganda films on which he volunteered to work during WWII. And perhaps the least known but most controversial, not to say the most criminal, is the film that Hitchcock began but was never finished, and remains filed-away in the Imperial War Museum in Britain, under archive number ‘F3080.’

In June 1945, Hitchcock sailed to England to join his close friend and future producing partner, Sidney Bernstein, to make a documentary about the Nazi concentration camps. Bernstein, a British film producer, was supposedly ‘stunned by the horrors of the newly liberated death camps.’ He was an avid Zionist and crusader against ‘anti-Semitism,’ and served as an officer in the Ministry of Information. It was Eisenhower who had ordered a documentary produced and other important directors were proposed such as Carol Reed and Billy Wilder, but only Hitchcock was free to perform the task.

German POW bodies used for Zionist propaganda

“Hitchcock met with two writers who had witnessed the atrocities of Bergen-Belsen first-hand. Richard Crossman contributed a treatment, while Colin Wills, an Australian correspondent, wrote a script that relied heavily on narration. The director had committed himself to the project early enough to give Hitchcock-ian instructions to some of the first cameramen entering the concentration camps. Hitchcock made a point of requesting ‘long tracking shots, which cannot be tampered with,’ in the words of the film’s editor, Peter Tanner, so that nobody could claim the footage had been manipulated to falsify the reality. The footage was in a newsreel style, but generally of high quality, and some of it in colour. There are several long panning shots in the film, and lingering close-ups which are almost unbearably graphic. ‘One of the big shots I recall,’ said Tanner, ‘was when we had priests from various denominations who went to one of the camps. They had a Catholic priest. They had a Jewish rabbi. They had a German Lutheran and they had a Protestant clergyman from England. And it was all shot on one shot so that you saw them coming along, going through the camp, and you saw them from their point of view all that was going on. And it was never cut. It was all in one shot. And this I know was one of Hitchcock’s ideas.” Patrick McGilligan, ‘Alfred Hitchcock: A Life and Darkness and Light’

This shot is actually not in the film. As I outlined in an earlier chapter, the horrific atrocities shown in the ‘liberation of concentration camp’ movies, are mostly of prisoners who died from starvation and typhus. Photos of naked skeleton-like bodies stacked in twisted, grotesque piles, are from Eisenhower’s Rhine Meadows death camps of German POWs and NOT from concentration camps.

Hitchcock’s film was supposed to “perform the miracle of excoriating Nazi brutality while holding up optimism for post-war Germany,” but funding for the film was suspended in early August. Bernstein said many years later, that . . . “The military command, our foreign office and the US State Department, decided that the Germans were in a state of apathy and had to be stimulated to get the machine of Germany working again. They didn’t want to rub their noses in the atrocities.”

Or is it more likely maybe that too many Germans at the time knew the real truth, and the Foreign Office and US State department therefore decided that it was not worth the risk? You decide, once again. . . . In fact, the reason for the decision to abandon the Hitchcock film was primarily because it soon became apparent to anyone with two functioning eyes, that the reasonably well-nourished detainees, were the ones wearing the striped uniforms, and compared with the emaciated German prisoners of war in the cold mud of the Rhine meadow camps in their tattered grey uniforms, the contrast was stark and blatantly obvious

Despite Bernstein’s protests, the unfinished fifty-five minute film, minus sound or narration, was dumped into the Imperial War Museum and remains there to this day. I strongly urge you to do your own research on the topic of German POW bodies being deceptively used to portray Jewish victims for Hitchcock’s films about German concentration camps. Hitchcock was in Germany together with mass-murderer and the avid Zionist, German-hater, Eisenhower. Eisenhower had instigated the Rhine meadow camps ‘housing’ 5 million German prisoners of war, and within six months one million had died — with many more to follow. But Eisenhower wanted strong ‘confirmation’ of the disgusting propaganda and issued the order to Hitchcock that ‘people should be made to believe that the rumours about the German mass murder of the Jews are true.’

It was simple enough for Hitchcock to obtain the footage he needed and simply claim that the emaciated Germans and the German bodies were indeed Jewish bodies. Many of these bodies were also transported from the Rhine Meadows to the concentration camps and claimed to be Jewish bodies. These lies were reinforced at gunpoint in many cases and thus were the lies spread around the whole world.

As stated, Eisenhower was without doubt a racist Zionist. His bosses were the bankster-Zionists Bernard Baruch and Henry Morgenthau and Morgenthau had actually proposed the genocide of ALL Germans remaining alive after the war and even the Zionist Eisenhower wanted to ‘kill as many Germans as possible.’ Eisenhower’s role in all this deceit remained undetected until 1989 when the historian James Bacque presented his research to the world. It was Bacque who was one of the first historians to publicise the Rhine Meadows camps and to dissect Eisenhower’s part in this crime. For crime it most surely was.

James Bacque’s careful calculations forced him to conclude that . . . “Eisenhower had deplored the German’s useless defence of the Reich in the last months of the war because of the waste of life. But at least ten times as many Germans, undoubtedly 800,000, almost certainly 900,000, and quite possibly a million, died in the French and American camps [Rhine Meadows] as were killed in all the combat on the Western front in northwest Europe from America’s entry into the war in December 1941, through April 1945.”

Bacque had been ably assisted in his research by Colonel Ernest F. Fisher, a senior historian for the US Army, as well as by other highly placed members of the American military. One of them, Colonel Philip S. Lauben, Chief of the German Affairs branch of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force), stated that, in late 1945 . . . “ . . . the Vosges (northeast France) was just one big death camp for Germans.”

In spite of everything written about Eisenhower portraying him as a hero, there seems little doubt that he meets all the qualifications of a certified war criminal to rival and even surpass Winston Churchill. Had Germany won the war and instigated criminal proceedings against the losers, there is little doubt he would have been tried, found guilty and executed for one of the most heinous crimes against mankind, in history.

“Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners, place themselves in grave danger of being shot . . . ” Orders of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 1945

This was no idle threat. On 31st July, Agnes Spira was shot by the guards at Dietersheim for taking food to prisoners. Many prisoners and German civilians saw American guards burn food that had been brought for the prisoners. According to one former prisoner who described it recently . . . “At first, the women from the nearby town brought food into the camp. The American soldiers took everything away from the women, threw it in a heap and poured gasoline over it and burned it.”

“Starting in April 1945, the US Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million German men . . . Eisenhower’s hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in history . . . an enormous was crime.” Colonel Ernest F. Fisher, PhD, 101st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army

Bacque specifically commended General George Patton for his humane behaviour towards his POWs. Patton’s Third Army freed vast numbers of German captives during May 1945, to the certain dismay, no doubt, of the Zionists who controlled Washington. Indeed both Generals Omar Bradley and J. C. H. Lee, ordered the release of their prisoners within a week of the war’s end only for the order to be immediately countermanded by Eisenhower.

Whilst former German soldiers from the British and Canadian zones were quickly regaining strength and were helping to rebuild Europe’s shattered infrastructure, Germans taken by the Americans were dying in abject misery, emaciated figures in faeces-smeared clothing, huddling pitifully in wet, muddy holes with perhaps a scrap of cardboard over their heads and a rotten potato for supper. At times many of them were reduced to drinking urine and eating grass.

But did all this happen only because of the totally unprincipled, immoral psychopath, Eisenhower? No, of course not, it was his controllers, the Zionist banksters who were pulling his strings. In 1944 Eisenhower had told the British ambassador to Washington that 3,500 officers of the German General staff should be ‘exterminated.’ He also favoured the liquidation of perhaps 100,000 prominent Germans. He even wrote to his wife, Mamie, “God, I hate Germans! Why? Because the German is a beast!” Eisenhower also said that he was ashamed to bear a German-sounding name.

In April 1945 the Americans opened their enormous Rheinberg Camp, six miles in circumference, yet with no provisions for food or shelter whatsoever. As in the other ‘Rhine Meadows’ camps, there were also no latrines and no water supply. In some camps, the men were so crowded that they could not lie down. Heinz Janssen, a survivor of the Rheinberg camp, described conditions as they were at the time . . . “Amputees slithered like amphibians through the mud, soaking and freezing. Naked to the skies day after day and night after night, they lay desperate in the sand of Rheinberg or slept exhaustedly into eternity in their collapsing holes.”

On 8th May 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally and the US State Department wasted no time in dismissing Switzerland as the official Protecting Power for German prisoners, contravening the Geneva Convention. The State Department also informed the International Red Cross that, with no Protecting Power to report to, there was no point in sending delegates to the camps. From that day forward, prisoners held by the US Army had no access to any impartial observer. The British and Canadians had also removed the Swiss protectors, but continued treating their POWs reasonably. Eisenhower and Churchill talked about further reducing the rations for the German POWs. Churchill was informed that the POWs had been receiving 2,000 calories per day (compared to 4,000 for American troops) and that 2,150 was regarded as an absolute minimum required for sedentary adults living under shelter. Eisenhower failed to tell Churchill that the US Army was not even feeding many prisoners, and that they were feeding others much less than 2,000 calories per day.

In mid-June, 1945, the British assumed control of the Rheinberg camp from the Americans, thus saving many thousands of German lives. The final act of the Americans before the British took charge, was to bulldoze one section flat while the men were still living in their holes in the ground. In July 1945 Eisenhower became the military governor of the US Zone in Germany and continued to refuse the assistance of all relief teams from Switzerland, the US and elsewhere. A French Army unit under General Rousseau, took over the Dietersheim camp from the Americans and found 32,000 men and women of all ages in a moribund state. A French officer Captain Julien, took command 17 days later and found a vast mire, “ . . . peopled with living skeletons, both male and female, huddling under scraps of wet cardboard.” Horrified, Julien unsurprisingly wrote . . . “This is just like the photographs of Buchenwald and Dachau.” I say ‘unsurprisingly’ because these photos of the Rhine Meadow camps victims were the very same ones being used to deceptively portray the ‘death camp’ victims and to prop-up the holocaust myths.

In a long memorandum, General Littlejohn informed Eisenhower that 1,550,000 Germans who were supposedly receiving US Army rations, were actually receiving nothing at all. Eisenhower ignored his report and the death rate continued to climb.

On 30th August 1945, Max Huber, head of the International Red Cross, wrote a severe letter to the US State Department about American interference in efforts to save starving Germans. Some months later, an evasive response, signed ‘Eisenhower,’ arrived in Washington, falsely claiming that giving Red Cross food to enemy personnel was forbidden. Thousands of train carriages loaded with decaying food were returned whence they had come and Huber apologised for clogging-up the French railway system because of the food which was being returned by the Americans.

By this time, more than two-million German men had been discharged into American custody, including thousands of non-combatants, priests, ministers, doctors, and professional men. Not one single camp commander or guard was ever questioned by the Allied press corps and the controlled media of the US, concerning the appalling conditions in these ‘hell holes.’

It may well be appropriate to stop right here and ask this question of you, the reader . . . ‘Is any one of you reading this horrifying account, as naive as to believe that the American people would have tolerated these barbaric actions by its military if they had known about it at the time? Do you think that the politicians who were in the forefront of those who kept these facts from Americans would have lasted very long in office, if the truth had been known and they had been exposed as the absolute deceivers that they were? Do you think that millions of people worldwide would show such concern for the ‘holocaust’ of the Jews, if they knew that it was Jewish hatred for their fellow human beings that was cold-bloodedly murdering over a million Germans?’ I sincerely doubt it and that is why these facts have been kept from the world for over 70 years.

By the 1950s, nearly all the surviving records of the Rhine death camps had been destroyed. The West German government concluded that 1.7 million German soldiers were alive at the war’s end, and who were known to have been in fair health yet simply ‘disappeared.’ The Western Allies pinned virtually all the blame on the Soviets and in 1980, the International Committee of the Red Cross refused to open its archives to James Bacque and other investigators into Allied atrocities. To this day, the ICRC has remained silent on the subject, despite their representatives many visits to several death camps. In September 1989, James Bacque’s book on the American death camps, ‘Other Losses,’ was published by Stoddard, a Canadian Publishing House, after being rejected by more than 30 American publishers.

The spoils of war always go to the victors and that includes the opportunity to rewrite history from the victor’s point of view. This was particularly true of World War II where for the last seventy plus years, one overall theme has dominated; namely that the Allies were the good guys in contrast to the Germans who were ‘war criminals.’ Was this really the case? Was the distinction so clear-cut or have we allowed Allied propagandists to reshape our view of history? Until recently anyone who questioned this standard interpretation was immediately labelled a ‘Nazi’ as happened to the British historian David Irving. Yet with the passage of time a new perspective is beginning to emerge, one that is not so clear-cut in its distinctions.

In the chaos and confusion following Germany’s defeat at the end of WWII, literally millions of Germans died. In an unprecedented humanitarian disaster an estimated sixteen million ethnic Germans fled their ancestral homelands in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other parts of Eastern Europe, to Germany. These were mostly women, children and elderly men who took to the roads before the advancing Red Army. Of these, the historian James Bacque estimated that between two and six million died in the process. Millions more died in Germany itself through a combination of disease, exposure and starvation, produced and compounded by deliberate Allied policies.

‘Brainwashing’

The term ‘brainwashing’ came into common usage after the Korean War through the work of the American journalist Edward Hunter who was an expert on Oriental issues; the very word being the direct translation of Chinese ‘si-nao’ meaning a technique of dealing with adversaries and/or training of officials. It referred to a variety of psychological and sometimes physical techniques intended to obliterate an individual’s beliefs and replace them with new ones. Despite fears of brainwashing that spread through American society in the war’s aftermath, there was never any conclusive psychological proof that brainwashing as such actually occurred.

Some servicemen did make statements favourable to their captors, and others collaborated with the Communists, but most of these actions were the result either of fatigue under captivity, or of a simple desire for self-preservation. But there is no doubt that US prisoners of war taken by the Chinese in the Korean War were subjected to a systematic programme of self-analysis and criticism that had a pronounced effect on their attitudes. Their experiences at the hands of the Chinese inspired ‘The Manchurian Candidate,’ the famous book, and subsequently a movie starring Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh, about brainwashing Americans to assassinate ‘enemies.’

Henry Segal was part of the team that carried out psychiatric analysis of the prisoners on their release, and wrote of some of his findings in 1954. The Americans, he noted, were in a mess . . . “There was considerable confusion expressed as to who really started the Korean War. The majority believed that our forces had actually used germ warfare although most of the men felt it was alright for us to do that in a war. Many expressed antipathy toward the Chinese Communists, but at the same time praised them for the ‘fine job they have done in China.’ Others stated that, ‘although Communism won’t work in America I think it’s a good thing for Asia . . . ’ None of the prisoners expressed any deep-seated hatred towards the Chinese Communists. Contrarily, most felt that the ‘Chinese treated us the best they could.’ The repatriated men identified themselves as prisoners of war or former prisoners. They referred to ‘the Americans’ or ‘American Forces.’ Many responded to the question, ‘What unit were you with?’ with the reply, ‘Camp Number so-and-so.’”

But how had the Chinese been able to achieve this transformation of the attitudes and beliefs of captured Americans? Certainly not through brutality — although conditions had been tough, particularly on the march to the POW camps, and there was always the uncertainty, fostered by the Chinese, that harsh treatment might be meted out in future. Segal wrote that . . . “During the period the camps were administered by the Chinese Communists, it was quite apparent that the enemy was far more concerned with indoctrination than with death or physical torture.”

Instead they had been able to exploit a powerful cognitive trait, the desire for consistency between what we say and what we believe. Humans like consistency, and work to reduce cognitive dissonance, the conflict between conflicting beliefs. They will do that either by distorting incoming information to enhance consistency with existing beliefs (a very common bias) or, under certain conditions, by distorting their beliefs and attitudes to keep them in line with observed information — particularly information that they have discovered for themselves.

“The most significant feature of Chinese prison camp control was the systematic destruction of formal and informal group structure . . . The Chinese were able to maintain close surveillance over camp activities by means of intensive spying and the use of informers from POW ranks. [This] created a general air of mistrust within the informal groups that remained and made it difficult for the men to form any kind of close relationships.” Edgar Schein

The prisoners were on their own — isolated and fearful of being informed upon. They lacked the usual social norms that reinforce our prevailing attitudes. Then the Chinese set the prisoners to writing, and talking about their writings, life biographies, self-criticism, and confession, extensive exposure to and discussion of pro-Communist and anti-American propaganda.

“The Chinese . . . forced the writing of autobiographies in order to undermine the bonds men felt towards their country or loved ones at home. The emphasis in autobiography appeared to be on exposing inconsistencies in the POW’s past history and in whatever information he was giving. The Chinese used ‘discussions’ in which the POW’s values and beliefs were systematically examined or attacked. The POW was encouraged to analyse himself, to think over his past, and to find flaws in his beliefs and values.” Edgar Schein

“The Chinese relied heavily on commitment and consistency pressures to gain the desired compliance from their captives, but short of physical brutalisation. How could the captors hope to get such men to give military information, turn in fellow prisoners, or publicly denounce their country? The Chinese answer was elementary, start small and build.” Robert Cialdini, ‘Influence’

And so, the prisoners started small, with minor criticisms of America, which after all, was far from perfect. From there it was a smaller step to larger attitudinal changes and aware that he had written his essay without any strong threats or coercion, a man would often change his self-image to be consistent with the deed and with the new ‘collaborator’ label, often resulting in even more extensive acts of collaboration.

And so step-by-step, by making a public commitment through lectures, discussion and even broadcast of their work, the prisoners shifted their attitudes to be consistent. Few actually converted to Communism, but as Henry Segal concluded . . . “Measured in terms of confusion, disloyalty, changed attitudes and beliefs, and doubts as to America’s role, their efforts were highly successful.”

MK-ULTRA

The ‘MK’ in the ‘MK-ULTRA’ programme stands for ‘mind control,’ the ‘k’ being taken from the German spelling, ‘kontrolle.’ This was instituted in April 1953 by CIA Director Allen Dulles, ostensibly to counter the brainwashing techniques of American prisoners being held by the Chinese during the Korean War, and to duplicate those techniques on enemy prisoners, i.e. the creation of ‘Manchurian Candidates.’ This was the claim used to obtain funding for the project.

As related in a previous chapter, during the late 1940s the CIA produced and played a prominent role in what was then known as ‘Operation Paperclip,’ whereby US Intelligence communities recruited Nazi scientists and renowned concentration camp medical doctors and psychiatrists. They were enticed to work in such laboratories as Los Alamos by the promise of large sums of money or alternatively the threat of being prosecuted for war crimes. Of course the decision for most was a ‘no-brainer.’

In fact, MK-ULTRA was the code name for a secret CIA mind-control programme whose purpose was manifold, but included the perfecting a truth drug for interrogating suspected Soviet spies during the Cold War. It followed earlier WWII hypnosis, primitive drugs research, and the US Navy’s Project Chatter, explained by its Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request as “ . . . the identification and testing of drugs (LSD and others) in interrogations and the recruitment of agents. The research included laboratory experiments on both animal and human subjects and ended shortly after the Korean War in 1953.”

It was run under the direction of Dr. Charles Savage of the Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland from 1947 — 1953, after which the CIA’s Office of Scientific Intelligence continued it under the name ‘Project Bluebird,’ its first mind control programme. It objectives were:

To learn how to condition subjects to withstand information from being extracted from them
Develop interrogation methods to exert control
Develop memory enhancement techniques, and . . .
Establish ways to prevent hostile control of Agency personnel.

In 1951, it was renamed ‘Project Artichoke,’ then MK-ULTRA under Deputy CIA Director Richard Helms in 1953. It aimed to control human behaviour through psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs, electroshock, radiation, graphology, paramilitary techniques, and psychological/sociological and anthropological methods, amongst others — a vast labyrinth of mind experimentation trying anything that might work, legal or otherwise on willing and unwitting subjects.

Ongoing at different times were 149 sub-projects in 80 US and Canadian universities, medical centres and three prisons, involving 185 researchers, 15 foundations and numerous drug companies. Everything was top secret, and most records later destroyed, yet FOIA requests salvaged thousands of pages with documented evidence of the horrific experiments and their effects on human subjects. Most were unwitting guinea pigs, and those consenting were not informed of the dangers. James Stanley was a career soldier when given LSD in 1958 along with 1,000 other military ‘volunteers.’ They suffered hallucinations, memory loss, incoherence, and severe personality changes. Stanley exhibited uncontrollable violence which destroyed his family, impeded his working ability, and he never knew the reason for this until the Army asked him to participate in a follow-up study.

He sued for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA,) his case reaching the Supreme Court in United States v. Stanley. Argued and decided in 1987, the Court dismissed his claim, ruling that his injuries occurred ‘during military service.’ Justices Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and Sandra Day O’Conner wrote dissenting opinions, stating that the Nuremberg Code applies to soldiers as well as civilians. In 1996, Stanley received $400,000 in compensation for his lifetime of torment, but no apology from the government.

The infamous Dr. Josef Mengele was an active proponent of the eugenics movement that had gained wide popularity during the Great Depression, thanks in large part to the contributions and activism of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in the United States. Eugenics was and still is, a movement that strived to lower and eventually exterminate unwanted and/or undesirable human populations, supposedly for the betterment of the world and the ‘superior, more evolved’ races. He was recruited by the CIA at the end of the war, and worked largely out of Brazil. Despite the massive amount of evidence against him, he was never seriously pursued as a war criminal.

Sidney Gottlieb aka ‘Black Sorcerer,’ was another post-war imported German scientist who had very strong US intelligence ties, one of which was Richard Helms, the CIA’s deputy director of covert operations. After being recruited to the United States at the end of WWII, Gottleib also headed MK ULTRA’s Chemical Division which was tasked with developing undetectable poisons to assassinate political opponents, truth serum drugs for interrogating spies, and mind control techniques to create ‘robot’ assassins or unwitting double-agents. He used Nazi scientists some of whom were known as ‘programmers,’ skilled professionals in the art of breaking down and controlling the human mind.

The CIA also became interested in Dr. Ewen Cameron’s work at McGill University’s Allan Memorial Institute. With the full complicity of the Canadian government, he was funded to perform bizarre experiments on his psychiatric patients, including keeping them asleep and isolated for weeks on end, then administering large doses of electroshock and experimental drug cocktails, LSD and PCP angel dust among them.

The early efforts of MK-ULTRA involved the testing of Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD,) first synthesised in 1938, the effects and power of which were still largely unknown by the 1950s. CIA operatives used them in research to discover if foreign intelligence agents could be made to defect against their will, and conversely if the same could be applied to United States operatives.

However, finding thousands of willing test subjects for such a massive, dangerous programme, whilst maintaining secrecy, was difficult and so the CIA eventually determined that the best way to conduct experimentation without arising public suspicion or alerting the ‘enemy,’ was simply not to tell anyone, least of all their subjects. Test subjects were chosen from those groups who were least likely to ‘object,’ from nursing homes, prisons and mental hospitals and other similar sources.

Sidney Gottlieb recruited a New York narcotics agent, George White, to distribute LSD surreptitiously to the borderline underworld. Operating through safe houses in Greenwich Village, Haight-Ashbury and Marin County, White gave doses to prostitutes, pimps, drug addicts and other society marginals and then observed the results and reported to Gottlieb. Ironically, since the CIA had cornered the market on LSD internationally, buying up all the products of Sandoz and Eli Lilly, the spread of the drug to the counter-culture was through the Agency. Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, Allen Ginsburg and Tom Wolfe were first ‘turned on’ courtesy of the CIA, and this was how the ‘flower children’ of the late 1960s became ‘psychedelic.’

In 1951, the CIA also recruited McGill University’s director of psychology, Dr. Donald Hebb to conduct sensory-deprivation experiments on volunteer students. The experiments clearly demonstrated that intense isolation disrupted thoughts enough to make subjects extremely receptive to suggestion. This strategy was also used as a formidable interrogation technique almost amounting to torture when forcibly administered and it was these early experiments that laid the foundation for the CIA’s ‘two-stage’ torture process — sensory deprivation followed by sensory overload. The University of Wisconsin historian, Alfred McCoy documented them in his book, ‘A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror,’ calling them “ . . . the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in more than three centuries.”

In fact, nothing is too extreme for the clinical psychopaths who benefit from these insidious practices, including physical abuse and psychologically crippling mind-control methods that turn human beings into virtual ‘vegetables.’ Of course all of this is done in the name of ‘national security,’ which as I am sure you are now beginning to understand is nothing but a euphemism for ‘bankster security,’ having nothing whatsoever to do with the security of the ‘great unwashed,’ the masses.

Gerald Ford’s 1976 Executive Order 11905, established policies to improve the quality of intelligence needed for national security and established effective oversight to assure compliance with law in the management and direction of intelligence agencies and departments of the national government. It prohibited ‘experimentation with drugs on human subjects, except with their informed consent, in writing and witnessed by a disinterested party, of each such human subject,’ according to guidelines issued by the National Commission. Subsequent Carter and Reagan directives banned all human experimentation.

Of course these were just cosmetic and the abuses of human rights continued, in violation of the Nuremberg Code that prohibits . . . “medical experiments without the voluntary consent of human subjects — without coercion, fraud, deceit, and the full disclosure of known risks; those where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur and only ones expected to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study . . . .”

At various times, Ewen Cameron was elected president of the Canadian, American, and World psychiatric associations. In other words, he was not regarded as a renegade but had the full backing and endorsement of the world psychiatric establishment.

The CIA eventually tasked Cameron to ‘de-pattern’ the contents of the brain to make it receptive to new patterning.

“The . . . . heart of the laboratory was the Grid Room . . . . The subject was strapped into a chair involuntarily, by force, his head bristling with electrodes and transducers. Any resistance was met with a paralysing dose of curare. The subject’s brainwaves were beamed to a nearby reception room crammed with voice analysers, a wire recorder and radio receivers cobbled together . . . The systematic annihilation or ‘de-patterning’ of a subject’s mind and memory was accomplished with overdoses of LSD, barbiturate sleep for 65 days at a stretch and ECT shocks at 75 times the recommended dosage. Psychic driving, the repetition of a recorded message for 16 hours a day, programmed the empty mind. Fragile patients referred to Allan Memorial for help were thus turned into carbuncular jellyfish.” David Remnick, Washington Post, 28th July 1985

“Patients lost all or part of their memories, and some lost the ability to control their bodily functions and to speak. At least one patient was reduced almost to a vegetable; then Cameron had the cognitive centres of her brain surgically cut apart, while keeping her alive. Some subjects were deposited permanently in institutions for the hopelessly insane.” Anton Chaitkin in his essay, ‘British Psychiatry: From Eugenics to Assassination’

The CIA funded these abominations through a ‘front’ known as ‘The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology,’ whilst other supporters of the Allan Institute were the Rockefeller Foundation, (of course,) the Geschickter Foundation, and even the Canadian government.

Conducting human mind-control experiments is clearly illegal and immoral, to put it mildly. Today, they are even more sophisticated than ever before and all claims that MK-ULTRA experiments were ended in the 1970s, are false. Renamed, they continue to abuse, torture and murder, many innocent and unsuspecting people.

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley

George Orwell (real name Eric Blair) wrote ‘1984,’ a grim novel of future totalitarianism in 1948. This and his satirical, political novel, ‘Animal Farm,’ described succinctly the mechanisms of oppression and distortion of the truth by the state and the realities of political power. Orwell was opposed to totalitarianism in all its forms, whether Stalinist/Marxist/Communist, fascist or pseudo-democratic. Ironically, Orwell had unknowingly fallen into the clutches of the very propagandists and distorters of truth he vilified and satirised because his British publisher, Fredric Warburg, was a secret CIA asset who would later become notorious for publishing and distributing a CIA propaganda magazine ‘Encounter,’ for one of the CIA’s countless ‘front’ organisations, the ironically named Congress for Cultural Freedom.

‘Animal Farm’ was published in the same month of the German surrender, May 1945, which was the perfect, convenient moment to launch a concerted attack on Soviet policies. The Cold War propaganda campaign embraced Animal Farm, which rapidly became a best-seller.

In 1948, the Information Research Department (IRD) was formed by the British Foreign Office, which was/is covertly controlled by MI-6. The IRD was the brainchild of Christopher Mayhew, who, in 1947, as a junior minister, proposed a ‘propaganda counteroffensive,’ and so for the next thirty years, the IRD exercised its influence through the media, particularly the written word and radio, the BBC. (There were no independent radio stations in Britain until the 1960s.) The IRD published, distributed and translated works by Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, and many other noted figures. Timothy Ash, in his 2010 book, ‘Facts Are Subversive,’ investigated the activities of the IRD, known informally as the ‘dirty tricks department.’ According to Ash, it indulged in, “ . . . character assassination, false telegrams, putting itching powder on lavatory seats, and other such cold war pranks . . . little of which will be found in the files, even if the intelligence-related ones are finally released.”

Animal Farm was in fact a core IRD project. It was broadcast on ‘Voice of America,’ and was translated into dozens of languages and Orwell helped the IRD strategise its worldwide circulation.

“Few books in the history of English literature enjoyed such a rapid diffusion into as many languages as Animal Farm.” ‘Archives of Authority,’ Andrew Rubin (2012)

Among other books that tell the story of ‘Animal Farm and the IRD’ are, ‘Britain’s Secret Propaganda War, 1948 — 1977’ Paul Lashmar and James Oliver (1998.) Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (1999,) Frances Stonor Saunders, and ‘British Cinema and the Cold War: The State, Propaganda and Consensus’ (2001,) by Tony Shaw.

In 1950, Orwell died of a burst artery in his lung, a complication of his tuberculosis. Four months earlier, Orwell had married Sonia Brownell, fifteen years his junior and following Orwell’s death, Warburg persuaded his widow to unwittingly sell the movie rights to 1984 and Animal Farm to the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination (OPC,) a creation of Allen Dulles. One version of the story contends that Sonia ceded the film rights to Animal Farm only upon the promise of a ‘date’ with Clark Gable and according to The Paper Trail, Jon Elliston’s Internet discussion of declassified information, CIA official Joe Bryan made the arrangements, ‘as a measure of thanks.’

According to its secret charter, OPC’s activities on behalf of the ‘free’ world include propaganda, economic warfare, sabotage, demolition and subversion and its head was none other than E. Howard Hunt, who would later become infamous as a member of the Watergate gang of criminals and later be exposed for his involvement in the assassination of JFK. It was indeed Hunt who personally selected Louis De Rochemont to be the producer of the animated version of Animal Farm for Paramount.

De Rochemont had considerable experience with propaganda, having created The March of Time series for Henry Luce and, during WWII, worked with the US Navy’s propaganda film unit. He had also worked on socially/politically sensitive films for many years two of which were the anti-Nazi spy film The House on 92nd Street (1945,) and Lost Boundaries (1949,) one of the first racially conscious films.

Vivien Halas, daughter of the film’s co-directors John Halas and Joy Batchelor, suggested that the real reason that Halas and Batchelor were awarded the contract is that Louis De Rochemont was a Navy colleague and good friend of screenwriters/producers Philip Stapp and Lothear Wolf. De Rochemont had worked with them in the Navy’s film unit and Vivien’s mother had worked closely with Stapp in 1949 on The Shoemaker and the Hatter, a pro-Marshall Plan film produced by Halas and Batchelor. Eventually Stapp and Lothear were hired to work on Animal Farm’s script which was to be the first animated full-length feature produced in England.

John Halas was born in Budapest and had worked as an animator before moving to Paris. He moved to England in 1936 to work on Music Man, the first British cartoon in Technicolor. Then in 1940 he formed Halas and Batchelor with Joy Batchelor, a British animator and scriptwriter. During the war they were kept busy with training, propaganda and other government sponsored films. They were awarded the contract to create the film in November 1951 and it was completed by a team of eighty animators, in April 1954. De Rochemont had made it plain that the film would not be identical to the book and Vivien Halas confirmed that during the production the script went through several changes before it was finalised.

It was to meet the CIA’s objectives, that the ending was changed to show that only the pigs had become totally corrupt and the film ended with other animals mounting a successful revolt against their rulers. There was no mention of the humans in the film’s conclusion. Had he lived to see it, Orwell would no doubt have been horrified at the way his ideas had been twisted to make political capital.

The film was a box office ‘hit’ and the reviews were favourable, but some critics suggested that people should really read the book to learn what had been left out. It was later distributed around the world by the United States Information Agency (USIA) through their overseas libraries and then produced 1984 in Britain in 1956. Inevitably, Orwell’s message was distorted and perverted once again by the CIA, to suit the goals of the banksters. The CIA’s ironically ‘Orwellian’ sabotage of two of the most powerful political works in literature was a masterstroke of pre-emptive mind control, and as the psychological warfare experts at the CIA are only too well aware, a successful movie, like television, will be seen by tens or hundreds of millions of people worldwide and, consisting of graphic images, is much more powerful and widely assimilated than the written word. By sabotaging the books’ real messages in the movie versions of 1984 and Animal Farm, the CIA effectively prevented the vast majority of people from ever learning of the true relevance of Orwell’s writings, to their own situations.

By 1989, 1984 had been translated into sixty-five languages, more than any other novel in English at the time. Orwell was a hugely proficient linguist, reading and speaking nine languages, English, Greek, Latin, Burmese, Hindustani, Shaw-Karen (an obscure Burmese dialect,) French, Spanish and Catalan. Widely regarded, rightly, as one of the most influential dystopian novels ever written, 1984 has had a profound effect all around the world. Since its first publication in 1949 many of its concepts have entered modern day parlance, ‘Big Brother,’ ‘Doublethink,’ ‘Thoughtcrime,’ ‘Newspeak’ and ‘Room 101’ are all derived from its pages. And perhaps even more significantly, as a result of the book, ‘Orwellian’ has now become a term that describes official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of the past by a totalitarian or authoritarian state. Orwell’s vain hope was that by writing 1984 he would help stop such a state ever coming to pass. Oh, the irony of it.

But aside from being a masterpiece of literature, George Orwell’s legendary 1984, is more than just a story, it is a prophecy and vision of what the banksters have planned for all of us. The invisible, elusive yet ‘all-powerful’ ‘Big Brother,’ is nothing more than a symbol for the New World Order and its surveillance society, which will control everything and everyone. And just like those behind Big Brother, the masses will never know who is really ‘pulling the strings.’ Even more pertinently, the banksters, as well as creating false ‘enemies’ have also even created false resistance movements designed to root out dissidents, exactly as described in the book. 1984, despite being written as a warning to us all, is now unfortunately, actually being used as a blueprint to usher-in the horrors of the New World Order.

As well as George Orwell’s 1984, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was another ‘warning from history.’ We may well wonder which of the two were most accurate as we watch our descent into corporate totalitarianism. Would we be, as Orwell warned, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used sophisticated and violent forms of control or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and ‘bread and circuses,’ captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption and thus unwittingly embrace our own oppression?

Actually, Orwell and Huxley were both correct. Huxley recognised the first stage of our enslavement whilst Orwell saw the second. Over the years, how many schoolchildren throughout the world have had to read 1984? This is another aspect to the banksters’ and their satanic/Masonic Illuminati’s deliberate plans to conquer the world. By promoting the prophecy as fiction, they can brainwash millions into believing that their ultimate goals are little more than the product of one man’s vivid imagination.

However, Orwell and Huxley were not blessed with psychic powers, it was simply that they had seen and been instructed in this evil plan. Just as author and futurist H.G. Wells had been, before them. If the banksters and their secret foundations and Tavistock groups, thought for one moment that such revealing works of Orwell and Huxley would wake-up the masses to what was going on, then you would most certainly have never have heard of them.

We have been gradually disempowered by the bankster-corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, has seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, prolific mass-produced trinkets, limitless credit, political theatre and 24/7 entertainment and sports activities. Yet, whilst we are being distracted, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate powers in check are being dismantled, the laws that once protected us are being deleted from history and we are gradually being impoverished. Credit is drying up, plentiful, decent jobs for the ‘working classes’ are gone forever and mass-produced goods are becoming unaffordable and thus do we find ourselves transported from Brave New World to 1984. The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy and it almost time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s ‘feelies,’ the ‘orgy-porgy’ and ‘centrifugal bumble-puppy.’ We are moving from a society where we are skilfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.

Orwell warned of a world where books were banned and Huxley warned of a world where no-one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear whilst Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasures. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished and Huxley warned of a state where the masses, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about politics, truth or information. Orwell saw us overtly scared into submission and Huxley saw us cunningly seduced into submission.

But Huxley’s ‘imaginings’ were merely the prelude to Orwell’s ideas. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement, whereas Orwell understood the nature of our enslavement. “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake,” Orwell’s character O’Brien said in ‘1984.’ “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power . . . We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

The banksters’ corporate state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the mainstream media, the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the materialism of a consumer-based society, devours us from the inside, out. It owes no allegiance to us or our nations and it feeds greedily upon our carcasses. But now the façade is crumbling and as more and more people reach the conclusion that they have been systematically used and robbed, we are moving swiftly from Huxley’s Brave New World to Orwell’s 1984.

‘Newspeak,’ as Orwell referred to it, is the authoritarian government’s weapon of choice for deceit and it works by placing a different meaning, or ‘spin,’ on events by altering words and replacing them with something which softens them and evades the truth. All shades of meaning are removed from language, whilst leaving simple dichotomies which reinforce the control of the state. In 1984, words with opposite meaning are removed as redundant so ‘bad’ becomes ‘ungood’ for example, and as many meaningful words as possible are removed from the language and boiled down to a single word that was a conformation of some sort. An obedient word with which people answered when asked something. The dumbing-down of language was used by the state to prevent effective communication between potential dissident factions and individuals, thus rendering them impotent.

Newspeak’s ‘sibling’ is ‘Doublespeak.’ This is language which appears to communicate but actually does not, serving no useful purpose except to deceive. It makes bad appear good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem attractive and it avoids, shifts, evades, and denies responsibility like an ever-changing desert of verbal, moving sand, as it crawls and slithers around true meaning. It is language which hides or prevents genuinely enlightened thought. It is ‘anti-thought.’

Whilst Newspeak reduces language down to its lowest common denominator, Doublespeak is a language of ‘smoke and mirrors,’ using language to cloak real meanings and empower its users with thought-control of a far more subtle kind than its intellectual brother. The modern government thrives on its heady cocktail of linguistic vacuousness and controls its citizenry with Doublespeak. Modern politicians are without doubt trained in this facility and indeed have become thoroughly expert in its utilisation.

Everything Orwell wrote, from the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War until his death was infused with a hatred of totalitarianism and when he spoke of life at the bottom of the social pile, he did so from personal experience — he had been there in the gutter along with all the other dregs of humanity, as related in his autobiographical work, ‘Down and Out in Paris and London.’ He had fought in the Spanish Civil War and seen many people die, so he developed a deep suspicion and hatred of authority in all its chimeric guises, and of how it insidiously manipulates, cajoles and obliquely threatens people to do as it wishes, and also of how it uses words to alter meaning and substance to suit its purpose for evasion and obfuscation.

The Role of Television in Mass Deception

With the advent of the popularity of television in the 1930s and 1940s, for the first time in history, the banksters had an instrument through which the masses could be controlled effectively, immediately, and effortlessly. Television is by far, the most devastating brainwashing device ever unleashed upon humanity.

Ironically, the BBC, upon which Orwell modelled his ‘Ministry of Truth,’ and ‘Room 101,’ which was a conference room at its Broadcasting House headquarters in London, became one of the pioneers of television, the ultimate newspeak/doublespeak medium. When Orwell died in January 1950, there were only 100,000 TVs in Britain and 5 million in the United States. Today, there are almost as many TVs as there are people in the western world.

Most people do not realise that when they turn on the television in their home, what they see as a constant flow of images is actually flickering and although we do not recognise this consciously, the repetitive pattern of flickering images creates a state that is similar to hypnosis in the television viewer. Studies by researcher Dr. Herbert Krugman have shown that within 30 seconds of television viewing, brain waves switch from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocussed yet receptive lack of attention. The brain’s left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes-out whilst a person is watching TV, whilst the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and non-critically, is allowed to function without hindrance. Due to this phenomenon, television transmits information, which is not actively recognised at the time of exposure, much like hypnosis and therefore when viewing TV, we do not consciously rationalise the information at the time of transmission and we become more open and suggestible. Because of this passive, hypnosis-like viewing of television, as well as its predominance in our homes, television is one of the most powerful tools of control, today.

As of 2015, only five companies controlled all of the major media outlets (of all forms) in the United States. That represents a very small number of people controlling all of the information that streams into millions of homes across America each day, through their TVs. In recent years, a number of investigations and exposés have revealed that these giants silence independent voices and investigations, discourage journalism that interferes with the agendas of corporate interests, and actively seeks to eliminate diversity in the information provided. Because of the control that these companies have over the information that most people receive on a daily basis, these criticisms and revelations are never learned by most.

The media giants work hand and glove with our bankster-controlled governments as well as multinational corporations to disseminate carefully planned messages. Through television and other forms of media, they instruct us in what to think, what to worry about, what to laugh at and what to be scared of and have completely ‘sold’ the public on the idea of the newscaster being an extension of the family, a trusted father-figure who encourages the acceptance of the information being presented as true and accurate. In 2012, the Pentagon spent more than $3 billion compensating major media outlets for disseminating their ‘public relations’ messages which are deceptively presented to the television viewer as news, produced by the television station, not as propaganda from the Pentagon. In the same year, pharmaceutical companies paid television outlets more than $5 billion for advertising, which included Video News Releases (VNRs,) specially tailored pieces that appeared within the nightly news disguised as being the result of research by the local stations. No other industrialised nation in the world even allows drug ads on television, let alone these cleverly disguised VNRs hidden within the ‘news.’

The public has been totally duped into placing all their trust into the major media outlets, believing that the mainstream media reports only strictly objective news, whilst any information delivered from alternative sources should always be questioned. Somehow the public has bought into the idea that the TV would never lie to them and many people will not pay any regard to information that is not covered by the major media. This is the mind-set that the banksters need us to have, in order that we become separated from the truth whilst remaining obedient to their every whim.

Most people simply believe that they are just being informed or entertained, but they do not realise that their way of life is being shaped for them and their opinions are actually being given to them. They are being familiarised with ideas, concepts, and fear so that they will not question future events. Through the subtle use of propaganda, TV imprints messages in our minds, instructing us in what to believe and how. But why would they do this?

Information is power. When someone or something controls information, they also control the people absorbing that information. The manufactured and controlled information on TV could be referred to as the ‘signal’ and that constant signal is what shapes and guides the masses to form their ‘own’ conclusions. In order to take back our minds, we must first learn to unplug the signal and by turning off our TVs, will realise that the world is suddenly a very unfamiliar place. News of no consequence or importance is constantly debated, dissected and analysed, and as we listen-in to the conversations of people around us, we will thereby realise that most are simply ‘robots,’ repeating as fact what they have heard on the news or in ‘documentaries.’ This is exactly what bankster-puppet Zbigniew Brzezinski referred-to in his book ‘Between Two Ages,’ in which he said, “Shortly, the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They’ll only be able to parrot the information they’ve been given on the previous night’s news.”

Today, the average American over the age of 2, spends more than 34 hours a week watching live television, plus another three to six hours watching recorded programmes. Staggering really. Children aged 2-11 watch an average of 24 hours of TV a week. That number dips to 22 hours for teens, ages 12-17 then, goes back up to 25 for 18-24 year-olds. After that it rises steadily until people over 65 average 48 hours a week, or nearly seven hours a day. And we wonder why no-one can grasp or is even interested in what is really happening in the world today?

Television in fair and balanced hands, could have become one of the best things to ever enlighten mankind. A means to both inform and inspire but instead, it has been developed as both a weapon of mass distraction, deception, and destruction! A weapon that the Zionist banksters have owned and controlled from the very beginning. Everything it broadcasts, is from a Zionist perspective. From sitcoms to social dramas, from so-called educational documentaries to the nightly news . . . a Zionist perspective that is always hidden behind an innocent Jewish front.

Please do not misunderstand my motives, however. The simple truth is that Jewish people are indoctrinated from childhood just like everyone else, except in Israeli schools, they are taught to hate their Arab neighbours, and to despise Islam. They are taught to never forgive the Germans, to always remember the ‘holocaust,’ and that those that dare speak-out against Israel are ‘anti-Semitic.’ To them, Israel is either a hero or a victim, never a bully or an aggressor. If only they knew and understood, that the founders of their beloved state, were brutal cowardly terrorists, who liked to masquerade as Arabs whenever they felt like bombing or assassinating. If only they knew that the holocaust, never actually happened, and even if it did, it would never have happened if was it not for their Zionist ‘cousins’ creating and financing the Nazis in the first place. If only they knew that Palestine was never their promised land, and that most Jewish people, are not even Semites and have no genetic connection whatsoever, to the Middle East.

No, television has never ‘helped’ the Palestinian, Islamic people, or even the Jewish people, but it has made the Zionist’s job to fool everybody, very easy. As a result, you never, ever see on TV, anything that is critical of the banksters, Israel or Zionism and if you do hear even a slight piece of truth, it is usually labelled as anti-Semitic or ‘hate speech,’ and dismissed immediately. There is no open debate on the holocaust, Eisenhower’s death camps, the Zionist-Jewish control of everything, unlawful taxation, the creation of money, wars, you name it . . . You will never see any truthful documentaries about the firestorms of Hamburg and Dresden, the holocausts of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the Rhine Meadows killing-fields or indeed anything at all that does not show Nazi Germany in a bad light and/or the Allies in a good light — period! Truth and freedom of speech is not the purpose or remit of television, radio or newspapers, or indeed any other means of mass communication.

Television is first, second, third and lastly . . . all about control of the masses.

Chapter 14

Geopolitical Crimes

“The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch. According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stockholders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.” www.globalresearch.ca, 1st June 2011

Geopolitics is the study of the relationship between politics and geography, demography and economics, especially with respect to the foreign policies of a nation. In the case of the banksters, geopolitics is all about assuming control over nations, either by bribery, destabilisation or assassination, exploiting their natural and human resources, and establishing global power and control.

The ‘Seven Sisters’ is a term often associated with the original giants of the oil and gas industry, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf, Texaco, BP and Shell. Today, these petroleum giants are often collectively referred to as ‘Big Oil.’ In essence, Big Oil was really born out of the subsidiaries of the Standard Oil Company, a Rockefeller creation dating back to the late 1800s, when John D. Rockefeller had become popularly known as ‘the Illumination Merchant,’ during a time when oil was powering the lighting of almost every household. Rockefeller had quickly realised that it was the refining of oil into various end-products and not actual ‘crude’ production which held the key to control of the industry. Standard Oil was originally a partnership with John D. Rockefeller, his brother William, Henry Flagler, chemist Samuel Andrews, and silent partner Stephen V. Harkness, and began operations in 1870. By the time John D. Rockefeller retired in 1897, he had become the wealthiest man in the world, but of course only because the Rothschilds keep their wealth a closely guarded secret.

By 1895, the Standard Oil Company owned 95% of all refineries in the US whilst also expanding operations overseas. Summing up his attitude towards his new oil monopoly, Rockefeller once stated . . . “The day of combination is here to stay. Individualism is gone never to return.” Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust had begun with funding from our old bankster friends, the Kuhn Loeb and Rothschild families and while the Rockefellers worked the American side of the energy matrix, the Rothschilds consolidated their control over Old World oil resources. John D. Rockefeller himself did not control crude reserves, instead he invested heavily in refining and made deals with the Morgan-controlled railroads to cut his shipping costs. His monopoly over the oil industry was largely achieved by implementing various ruthless tactics and tricks ultimately made public by a woman named Ida M. Tarbell, who in 1902, was bold enough to publish her findings and raise public awareness of Standard Oil’s deceptively predatory traits.

The motivating force behind Tarbell’s exposé of Standard Oil was the fact that her father, an oil man himself, had also fallen victim to Rockefeller’s intrigue. One of the greatest nemeses in political and corporate spheres is bad press and Tarbell’s works certainly tarnished Standard Oil’s public image so much, that they refused to display their name on future business acquisitions.

In 1906, the US government ordered the dissolution of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust, charging that Standard violated the new ‘Sherman Anti-Trust Act.’ On 15th May 1911, the US Supreme Court declared . . . “ . . . Seven men and a corporate machine have conspired against their fellow citizens. For the safety of the Republic we now decree that this dangerous conspiracy must be ended by November 15th.”

But the breakup of Standard Oil conversely only served to increase the wealth of the Rockefeller family, who retained 25% interest in each new company and very soon the new companies began to reintegrate. Unfortunately, Tarbell’s attacks did not deter or disrupt Standard Oil’s monopoly as it continued to prosper, albeit in a different form and by that time, of course, Rockefeller was being fêted as the ‘richest man in the world,’ with a net worth that exceeded the national debt of the United States.

The new Standard Oil of New York merged with Vacuum Oil to form Socony-Vacuum, which became Mobil in 1966. Standard Oil of Indiana joined with Standard Oil of Nebraska and Standard Oil of Kansas and in 1985 became Amoco. In 1972 Standard Oil of New Jersey became Exxon (Esso in Europe) and in 1984, Standard Oil of California joined with Standard Oil Kentucky to become Chevron. Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO) retained the Standard brand until it was bought by BP, which also bought Atlantic Richfield (ARCO.)

In August 1859, drillers had struck oil near Titusville, Pennsylvania and this became the first commercially viable oil well in the United States, the prototype for future oil well construction, and marked the birth of the US petro-chemical industry. The ‘father’ of the multi-trillion dollar oil industry was Edwin Drake who was hired to explore suspected oil deposits in Western Pennsylvania near Titusville. He began with a steam-powered drilling rig that was used for water wells, but the hole would always collapse in on itself.

In order to solve this dilemma, Drake devised a drilling method using principles still in use today. He invented the concept of drilling inside cast-iron pipes pile-driven into the ground. At 32 feet the cast iron pipes hit bedrock requiring the drill to be inserted through the pipe. Drilling was slow, but at 69½ feet oil was struck and soon the well was producing 25 barrels a day with the surrounding region reaching 5.8 million barrels a year. In seeking oil for the Seneca Oil Company for refining into a new product (kerosene,) it was Drake’s shallow well and his new technology that created an industry. This was the inventive principle that is still employed by oil companies around the world today but rather than file for patent protection on his revolutionary drilling methods, Drake decided to start an oil drilling company. Yet, within four years, Drake’s company had collapsed. With no patent, other companies simply copied Drake’s drilling process and just twelve years after giving birth to the oil industry, Drake was bankrupt and in poor health.

In 1901 a large ‘pool’ of oil was discovered under a salt dome located south of Beaumont, Texas. The site was first known as Gladys Hill, and later as ‘Spindletop,’ named for a tree growing there that resembled a child’s toy. The Spindletop gusher was located on land owned by the McFaddin, Weiss, and Kyle families, adjacent to dry holes drilled earlier. With the discovery, the small town of Gladys, (later Beaumont,) went from a population of 9,000 to 50,000 almost overnight. Thousands of would-be millionaires invaded the region in an attempt to ‘get rich quick.’ However, fraud was rife and ‘Spindletop’ soon became known as ‘Swindletop.’

To give some idea of just how big the Spindletop oil field originally was, it tripled America’s entire production of oil overnight. Indeed. The Spindletop oil field had more wells and produced more oil than any other field in the nation, at one time bringing in 800,000 barrels a day. Eager to find similar deposits, investors spent billions of dollars throughout the State in search of oil and natural gas and the plentiful, cheap fuel they found, helped to revolutionise American transportation and industry. Storage facilities, pipelines, and major refining units were built in the Beaumont, Port Arthur, Sabine Pass, and Orange areas around Spindletop and as early as 1902 there were more than 500 Texas corporations thriving in Beaumont. Many of the major oil companies indeed sprang from Spindletop or grew to corporate size as a result of their involvement at Spindletop.

The origins of Shell Oil went back to M. Samuel & Company, which was in the business of importing and exporting exotic decorated seashells, which lined the shores of the Dutch-controlled Archipelago that is now Indonesia, for collections in London, by Marcus Samuel, and later his sons Marcus and Samuel Samuel. The shipping of oil had proved a problem for all oil companies, including the dominant Standard Oil. The barrels leaked and took up too much space in the ship’s hold and so, to solve this problem, the Samuel brothers commissioned a fleet of tanker-steamers to carry oil in bulk and distribute it around the Far East and by 1892, they were shipping South Sea crude through the new Suez Canal to supply Europe’s factories. In fact, the Samuel family also controlled London’s biggest merchant bank Hill Samuel, along with the trading house Samuel Montagu and in 1897, Samuel’s company became Shell Transport & Trading Company.

Between 1898 and 1900, there was a growing world oil demand and tightening of supplies that led to high oil prices. The Boer War in South Africa in 1899 further pushed-up prices but they began to crumble in early 1900 as a result of the depression and famine in Russia that led to lower domestic demand and higher oil export that resulted in a glut on world market. Several factors also combined around this time to make Shell very vulnerable. These included the Boxer Rebellion against foreigners in one of Shell’s important markets, China; the plummeting of oil prices and freight rates; and Borneo falling short of expectations from fires, explosions, technical malfunctions, and accidents that killed workers and interrupted operations. Shell eventually pulled-through but was weakened and very vulnerable.

When Jean Baptiste Kessler of Royal Dutch had a heart attack and died in December 1900, Henri Deterding was installed at age 34 as the ‘interim manager.’ Deterding had been offered a job with Royal Dutch by Kessler in 1895 and had Rockefeller’s flair for numbers and quickly mastered accounting and finance in Amsterdam. His working theory was always to reduce each problem to its simplest terms or essential elements, and his primary interest with Royal Dutch was to make money. Unlike Rockefeller, he did not use price undercutting as a competitive tool and preferred to work out price-fixing deals. His aim was to bring Royal Dutch to the level of, and insulate it from, its competitors. A simple idea dominated his mind, that of amalgamation or unity with another major player. He saw it as the only way to protect Royal Dutch from its competitors such as Standard Oil. So, Shell and Royal Dutch, together, controlled over half of Russian and Far Eastern oil exports, and they began talks to combine.

The negotiations eventually led to a series of joint ventures (consolidated marketing companies) with Samuel as the chairman and Deterding as the manager and chief executive. The Shell Transport Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (December 1901) soon became British Dutch later became Asiatic. In 1907, the Dutch and British monarchs who controlled (and still do!) Royal Dutch, merged their company with the Oppenheimer and Samuel’s Shell Oil and Nobel and Rothschild’s Far East Trading and Royal Dutch/Shell was born. Queen Beatrix of the Dutch House of Orange and Lord Victor Rothschild were its two largest shareholders.

The Brothers Nobel Oil Company or Branobel, was the largest single oil producer in Azerbaijan in 1914, and the largest refiner and transporter of oil, as well as retailer of kerosene in Europe. The markets of France, Turkey, Greece and Germany were totally supplied by Nobel-produced kerosene and other products. Wholesale changes in the area of oil storage were introduced by the Nobels. To counteract the waste of the ground pits, vessels and lakes where great quantities of oil evaporated or simply seeped back into the ground, the company began to use iron reservoirs for oil storage. In fact the first oil tanker in the world, a refurbished metal ship, ‘Zoroaster,’ had been built in 1878 in Sweden by the Nobels.

The newly incorporated Anglo-Persian Oil Company, or Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, as it would be known from 1935 onwards, went public on 19th April 1909, and the public offering of the stock on the day resulted in the Glasgow branch of the Bank of Scotland being mobbed by customers eager to invest in the shares. Burmah Oil took the majority of the ordinary shares with a market value of £895,000.

In June 1913, Winston Churchill, in his capacity as First Lord of the Admiralty, presented the Cabinet with a key memorandum on ‘Oil Fuel Supply for His Majesty’s Navy.’ After successfully leading the bombardment of Alexandria, aboard HMS Inflexible, British Admiral Jackie Fisher (later known as the ‘oil maniac,’) was the great advocate of converting the Royal navy from coal to oil fuel, and advised Churchill on the issue. The Cabinet agreed in principle that the government should “ . . . acquire a controlling interest in trustworthy sources of supply.” Furthermore, after a debate in the Cabinet it was decided that the British government itself would become a shareholder in Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

In 1914 Churchill introduced this historic measure in the House of Commons. The bill he proposed contained two important features, firstly that the government would invest £2.2m in APOC, acquiring in return a 51 percent share of the stock. Secondly, it would place two directors on the company’s board with powers to veto matters involving Admiralty fuel contracts and major policy and political matters. Another contract was drawn up separately, so that it could be kept secret, providing the Admiralty with a twenty-year contract for fuel oil. The terms were very attractive and, in addition, the Royal Navy would get a rebate from the company’s profits. The House of Commons approved the bill on the same day and on 10th August 1914, the Anglo-Persian Oil Convention received Royal assent and the British government became the major shareholder of Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

During WWI, despite her proclaimed neutrality, Persia (now Iran) was invaded by British, Russian, and Turkish troops. Moreover, there were tribal uprisings in the south and rebellions in the north, and the country was close to a state of complete chaos and anarchy. Conditions were perfect for a powerful figure to step-in and fill the virtual vacuum of authority in the capital city of Tehran. Emboldened by the circumstances, Reżā Khan, a military officer, seized power in 1921. After initially taking the post of Minister of War, he consolidated his position and became prime minister in 1923.

Two years later, Ahmad Shah was deposed and in 1926, Reżā Khan, having taken the name Pahlavi as his dynastic title, was crowned Reżā Shah Pahlavi. It did not take APOC long to realise that it would no longer be dealing with the traditionally weak governments of the Qajar era, but with a new authoritarian figure.

By 1920 Exxon, BP and Royal Dutch/Shell completely dominated the world’s booming oil business, with the Rockefeller, Rothschild, Samuel, Nobel and Oppenheimer families, along with British and Dutch royals owning the majority of their stock. Two other Rockefeller companies, Mobil and Chevron, were also not that far behind the ‘Big Three’ financially. The Murchison family, patronised by the Rockefellers, controlled Texaco, whilst the Mellon family, with its ties to the Rockefellers and to the British Royals, controlled the ‘seventh sister,’ Gulf Oil.

The first known attempt by the ‘Seven Sisters’ to stifle competition came in 1928, when Sir John Cadman director of Anglo-Persian (BP), Sir Henry Deterding of Royal Dutch/Shell, Walter Teagle of Exxon and William Mellon of Gulf met at Cadman’s castle near Achnacarry, Scotland where an agreement was reached that would divide-up the world’s oil reserves and markets amongst the major players.

The ‘Achnacarry Agreement’ became known to oil industry insiders as the ‘As Is’ agreement, because its aim was to maintain a status quo situation, under which the Seven Sisters controlled the world’s oil through market share agreements, the sharing of refining and storage facilities, and by agreeing to limit production to keep prices high. A cartel in every imaginable way.

Between 1931 and 1933 this oil cartel, ruthlessly cut the price for crude oil from 98 cents per barrel to 10 cents and as a result many Texas producers were put out of business. Those that remained were forced to agree to strict production quotas under threat of ruin by the cartels, quotas that still exist to this day. It is these quotas that serve to keep the US dependent on Persian Gulf oil, where Big Oil totally dominates and by taking the oil industry international, which required billions in capital, Big Oil kept independent challenges to their hegemony at bay. This also had the side effect of eliminating the jobs of thousands of US oil workers in Texas and Louisiana.

It was Texas oil that effectively created our modern world. It was so cheap that steamships and railways rapidly switched from coal to diesel. Cheap oil made the car industry possible, and everything else that followed, the large scale building of highways, suburbia, air travel, in fact the whole carbon-burning, ozone-depleting spree that has been modern life for as long as we can remember now.

Oil helped shape our modern world, of that there is little doubt and Texas oil money helped shape modern American politics, especially the aspect of briefcases full of cash being delivered in the dead of night. Texas oil did not begin that particular game, but it turned it into an art-form.

The mysterious Sid Richardson was a former cattle trader who ultimately ‘controlled more petroleum reserves than three major oil companies.’ Richardson also funnelled cash contributions to Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1948 senate campaign through John B. Connally Jr., who became governor of Texas and United States Treasury secretary. Sid Richardson left a $50 million legacy to his great-nephews, Perry R. Bass and the Bass brothers, Sid, Robert, Lee and Edward held onto and increased their nest eggs through shrewd financial investments. Their families’ collective worth is now more than $5 billion.

Clint Murchison Sr., another Texan oilman, built his fortune partly by running shipments of so-called ‘hot oil’ in defiance of state and federal laws mandating production limits. Murchison later became an icon of Texas business and politics, but he was also a notorious ‘hot oiler,’ a term used to describe those who pumped more oil from their wells than was permitted by the Texas Railroad Commission and the Federal government. The practice was regulated because when too much oil was pumped from too many wells in the same area, the pressure to push the oil to the surface was relieved and when this happened, it ruined or severely hampered the ability to extract the oil in those fields, including the wells of other drillers.

Eventually, the US government sent 1500 troops into Texas to stop the ‘hot oilers’ and by the time the controversy had subsided in 1936, Murchison had tripled his fortune. He was never indicted and went on to be viewed as one of the most successful and politically influential businessmen in the nation. Although there were rumours that he would be subject to criminal charges, it never happened of course, and he and his fellow oil-producers became active, lobbying in both Texas and Washington, DC. Texas oil millionaires such as Murchison, fought hard to maintain their tax concessions and the most important of these was the ‘oil depletion allowance’ which allowed producers to deduct just 5 per cent of their income and the deduction was limited to the original cost of their property. However, in 1926 the depletion allowance was increased to 27.5 per cent.

As Robert Bryce pointed out in his book, ‘Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate’ . . . “Numerous studies showed that the oilmen were getting a tax break that was unprecedented in American business. While other businessmen had to pay taxes on their income regardless of what they sold, the oilmen got special treatment.”

In 1952, the US Senate Select Committee on Small Business released a report entitled ‘The International Petroleum Cartel,’ which showed that the seven largest oil companies, nicknamed the ‘Seven Sisters,’ form a cartel which controls the majority of the oil-producing areas outside the United States, controls all major foreign refineries, divides-up world markets among its members, shares pipelines and tankers and fixes oil prices worldwide.

Over time, even as they preached their ideas of small government and free markets, Texas oil men used their backroom influence to stifle competition and net tremendous financial benefits for themselves. Some, especially Murchison, did not really care which party was in power, as long as the politicians delivered what he needed. Murchison, along with Sid Richardson and H. L. Hunt, became major supporters of Lyndon B. Johnson in order to maintain the oil depletion allowance. According to Robert Bryce again . . . “Johnson’s 1948 race was reportedly the most expensive political campaign ever waged in Texas. The money flowed to Johnson like an inexhaustible river. By befriending Richardson, Murchison, Hunt, and other oilmen like Amon Carter of Fort Worth, Wesley West of Austin, and R. J. Parten of Houston, Johnson assured himself of nearly unlimited funding.”

Murchison and Sid Richardson, became friends of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and this was the beginning of a long ‘friendship.’ According to Anthony Summers, the author of ‘The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover’ . . . “Recognising Edgar’s influence as a national figure, the oilmen had started cultivating him in the late forties, inviting him to Texas as a houseguest, taking him on hunting expeditions. Edgar’s relations with them were to go far beyond what was proper for a Director of the FBI.”

For two decades, the homosexual FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI Assistant Director and ‘lover,’ Clyde Tolson, spent extended summer vacations at the Del Charro, a California hotel owned by the Mafia-connected oil man, political fixer and American Nazi Party financier Clint Murchison. The Del Charro was a very exclusive, very expensive hotel. But of course, none of this, troubled the happy couple since Murchison paid all the bills and the FBI provided agents at public expense to act as errand boys for them. Hoover and Tolson’s ‘jollies’ were usually listed as FBI ‘inspection trips,’ with the hapless US taxpayers footing the bill. By an amazing coincidence, Murchison’s shady business and political dealings were never investigated by the FBI and according to a Senate committee of the early 1950s, twenty percent of the Murchison Oil Lease Company was owned by the Vito Genovese, Mafia family.

The Del Charro Hotel was also the vacation location of choice for many well-known politicians, gangsters and ‘mob’ figures. Hoover’s regular poolside companion at the Del Charro was Dub McClanahan, partner of New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. Another of Murchison’s friends, Sid Richardson, went there at the same time, and other guests who arrived during the month or so of Hoover’s stay included Richard Nixon, John Connally (who was also shot during the Kennedy assassination, but survived,) Lyndon Johnson, and such celebrated mafiosi as Meyer Lansky, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Rosselli, Sam Giancana, and Carlos Marcello. Murchison, as was Lyndon Johnson, was also involved with Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters Union and Mafia don Frank Costello, a good friend of Sam Giancana and former business associate of Joseph P. Kennedy. Birds of a feather flock together, eh?

It was indeed Hoover, who attempted to block the formation of the Kefauver Committee which was intended to investigate organised crime in the US. Hoover repeatedly told committee members that he had no knowledge of the Mafia!

The Committee held hearings in fourteen cities and heard testimony from over 600 witnesses. Many of these witnesses were high-profile crime bosses. A number of politicians also appeared before the committee and saw their careers ruined. The committee’s hearings which were televised live, just at the time when many Americans were buying their first televisions, made Kefauver nationally famous and introduced many Americans to the concept of a criminal organisation known as the Mafia for the first time ever.

Heavily censored documents in Senator Kefauver’s FBI file proved that Hoover collected material on the Senator, clearly for the purpose of blackmail or smearing him. Hoover refused to provide FBI protection to Committee witnesses, even after two were murdered and even when the Kefauver Committee determined, despite J. Edgar’s protests, that the Mafia did exist and was successfully operating in the US, Hoover quite predictably, did nothing.

“Shell’s chairman, Sir Henry Deterding, helped to sponsor Hitler’s rise to power, in collusion with the British Royal family’s Bank of England Governor, Montagu Norman. Their ally Standard Oil would take part in this project right up to its bloody, gruesome end. In March 1942, the US government had already started picking its way through the tangled web of world-monopoly oil and agreements between Standard Oil and the Nazis. Many patents and other Nazi-owned aspects of the partnership had been seized by the US Alien Property Custodian but it did not seize Prescott Bush’s Union Banking Corporation for another seven months.” ‘Fleshing out Skull and Bones: Investigations into America’s Most Powerful Secret Society.’ Ed. by Kris Milligan, 2003, pp. 282-283

Eugenics and the De-Population Agenda

Germany surrendered in May 1945 and in July 1945, General William H. Draper was called to Europe by the American military government authorities in Germany. Draper was appointed head of the Economics Division of the US Control Commission and was assigned to take apart the Nazi corporate cartels. Draper was well-versed in this subject, he had spent about fifteen years financing and managing the seediest of the Nazi enterprises, and was now authorised to decide who was exposed, who lost and who kept their businesses and in practice, who was prosecuted for ‘war crimes.’

So William H. Draper, as a ‘conservative,’ was paired with the ‘liberal’ US Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau in a wicked game. Morgenthau had demanded that Germany be utterly destroyed as a nation, that its industry should be dismantled and it be reduced to a purely rural country and Draper’s brief was to ‘protect’ Germany from the Morgenthau Plan . . . but only at a price. Draper and his colleagues demanded that Germany and the world accept the collective guilt of the German people as the explanation for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi ‘war crimes.’

His success emboldened Draper to pull off a ‘stunt’ with his military aid advisory committee . . . he changed the subject under study. The following year the Draper committee recommended that the US government react to the supposed threat of the ‘population explosion’ by formulating plans to depopulate the poorer countries. The growth of the world’s non-white population, he proposed, should be regarded as “dangerous to the national security of the United States.”

However President Eisenhower rejected the recommendation, but in the next decade, General Draper founded the ‘Population Crisis Committee’ and the ‘Draper Fund,’ joining with the Rockefeller and du Pont families to promote eugenics as “population control.” The administration of President Lyndon Johnson, advised by General Draper on the subject, began financing birth control in the tropical countries through the US Agency for International Development (USAID.)

General Draper was George Bush Snr’s ‘guru’ on the population question and Draper’s son and heir, William H. Draper III, was co-chairman for finance of the Bush-for-President national campaign organisation in 1980. With George Bush in the White House, the younger Draper oversaw the depopulation activities of the United Nations throughout the world . . .

The US Agency for International Development stated that surgical sterilisation was the Bush administration’s method of choice for population reduction in the Third World and the United Nations Population Fund claimed that 37% of contraception users in Ibero-America and the Caribbean had already been surgically sterilised. And then in 1991, William H. Draper III’s agency asserted that 254 million couples will be surgically sterilised over the course of the 1990s and that if present trends continue, 80 percent of the women in Puerto Rico and Panama will be surgically sterilised. The US government itself directly paid for these sterilisations.

How did George H.W. Bush expect to get away with these insidious activities without serious objections from the victimised nationalities, or from US taxpayers, especially if the programme was somehow given widespread publicity? Quite aside from moral considerations, legal questions would naturally arise, but naturally Bush had expert legal advice. Boyden Gray had been counsel to George Bush since the 1980 election and as chief legal officer in the White House, he appraised the President of the dangers and complexities of waging such unusual warfare against Third World populations. Indeed, Gray was a master of intrigue and well knew how the system works.

When he was five years old, his father had organised the pilot project for the present worldwide sterilisation program, from the Gray family household in North Carolina. It began in 1946 when the eugenics movement was looking for a way to rise-up again in America. ‘The Sterilization League of America,’ which had changed its name during the war to ‘Birthright, Inc.,’ wanted to re-establish itself but first they had to overcome negative public opinion about their proposed elimination of ‘inferior’ and ‘defective’ people. It attempted to resurrect itself in Iowa, but failed due to negative publicity, especially as a small boy had recently been sterilised there and had died during the operation.

Then North Carolina was suggested for its attempted re-emergence, where the Gray family could play the perfect hosts. Through British imperial contacts, Boyden Gray’s grandfather, Bowman Gray, had become principal owner of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Boyden’s father, Gordon Gray, had recently founded the Bowman Gray (memorial) Medical School in Winston-Salem, using his inherited cigarette stock shares. The medical school was already a eugenics centre.

As the experiment began, Gordon Gray’s great aunt, Alice Shelton Gray, who had raised him from childhood, was living in his household. Aunt Alice had founded the ‘Human Betterment League,’ the North Carolina branch of the national eugenics and sterilisation movement. Alice was the official supervisor of the 1946-47 experiment and working alongside her was Dr. Claude Nash Herndon, whom Gordon Gray had made assistant professor of ‘medical genetics’ at Bowman Gray Medical School.

Dr. Clarence Gamble, heir to the Proctor and Gamble soap fortune, was the sterilisers’ national field operations chief and he had designed an experiment, which worked as follows . . .

All children enrolled in the school district of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, were given a special ‘intelligence test’ and those who scored below a certain arbitrarily-decided low mark were then surgically sterilised . . .

“In Winston-Salem and in Orange County, North Carolina, the Sterilization League’s field committee had participated in testing projects to identify school-age children who should be considered for sterilization. The project in Orange County was conducted by the University of North Carolina and was financed by a ‘Mr. Hanes,’ a friend of Clarence Gamble and supporter of the field work project in North Carolina. The Winston-Salem project was also financed by Hanes.” . . . from the official story of the project.

The medical school had a long history of interest in eugenics and had compiled extensive histories of families carrying inheritable diseases and in 1946, Dr. C. Nash Herndon made a statement to the press on the use of sterilisation to prevent the spread of inheritable diseases . . .

“The first step after giving the mental tests to grade-school children was to interpret and make public the results. In Orange County the results indicated that three percent of the school age children were either insane or feebleminded . . . Then the field committee hired a social worker to review each case . . . and to present any cases in which sterilization was indicated to the State Eugenics Board, which under North Carolina law had the authority to order sterilization . . . ”

‘Race-science’ experimenter Herndon, provided more details of their dastardly scheme in an interview in 1990 . . . “Alice Gray was the general supervisor of the project. She and Hanes sent out letters promoting the program to the commissioners of all 100 counties in North Carolina . . . What did I do? Nothing besides riding herd on the whole thing! The social workers operated out of my office. I was at the time also director of outpatient services at North Carolina Baptist Hospital. We would see the targeted parents and children there . . . I.Q. tests were run on all the children in the Winston-Salem public school system. Only the ones who scored really low were targeted for sterilization, the real bottom of the barrel, like below 70. Did we do sterilizations on young children? Yes. This was a relatively minor operation . . . . It was usually not until the child was eight or ten years old. For the boys, you just make an incision and tie the tube . . . We more often performed the operation on girls than with boys. Of course, you have to cut open the abdomen, but again, it is relatively minor.”

Herndon remarked that “ . . . we had a very good relationship with the press” for the project. This is unsurprising, since Gordon Gray himself owned the Winston-Salem Journal, the Twin City Sentinel and radio station WSJS.

In 1950 and 1951, John Foster Dulles, then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, led John D. Rockefeller III on a series of world tours, focussing on the need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations. In November 1952, Dulles and Rockefeller set up the Population Council, with tens of millions of dollars provided by the Rockefeller family. At that time, the American Eugenics Society, still cautious from the recent bad publicity of Hitler’s similar policies, left its old headquarters at Yale University and moved its headquarters into the office of the Population Council, and the two groups merged together.

The long-time secretary of the American Eugenics Society, Frederick Osborne, became the first president of the Population Council. The Gray family’s child-steriliser, Claude Nash Herndon, became president of the American Eugenics Society in 1953, as its work expanded under Rockefeller patronage. Meanwhile, the International Planned Parenthood Federation was founded in London, in the offices of the British Eugenics Society.

So, the despicable practice of the 1930s and WWII, Hitler’s so-called culling of the ‘useless’ members of society, but now more respectably re-branded and re-named ‘Population Control,’ had been revived. George Bush was US ambassador to the United Nations in 1972, when with more than a little cajoling from he and his friends, the US Agency for International Development first made an official contract with the old Sterilization League of America. The League had changed its name twice again, and was now known as the ‘Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception’ and thus the US government began paying the group to sterilise non-whites in foreign countries. The Gray family’s experiment had succeeded.

In 1988, the US Agency for International Development signed its latest contract with the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, committing the US government to spend $80 million over five years. Having got away with sterilising several hundred North Carolina school children of “not usually less than eight to ten years old,” the group was now authorised by President Bush to do the same in 58 countries in Asia, Africa and Ibero-America. The group modestly claimed that it had directly sterilised ‘only’ two million people, with 87% of the bill paid by US taxpayers. That’s OK then.

Meanwhile, Dr. Clarence Gamble formed his own ‘Pathfinder Fund’ as a break-away from the Sterilisation League. This fund, with additional millions from USAID, concentrated on penetration of local social groups in the non-white countries, to break down psychological resistance to the surgical sterilisation teams.

The sheer arrogance of these people is absolutely staggering. Just who do they think they are, playing ‘god’ in this manner? Obviously, ruining countless millions of lives is not really a concern to them, just so long as it furthers their own agenda. And after all, these people are just ‘useless eaters,’ anyway.

A Period of Unrest

Meanwhile, geopolitical strife continued in the United States, when a ban on strikes in effect throughout WWII ended, and labour unrest exploded. The US Bureau of Labour Statistics called the first six months of 1946, “ . . . the most concentrated period of labour-management strife in the country’s history.”

Workers wanting a share of the unprecedented profits being made by corporations went on strike in their millions. On 15th January, almost 200,000 electrical workers went on strike followed the next day by 93,000 meatpackers and five days later 750,000 steelworkers staged the largest strike in US history. Then in April, 340,000 coal miners walked-out, causing a nationwide ‘general strike.’ Railway workers soon followed suit, followed later in the year by oil refinery workers in twenty states. There was even a strike in Hollywood’s movie business.

But the government ‘struck’ back by seizing the meat-packing businesses, the railways, the coal mines and oil refineries in order to break the strikes. At a cabinet meeting, President Truman, in the true spirit of democracy, threatened to “hang a few traitors” in order to force the strikers back to work. Before a special session of Congress he demanded the authority to draft workers into the military and to impose criminal penalties on their leaders. The freedom-upholding Congressmen gave Truman a thunderous standing ovation for his uplifting words. The desire of working Americans to ask for a decent wage from the vast, obscene profits made by the banksters during the war, was of course, portrayed as being totally unacceptable by their puppets in government and the media.

International Intrigue

In 1950, the US Army established the School of the Americas on occupied territory in the Panama Canal Zone to “modernize and professionalize” Latin American armies by providing training in “counter-insurgency, weapons, psychological warfare and interrogation techniques,” to US-installed and maintained fascist dictatorships in Central and South America.

The School, run by the US Army, first opened its doors in 1946 in Panama. At that time it was called the ‘Latin American Training Center, Ground Division’ and its objective was to train Latin American soldiers in war and counter-insurgency techniques. In 1950, it was moved to its new location in Panama, and Spanish was adopted as its official language. It would remain there until 1984, when it was relocated to the US. Then in 1963, it was renamed United States Army School of the Americas, the name by which it would become internationally known.

The SOA was the largest and best-funded torture and terrorist training school in the world which has to-date produced over seventy thousand ‘graduates’ who count among their number a large proportion of Latin America’s most notorious dictators, torturers and death squad leaders. Leopoldo Galtieri (Argentina,) Roberto Viola (Argentina,) Hugo Banzer (Bolivia,) Manuel Noriega (Panama,) Juan Velasco Alvarado (Peru) and Omar Torrijos (Panama.) What reads like a ‘who’s who’ of Latin American dictators is but a small fraction of the long list of graduates from the School of the Americas.

Thanks to the co-operation of the US bankster-controlled mass media, most Americans have never even heard of it but, throughout Latin America, the SOA is known as the ‘School of Assassins.’ Aside from teaching assassination techniques, kidnap and torture, the good people at the School of the Americas thoroughly indoctrinate their ‘pupils’ in what is euphemistically called the ‘National Security Doctrine.’ Stripped of all euphemism, this means ruthlessly suppressing all opposition, including democratic opposition, in order to maintain US-compliant dictatorships in power. The goal, as always, was to guarantee virtually unlimited access to the region’s resources, labour-power and markets to American, bankster-owned multinational corporations.

In 1984, the School of Assassins was ousted from Panama and moved to Fort Benning, in the US state of Georgia and in 2001, and after the public outcry caused by the release of the training manuals, the school closed down and was replaced by the ‘Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation’ (WHINSEC.) SOA Watch and other human rights NGOs have been publicly denouncing WHINSEC ever since, as they consider it to be “the School of the Americas under a different name.” There has been no critical assessment of the way the school was conducted and therefore no real changes to its objectives, procedures and lack of independent control.

Egypt

King Farouk of Egypt was the 10th ruler from the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. He was overthrown in the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, and was forced to abdicate in favour of his infant son Ahmed Fuad, who succeeded him as King Fuad II. Farouk died in exile in Rome, Italy on the early morning hours of 18th March 1965 where he collapsed and died at the dinner table, following a characteristically heavy meal.

Some people, including his own daughter Princess Farial believed that he was poisoned by Egyptian Intelligence while he was dining at the Ile de France restaurant. No official autopsy was conducted on his body and his will stated that his burial place should be in the Mosque of Al Rifai’ in Cairo, but the request was denied by the Egyptian government under Gamal Abdel Nasser, and he was buried in Italy.

His son was king for less than a year and Egypt became a republic in 1953. Although he had famously promised his subjects that he would make every sacrifice in pursuit of their interests and of his duty as ruler, Farouk’s enduring legacy was his profligate life-style. While his nation was ranked among the poorest in the world, he ranked as one of the world’s richest men and often flaunted this in front of his people. Even in exile he continued to act the playboy so that ex-king Farouk, as he was known, was a popular party guest and was often mentioned in the gossip columns of the world’s media.

Farouk allegedly refused to donate money to aid poverty on the basis that, “ . . . if I donate my fortune to buy food, all of Egypt eats today, eats tomorrow and the day after that they are starving once again,” thereby rationalising his high living. Although he already had thousands of acres of land, dozens of palaces and hundreds of cars, and the world’s largest collection of comic books and pornography, the king never seemed satisfied with his wealth. He would often travel to Europe for grand shopping sprees. Then he began pilfering objects and artifacts while on state visits abroad, including a ceremonial sword from the Shah of Iran and even a pocket watch from Winston Churchill. Farouk soon became a highly-skilled pickpocket and won his nickname from his own citizens ‘The Thief of Cairo,’ to signify his well-known aptitude for theft.

The 1923 constitution had established a parliamentary system. However, he constantly interfered and appointed a succession of minority governments. He also excluded the Wafd party, which ran its own militia, the Blueshirts, from power except for a brief period (1942-1944.) Corruption scandals were endemic, resulting in public distrust of government and although constitutionally, Farouk did not have autocratic power, this did not prevent him from acting as if he did. Had he delivered what he promised, and shared power with others within a constitutional monarchy, he might have ensured the survival of his dynasty, which had been in power since 1805.

Egyptian democracy since the end of the monarchy has been fragile, with Presidents securing huge majority single-party elections and harassment of political dissenters. Had Farouk laid down a solid foundation for good, participatory, open governance, Egypt’s subsequent political history would have been very different. In this respect, he compares with other monarchs, such as Otto of Greece and Abdul Hamid II of the Ottoman Empire who also failed to shift from autocracy to democracy, bequeathing their politics an ambiguous heritage in terms of their relationship with democratic governance.

Farouk was widely condemned for his corrupt and ineffectual governance, the continued British occupation, and the Egyptian army’s failure to prevent the loss of 78% of Palestine to the newly formed State of Israel in the 1984 Arab-Israeli War. Public discontent against Farouk rose to new levels.

In the CIA, the project to overthrow King Farouk was internally known as ‘Fat Pig,’ and was initiated by CIA Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt after Roosevelt’s disappointment at King Farouk for not forming a useful alliance with him for the sake of improving the functionality and usefulness of his government to the US. The CIA supported the coup d’état against King Farouk by not opposing the efforts of the Free Officers, to overthrow him.

Finally, on 23rd July 1952, the Free Officers Movement under Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser staged a military coup that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. Farouk was forced to abdicate, and went into exile in Monaco and Italy where he lived for the rest of his life. Immediately following his abdication, Farouk’s baby son, Ahmed Fuad was proclaimed King Fuad II but for all intents and purposes Egypt was now governed by Naguib, Nasser and the Free Officers. Then in June 1953, the revolutionary government finally formally abolished the monarchy, ending 150 years of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty’s rule, and Egypt was declared a republic.

Iran

Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was a major political figure in modern Iranian history who served as the Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. This was the man whom Time magazine had called “The Iranian George Washington,” and who represented for Iranians a symbol of change, a champion of true secular democracy, and oversaw what was regarded by many Iranians as the only true freedom (political, individual, and religious) in 200+ years since the Persian Safavid Dynasty that ended in 1722.

Even his critics then and even today, still regard Mosaddegh as someone representing freedom, justice, and democracy in Iran and supported by all those that wanted a free and democratic Iran. He was an author, administrator, lawyer, parliamentarian, and the Prime Minister of Iran and in the West he is most famous as the architect of the failed nationalisation of the Iranian oil industry. For decades the Iranian oil and gas resources were controlled by the Imperial British banksters through military threats, intimidation, bribery, and coercion and referred to as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC,) later known as British Petroleum and now merely as BP. The British happily boasted that this single control of another country’s natural resources, was the most profitable British venture in its entire history, amounting to £600bn (inflation adjusted for 2016) for the duration of 60 years.

Britain spent the first half of the 20th century looting, robbing, and stealing resources of every country it could, including small islands in central Asia, Africa, Middle East, and throughout its colonies from every corner of the world — all on behalf of the Crown / the banksters / Royalty. The British military and merchant shipping used every means to plunder national assets of other countries and send the proceeds of its military might, interventionism, and political interference of developing countries back to its homeland banksters, depriving others of their rightful natural resources and national treasures.

Indeed Iranians still claim today that the British Empire’s ruthless control of Iranian oil resources robbed Iranian children of their birth-right, deprived a nation of its ability to build its infrastructure, and stripped them of their chosen democratic leaders. During these 60 years, Iranians received less than 1% of their own natural resources and most often these payments were made to only those that were willing to co-operate with the British occupation and control of Iranian oil fields.

“Iranians were deeply angry with the British company, which called itself the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and its refusal to accept a fair, 50 — 50% profit sharing with Iran as Aramco had with Saudi Arabia.” . . . according to Ahmad Sadeghi, Iran’s History Professor at University of Stanford.

In both WWI and WWII, Iran was neutral and did not act aggressively in any way, however, on both occasions the British declared war on Iran, attacked, invaded and occupied and installed a military puppet-government.

Dr. Mosaddegh, a European-educated lawyer in his seventies, was elected democratically and his main political agenda was to take back Iranian oil and gas resources from the powerful military of Britain and use the oil revenues to improve the quality of life, education, and the lives of the Iranian people. For that he was loved and cherished, then and still today by most Iranians. During his two years in political office he implemented many social changes including freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to organise a political party. His other improvements, included a retirement planning fund, urban development programme, protection of women from abuse, fair taxation laws, and other social and economic development bills. Indeed, Mosaddegh represented the Iranian people’s aspirations for independence and self-rule. During his first two years of office 1951-1953, Iran attempted to nationalise its oil and remove the British grip on Iranian resources, so Winston Churchill ordered the British navy to barricade all the Iranian ports. For two years no food, no milk, and no medicine, were delivered through Iranian ports and no ships were allowed to import or export from Iran. Churchill first tried to cajole President Truman to assist in ousting Mosaddegh, but he was not interested. However, his successor, President Eisenhower, certainly was.

Mosaddegh was removed from democratic power on 19th August 1953, by a CIA coup d’état, named ‘Operation TP-Ajax,’ instigated, planned, funded and executed by the United States with its operational centre based at the US Embassy in Teheran, the site for the hostage crisis, 27 years later, and now referred to by the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the ‘Den of Spies.’ The coup, which was all about the British domination of Iran’s oil, was headed by Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson, Kermit Roosevelt and to accomplish their aims, they had to return their puppet, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power through CIA-engineered protests and the wholesale bribery of Iranian officers. But the first phase was unsuccessful and the Shah fled Tehran, fearful that his life was in danger for his participation in the attempted overthrow of Mosaddegh. However, the second phase was more successful, and enabled the Shah to victoriously return to Iran where he remained in a 25-year dictatorship supported militarily by the United States. However, the Shah instigated the ‘Savak,’ a brutal and terrifying pseudo-police force that angered many Iranians and ignited hatred towards the Americans.

Although the people of Iran suspected CIA involvement, the US government, again with total media compliance, kept the coup d’état a secret from the American people and after the coup, the Shah’s new Iranian government awarded concessions to a consortium of major western oil companies. In this consortium, 40% of the shares went to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, renamed British Petroleum and 14% went to Royal Dutch Shell, thereby ensuring the British a majority vote. A group of American companies received a 40% share, a reward for their participation in the coup, and the French state company received a 6% share. How ‘fortunate’ for them. And Mosaddegh, who could never be bribed or corrupted, was imprisoned for three years and subsequently placed under house arrest until his death in 1967.

Decades later, a copy of the CIA’s secret history of the coup surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a plot that set the stage for the Islamic revolution in 1979, and for a generation of anti-American hatred in one of the Middle East’s most powerful countries. The document, which remains classified, disclosed the pivotal role that British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it showed that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West’s control over Iranian oil for its corporations.

Allen Dulles, (yes, him again) the director of the CIA, approved $1 million to be used “ . . . in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddegh. The aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party.”

Guatemala

The Guatemalan Colonel, Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán was a democratically elected President of his country in 1951, but in June, 1954 he was overthrown by yet another CIA-organised coup.

The government of Guzman was guilty of nothing other than behaving outrageously toward the bankster-powers, in guaranteeing freedom of the press, re-legalising labour unions, guaranteeing equal rights for women and native peoples and maintaining a one-term limit for Presidents.

Prior US-puppet dictatorships in Guatemala had sold vast tracts of land stolen from the indigenous Guatemalans to the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, which came to the country in 1904, for a pittance. United Fruit also owned the Guatemalan telephone and telegraph facilities, administered its only important Atlantic harbour and monopolised its vital banana exports. In addition a subsidiary of the company owned all the rail track in the country. Another US corporation controlled virtually all Guatemalan electric generation and all courtesy of various US-installed and maintained dictatorships.

In addition to his rash commitment to genuine democracy, a terrifying idea to the US banksters, Arbenz further angered the Rockefellers by building a public highway and another Atlantic harbour to compete with their monopolies. He also built a major hydro-electric project to provide electricity at lower rates than the American-owned monopoly. The concept of free enterprise and competition is, of course, almost as repugnant to the banksters as genuine democracy.

But Arbenz finally over-stepped his boundaries when he attempted to institute agrarian reform. In the overwhelmingly rural nation, 2.2% of the landowners, the Rockefellers and their bankster friends, owned 70% of the arable land. The average annual per capita income of agricultural workers was $87 and most were virtual slaves on large, corporate plantations, so Arbenz attempted to recover over half a million acres of unused land from United Fruit and offered to pay one hundred percent of the full value as declared for tax purposes by United Fruit itself in order to return it to the indigenous people from whom it had been stolen in the first place. The Rockefellers quickly decided that they must have been declaring inaccurate values for the land, and that it was really worth almost thirty two times the previously declared value.

And so, the conspiracy against Arbenz began under the Eisenhower regime. Rockefeller proxy cum-CIA Deputy-director, Allen Dulles was a former president of United Fruit (small world eh?) and his brother, the Nazi financier and shyster John Foster Dulles, soon to become US Secretary of State, was a major shareholder in United Fruit. Both Rockefeller cousins had been instrumental in financing the rise of Nazi Germany and, later, in extricating Prescott Bush, Sosthenes Behn and other pillars of the US ruling class from prosecution for treason, for their roles in financing and arming Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Not to be outdone in the corruption stakes, Under-secretary of State (and former Director of the CIA) Walter Bedell Smith was seeking an executive position with United Fruit at the same time as he was helping to plan the coup against Arbenz. Smith was later ‘elected’ to the Board of Directors by a grateful United Fruit.

Meanwhile, the CIA planned and launched a conspiracy it called ‘Operation PB Fortune’ to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Guatemala. A massive demonisation and propaganda campaign, under the name of ‘Operation Sherwood,’ was mounted by the CIA against Arbenz, employing the durable bogeyman of ‘communism’ as the plausible threat. Millions of dollars were allocated by the CIA for psychological warfare and propaganda on the American public. United Fruit diversified into the book publishing business and produced comprehensive lies such as the ‘Report on Guatemala,’ a book which it distributed to US Congressmen falsely claiming that Arbenz’s agrarian reforms had been planned in Moscow. In fact, Arbenz was far from being a Communist and repeatedly voted in the UN with the US against the Soviet Union. The CIA and United Fruit then began orchestrating and financing staged demonstrations and strikes against the Arbenz government.

Planning began at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for the systematic “neutralisation through executive action,” a euphemism for assassination of members of the elected Guatemalan government during the planned coup and a CIA psychological warfare campaign with leaflets and fake propaganda radio broadcasts was launched, along with the funding of an army of 400 men, which successfully caused Arbenz to resign and Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas to take his place as president. This was followed by a bloody Guatemalan civil war that raged for 36 years, with deaths estimated at 250,000 and plentiful human rights abuses. Guatemala is still to this day, in chaos as a result of the US subversion of the country’s sovereignty.

Belated and begrudging releases under the Freedom of Information Act in 1997 revealed that the CIA’s murderous conspiracy against members of the Guatemalan government was very detailed and included budgeting, training programmes, the creation of death squads, drafting of target lists and transfers of armaments to the killers.

Brazil

The one-time dictator Getulio Vargas, born in 1882, was democratically elected president of Brazil replacing Gaspar Dutra, a US puppet who had devoted his presidency to protecting American business interests. Vargas immediately launched a dramatic programme of economic development in Brazil, fully recognising workers’ rights and developing Brazilian resources for the benefit of Brazilians, a radical and dangerous concept indeed. In 1953, he nationalised Brazil’s considerable oil industry, creating the state-owned company Petrobras.

Then in 1954, he turned-up dead, the result of an apparently convenient suicide. A note was found accusing “imperialism and its internal accomplices” of blocking his efforts to govern Brazil for the benefit of Brazilians. He was fortunately succeeded though by Juscelino Kubitschek who immediately re-opened Brazil to unrestricted exploitation by American bankster-corporations.

Haiti

The United States supported the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of progressive black President Dumarais Estimé. Estimé’s government was the first in the twentieth century which truly represented Haiti’s black majority but Estimé was duly overthrown by Colonel Paul Magloire. With the support of the US, Magloire maintained his grip as dictator until 1956 when he fled into comfortable exile taking most of the contents of Haiti’s state treasury with him.

Cuba

The seeds of this bankster utopia, were sown when Ruben Fulgencio Batista Zaldívar was born in Cuba’s Oriente Province in 1901. In 1921, he joined the army as a private, and in 1932, he became a military tribunal stenographer with the rank of sergeant.

In an uprising known as the ‘Revolt of the Sergeants,’ Batista took over the Cuban government on 4th September 1933. The coup overthrew the liberal government of Gerardo Machado, and marked the beginning of the army’s influence as an organised force in the running of the government. It also signalled Batista’s emergence as self-appointed chief of the armed forces, king-maker and favoured US strong man. The US Ambassador, Benjamin Sumner Welles was sent to Cuba in April of 1933 to mediate on differences between the government and opposing political groups and found an ally in Batista. “You’re the only individual in Cuba today who represents authority,” he said to the recently self-appointed Chief of the Military. When Batista asked what the US “ . . . wanted done for recognition,” Welles replied, “I will lay down no specific terms. The matter of your government is a Cuban matter and it is for you to decide what you will do about it.” To Batista, this was an invitation to overthrow the existing government and on 14th January, Batista forced provisional president Ramón Grau San Martín to resign, and he appointed Carlos Mendieta to the presidency. Within five days, the US recognised Cuba’s new government.

For the next decade, Batista ran the country from behind the scenes, using puppet presidents which continued a thirty-year tradition of corruption. Batista was approved by American interests, who feared Grau’s liberal social and economic revolution and saw him as a stabilising force with respect for American interests. It was in this time period that Batista formed a renowned friendship and business relationship with gangster Meyer Lansky that lasted over three decades. Through Lansky, the mafia knew they had a ‘friend’ in Cuba.

One of Batista’s most bitter opponents, Antonio Guiteras (founder of the student group Jóven Cuba) was gunned down by government forces in 1935 while waiting for a boat in Matanzas province and several others just seemed to disappear into thin air. Batista’s chance to be President came in 1940. Supported by a coalition of political parties, and by the Communists, he defeated his old rival Grau San Martín in the first presidential election under a new Cuban constitution. During his presidency, trade relations with the US increased, and a series of war taxes were imposed on the Cuban population. However, in 1944, Grau San Martín was elected president and Batista was forced to relinquish control.

On 10th March 1952, almost twenty years after the ‘Revolt of the Sergeants,’ Batista took over the government once more, this time against elected Cuban president Carlos Prío Socorras. The coup took place three months before the upcoming elections that he was sure to lose. Also running in that election, (for a different office,) was a young, energetic lawyer named Fidel Castro. On 27th March, Batista’s government was formally recognised by US President Eisenhower.

Shortly after this recognition, Batista declared that, although he was completely loyal to Cuba’s constitution of 1940, constitutional guarantees would have to be temporarily suspended, as well as the right to strike. He also opened the way for large-scale gambling in Havana, and he reorganised the Cuban state so that he and his political appointees could harvest the nation’s riches and soon announced that his government would match, dollar for dollar, any hotel investment over $1 million, which would include a casino license, and the mobster Meyer Lansky became the centre of the entire Cuban gambling operation.

Under Batista, Cuba became profitable for American business and organised crime. Havana became the ‘Latin Las Vegas,’ a playground of choice for wealthy gamblers, and very little was said about democracy, or the rights of the average Cuban. All opposition was swiftly and violently crushed, and many began to fear the new government. Then just over a year after Batista’s second coup, a small group of revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro attacked the Moncada Army Barracks in Santiago on 26th July 1953. The attack was thwarted however and Batista sent General Martin Tamayo, the military commander of the district, a note ordering him to “ . . . kill ten rebels for every soldier killed” in the attack.

Having easily defeated the rebellion, and with Castro and most of the others in jail or dead, business was quickly back to normal in Cuba. Mafia boss Lansky turned Havana into an international drug-running port, and Cuban officials continued to get rich even after a few years in government.

Nightly, the ‘bagman’ for Batista’s wife collected 10% of the profits at Trafficante’s casinos, the Sans Souci, and the casinos in the hotels Sevilla-Biltmore, Commodoro, Deauville and Capri. Batista’s cut from the Lansky casinos, the Hotel Nacional, the Montmartre Club and others, was said to be 30% and that was aside from his fair share of Cuba’s general economy that should have been going to education, public health and city maintenance. Batista also approved contracts to dozens of US corporations for massive construction projects, such as the Havana-Varadero highway, the Rancho Boyeros airport, train lines, the power company and many others.

Due to popular unrest, and to appease his US friends, Batista held a mock election in which he was the only legal candidate. He won unsurprisingly, becoming President of Cuba again in 1954. The Cubans, however, did not trust him, and demanded new, legitimate elections. The distinguished Colonel Cosme de la Torriente, a surviving veteran of the Cuban War of Independence, emerged in late 1955 to offer a compromise. A series of meetings led by de la Torriente became known as ‘El Diálago Cívico’ (the civic dialogue.)

“This ‘Diálago Cívico’ represented what turned out to be the last hope for Cuban middle-class democracy, but Batista was far too strong and entrenched in his position to make any concessions.” Hugh Thomas

Batista was so confident of his own power that on 15th May 1955, he released Castro and the remaining survivors of the Moncada attack, hoping to appease some of his critics but within weeks it was rumoured that Batista’s military police was looking to kill Castro, so the rebel fled to Mexico to plan the revolution.

By late 1955, student riots and anti-Batista demonstrations had become frequent occurrences. These were dealt with in the usual violent manner that his military police had come to represent. Students attempting to march from the University of Havana were stopped and beaten by the police, and student leader José A. Echeverría was badly injured. Another popular student leader was killed in December, leading to a funeral that became a gigantic political protest with a 5-minute nationwide work-stoppage. But instead of loosening his grip, Batista suspended constitutional guarantees and instigated tighter censorship of the media. His military police would patrol the streets and pick up anyone suspected of insurrection and by the end of 1955, they had grown more prone to violent acts of brutality and torture, without fear of legal repercussions.

In March of 1956, Batista refused to consider a proposal calling for elections by the end of the year. He was confident that he could defeat any revolutionary attempt from the many factions who opposed him. Batista continued to rule with his usually confident iron fist, even after the return of Castro back to Cuba with Che Guevara alongside him, but this event marked the beginning of the armed conflict. Due to the students’ continued opposition to the dictator, the University of Havana was temporarily closed on 30th November 1956 and did not re-open until early 1959.

On 2nd December 1956, Castro and 81 armed men landed on the coast of Cuba. All of them were captured with the exception of Castro, Raul, Guevara, and nine others who retreated into the Sierra Maestra Mountain and commenced a guerrilla war on the Cuban government. With the aid of Cubans all throughout the country, Castro was able to claim victory over Batista’s demoralised army and with his promise of land reform, Castro received the support of the peasantry of Cuba, while on the other hand the United States still supported and gave aid to Batista.

But the seeds of the revolution had already sprouted a stronger, determined movement that would not allow the future of the Cuban nation to remain in the hands of gangsters and corrupt politicians. Another fake election in 1958 installed one last Batista puppet as President, but losing the support of the US government meant that his days in power were now numbered. By mid-1958 the United States had stopped giving aid to Batista’s regime and in the closing days of December, the ‘26th of July Movement’ under the leadership of Che Guevara led an attack on the city of Santa Clara, and Batista’s forces were defeated.

On 1st January 1959, after formally resigning his position in Cuba’s government and going through what historian Hugh Thomas describes as ‘a charade of handing over power’ to his representatives, his remaining family and closest associates boarded a plane at 3am at Camp Colombia and flew to Ciudad Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. Fidel Castro thus assumed control of the Cuban government’s 30,000 man army. Che Guevara however, was eventually executed in Bolivia in 1967, by CIA-backed Bolivian government forces.

The United States initially recognised the new Cuban government but immediately withdrew its support after Castro launched agrarian reform, nationalised US assets on the island, and declared a Marxist government. Many of Cuba’s wealthier citizens fled to the United States where they eventually joined the CIA in attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro.

The Suez Crisis

On 26th July 1956, Gamal Abdul Nasser, the President of Egypt, addressed a huge crowd in the city of Alexandria. Nasser stunned even his enthusiastic supporters with the vehemence of his diatribe against British imperialism. Britain had ruled Egypt, one way or another, from 1882 to 1922, when the protectorate gained nominal independence, and continued to influence Egyptian affairs thereafter, maintaining troops there and supporting the decadent monarchy overthrown by Nasser in 1952.

In that speech in Alexandria, though, Nasser chose to delve back even further into history, in a long diatribe on the building of the Suez Canal a century earlier. This gave him the chance to mention the name of the Frenchman who had built the canal, Ferdinand de Lesseps. This he did at least 13 times and ‘de Lesseps,’ it turned out, was the code-word for the Egyptian army to start the seizure, and nationalisation, of the canal. In the same year, that the first American oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania (1859,) construction of the Suez Canal began. It was a British and French venture that was financed by the Rothschilds. Later, the British gained control of the canal under the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 and a huge quantity of oil was destined to pass through the 120 mile long, 79 ft. deep, and 673 ft. wide canal.

The ‘Suez Crisis,’ as the events of the following months came to be called, marked the humiliating end of imperial influence for two European countries, Britain and France and cost the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, his job and, by showing up the shortcomings of the Fourth Republic in France, hastened the arrival of the Fifth Republic under Charles de Gaulle. It also promoted pan-Arab nationalism, completed the transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute into an Israeli-Arab one and provided a distraction that encouraged the Soviet Union to violently put down an uprising in Hungary in the same year.

In Egypt, the British had become so resented for their racist, arrogant ways that by the early 1950s even the mass-murdering war-criminal and traitor Winston Churchill, the ‘banksters’ friend,’ who had returned as Prime Minister in 1951, felt he could resist the tide of nationalism no more. After 1951, the British were confined to the Suez Canal Zone, harassed by Egyptian irregulars who wanted them out altogether and by June 1956 the last British soldiers had left even the Canal Zone.

Yet Anglo-Egyptian relations did not improve. Nasser was enraged by America’s withdrawal of its offer of loans to help pay for the building of a dam on the Nile at Aswan as this project was central to his ambitions to modernise Egypt. But John Foster Dulles, the American Secretary of State, thought the dam would place too much strain on the resources of newly independent Egypt. For their part, the British, mistrustful of Nasser were also ready to withdraw their loan offer. So, Dulles thought it best to let the Russians take on the dam, as he knew they would if the West backed out. He did not, however, bargain for Nasser’s immediate response, the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, whose substantial revenues, Nasser argued, Egypt now needed to replace the loans promised by Britain and America for the dam.

The media reaction in Britain was unanimous in condemning Nasser, with comparisons immediately made to Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s. This in fact, was later to become the tried and trusted tactic for demonisation of any foreign leader unsympathetic to British/US hegemony. Eden, who had succeeded Churchill as PM the year before, argued that the canal was Britain’s “great imperial lifeline,” especially for oil and Nasser therefore, could not be allowed to have his hand “on our windpipe.” Nasser was described by Eden, as “the Mussolini of the Nile” even though, scarcely a year earlier, he had warmly shaken Nasser’s hand in an exchange of congratulations over a new Anglo-Egyptian treaty.

Britain (along with France) then began to co-ordinate plans for a military invasion of Egypt and a reoccupation of the Canal Zone. But their sabre-rattling was greeted with scepticism by the Americans, and by Eisenhower in particular, who from the beginning was against the use of force by his two main allies. One concern for him was that the Presidential election due that November, which he intended to win as the incumbent ‘peace’ President. He knew that the voters would not thank him for taking them into another foreign skirmish in which America had no direct interest. Also intensifying his scepticism was a fear that, in the new Cold War, any British and French bullying of Egypt would alienate Arabs, Asians and Africans and drive them towards communism. And so to head-off Anglo-French military action, Eisenhower and his Secretary of State enmeshed the Europeans in an endless merry-go-round of talks and conferences.

Aware that they were on shaky legal ground for an invasion, the British and French reluctantly played along but they were also cogniscent of the fact that they were losing the momentum for military action, which was the American intention. The increasingly histrionic Eden, in particular, wanted not only the reversal of the canal’s nationalisation but also regime change. He wanted Nasser, “destroyed.”

Israel now decided to enter the fray, and take full advantage of the situation . . . The Israelis wanted an excuse to seize the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. It held secret talks with Britain and France and the British and French forces now had a pretext to invade on behalf of their ‘ally.’ The Israelis, also wanted Egypt ‘punished’ for its escalating incursions into Israel via Gaza and this would also bind the major European powers to Israel’s cause. Up to that point, the French had tried to be even-handed between Israel and its neighbours and the British, as unlikely as that sounds today, had always favoured the Arab states.

So, Eden eventually agreed to an illegal joint attack on Egypt. Detailed notes of discussions during the Suez crisis of 1956 taken by the Cabinet Secretary Sir Norman Brook, and released in 2008, showed the extent to which the British Government sought to cover up its ‘collusion’ with Israel as a pretext for invasion of Egyptian territory after Nasser’s nationalisation of the strategically important waterway. Previous documents have confirmed that Eden held secret talks with French officials in October 1956 to formulate a plan in which Israel was to attack Egypt allowing France and Britain to step in, supposedly as peace keepers, to seize the canal.

It was Winston Churchill’s puppeteer, and the Zionist-bankster traitor, Lord Victor Rothschild, who pushed Harold Macmillan and Anthony Eden into intervening on Israel’s behalf in the Suez Crisis. The phone of Rothschild’s ‘Mr. Fix-it,’ Arnold Goodman was ‘tapped’ and this placed pressure through blackmail on Eden to send-in British troops. Future PM Harold Macmillan’s wife Dorothy, had had a 30-year affair with the Tory peer, Lord Boothby, not a good choice as he was a promiscuous bi-sexual and Goodman regularly threatened people about talking to newspapers. He was certainly a man who knew where the ‘bodies were buried.’

He kept the police at bay from people such as Tom Driberg, Sir Anthony Blunt and Lord Boothby who were regularly seen at parties with young teenage boy-prostitutes and arrested in public toilets. It is probable, that Goodman, acting as the go-between for Victor Rothschild and Winston Churchill, was also able to blackmail Macmillan because of his homosexual activities. Then as now, so many politicians were easy prey for blackmail, due mostly to their avid sexual perversions, which is of course part of the reason why they attain high office in the first place. In fact the more blackmail-able they are, the better, for their bankster-controllers.

It was indeed Lord Goodman who conveyed the Rothschild plan to then Chancellor of the Exchequer Harold Macmillan and Prime Minister Anthony Eden and that was that Britain must intervene on Israel’s behalf over Suez. The plan was for Israel to invade the Sinai Peninsula as a reprisal for unspecified terrorist acts, at which point the British and French would go through diplomatic motions and end-up occupying the Canal Zone. The Israelis were to begin on the evening of 29th October and the British and French would deliver ultimatums to Israel and Egypt the following morning, destroy Egypt’s Air Force on the ground early in the morning of 31st October after Nasser’s certain rejection of the ultimatum terms, and follow all this with landings in the Canal Zone.

There was a secret meeting at Sèvres, outside Paris, between 19th and 22nd October, in which the Israelis, the British and the French agreed that the Israeli army should invade Egypt and that Britain and France would then intervene, instruct the Israeli and Egyptian armies to withdraw their forces either side of the canal, and then place an Anglo-French intervention force in the Canal Zone around Port Said. It was to be named, ‘Operation Musketeer,’ and the British people were duly summoned from their post-war lethargy by newspaper headlines editorials condemning those who questioned Eden’s right to use military force.

So on 29th October, Israeli paratroopers, led by a zealous officer named Ariel Sharon, were dropped into Sinai to fulfil their side of the bargain. Feigning surprise, the British and French issued an ultimatum to both sides to cease fire and when the Egyptians rejected this, British planes began bombing the Egyptian air force on the ground and on 5th November, Anglo-French troops went ashore to begin the invasion of the Canal Zone and, it was hoped, topple Nasser. Eisenhower, who had been kept completely ‘in the dark,’ felt totally betrayed by his erstwhile allies. “I’ve just never seen great powers make such a complete mess and botch of things,” he told his aides and determined to halt the whole enterprise.

America struck at Britain’s fragile economy. It refused to allow the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to provide emergency loans to Britain unless it called off the invasion and so, faced by imminent financial collapse, on 7th November, Eden surrendered to American demands and ended the operation, with his troops stranded half-way down the canal. The French were furious, but were obliged to agree; their troops were under British command.

The French learned a valuable lesson from the situation. Suez had now proved that they could never rely on Britain. Europe’s strongest power, would, it seemed always put its ‘special relationship’ with America above its European interests and the Americans, to the French, were both unreliable and annoyingly superior. So the French were obliged to look elsewhere for more durable allies, a search that was, by one account, short. The story goes that on the evening of 6th November, when Mollet got the call from Eden that he was aborting the invasion, he happened to be with the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. The French foreign minister, Christian Pineau, recorded Adenauer as saying that . . . “France and England will never be powers comparable to the United States . . . Not Germany either. There remains to them only one way of playing a decisive role in the world and that is to unite Europe . . . We have no time to waste, Europe will be your revenge.”

Thus was born the six-country European common market, which has now become the 25-country European Union. The founding Treaty of Rome was signed the very next year, in 1957 and the French, particularly Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, kept the British, America’s ‘Trojan Horse,’ out of it for as long as they could, until 1973 in fact. France had by then made itself truly independent of American military power (unlike the British) by building its own nuclear deterrent from scratch and, in 1966, leaving NATO’s integrated command structure.

But it was the British that were hurt most by Suez, and indeed humiliated before the whole world. Eden resigned soon afterwards, his health wrecked, his reputation in tatters, his lies and evasions had severely damagd the country’s always tendentious reputation for fair play. The crisis exploded Britain’s lingering imperial pretensions, and hastened the independence of its colonies. The primary lesson of Suez for the British was that the country would never be able to act independently of America again. Unlike the French, who have sought to lead Europe, most British politicians ever since have been content to bow to America’s demands.

Then President Eisenhower won his re-election in America. The crisis had affirmed the country’s new status as the global superpower, challenged only by the Soviet Union. Suez was also to be the last incident in which America was to take action against Israel. As Eisenhower had feared, the Russians moved into the Middle East to fill the gap left by the disorderly retreat of the British, so the Americans felt compelled to step-in too. Thus the cold war spread to North Africa and Israel became ever more closely tied to the United States. Before 1956, Israel had been militarily vulnerable, but, beyond the Arab world, morally and politically unassailable.

The Israeli occupation of Sinai and Gaza in 1956 began the gradual inversion of this state of affairs, as it marked the first expansion of Israel beyond its original borders, with all the subsequent criticisms of its occupation of Arab or Palestinian land. In 1956 the Israelis were quickly forced to withdraw from Sinai by American (and Russian) pressure. Never again, however, would an American president stand against Israel, as Eisenhower had done at Suez.

The chief victor of Suez, in the short term, was Nasser. Before the crisis he had faced lingering opposition in Egypt, not only from the former ruling-classes but also from communists and the radical Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood. ‘Pulling the British Lion’s tail’ and getting away with it, proved wildly popular and as dissidents fled, fell silent or filled its jails, Nasser’s Egypt projected itself as the vanguard of Arab nationalism and an inspiration to liberation movements across the third world.

Nasser’s 1956 triumph endured in Arab memory as a moment of liberation but his victory was won by superpower intervention, all as a result of a complex pre-determined bankster plan. A plan that constantly reconfigures power in the world, this time giving the centuries old British role, of the banksters’ military and political muscle to the new, supreme superpower, the United States, and thereby further ramping-up the Cold War, and preparing the Middle East for decades of perpetual conflict which continues to this very day.

Of course, the American bankster Empire had been steadily building since the beginning of the 20th century, at the same time that the British bankster Empire was declining. Certainly, this power-shift, this re-drawing of the world map was all planned that way, whether the participants knew it or not and the banksters’ main base of operations, the City of London, was still the same stronghold it had always been. It is only on the surface and to the ignorant masses that the United States seems to be in charge of its own destiny. But everything is an illusion of the real truth and it is the banksters’ ongoing game, pitting nation against nation, until there are no nations anymore enabling the New World Order to sneak-in through the back door to fill the cavernous gap.

The ‘Death Rattle’ of Empire

Even well before the Suez Crisis, from 1945 on, successive British governments confronted with freedom demands from national movements in British colonies, used armed force in attempts to crush them. These happenings were often hidden from view and/or had their events distorted by biased reporting and therefore constitute ‘hidden history’ for most British people. Just as the Victorian wars to build the Empire had been accompanied by waves of jingoism and propaganda, so the run-down of Empire followed a similar pattern. During these conflicts cinema news (later TV) and the written press assumed the task of imperial cheer-leaders, with great relish.

In 1914, the British Empire had occupied a quarter of the Earth, ruled by King George V, and included countries like India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, as well as large swathes of Africa, the West Indies and the Far East. The outbreak of WWI generated a huge response from the Empire. A total of over 8.5 million men were raised for military and naval service, in all. Twenty per cent of volunteers were from Africa and the Caribbean, but the vast majority were from India. The British run Indian Army was the largest volunteer army in the world. Cocooned in a bankster-generated media web of pro-war and pro-Empire propaganda, the British public rarely asked any questions. (Nothing much changes, really.) The truth was quite different to reality however as these ‘small’ wars were about power, hegemony, natural resources, cheap labour and corporate profits and where intimidation, internment, torture and mass-murder was systematically used to protect ‘British interests.’

In the Far East, following the end of WWII, there were a series of ‘strikes’ by British servicemen, mainly initiated by the slow rate of demobilisation, but some men also protested against the colonial role that some of these battle-weary veterans were now being ordered to fulfil. From 1939 to 1945 Britain’s armed forces had been filled with valiant combatants who had fought Nazism because they had been convinced that it was repugnant, and that it would stop a foreign power i.e. Germany, from occupying their country.

The British Army had emerged from the war highly mechanised with a formidable array of weaponry which was then returned to its role as the Empire guard — in other peoples’ countries. As the pink-coloured areas denoting the Empire gradually shrank in school atlases, back home, the British people took little notice — except when new ‘trouble spots’ were first drawn to their attention. 1968, was in fact the first year following the end of WWII that a British soldier had not died in action somewhere in the world, fighting for some natural resource that only made the banksters richer. But up until that date, conflicts of varying intensity had included:

Greece 1944-47.
Palestine 1945-48.
Vietnam 1945.
Indonesia 1945-46.
India/Pakistan 1945-47.
Aden 1947.
Ethiopia 1948-51.
British Honduras 1948.
Malaya 1948-60.
Korea 1950-53.
Kenya 1952-56
Cyprus 1954-59.
Aden 1955-60.
Hong Kong 1956, 1962, 1966, 1967.
Oman 1957-59, 1965.
Jamaica 1960.
Cameroon 1960-61.
Kuwait 1961.
Brunei 1962.
Malaysia 1962-66.
British Guiana 1966.
Swaziland 1963.
Tanganyika 1964.
Mauritius 1965-68.
Bermuda 1968.

‘The Guardian’ newspaper 2nd June 1975

Then, just one year later, in 1969, British troops were ordered to make ready for possible duty in Northern Ireland. Many soldiers, especially the veterans of previous colonial wars, could not believe that they would experience much opposition or resistance so close to home but in a part of Britain’s oldest colony, Ireland, the scene was being set for the longest ‘small war’ in the run-down of Empire.

Tensions between the Catholic and Protestant communities spilled over into violence, prompting the government to order troops onto the streets of Northern Ireland in 1969. Direct rule was imposed in 1972 as the violence escalated and paramilitary groups became increasingly deadly and the violence spread to mainland Britain. More than 3,600 people, most of them civilians, died. Britain had been practicing geopolitics, long before the term was first used in 1902 but up until then, it was simply called colonisation and indeed no-one was better at it than the British.

More ‘Big Oil’ Shenanigans

The ‘Seven Sisters’ name as applied to ‘Big Oil,’ came from the independent Italian oil man Enrico Mattei who in the 1960s began negotiating with Algeria, Libya and other nationalistic OPEC states who wanted to sell their oil internationally without having to deal with the Seven Sisters. Algeria had a long history of defying Big Oil and was once ruled by President Houari Boumedienne, one of the great Arab socialist leaders of all time, who initiated the original ideas for a more just ‘New International Economic Order’ in fiery speeches at the UN, where he encouraged producer cartels modelled on OPEC as a means to Third World emancipation. Obviously, Mattei had become a threat to the banksters and their Big Oil friends.

On 27th October 1962, Mattei one of Italy’s most powerful businessmen, who headed up the largest oil firm in Europe, ENI, died in a plane crash when his small plane crashed in a storm close to the village of Bascapè in Lombardy. Two others on board were killed, including his pilot, the Italian war hero Irnerio Bertuzzi, and a Time-Life journalist named William McHale. The Italian Minister of Defence, Giulio Andreotti, was assigned to personally oversee the accident investigation and reported that it was simply a terrible loss in bad weather, and thus the matter was settled — or was it?

Many powerful ‘Big Oil’ players would have been deliriously happy to see the end of Mattei, a politically powerful industrial leader who had trespassed on French policy in Algeria, made enemies that spanned Europe and was even declared an ‘obstacle’ by the National Security Council. Furthermore, he was reputed to be ‘persona non grata’ by several of Italy’s top mafia bosses. Indeed, he seemed to travel freely around the world making deals, even if they were in direct opposition to the interests of Italy, Europe and the Western powers — and therefore the banksters — in general. He made private oil deals with the Soviet Union, forged new relationships in the Arab world, and worked with the pro-independence Algerian forces against the interests of France.

Thus, questions began to mount almost from the start. The Ministry of Defence in Italy released a report five months after the crash and concluded that the aircraft had been destroyed not in the air, but by an ‘explosion’ that had taken place on the ground just short of the runway at Linate Airport in Milan. This added to the huge doubts already surrounding the official version of events.

Eight years after the crash, in 1970, a movie producer began preparations to film ‘The Mattei Affair,’ which was to relate some of the mysterious aspects and suspicions regarding his so-called crash. A journalist named Mauro de Mauro was hired to investigate Mattei’s last days in Sicily. However, just eight days after obtaining an audio tape of Mattei’s last speech, on 16th September 1970, while investigating in Sicily, he disappeared and his body has never been found. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Another series of mergers in the oil industry began in the early 1960s. Eight of the top twenty-five oil companies in 1960 had merged by 1970. Exxon bought Monterey Oil and Honolulu Oil. Chevron acquired Standard Oil of Kentucky. Atlantic Oil merged with Richfield Refining to form ARCO, which then consumed Sinclair and also, Marathon Oil bought Plymouth Refining.

And then in the 1980s, Chevron bought Gulf, Texaco purchased Getty Oil. Mobil bought Superior Oil and BP took-over both Britoil and Sohio (Standard Oil of Ohio). ARCO bought City Services and US Steel purchased Marathon Oil. The 1984 discovery of North Sea oil consolidated the position of Big Oil — especially Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon — whose Shell Expro joint venture was awarded the prime concessions.

In 1985 Shell bought Occidental Petroleum’s Columbian interests. In 1988 it took over Tenneco’s assets in that country. The 1990s saw Amoco (Standard Oil of IN) merging with BP to form BP Amoco. In 1999 BP Amoco bought ARCO, giving the company 72% ownership of the Alaskan Pipeline.

A further tidal wave of mergers at the turn of the millennium transformed the Seven Sisters — Royal Dutch/Shell, British Petroleum, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and Gulf — into a more tightly controlled bankster cartel, ‘The Four Horsemen,’ Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco, Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco.

The four ‘oil’ horsemen of the apocalypse

Today the Rockefeller family fortune is even more heavily invested in downstream oil operations such as petrochemicals and plastics, as well as in industries that are dependent on oil such as banking, aerospace and automobiles.

The ‘Four Horsemen’ have all followed the money downstream. They are the world’s largest refiners and marketers of crude oil in all of its various end-product forms. Royal Dutch/Shell is both the leading marketer and refiner of crude oil and is currently the source of one in ten barrels of refined product in the world. Its bottom line has benefited greatly from this downstream move with the firm showing record profits starting in 1988 and many years since. 77% of Shell profits now come from petrochemicals.

By 1969, Exxon owned 67 oil refineries in 37 countries. Over 60% of Exxon’s 1991 profits came from downstream operations. In the first quarter of that year alone, Exxon made a $2.4 billion profit, the highest (inflation-adjusted) quarterly profit since Rockefeller founded Standard Oil of New Jersey in 1882. It was no coincidence that the Gulf War was being prosecuted during this time, with Exxon meeting much of the demand generated by the US military and its allies.

In the early 1990s Exxon bought the plastics division of Allied Signal and entered joint ventures with both Dow and Monsanto in the thermoplastic elastomer realm. According to Exxon Mobil’s 2001 10K filing to the SEC, the company netted $17 billion in year 2000. From 2003-2006, during the US occupation of Iraq, the company regularly broke its own record for biggest quarterly profit by any corporation in US history.

The ‘Four Horsemen’ own every major pipeline in the world and the vast majority of all oil super-tankers. Royal Dutch/Shell has 114 ships in its fleet and recently added seven giant liquefied natural gas tankers. Shell has 133,000 employees worldwide and in 1991, boasted assets of $105 billion. Shell’s ‘Bullwinkle’ oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico is taller than the world’s highest building. The Four Horsemen also have interlocking directorates with the international mega-banks. Exxon Mobil shares board members with JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Prudential. Chevron Texaco has interlocks with Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase. BP Amoco shares directors with JP Morgan Chase whilst Shell has ties with Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, N. M. Rothschild & Sons and the Bank of England.

The oil-bankster links go on and on. Former Citibank chairman Walter Shipley sat on Exxon Mobil’s board, as did Wayne Calloway of Citigroup and Allen Murray of JP Morgan Chase. Willard Butcher of Chase sat on the board of Chevron Texaco. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan came from Morgan Guaranty Trust and served on the board of Mobil. BP Amoco director Lewis Preston went on to become president of the World Bank. William Johnston Keswick, whose family controls Hong Kong powerhouse Jardine Matheson, also sat on the board of BP Amoco. Keswick’s son is a director at HSBC. The Hong Kong connection is even stronger at Shell. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster sat on the boards of Shell, N. M. Rothschild & Sons, Rio Tinto and Inchcape. Cathay Pacific Airlines owner and HSBC insider Sir John Swire was a director at Shell, as was Sir Peter Orr, who joined Armstrong on Inchape’s board. Shell director Sir Peter Baxendell joined Armstrong on the board of Rio Tinto, while Shell’s Sir Robert Clark sits on the board of the Bank of England.

As a result of the bankster-initiated de-regulation in the US, companies no longer have to report their top shareholders to the SEC. According to 1993 10K reports filed by the Four Horsemen, the Rothschild, Rockefeller and Warburg banking combines still control Big Oil. The Rockefellers exert control through New York mega-banks and Banker’s Trust, which in 1999 was purchased by the Warburg-controlled Deutsche Bank in its bid to become the largest bank in the world.

As of 1993, Banker’s Trust was the primary shareholder in Exxon. Chemical Bank was fourth highest and J.P. Morgan was fifth and both are now part of JP Morgan Chase. Banker’s Trust was also leading shareholder at Mobil and BP listed Morgan Guaranty as its biggest owner in 1993, whilst Amoco listed Banker’s Trust as its second highest shareholder. Chevron listed Banker’s Trust as its fifth largest shareholder, while Texaco listed J.P. Morgan as its no. 4 owner and Banker’s Trust as no. 9.

I could go on and on but I think you may now be ‘getting the picture.’ We can expect these companies, all of which rank in the top 10 of the Fortune 500 Global Ranking, to announce trillions of dollars more in profits, after earning $375 million in profits per day in 2011 ($261,000 per minute), and $368 million per day in the first three-months of 2012, bringing their combined profits to $1 trillion from 2001 through 2011.

These five oil companies received $6.6 million in tax concessions every day, $4 billion per year. The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives to weaken public health safeguards and to maintain Big Oil tax breaks. In 2011, the three largest US public oil companies spent $100 million of their profits each day, or over 50 percent, buying back their own stock to enrich their board, senior managers, and largest shareholders.

Each CEO of the Big Five companies received an average of $60,110 in compensation per day and on average, their salaries increased by 55% in 2011. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson’s ‘compensation’ came close to $100,000 per day last year.

Maybe now you can understand why the banksters do not encourage cheaper and more efficient, alternate energy. In fact, the contrary is true. They spend millions per year actually suppressing the discovery and production of alternative ‘free’ energy forms.

Suppressed Technologies and Free Energy

As early as the late 1880s, trade journals in the electrical sciences sphere, were predicting free electricity and free energy in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming commonplace and Nikola Tesla was demonstrating ‘wireless-lighting’ and other wonders associated with high frequency currents. There was indeed much excitement about the future, such as had never been seen before.

Within 20 years, there would be cars, planes, movies, recorded and amplified music, telephones, radio and easily portable cameras and the Victorian Age was giving way to a truly technologically-based future. For the first time in history, the masses were being encouraged to envision a utopian future filled with abundant modern aids and communication, as well as plenty of jobs, housing and food for everyone. Disease would be conquered as would poverty, life was improving exponentially for the previously dispossessed and everyone was going to benefit from this ‘brave new world’ of science. So, what happened to shatter this optimistic illusion? Where did all the promises of ‘free’ energy breakthroughs go? Was it all simply wishful thinking that science eventually disproved?

Actually, the answer to that question is ‘no’. In fact, the opposite is true. Many free energy technologies were developed with all the other breakthroughs and even since that time, multiple methods for producing vast amounts of energy, free or at worst, extremely low cost have been developed. None of these technologies have ever managed to find their way to the bulk of the world’s consumers however. Exactly why this is the case, I will discuss shortly. But first, here is a short list of free energy technologies that are currently in existence and that are proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be effective. The common feature connecting all of these discoveries is that they use a small amount of one form of energy to control or release a large amount of a different kind of energy. Some of them tap into the underlying ether field in some way; a source of energy which is conveniently ignored by ‘modern science’ and technology.

Wireless Electricity

The Serbian inventor Nikola Tesla, whose contribution to subsequently suppressed technologies cannot be underestimated, was the undisputed ‘father’ of many of the inventions that define the modern electronic era and was the first person to demonstrate this principle, in 1890.

Tesla based his wireless electricity idea on a concept known as electromagnetic induction, which was discovered by Michael Faraday in 1831 and purports that electric current flowing through one wire can induce current to flow in another wire, nearby. To illustrate that principle, Tesla built two huge ‘world power’ towers that would broadcast current into the air, to be received remotely by electrical devices around the globe.

Few believed it could work and to be fair to the doubters, it did not work that well. When Tesla first switched on his 200 foot-tall, 1,000,000-volt Colorado Springs tower, 130-foot-long bolts of electricity shot out of it, sparks played around the toes of passers-by and the grass around the laboratory glowed blue. Despite this initial failure, there is little doubt that Tesla eventually succeeded in his quest to produce wireless electricity, but it has remained commercially un-used and dormant for more than one hundred years, largely due to the energy cartels’ suppression of the technology to protect their own profit-streams.

Mechanical Heaters

There are two classes of machines that transform a small amount of mechanical energy into a large amount of heat. The best of these purely mechanical designs are the rotating cylinder systems designed by Frenette in the US and Perkins, also in the US. Within these machines, one cylinder is rotated within another cylinder with about one eighth of an inch of clearance between them. The space between the cylinders is filled with a liquid such as water or oil, and it is this fluid that heats-up as the inner cylinder spins. Another method uses magnets mounted on a wheel to produce large currents in a plate of aluminium, causing the aluminium to heat rapidly. These magnetic heaters have been demonstrated by several scientists from various countries. All of these systems can produce ten times more heat than standard methods using the same energy input.

Super-Efficient Electrolysis (The Water-Powered Car)

Water can be broken down into its constituent parts of hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. Mainstream science however, claims that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only in the worst case scenario. When water is bombarded with its own molecular resonant frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyers and also by others, it collapses into hydrogen and oxygen gas with very little electrical input. Also, using different electrolytes (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) changes the efficiency of the process dramatically. It is also known that certain geometric structures and surface textures are more effective than others. The implication of this is that unlimited amounts of hydrogen fuel can be made to drive engines eg. in cars, for simply the cost of water. Even more amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman in 1957 that spontaneously breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical changes in the metal itself. This in effect means that this special metal alloy can make hydrogen from water free of cost, forever.

Stan Meyers, the American inventor of a working, patented vehicle that ran only on normal, household water, was allegedly murdered by poisoning in the late 1990s after successfully demonstrating his prototype which was capable of 100mph+. He had been the subject of harassment and threats by bankster ‘Big Oil’ interests and his death was perhaps the not too surprising culmination of his refusal to cease the project or to be ‘bought-out’ by them.

So what is happening today regarding Meyers’ great invention? Absolutely nothing. The patent still exists and is available to view on the Internet, so therefore the technology or at least the wherewithal to recreate the technology, still exists, so why is this invention not being manufactured today? Simply because it would solve all the world’s energy problems instantly and almost literally overnight, eliminate oil as an essential fuel and as we now know, that is not how politics and commerce works. It is always money that rules and common sense is not the determining factor.

Implosion Engine

All current, major industrial engines use the release of heat to cause expansion and pressure to produce energy, as in a standard internal combustion engine. Nature uses the opposite process of cooling to cause suction and vacuum to produce energy as in a tornado. Viktor Schauberger of Austria was the first to build working models of implosion engines in the 1930s and 1940s. Since that time, Callum Coats has published extensively on Schauberger’s work in his book ‘Living Energies’ and subsequently, a number of researchers have built working models of implosion turbine engines. These are fuel-less engines that produce mechanical work from energy accessed from a vacuum. There are also much simpler designs in existence that use vortex motions to tap a combination of gravity and centrifugal force to produce a continuous, perpetual motion in fluids.

Cold Fusion

In March 1989, two chemists from the University of Utah announced that they had produced atomic-fusion reactions in a simple table-top device. The claims were forcefully ‘debunked’ within six months and the public subsequently lost interest. Nevertheless, cold fusion is a very real phenomenon and not only has excess heat production been repeatedly documented, but also low-energy atomic element transmutation has been catalogued, involving many different reactions. This technology definitely could produce low-cost energy and prove beneficial in many, many other important industrial processes, without the need for oil, gas, electricity or conventional nuclear power.

In addition to the above list of examples, there are dozens of other inventions that have been omitted due to space constraints. Many of them are just as viable and well tested as the ones listed, but this short list is sufficient to prove the point; free energy technology is here, now. It offers the world pollution-free, energy abundance for everyone, everywhere for next to nothing at all. All these possibilities provide wonderful benefits that could make life on this planet so much easier and better for everyone, yet have been suppressed and covered-up for many decades. Why should this be? Whose purposes are served by this action and what forces are impeding the availability of free-energy?

In the western world and as discussed in a previous section, there is a money-monopoly in place. This money-monopoly is solely in the hands of a small number of privately-owned banks, and these banks are owned by the wealthiest families in the world, the bankster bloodlines. Their future plan is to eventually control 100% of all of the capital resources of the world, and thereby control everyone’s life through the availability (or non-availability) of all goods and services. Therefore an independent source of wealth (free energy device) within the reach of every person in the world ruins this plan for world domination of the money supply, permanently.

Currently, a nation’s economy can be either slowed-down or speeded-up by the raising or lowering of interest rates, but if an independent source of capital via free energy were present in the economy and any business or person could raise more capital without borrowing it from a bank, this centralised strangulation of interest rates would simply not have the same effect. Free energy technology changes the value of money, simply put. The banksters do not want any competition, and wish to maintain their current monopoly control of the money supply and so for them, free energy technology is not just something to suppress, it must be permanently deleted from history if at all possible.

Their motivations, as I have made plain throughout this book, are their imagined divine right to rule us all, greed and their insatiable need to control everything except themselves. The weapons they have used to enforce the permanent suppression of technology beneficial to mankind include intimidation, ‘expert’ debunkers, the covert buying-up and shelving of competitive technology, and often murder or attempted murder of the inventors, character assassination, arson and a wide variety of financial incentives and disincentives to manipulate possible supporters. They have also promoted and supported the general acceptance of a scientific principle that states that free energy is impossible, via Newton’s now disproven, laws of thermodynamics.

Health Crimes

After WWII, the US Atomic Energy Commission began ‘Program F,’ the most extensive American study of the health effects on humans, of fluoride, a key component of atomic bomb production. Residents of Newburgh, New York were exposed to fluoride in their drinking water for a period of eleven years and their blood and tissue samples were covertly gathered and analysed. The study revealed that Fluoride had marked adverse effects on the central nervous system but much of the information was suppressed in the name of national security due to the fear that lawsuits by workers contaminated by fluoride would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs. Fluoride, as it turned-out, is the most dangerous aspect of nuclear weapons production.

Sixty years after water fluoridation began in the guise of a public health measure, journalists Christopher Bryson and Joel Griffiths uncovered the surprising backdrop to this practice, and the questionable motives of its most prominent promoters. Declassified documents show that much of the science used to prove the safety of low-dose fluoride was generated by Manhattan Project scientists, tasked with providing data to protect the US military in fluoride injury lawsuits. Fluoride emissions during atomic bomb development were sickening civilians and crippling livestock, and portended legal action and a public relations disaster that could have halted the bomb programme completely.

Anxious to understand precisely what fluoride does to the body, military scientists began studying the effects of chronic fluoride exposure on humans, by designing and implementing one of the first water fluoridation experiments in Newburgh, New York. Much of the scientists’ findings remain classified; selected data were manipulated to show that low level fluoride was safe, and published in scientific journals. Their doctored publications were then used as evidence of the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation today.

Fluoride was once the most troublesome of waste pollutants for the aluminium, fertiliser and brick industries, with emissions causing devastating environmental damage.

Dr. Gerald J. Cox, a Mellon Institute researcher working for both the aluminium and sugar industries, was the first to propose adding fluoride to public water supplies as a ‘tooth-strengthening nutrient.’ And as this would then enable fluoride-emitting industries to sell their toxic waste for profit, and propagate the notion that dental decay can be avoided without restricting sugar consumption, his idea was embraced by his corporate sponsors.

The Mellon Institute was founded by Andrew and Richard Mellon, financiers of the aluminium giant Alcoa, specialising in conducting research for industry. For generations, it was a leading defender of the asbestos industry, producing ‘research’ to show that mesothelioma was not caused by asbestos. Andrew Mellon was the head of the Public Health Service when it dispatched dentist H. T. Dean (the ‘father’ of fluoridation) to study fluoride’s dental effects.

Dr. Gerald J. Cox was a researcher at the Mellon Institute who had worked on a fellowship from Alcoa, and who, in 1939, made the first suggestion that fluoride be added to public water supplies.

Picked-up by and promoted by a Manhattan Project toxicologist, Dr. Harold C. Hodge, and supported by research funded by major fluoride-emitters like Alcoa (Aluminium Company of America,) Cox’s idea led to the endorsement of water fluoridation by the Public Health Service in 1950. The man who gave the official endorsement was Oscar R. Ewing, a Truman administrator who was also a Wall Street lawyer for Alcoa.

The Manhattan Project also arranged for the injection of plutonium and uranium into patients at Billings Hospital at the University of Chicago, at the University of California Hospital in San Francisco, and at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York. Only one of the approximately twenty victims, had given even uninformed consent and most, had no idea at all that they were being injected with plutonium or uranium. A follow-up experiment in 1973 on some of the survivors was also conducted without informed consent and the victims were even told that they had been injected with plutonium in 1945. And of course, none of the experimenters were held accountable or punished.

Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, Director of the Kettering Laboratory, defender of industry in fluoride pollution lawsuits, and proponent of water fluoridation spent much of his career defending leaded petrol, on behalf of the Ethyl Corporation. And that familiar name, Edward L. Bernays, propaganda specialist, had a list of clients that included the US military and Alcoa. On behalf of tobacco companies, he persuaded American women to smoke cigarettes as a feminist gesture and when approached by the National Institute of Dental Research for a strategy to promote water fluoridation, Bernays proposed getting dentists and doctors to publicly endorse the practice, taking advantage of people’s trust in these professionals.

The US Army later, unknown to the residents, released chemicals over six American and Canadian cities in tests designed to assess the dispersal patterns of chemical weapons. Some of the tests involved cadmium, a highly toxic metal.

In 1952, the US Army conducted open-air testing of biological weapons at Fort McClellan, Alabama. Respiratory illness in the area skyrocketed and dozens of civilians died. Fort McClellan was also used to train the military of numerous US dictatorships and rogue states in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Among the nations who learned about using chemical and biological weapons at Fort McClellan were Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and South Vietnam.

The US also carried-out forced experiments on prisoners whereby unwitting victims were injected with plutonium, radium, uranium and other radioactive materials. In a letter, Colonel O. G. Haywood of the Atomic Energy Commission wrote . . . “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans and might have adverse effect on public opinion or result in legal suits. Documents covering such work field should be classified secret.”

In the 1960s, the US Public Health Service launched the ‘Tuskegee Syphilis Study.’ Four hundred poor, uneducated black men with syphilis were identified in Tuskegee, Alabama but were never told that they had syphilis and nor were they given any treatment for it. They were, instead, monitored as guinea pigs in a covert experiment. By 1969, one hundred of the men were dead through lack of treatment and, predictably, the disease spread to the men’s families.

In 1951, the US conducted its first atomic test at the Nevada Test Site, spewing radioactive particles across Nevada, Utah and Colorado and some nuclear explosions blanket Las Vegas with radioactive dust but, according to the ever-truthful US government and the tame mass media, there is nothing for citizens to worry about. Those who point out that cancer and leukaemia rates were soaring in the States around the test site were accused of being part of the great communist conspiracy to prevent America developing the necessary weapons of mass destruction with which to defend itself.

The US government, always keen to support its troops, deliberately exposed them to nuclear radiation and toxic contamination at the sites of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in Nevada and other locations. Just like the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the troops were nothing more than expendable guinea pigs in a scientific experiment.

As soon as he became president, the mass-murderer, Eisenhower ordered the Atomic Energy Commission to keep Americans “confused” with its explanations about radioactive fallout causing cancer. Government employees who told the truth were fired and it was not until 1980 that the truth about the testing was partially revealed when the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations concluded that . . . “All evidence suggesting that radiation was having harmful effects, be it on the sheep or the people, was not only disregarded but actually suppressed.”

The Korean War was the catalyst for the US to reconsider testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean and to look for a test site closer to home. A Nevada site north of Las Vegas was chosen because of its ‘safety features,’ which included low population density, favourable meteorological conditions (a prevailing easterly wind blowing away from the populous west coast,) and good geographical features, that is, hundreds of miles of flat, government-controlled land. So on 27th January 1951, a one-kiloton bomb dropped from an airplane and detonated over ‘Frenchman Flat,’ marked the beginning of atmospheric nuclear testing in Nevada.

Between 1951 and 1992, there were a total of 928 announced nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site. Of those, 828 were underground. The site is still covered with subsidence craters from the testing. During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 miles (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas in droves to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the city’s hotels.

Atomic Energy Commission press releases promised that atomic tests would be conducted “ . . . with adequate assurances of safety” and residents of southern Nevada and southern Utah who lived downwind of the tests initially believed what they were told; as one historian wrote . . . “Their faith and trust in their government would not allow them to even consider the possibility that the government would ever endanger their health.” However, their experiences during and since the 1950s have convinced them of just the opposite. There was no safety for either people or livestock from atmospheric nuclear testing and the AEC knew it. Declassified transcripts released from 1978 to 1980 show that scientists knew as early as 1947 that fission products released by atomic bomb tests could be deadly to humans and animals exposed during and after the tests. The AEC chose to ignore warnings from its own scientists and medical researchers and continued with a ‘nothing-must-stop-the-tests’ rationale.

Relatively few immediate downwind area residents were aware of or concerned about nuclear testing when the first mushroom-shaped cloud rose into the western skies and drifted to the northeast in 1951, but the cloud metaphorically remains over southern Utah and Nevada to this day. Residents live every day with what the cloud left behind and that the eye could not see. There are no south-western Utah neighbourhoods or communities that have not been touched by the tragedy of cancer or birth defects or lingering bitterness over human and financial losses.

As part of a test-site public-relations programme in March 1953, 600 observers were invited to view a test shot and its effect on mannikins, typical homes, and automobiles in an effort to get Americans more interested in civil defence. Observers watched the detonation seven miles from ground zero and later were taken into the test area, after debris and dust had settled. A newspaper reporter Klein Rollo at first thought it was ‘good fortune’ to be invited to the test site, but not many weeks later the newspaper began questioning the safety of nuclear fall-out. It printed a long article by University of Utah student Ralph J. Hafen of St. George, Washington County, in which he wrote that he felt “ . . . morally obligated to warn people of the irreparable damage that may have occurred or may in the future occur,” from exposure to radiation. He also called upon the AEC to explain why cars entering St. George were washed after the shot. Predicting later problems, he cautioned that “ . . . damage done to an individual by radiation often does not make itself known for five to ten years or a generation or more.”

The sheep and their owners were Iron County’s first victims of radioactivity. While being trailed across Nevada from winter range to the lambing yards at Cedar City, some 18,000-20,000 sheep were exposed to large quantities of radioactive fallout from tests in March and April 1953. Kern and McRae Bulloch first noticed burns on their animals’ faces and lips where they had been eating radioactive grass. Then ewes began miscarrying in large numbers and at the lambing yards wool fell-off in clumps revealing blisters on adult sheep. New lambs were stillborn with grotesque deformities or born so weak they were unable to feed. Ranchers lost as much as a third of their herds.

Ranchers and preliminary veterinary investigators suspected radiation poisoning. The AEC had given Iron County agricultural agent Steven Brower a Geiger counter, a small radiation meter, to carry with him and at the sheep pens, he reported, the “ . . . needle on my meter went clear off scale. We picked up high counts on the thyroid and on the top of the head, and there were lesions and scabs on the mouths and noses of the sheep.” In early June the AEC sent teams of radiation experts to Cedar City to examine ailing animals but the dead carcasses had already been destroyed. The AEC reportedly forced its scientists to rewrite their field reports and eliminate any references to speculation about radiation damage or effects. The number of dead sheep represented a loss of a quarter of a million dollars to the ranchers, but Brower was told . . . “ . . . that AEC could under no circumstance allow the precedent to be set in court or otherwise that AEC was liable or responsible for payment for radiation damage to either animals or humans.”

Years later, when it became known that a subtle form of death had rained down on an unsuspecting population, the mistakes and subsequent cover-ups took on the proportions of a major crime committed by the government against its trusting citizens. They trusted and that was their downfall. In the end, these innocent people were betrayed by their government and the nuclear testing programme became a crime of betrayal perpetrated against US citizens in the name of National Security.

And here is where John Wayne and Howard Hughes enter the picture . . . Just one year later, came the blockbuster Hollywood film, ‘The Conqueror,’ starring John Wayne and Susan Hayward.

Sometimes referred to as an ‘RKO Radioactive Picture,’ virtually everything associated with ‘The Conqueror’ was an unmitigated disaster. But most disastrous of all was the decision to shoot on location in the Escalante Desert near St George, Utah, downwind from the Nevada Test Site where the government had conducted their extensive tests in 1953, only a year earlier. There were any other problems on location too. Susan Hayward’s black panther attacked her, Pedro Armendáriz’s horse threw him, breaking his jaw, a flash flood nearly wiped out production and sweltering 120°F heat made the fur costumes unbearable. Yet these fade into insignificance compared to the acutely radioactive sand of Snow Canyon, into which clouds of fallout from eleven over-ground nuclear tests in Nevada had funnelled, exposing the filmmakers for thirteen full weeks, between mid-May and August of 1954. And to make matters even worse, Hughes shipped sixty tons of this radioactive Utah sand back to Hollywood to give re-takes authenticity.

The production numbered 220 cast and crew on location and by 1981, 91 of them had contracted some form of cancer and 46 were already dead of the disease, including many of the key players. John Wayne, Susan Hayward and Agnes Moorehead all died of cancer in the 70s, director Dick Powell in 1963 and Pedro Armendáriz the same year, by shooting himself in the heart to end his suffering from terminal cancer. There was no record kept of the hundreds of Navajo Indian extras on the picture, but half the residents of St George had contracted the disease by this time, and eventually, over half the cast and crew did too.

Today, The Conqueror is not remembered as the scene of a monstrous government crime, which brought slow death to so many, a symbol of monumental betrayal and misplaced trust. Instead, it is merely ridiculed as one of the worst movies ever made, featuring the most iconic American film star of all time. Only instead of the usual heroic cowboy, John Wayne was tasked with playing Temujin, later known as Genghis Khan, which was as utterly ludicrous as it sounds.

But the greatest irony of all was that America’s biggest icon John Wayne . . . was probably killed by the very country that he loved.

But back then, as did almost everyone else, he believed in his country. But also like most other people, he just did not know that it was run by the banksters . . .

Chapter 15

Business is Business

The sheer wealth of the banksters can only be described as total, absolutely unlimited wealth, the kind of wealth that only trillionaires possess. Usually though, when we hear about great wealth, it is ‘only’ in the millionaire and billionaire ranges.

In the September of 1957, Aristotle Onassis, of whom we heard a great deal in a previous chapter, called the ‘Appalachian Meeting,’ to announce to US Mafia heads, his ‘grab’ of Howard Hughes’ assets, and his adoption of Hughes’ game plan for acquiring power, buying US Senators, congressmen, governors, judges, en masse, to surreptitiously take control of the US government. We only know of this due to Onassis’ radio message to Appalachian from a remote Pennsylvania farmhouse intercepted (reluctantly) by the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover, on the basis of a ‘tip-off’ from some Army Intelligence personnel who were not privy to the plan.

It was also in 1957, that Joseph Kennedy took John and Jackie to see Onassis on his yacht, introduce John, and remind Onassis of an old Mafia promise . . . ‘The Presidency for a Kennedy.’ Onassis agreed. The Mafia, the underworld, the intelligence services and the military, the politicians, and corporations — have always served their bankster masters well and by 1958, hordes of Mafia-selected, purchased and supported ‘grass-roots’ candidates had been placed into office.

In 1960, the stirring election battle between Kennedy and Nixon was ‘fought,’ but either way, Onassis (the banksters) would win, since they had complete control over both candidates. In fact the 1960 campaign for the White House was the first ‘modern’ Presidential election, with the first televised debate and just as with staged TV wrestling bouts, they both knew what the outcome would be. Kennedy was promoted as energetic and confident whilst Nixon looked uncomfortable and devious.

Joseph Kennedy having already assured Onassis and the banksters in September 1957 that his son Jack would ‘co-operate fully’ once in office, the decision was taken to use the Mafia’s power to get John F. Kennedy elected. The Mafia was actually caught-out in Chicago tampering with the voting but Nixon was denied a recount. Nixon was restrained from complaining too much, other than for dramatic effect, because he knew that he had been promised the presidency later. Illinois Republicans made an unofficial recount of 699 paper ballot precincts in Cook County and came up with the vote in favour of Nixon. Those votes would have changed Illinois’ electoral votes and given overall victory to Nixon. However, Sam Giancana and his henchman Mayor Richard Daley refused an official recount.

In the first election with voting from all fifty states, Hawaii and Alaska having just having become states, Kennedy won by a popular vote of 49.6%, to Nixon’s 49.3%, the narrowest margin ever. But of course, the public then as now, were totally unaware that Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chancellors etc., are all, as FDR himself said, selected, not elected.

With Kennedy as the late ‘selection’ for President, based on his father’s total assurance that he would be a ‘team-player’ with the banksters, right up until the election itself, Kennedy was confident, and with good reason, of his inevitable victory.

Once in office, JFK was briefed on the Cuban situation, but he was given a superficial and not very detailed view of ‘The Brigade’ and its objectives. He appeared to have thought it was a scheme planned, supplied and funded by exiled Cubans themselves and approved the plan as long as there was no American military involvement. He did not seem to know that the operation had been almost wholly funded, planned and directed by the CIA and of course, Kennedy had no way of knowing the future and therefore knowing that people like Howard Hunt and Joseph Yablonski of later Watergate and Chappaquiddick infamy were among the Americans engaged in training ‘The Brigade.’

Then after Kennedy’s rather absent-minded ‘approval’ had been obtained, the CIA changed the operation completely, over the vehement objections of the participating Cubans. Or, at least, this is what the ‘history’ books and numerous liberal historians would have you believe. But we know that the banksters always control both sides of any issue and in fact JFK knew all about the Bay of Pigs invasion before his ‘election’ and knew about the inevitable changes and machinations that would affect the invasion plans after his ‘election,’ and had already decided how he could bend the CIA’s plans and machinations to his own political requirements in the October 1962 mid-term elections.

The operation hinged on covert action, a pre-emptive strike, and an arrangement with the Mafia to assassinate Castro and instigate a popular insurrection. The Kennedy administration had taken a new direction in foreign policy, one that rested on assassination and military force and the assassination of Castro was just one part of an executive action programme under development inside the CIA that aimed at regime-change by simply eliminating troublesome state leaders.

“Assassination was intended to reinforce the plan.” Richard Bissell (1909-1994,) chief architect of the operation.

Now, no longer was the ‘Brigade’ to be landed near a mountainous coast. The CIA decided to land them at the Bay of Pigs, a low, flat salt-marsh that is over sixty miles from the nearest mountains and there was nowhere to retreat in case of defeat. Furthermore, although the Bay of Pigs offers a poor ‘fighting’ beach, the region just inland was highly agricultural and served by fairly good roads. Castro would be able to concentrate his militia, and even tanks, within hours while the soldiers of the ‘Brigade’ were still trying to exit the beach and through the salt-marsh. And so the Cuban’s ‘Operation Zapata’ as it was now called was hopelessly compromised even before it began, and many members of the brigade wanted to abandon the attempt. But of course, the good sense of the minority was overwhelmed by the élan of the majority and plans went ahead.

On 17th April 1961, the Bay of Pigs landing was a fiasco. Two supply ships ran aground on the coral reefs that the CIA had identified as ‘seaweed’ and supplies including ammunition and water could not get ashore. The Brigade was trapped on the beach and Castro surrounded it with a concentration of troops and tanks using the good roads beyond the marsh.

The Bay of Pigs operation was a total failure and everyone now blamed Kennedy’s lack of support. The 1,180 survivors of the Brigade were taken prisoner by Castro’s militia and later opinion polls showed that the majority of Americans perceived Kennedy as ‘soft on Communism’ and weak.

On 19th December 1961, JFK’s father, after driving his son to the airport, went out with his beautiful chauffeur niece, Ann Gargan to ‘play golf’ by the beach but the strenuous sport of golf proved too much for Joe and he suffered a stroke. He was completely paralysed on his right side and unable to walk or talk thereafter, and thereby lost his powerful control over his sons. John as President, and Robert Kennedy as his Attorney General, feeling their freedom, and disliking some of the powerful bankster/Illuminati friends of their father, like Aristotle Onassis, decided to use their newly-gained power and popularity to rebel against the evil forces that held sway over them. It would be fair to say that JFK and RFK had more courage to take on the banksters, due to the fact that they were familiar with it from having been (in a sense) on the inside of it during their days growing-up. However, neither son had received the Illuminati training and indoctrination that their older brother Joe Jr. had. When Joe Jr. died, Joseph made the mistake of deciding to replace him with JFK. The mistake was that he may have seemed like he would be a good little bankster puppet President, but he actually was too independent and headstrong to take orders from anyone, which was of course, his ultimate downfall.

In the spring of 1941, JFK had tried to enlist in the army but was rejected because of his bad back, but his father ‘pulled strings’ and he was finally accepted into the navy. In 1943, his vessel, PT109 was rammed by a Japanese destroyer, and through his later exploits in saving his crew’s lives, he emerged as a war hero. When his older brother Joe heard of his new status as a war hero, he felt that he too, had to prove himself worthy and volunteered for what turned out to be a virtual suicide mission and was killed in action. Despite his poor health, Jack then had to assume the mantle of his dead brother as heir apparent to the Kennedy Dynasty and US President-in-waiting.

While on a visit to London in the autumn of 1947, now a Congressman, JFK became so seriously ill with weakness, nausea, vomiting, and low blood pressure that he was given the last rites. The physician who examined him diagnosed his condition as Addison’s disease and told one of Kennedy’s friends that “ . . . he hasn’t got a year to live.”

It was his personal doctor, Janet Travell, who kept President Kennedy alive. Kennedy first visited Dr. Travell at her office in New York City on 26th May 1955 . . .

“At our first meeting, the thin young Senator on crutches could barely navigate the few steps down from the sidewalk into my ground floor office. Left-sided pain in his back and leg made it almost impossible for him to bear weigh on that foot, and a stiff right knee since a football injury in his youth made it difficult for him to step up or down with his weight on the right leg, because that required bending the right knee. He had come with Dr. Shorr by taxi, and the taxi driver helped him down the steps. The Senator sat in an old-style, North Carolina porch rocker with woven cane seat and back. The office was quiet and unhurried. He asked a few questions, always to the point. How long would the improvement in the motion of his knee last? He was understandably sceptical. He was not prepared to accept readily one more doctor and another kind of treatment. Seven months earlier he had undergone a lumbar spine fusion, after which a local infection had developed, and about four months later the metal fusion plate had been removed in a second operation. His crutches had been a familiar sight in the Senate during the summer of a year ago, and now he was still obliged to use them. Could he face another hospital?” ‘Office Hours: Day and Night’ Janet Travell

But throughout his Presidency, JFK was making powerful enemies, and not just the banksters. Together with his brother Robert, JFK had people such as Wally Bird arrested. He was the owner of Air Thailand, who had been shipping Onassis’ heroin out of the ‘Golden Triangle’ (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam,) under contract with the CIA and then they messed with the Mafia and their Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa, and put him in jail. They declared the $73 million in forged ‘Hughes’ land liens, deposited with the San Francisco’s Bank of America, as ‘security’ for the TWA judgment against Hughes, to be exactly what they were . . . forgeries.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

In his foreword to Robert Kennedy’s book on the Missile Crisis, ‘Thirteen Days,’ the British Prime Minister at the time, Harold Macmillan, covered his own historical position by admitting that there were “ . . . many curious aspects” to this crisis that would only be clarified by time.

The crisis began in mid-October 1962, when CIA U-2 photo reconnaissance identified un-camouflaged missiles at San Cristobal. The Cubans then had the facilities for tracking U-2 flights on Soviet radar and Cuban documents proved that these flights were monitored with great precision and diligence. So why did the Cubans leave the missiles un-camouflaged for four days until they were certain that the missiles must have been photographed by a scheduled U-2 overflight of San Cristobal?

And why would JFK “unhesitatingly” accept the CIA photo reconnaissance since the CIA’s U-2 surveillance had made a complete fiasco of the Bay of Pigs? Yet, JFK took these very first CIA photos, unsubstantiated by reports of secret agents in Cuba, to both the American public via TV, and to the United Nations in a presentation by Adlai Stevenson, and claimed that they were sufficient to begin his missile confrontation with the Soviet Union.

At the same time, JFK was facing the 1962 mid-term elections. These traditionally go against the administration in power, but Kennedy was not just facing merely the usual mid-term voter disgruntlement, he was facing a landslide defeat, his utter political repudiation as the ‘least popular President in American political history.’ But, enter the Cuban Missile Crisis, right on cue to save JFK’s political future and reputation. The crisis utterly dominated the US and the entire western media to the virtual exclusion of election issues. JFK in fact, monopolised the media with his cool ‘crisis management’ and ultimately successful confrontation with Khrushchev.

The result of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that Kennedy’s Democrats won the mid-term elections of October 1962, a feat accomplished only once previously in US political history (by Roosevelt, in 1934). And for a serious confrontation which had the whole world living in fear of an imminent nuclear holocaust, its resolution was remarkably rapid.

It can be seen, objectively, that the so-called ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ served everyone’s purposes admirably. Castro’s Cuba received the security and reparations he had demanded, Kennedy’s political fortunes were retrieved from what seemed like inevitable disaster. And within the Soviet-bloc and the Third World, Khrushchev emerged as a ‘peacemaker,’ a man who preferred to back-down, rather than destroy the world in a senseless confrontation over obsolete missiles that were, in essence, no different to the American missiles in Turkey and Italy and aimed at the USSR.

So why in the world, would Kennedy be so cosy and obliging with the US’s sworn enemy the Soviet Union? I would offer a possible answer to that question . . .

The invasion of Cuba, later to become the Bay of Pigs’ ‘Operation Zapata,’ originated from when Eisenhower had approved an initial budget of $4.4m. The budget included $950,000 for political action, $1,700,000 for propaganda, $1,500,000 for paramilitary and $250,000 for intelligence collection. The actual invasion, a year later, would cost US taxpayers over $46 million.

By the time JFK took office in January 1961, he had already made serious commitments to the Cuban exiles, promising to oppose communism at every opportunity, and supporting the overthrow of Castro. During his election campaign, Kennedy had repeatedly accused Eisenhower of not doing enough to destroy Castro. But once Kennedy became aware of the plan, opposition to the invasion was subtly discouraged. Various memos and notes kept from meetings prior to the invasion warned of potential problems and legal ramifications. At a meeting on 28th January, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke strongly against invasion on the grounds that Castro’s forces were already too strong.

At that same meeting, the Secretary of Defence estimated that all the covert measures planned against Castro, including propaganda, sabotage, political action and the planned invasion, would not produce “ . . . the agreed national goal of overthrowing Castro.”

On 29th March, Senator James Fulbright sent Kennedy a memo stating that “ . . . to give this activity even covert support is of a piece with the hypocrisy and cynicism for which the United States is constantly denouncing the Soviet Union in the United Nations and elsewhere. This point will not be lost on the rest of the world; nor on our own consciences.”

A memo from Under Secretary of State Chester A. Bowles to Secretary of State Dean Rusk on 31st March, argued strongly against the invasion, citing moral and legal grounds. By supporting this operation, he wrote, “ . . . we would be deliberately violating the fundamental obligations we assumed in the Act of Bogota establishing the Organization of American States.”

At a meeting on 4th April, in a small conference room at the State Department, Senator Fulbright verbally opposed the plan, as described by Arthur Schlesinger in the Pulitzer Prize-winning book ‘A Thousand Days.’ “Fulbright, speaking in an emphatic and incredulous way, denounced the whole idea. The operation, he said, was wildly out of proportion to the threat. It would compromise our moral position in the world and make it impossible for us to protest treaty violations by the Communists. He gave a brave, old-fashioned American speech, honorable, sensible and strong; and he left everyone in the room, except me and perhaps the President, wholly unmoved.”

Five days before ‘D-Day,’ at a press conference on 12th April, Kennedy was asked how far the US would go to help an uprising against Castro. “First, I want to say that there will not be, under any conditions, an intervention in Cuba by the United States Armed Forces. This government will do everything it possibly can . . . I think it can meet its responsibilities, to make sure that there are no Americans involved in any actions inside Cuba . . . The basic issue in Cuba is not one between the United States and Cuba. It is between the Cubans themselves.”

After 12th April, Kennedy’s attitude regarding this planned invasion completely changed, and he started to show clear signs that he was not really behind this operation. But what did happen on this particular day which would have made JFK change his mind?

On that same day in 1961, the Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was ‘officially’ the first man ever sent to space.

But did Gagarin really go into space? Kennedy warmly congratulated Khrushchev for their achievement, but the fact that Kennedy did not contest this exploit was seen by the Russian people, and the whole world, as the confirmation that Gagarin’s exploits was fact.

Palm Beach Post 19th April

Yet, some days later, articles appeared in several American newspapers which were describing his so-called space-flight as a hoax, and explaining why it was not credible. Some politicians, for example a representative from Illinois, Roman Pucinski, urged Kennedy not to accept Gagarin’s ‘achievement’ without proof from the Russians (which they never provided — even to this day.)

Gagarin was systematically announcing his progress on the flight too early, which strongly suggests that his voice was coming from a recording that had been started too early, and which also explains the de-synchronisation between his voice and the corresponding events. Gagarin said that he was flying over South-America only fifteen minutes after he departed, when he needed in fact at least forty-five to get there. He also stated that he could distinctly see the Russian farms and meadows when he was at an altitude of 200 miles, at which altitude this was impossible. Gagarin said he could see the earth through his porthole when the chief of the Russian program said in a meeting that his cabin had no portholes, only tiny slits.

And, instead of landing inside his space cabin, landed by parachute, at the exactly spot where he had done his parachute training, while his ‘space-ship,’ Vostok, was crashing far away and seriously damaged. It appears impossible that Gagarin could have ejected himself from his space cabin, and there is evidence that he was dropped from a plane. There are also many other anomalies, such as the fact that Gagarin was viewed from four angles in his cabin, when it was clearly stated that there only were two cameras present — and the fact that his official photo showed him with a bruise near one eye that he only acquired several months after the flight.

In addition, Gagarin seemed to have a very poor memory about the events. For example, he wrote in his memoirs that he was wearing a blue suit during his exploit . . . whereas the Russian authorities said he had an orange suit and he is clearly pictured in this orange suit. Up until 1961, the United States had managed to launch 42 satellites, the Soviet Union only 12 and the US had also informed the world that Alan Shepard would be the ‘first man in space’ on 5th May 1961.

Was the Soviet Union therefore forced to do something to ‘save face?’ It may have been for this reason that a Soviet cosmonaut, Vladimir Ilyushin, was launched into space on 7th April 1961. The Americans intercepted several radio communications between him and the space centre in the Soviet Union and Ilyushin crash-landed and was seriously injured. He could not therefore be shown to the public and it was claimed that he had been injured in a car accident. He was sent to China to receive medical treatment.

The Russian TV documentary ‘Cosmonaut Cover-Up’ (2001) also claimed that on that day, Vladimir Ilyushin left for space, got into trouble during the first orbit, and crash-landed in China during the third orbit. Ilyushin was badly injured and was returned to the Soviet Union a year later. Ilyushin was later killed in an ‘engineered’ car accident, that same year. However, the Soviet Union did not have a spare capsule at that time and so it was decided to orchestrate a huge bluff, a cosmic lie.

Radio Moscow claimed that a Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, had been sent into space on the morning of 12th April 1961 and according to the official announcement, he had already landed and was in fine health. The whole world believed this except for the Western intelligence services. They had not managed to detect any radio communication whatsoever, between Gagarin and the space centre. In fact the hoax was sloppily orchestrated. Polish newspapers had already announced that morning that a Soviet cosmonaut had been into space and newspapers in other countries did not report Gagarin’s flight until the next day. In a book written for western consumption, Soviet propagandists claimed that simple peasants recognised Yuri Gagarin soon after he landed in the field and enthusiastically shouted . . . “Gagarin, Gagarin!” But at that time Gagarin was unknown to the public, nothing about his exploits had yet been reported at that time, no pictures of him had ever been published and his name had not been mentioned. The message from radio and TV was sent out 35 minutes after the alleged journey. Maybe the peasants were psychics?

At his press conference, Gagarin read from notes when he ‘related’ his voyage but he made several crucial mistakes. Gagarin stated that weightlessness was no problem and everything seemed just normal but we now know that this is not the case. Most American astronauts reported problems with their balance, upon landing. Gagarin then made his most serious mistake, despite the fact that he was constantly assisted by experts, who often spoke about discoveries in space. He said . . . “ . . . then I saw South America.” This was impossible. At the time it had been night in South America, which meant that it could not be seen at all. A foreign journalist then asked, “When will the space photographs be published?” Gagarin was silent, thought for a moment and answered, “I did not have a camera with me!”

Even unmanned Soviet space probes had photographic equipment on board. It would have been an important propaganda triumph to publish Gagarin’s pictures from space and the Soviet Union would never have missed an opportunity like that. Shepard’s pictures were cabled out immediately and parts of his flight were also shown on TV.

When Gagarin naively expressed his wishes to travel in space ‘for real’ in 1968, he was disposed of, according to Istvin Nemere. His plane exploded on 27th March that same year and the official crash report contained many contradictions and anomalies. The report was classified during the communist period but it claimed that there was not much left of Gagarin’s body after the crash. In that case, how did his flight-suit come to land in the top of a tree?

There are far too many questions surrounding Gagarin’s spaceflight in April 1961 and his subsequent ‘accidental’ death. A British team of researchers who questioned the propaganda surrounding manned journeys to the moon also confirmed this information. But when, if ever, will the truth be admitted officially? Although researchers, politicians, and journalists have all doubted the veracity of the story of Gagarin having conquered space, NASA was strangely the only authority to vouch for the authenticity of the scam. From what we have learnt so far about the ‘Gagarin Hoax,’ it was thanks to NASA’s sponsorship that the hoax was finally accepted by the US.

And three weeks later, on 5th May 1961, the Americans launched their first man into space, Alan Shepard. So, why did the Americans accept losing out in the prestigious race to put the first man in space, when they had all the cards in their hand to prove the Russian hoax?

Well here is a possible clue . . . Some weeks later, after the pseudo-Gagarin flight, Kennedy made a major speech announcing that the Americans would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Before the end of the decade? Impossible surely at that time, so how could he be so certain when the difficulties were so great, and the technology still so relatively primitive? Yet, Kennedy warmly congratulated Khrushchev on Gagarin’s feat, which allowed the USSR to make huge political capital of it. It is certain that Kennedy was warned the same day by NASA that Gagarin’s exploit was a fraud and could easily be proven a fake so, what inspired Kennedy to boost the Russians by accepting what he knew to be a hoax, and why did it modify his attitude in the invasion of the Bay of Pigs?

It now appears very clear that the Gagarin’s fake voyage pushed Kennedy to deliberately sabotage the invasion by planning for it to fail. If Kennedy had allowed it to succeed, it would have diminished the value of the ‘gift’ that he had made to the Russians in turning a blind eye to their hoax. So, from this it is possible to conclude that Kennedy was expecting an important favour in return from the Russians, as before the hoax, Kennedy showed no signs that he would allow the Cuban invasion to fail.

One of the main arguments we hear in disputing the fact that the moon landings were nothing more than an elaborate hoax, I would suggest, is the claim that if the moon landings had been fake, then the Russians, who definitely had the capability of tracking the American spaceships would have soon exposed them as a scam. Of course, Kennedy also realised this and was only going along with the Russian’s claim on the first man in space, in order to give credibility to the claimed moon landings, which at the time was still eight years away.

But was allowing the Russians to claim ‘the first man in space,’ enough to counter-balance the prestige of landing the ‘first man on the moon?’ Kennedy reasoned that it may well not be sufficient and that he would no doubt have to grant the Russians some other favours to definitively ‘seal the deal’ about the future Apollo project. So, the refusal to support the invasion of the Bay of Pigs was the first of these other favours.

Kennedy also had to ensure the silence of ‘insiders.’ Had he appointed an honest, patriotic American engineer, he would probably not have accepted the subterfuge and may have exposed it. And so, this was why Kennedy appointed as director of the project, a man that he was sure he would be loyal to him, and would not disclose the fakery, for the simple reason that this man was indebted to Kennedy as Kennedy was protecting him from justice, as had the previous presidents all the way back to the end of WWII.

Although Wernher von Braun claimed to be unaware of the poor treatment of the workers in Dora-Mittelwerk, the German rocketry research facility during the last war, there are plenty of testimonies which deny this assertion. There is no doubt that, if the Americans had not protected von Braun because they needed his talents, he would have been hanged at Nuremberg, as his personal responsibility was obvious and could be proven. Having said that, although the treatment of the workers there, was doubtless no different to the way that the Americans had treated the Germans and the Japanese subsequently, when offered in comparison to the behaviour of some of the executed Nazi officials, there is little doubt that von Braun should have suffered the same fate, at least by those standards.

As Kennedy had everything ‘secured’ so that no ‘rebel’ engineers could speak-out or ‘whistle-blow,’ the only remaining resort for those who were not in agreement with the intended fakery was to fill the project with obvious, intentional anomalies. The Apollo programme will be analysed in greater detail in a later chapter.

So much of what has gone-on in the past is difficult to follow or comprehend; the outright absurdities, the complexities and complications and always the banksters forever advancing their evil agenda, by playing-off one country against another, as if it was some immense perverted game. And the banksters’ different factions even battle against each other on occasions, utilising unexpected tactics and creating anomalies in world events, such as allowing Cuba to remain ‘communist’ all these years. And in that context, the idea of Kennedy colluding with the Russians is all just a small part of that same game.

But June 1963 brought brand-new woman trouble, the sort that could not be easily dismissed or shrugged-off. As the Kennedys wrestled with the growing civil rights crisis, FBI director Hoover quietly opened a new file code-named ‘Bowtie.’ It was to grow to more than a thousand pages, and its subject was a scandal that on the surface appeared to be another nation’s problem, but which proved to have repercussions on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

The two main characters in this drama were the high-class call-girl, Christine Keeler and the British Minister of War, John Profumo.

The Profumo Affair

Britain’s Minister for War, John Profumo, confessed to having an affair with a woman simultaneously involved with the Soviet Naval attaché in London, Yevgeny Ivanov. He resigned immediately, but the intrigue was only just beginning. The government of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who had initially supported Profumo, was shaken to its foundations and the press, meanwhile, fuelled the controversy with daily revelations about the orgies and adulteries of the British establishment.

In Washington, President Kennedy was taking more than just a passing interest in the situation.

“He had devoured every word written about the Profumo case. He ordered all further cables on that subject sent to him immediately.” Ben Bradlee

Bradlee assumed that the President was merely fascinated by the sexual aspects of the story but it was far more than that. According to persistent reports, he himself had had a relationship of sorts with two of the young women linked to the scandal and one of them in particular, Mariella Novotny. Different sources assign her different places of birth; London, Sheffield and Prague — but most agree that her real name was Stella Capes. She almost certainly was not the niece of former Czech President Antonin Novotny as she claimed, nor had she spent four years in a Soviet labour camp. But what is undeniable is that she certainly lived the high life.

It was Novotny who hosted the infamous ‘Man in the Mask’ orgy in an apartment in Hyde Park Square, London in December 1961, where various members of high society consorted with ‘glamorous’ prostitutes such as Mandy Rice-Davies and Christine Keeler. Novotny, who named the party ‘The Feast of Peacocks’ after what had been served at dinner, spent much of the evening in bed with a whip and six men. Stephen Ward, the mysterious, society osteopath, was there also, wearing socks and nothing else. Everyone else — among them actors, MPs and Judges — was naked except for a man wearing a mask, who, was tied between two pillars and whipped by everybody on entry. There was much speculation as to his identity, with names suggested including minor royalty and Cabinet Ministers, but he has never been named.

‘The Feast of The Peacock’ became public knowledge after featuring in Lord Denning’s 1963 report into the security implications of the Profumo Scandal. This was written in the wake of Profumo’s resignation from the Cabinet following revelations regarding his relationship with Keeler and Keeler’s relationship with Soviet naval attaché Eugene Ivanov. And this was by no means Novotny’s first foray into political scandal. She had moved to London in 1958 to become a model, and was soon performing as a topless dancer in Soho. In 1960, she married Horace Dibben who was in his 50s and moved in some very dubious circles. He ran the Black Sheep Club in Piccadilly and knew both the Duke of Kent and the Kray twins, the infamous London gangsters, and was also a sado-masochist and a friend of Stephen Ward. Through Dibben, Novotny met Harry Alan Towers, a mysterious and sinister figure, who persuaded her to go to New York on a modelling assignment.

Novotny was soon operating as a prostitute in New York, with Towers as her pimp and before long he had introduced her to Peter Lawford, the film star and JFK’s brother-in-law whose main responsibility was to find willing women for the insatiable President. And so began the relationship between Novotny and JFK. On one occasion she and a fellow prostitute, Suzy Chang were asked to dress as nurses, with JFK playing the ‘patient.’

In May 1961, Novotny was deported from the US, returning to London on the Queen Mary where she began hosting her memorable parties. She was also introduced by Ward to both Ivanov and Profumo before Keeler, but nothing developed from this. Novotny believed she had been used to ‘get at’ JFK and was wary of the same thing happening again, but Keeler was not so savvy.

One theory argues that Novotny was part of an elaborate ‘honey-trap’ operation, run by Lyndon Johnson’s office by Towers and Ward with the assistance of the sex-obsessed FBI, aimed at blackmailing powerful men in Britain and America, while others claim it was a KGB-run operation. Yet others say that Ward and Towers were working for MI-5 in order to entrap Ivanov. Whatever the real truth it was certainly a tangled web of intrigue.

Novotny later worked for the police in same capacity, and was used to help bring down the gangster Charles Taylor. She died of an overdose in 1983 and some, including Christine Keeler, claimed it was murder. Novotny had attempted to write a book about her life shortly before her death, but ‘strange occurrences’ and warnings caused her and the ghost-writer, to nervously end the project. After her death, her house was burgled and her diaries disappeared. Oh dear me, not that old story again!?

But the real key to all this, and the inevitable scapegoat, was Dr. Stephen Ward. The journalist, Philip Knightley claimed that during his time in the southern USA . . . “Ward helped deliver babies at remote farms, did surgery on kitchen tables, set bones broken during tornadoes and gave typhoid shots after floods devastated the area around the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers.”

In fact Ward was greatly impressed by the United States. He later commented, “I loved America and Americans, a warm-hearted, open and dynamic people. Their kindness and hospitality made me feel ashamed of the stand-offish way the British treat people.”

In 1940, Ward began his osteopathy practice in Torquay, on the south-west coast of England. His biographer, Richard Davenport-Hines, pointed-out that . . . “He qualified in osteopathy at Kirksville, Missouri (1934 — 39,) which entitled him to practice as a physician in the USA; he henceforth used the prefix of doctor, but had no British medical qualifications.” The following year he volunteered for the Royal Army Medical Corps but was rejected as they did not recognise his American qualifications and he therefore joined the Royal Armoured Corps and commenced treating officers for muscle injuries and back trouble. An extremely talented osteopath, he was eventually commissioned as an officer in the RAMC.

This gave him great power and he began meeting and manipulating the powerful and wealthy and had appointments at Buckingham Palace. He was not actually a communist but believed that the world would be safer if both the East and West had equally devastating weapons and this led to connections with the USSR through the KGB. He was influential in the service of the Crown, the banksters, and had many powerful and influential friends. Ward also worked on a secret programme for the USA, known as ‘Operation Monarch’ and was a ‘Magician’ and devout follower of the Occult as well as being Christine Keeler’s mentor and handler. He was an MI-5/Soviet double-agent, controlled by MI-5’s Keith Wagstaffe and part of a ring that included the Royal art curator and infamous traitor Sir Anthony Blunt and Sir Roger Hollis, head of MI-5 from 1956 to 1965. In Keeler’s presence they conspired to pass British Defence secrets to the USSR and she had told this to both the police and Chief Justice, Lord Denning but this information was conveniently suppressed.

In December 1942, Heinrich Mueller, Chief of the German Gestapo, completely exposed the entire Soviet spy network in mainland Europe and secured a list of Soviet agents and informants in England that reads like a ‘who’s who’ of the British establishment and lifts the veil from modern ‘history.’ The Soviet spy network was revealed to include Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, Neville Chamberlain’s Foreign Secretary and an architect of the ‘appeasement’ policy. Appeasement encouraged Hitler to believe that England wanted him to expand eastward against the Soviet Union but in fact, Halifax was working indirectly for the Communists. Appeasement was also designed to trap Hitler in a two-front war which would eventually annihilate Germany (and most of the rest of mainland Europe) and kill seventy million people.

Mueller’s list also included Victor Rothschild, the head of the central-banking dynasty of the same name, long suspected as being one of the ‘Cambridge Five,’ but curiously, the other four, (Burgess, Maclean, Blunt and Philby) were not on the list which also included Charles Hambro, another bankster of Jewish origin who was part of a Bank of England decision to continue financing Nazism in 1934 as a ‘stabilising influence.’ Obviously, as a Soviet asset, this man was never pro-Nazi as such but as with many of the same ilk, his loyalty to any cause could easily be bought and sold.

The list also included Sir Robert Waley-Cohen and many members of the anti-appeasement ‘Focus’ group that funded Winston Churchill. Waley-Cohen was the Chairman of the Rothschild-controlled Shell Oil and the leader of the British Jewish Community. Other banksters and industrialists included Eugen Spier, Maurice Baring, Leonard Montefiore, Edward Guggenheim, Sir Robert Mond and Sir Phillip Sassoon and all but Baring were of Jewish origin.

Prominent Labour Party and trade union leaders included Ernest Bevin, Harold Laski, Herbert Stanley Morrison and Sir Walter Citrine and members of ‘aristocratic’ families included Richard Combe Abdy, Baron Strabogli, and Admiral Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. Also present were press mogul J.S. Elias, cartoonist Victor Weisz and Daily Express Chairman Ralph D. Blumenfeld. Prominent civil servants named, included Rex Leeper of the Foreign Office ruling clique and Sir Maurice Hankey, who as cabinet secretary and Clerk of the Privy Council knew many secrets. There was also the Slavonic scholar Bernard Pares and Jurist Sir Hirsch Lauterpacht.

So, what did this disparate group all have in common? At least half of them are recognisably Jewish-Zionist, but the connection that binds all of them is the bankster/Illuminati, the top rung of Freemasonry. Indeed, the British establishment was (and probably still is) replete with traitors, if that word has any meaning whatsoever, when treason is the norm.

Our view of the world as warring nation-states does not reflect reality and most of history and current events are merely theatre. A tightly-knit satanic sex-cult subtly controls all States and pits them against each other in a profitable and diverting side-show which has several benefits to them. Left-Right distinctions are also meaningless as Keeler witnessed the ‘Communist-sympathiser’ Stephen Ward cordially meeting with the ‘Fascist’ leader Oswald Mosley.

John Profumo, 48, married and a father, was the Minister of War, and touted to become Prime Minister. Yet, he betrayed this great private and public responsibility by having an affair with a nineteen-year-old girl. Keeler described him as simply unable to control his urges.Ward made his subordinate, Soviet Naval Attaché Ivanov seduce Keeler in order to compromise Profumo. Stephen Ward was an Illuminati agent whose job was to undermine the Conservative government to make way for Harold Wilson’s Labour Party and the ‘Profumo Affair’ was staged by the KGB, along with MI-6, the CIA and Mossad, the operating arms of the Illuminati.

On 8th July 1961, Ward took Christine Keeler to Cliveden House, Buckinghamshire, the ancestral home of Lord Astor, where Profumo first expressed interest in her, after seeing her swim naked. Lord William, 3rd Viscount Astor, held sex and black magic parties at this grand house, where Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies seduced both the rich and the famous.

The society osteopath and healer Stephen Ward, was a master occultist who at these orgies would conjure spirits to visibly appear, which sound identical to those at Bilderberg ceremonies and at Cliveden, Keeler reported finding in the wood, “ . . . a witch circle, the real thing, about ten feet in diameter.” In her and Douglas Thompson’s book ‘Secrets & Lies,’ Keeler described the orgies . . . “Stephen knew all the Masonic handshakes and he said that at some of the parties the girls would just wear Masonic aprons. They would be flicked up and down like a sporran. Some of the women . . . were heavily into sadistic sex and there were ‘black magic’ parties which were really just an excuse for group sex sessions. There would be phallic totem poles, around which all these women would bow and scrape.”

The ‘cream’ of British politics, business, culture and law participated including the Duke of Edinburgh (the husband of Queen Elizabeth,) who was known to have had affairs and sired at least one illegitimate child. According to the noted intelligence source, T. Stokes, “Attendees at these parties told of Sir Anthony Blunt asphyxiating young boys . . . The top catholic exorcist Dom Robert Petit-Pierre claimed the exorcisms he had to perform at the Astor’s huge estate and Ward’s cottage, contained the most potent satanic entities he had ever come across, including the spirits of several murdered boys; the evil spirits were similar to the entities surrounding the Devils Chimney, the Aleister Crowley wartime rituals on Britain’s south coast for Winston Churchill’s occult Black group experiments.”

Keeler continued, “ . . . there had clearly been illicit affairs, dalliances, before he ever met me. He knew the technique, what to say and when to brush his hand on your arm or touch your breast.” She also claimed that Ward used that first meeting to steal secret letters from Profumo’s briefcase, detailing the delivery of nuclear weapons to Germany. She said . . . “Profumo never revealed that letters were stolen from him, whether out of arrogance, incompetence or to conceal his negligence.”

Keeler’s affair with Profumo began days later and she claimed that Ward immediately asked her to find out through ‘pillow-talk’ when the nuclear warheads were being moved to Germany. She also said that . . . “My 19-year-old self was impressed, flattered by the attention. We drove to the War Office and along Downing Street, which you could still do in those days. Jack (Profumo) was 46, more than twice my age, but he had a natural style about him and an aura of being in control.”

A year later, in December 1962, the police were called to Ward’s home when another of Keeler’s ex-lovers, Johnny Edgecombe, fired six shots at the lock while her and her showgirl friend Mandy Rice-Davies cowered inside.

The police investigation led to Ward’s arrest and charges of ‘living off immoral earnings’ and also to the revelation of Keeler’s affair with Profumo. She said that she betrayed Ward to the police about his spy activities, but her claims were ignored and she was sentenced to six months in jail for perjury. In the report into the scandal by Lord Denning, Keeler was painted as a prostitute who was irresistible to men in powerful positions, which of course was true and although Ward was prosecuted as a pimp and Keeler for prostitution, this did not reflect reality. Ward (who supposedly committed suicide while on trial) was an MI-5/KGB double-agent who used the innocent Keeler to obtain information from important men for his masters.

In his book, The Trial of Stephen Ward (1964,) Ludovic Kennedy considered the guilty verdict of Ward to be a miscarriage of justice and in An Affair of State (1987,) the journalist, Philip Knightley argued that . . . “Witnesses were pressured by the police into giving false evidence. Those who had anything favourable to say were silenced. And when it looked as though Ward might still survive, the Lord Chief Justice shocked the legal profession with an unprecedented intervention to ensure Ward would be found guilty.”

The entertainer Michael Bentine, who worked as an intelligence officer for MI-9 under Airey Neave during WWII, and had known Ward for some time, kept up his contact after the war, and later commented . . . “A Special Branch friend of mine told me Ward was assisted in his dying. I think he was murdered.” Paul Mann, a close friend of Stephen Ward, said that he was told shortly after his death, that . . . “Ward was injected with an air bubble, by hypodermic, with the intention of causing a fatal embolism. The needle broke, and the assassins left in a hurry. It was enough, though, to send the drugged Ward on his way. It was a botched affair.”

In 1987 Anthony Summers and Stephen Dorril, a near neighbour and acquaintance of mine, published their book on the Stephen Ward case, ‘Honeytrap.’ During their research they interviewed several members of MI-5, including Keith Wagstaffe, Ward’s case-officer. The book confirmed that Ward had been involved in an operation that was attempting to persuade Eugene Ivanov to become a double-agent.

As a result of the book being published the authors were contacted by a former MI-6 officer who claimed that Ward was murdered by a contract agent called Stanley Rytter, whose cover was as a freelance journalist and photographer. Rytter had died in 1984, but Summers and Dorril investigated the allegation and had the story confirmed by one of his associates, Serge Paplinski. The intelligence officer then went on to say . . . “It was decided that Ward had to die . . . . He (Rytter) admitted that Ward was killed on the instructions of his department. He convinced Ward that he ought to have a good night’s sleep and take some sleeping pills and the agent said he let Ward doze off and then woke him again and told him to take his tablets. Another half an hour later or two, he woke Ward again, and told him he’d forgotten to take his sleeping pills. So it went on — until Ward had overdosed. It might sound far-fetched, but it’s the easiest thing in the world to do. Once the victim is drowsy he will agree to almost anything.”

Serge Paplinski told Anthony Summers and Stephen Dorril . . . “Stanley (Rytter) was there with Ward on the last night . . . He always said that Ward was poisoned.” After hearing that Stephen Ward ‘committed suicide,’ the Soviet spy Eugene Ivanov said, “ . . . not by us. Look closer to home.”

Mandy Rice-Davies’ ‘sugar-daddy,’ the notorious Polish-Jew slum-landlord Peter Rachman was, like his father, a German collaborator during WWII, and was sent by the Russians to a punishment camp, after which he ended-up in Britain where he would as landlord continually increase rents on his appalling properties each month, and then throw his tenants out onto the street, when they could no longer afford to pay.

Johnny Edgecombe was known as a ruthless ‘enforcer’ for Rachman and would-be boyfriend to the ‘high class’ call-girl Christine Keeler. According to Rachman’s girlfriend, Mandy Rice-Davies, both were Mossad informants, and when the London-Jewish gangsters, the Kray twins took over Rachman’s empire it was claimed to be with full Mossad approval.

So, in December 1963, Keeler pleaded guilty to perjury at the Lucky Gordon (Johnny Edgecombe’s rival) trial. She served six months in prison, while much of the considerable amount she had made from newspaper stories was appropriated by lawyers. She has published several inconsistent accounts of her life, in which Ward has been variously represented as a ‘gentleman,’ her truest love, a Soviet spy, and a traitor ranking alongside Philby, Burgess and Maclean. She also claimed that Profumo impregnated her and that she subsequently underwent a painful abortion. Rice-Davies enjoyed a more successful ‘post-scandal’ career, as nightclub-owner, businesswoman, minor actress and novelist. She has been married three times, in what she described as her ‘slow descent into respectability.’ Of adverse press publicity she pithily observed that . . . “Like royalty, I simply do not complain.”

After admitting lying about the affair, after expressing his ‘deep remorse’ to the Prime Minister, to his constituents and to the Conservative Party, John Profumo withdrew into private life, with no further comments or rebuttals. In April 1964, he began working as a volunteer at the Toynbee Hall Settlement, a charitable organisation based in Spitalfields, London which worked on behalf of the deprived residents of the ‘East End.’ Profumo continued his association with the Settlement for the remainder of his life, at first in a menial capacity, then as administrator, fund-raiser, council member, chairman and finally President. His charitable work was recognised and he was appointed a Companion of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1975. He was later described by Margaret Thatcher as a ‘national hero,’ and was a guest at her 80th birthday celebrations in 2005. His marriage to Valerie Hobson endured until her death in 1998 and Profumo died aged 90, in March 2006.

Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, because of the Profumo affair, resigned from office on 18th October 1963 and in the 1964 general election, the Tories were narrowly defeated by Harold Wilson’s Labour party. However, in all probability, this was the outcome that the banksters wanted. Their agenda needed new faces in power, a new look for the 1960s and in order to achieve this, their up-coming ‘puppet’ Harold Wilson had to first become the leader of the Labour Party. But for that to become a reality, the current leader, Hugh Gaitskell, had to go . . .

In October 1962, Hugh Gaitskell made a speech about the proposed European Economic Community, which was described as ‘his passionate anti-EEC speech.’ The speech was described in a book by Christopher Booker and Richard North in this way . . . “ . . . Then in early October, the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell electrified the party conference at Brighton with a speech wholly dedicated to the Common Market. Lasting 105 minutes, it was arguably the most remarkable speech made to a party conference in the post-war era.”

After several paragraphs summarising his speech, Booker and North quote ‘the most famous passage of his speech’ as . . . “We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state . . . it means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say ‘let it end.’ But my goodness, it is a decision which needs a little care and thought.”

A few months later, Gaitskell died prematurely, aged 56.

“After he died his doctor got in touch with MI-5 and asked to see somebody from the Service. Arthur Martin, as the head of Russian Counterespionage, went to see him. The doctor explained that he was disturbed by the manner of Gaitskell’s death. He said that Gaitskell had died of a disease called lupus disseminata, which attacks the body’s organs. He said that it was rare in temperate climates and that there was no evidence that Gaitskell had been anywhere recently where he could have contracted the disease. The next development was that Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Golitsyn, a Soviet defector, told the Security Services that during the last few years of his service he had had some contacts with Department 13, which was known as the Department of Wet Affairs in the KGB. This department was responsible for organising assassinations. He said that just before he left he knew that the KGB were planning a high-level political assassination, in Europe, in order to get their man into the top place. He did not know which country it was planned in but he pointed out that the chief of Department 13 was a man called General Rodin, who had been in Britain for many years and had just returned on promotion to take up the job, so he would have had good knowledge of the political scene in England.” ‘Spy Catcher,’ Peter Wright with Paul Greengrass, pg. 362-363

As we know today from declassified documents, and decades of intelligence rumours, Harold Wilson was a top-level Soviet agent. The banksters wanted a Prime Minister who would carry out their agenda, and push for their European Union, the first step towards the New World Order. Intelligence authors Peter Wright and Chapman Pincher, pointed out that vast numbers of Britain’s secrets ended up in the hands of the Soviets and also suggested that Roger Hollis, onetime head of MI-5, was a Soviet spy. This turned-out to be true.

The Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov, in his book ‘The Liberators: Inside the Soviet Army,’ (1981,) described the Soviet armed forces as an “ . . . inefficient, cynical, farcical army of conscripts, skiving-off at the first opportunity and doing their best to stay permanently smashed on anything they could smoke, drink or inject — the mirror image of wider Soviet society, in short; and about as threatening to NATO as the girl guides.”

It is all an elaborate charade.

In 1961, the high-ranking KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the West and soon confirmed that the Soviets had agents within the British secret service, although he knew them only by their code-names. Golitsin studied the files of MI-5 officers, picked out two, and then declared to MI-5 Officer Peter Wright . . . “Your spies are here.” The files bore the names of Victor and Ted Rothschild.

Wright told Golitsin that he thought he had got it wrong as Rothschild was “ . . . one of the best friends MI-5 had ever had.” Wright, MI-5’s chief scientist and a personal friend of Rothschild, wrote in his book Spy Catcher that “Rothschild was fascinated by my plans for the scientific modernisation of MI-5 . . . I soon realised that he possessed an enormous appetite for the gossip and intrigue of the secret world, and we were soon swapping stories about some of the more bizarre colleagues he remembered from the war.”

According to Wright’s book, Rothschild, the former very close friend of Russian spies Philby, Burgess and Blunt, had access to most secrets and most of the top people in the Secret service. He wrote . . . “I doubt I have ever met a man who impressed me as much as Victor Rothschild. He is a brilliant scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, with expertise in botany and zoology, and a fascination for the structure of spermatozoa. But he has been much, much more than a scientist. His contacts, in politics, in intelligence, in banking, in the Civil Service, and abroad are legendary.”

In the book The Fifth Man (1994,) Roland Perry made the case that Ted Rothschild was a major spy for Russia and Israel, not the spy known as ‘David’ but one of the notorious ‘ring of five.’ Ted Rothschild was Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild (1910-1990,) the third Lord Rothschild. He was the British head of the famous bankster dynasty, which had financed the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and financed the purchase of the Suez Canal for Great Britain. Of course, Rothschild was far more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English.

Also according to Perry, “Burgess, at MI-6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI-6. Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI-5 by Burgess.”

Wright did not suspect that Rothschild was a spy for Russia, but Wright did suspect that MI-5 boss Hollis and Prime Minister Harold Wilson may be enemy spies and meanwhile, in the US, the CIA’s James Jesus Angleton was becoming more suspicious that Rothschild was a spy for the enemy. However, Rothschild improved his image with Angleton by emphasising his Mossad (Israeli secret service) links; Angleton was always in favour of close CIA links to Mossad. Rothschild also improved his image by doing work for MI-6 including running agents in China in the late 1960s.

Soon after Israel was formed, Rothschild was allegedly involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department in a scientific institute in Rehovoth, Israel and it was after the Suez Affair that the French promised to supply Israel with a nuclear reactor and some uranium. The secret deal was only known to about a dozen individuals, including Rothschild. So, in 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert.

Israel tried to argue that the reactor was only to be used for civilian and peaceful purposes, certainly not for the production of nuclear weapons. This was a huge lie and even water desalination and the cultivation of the Negev were used as excuses to conceal the true nature of the reactor. In fact, the decision to construct a nuclear reactor in Dimona was never debated in a democratic fashion. It was a one-man decision. David Ben-Gurion and a small team of advisors who were all pro-bomb, concealed the decisions from opponents. And no vote on this issue ever took place.

How much did the construction of the reactor cost the Israeli taxpayer, or rather the American taxpayer? No-one really knows but according to Avner Cohen’s book, ‘Israel and the Bomb,’ Eliezer Livne, who opposed the bomb, argued in 1962 that the reactor cost $300 million but apart from the huge amount of money involved, there also remains the question of how the money was raised within a democratic society, above the national or defence budget. To this end Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres approached some 25 prominent rich Jews from around the world, 18 of whom were Americans. They provided $40 million and the balance was raised by manipulation of the Office of the Prime Minister’s and defence budgets.

The clash between the US and Israel over this issue began in 1960, when the outgoing Eisenhower administration sought an explanation for the mysterious construction near Dimona. It was told that this top-secret activity in the middle of the desert was a harmless textile plant, and no, it could not come and visit. Classified spy photos were then published on the front page of The New York Times.

When President Kennedy took office in 1961, the disagreement became a full-blown crisis. Kennedy was not inherently hostile to Israel, but neither did he have a special sympathy for the Jewish people. His advisers urged continuous pressure, assuming that Israel would have no choice but to accept US demands and thenceforth every high-level meeting or communication repeated the demands for the US inspection of Dimona. One form of pressure was to deny Ben-Gurion, an invitation to the White House and his May 1961 meeting with Kennedy was a low-key affair at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, and was dominated by this crucial issue.

At that time, Israel was far weaker than is the case today. Before 1967 and before the days of billions each year in US aid and arms, Israel was not seen as a formidable power, and the economy depended on massive aid from Diaspora Jewry, Rothschild handouts and organised crime. If the US government were to impose tax restrictions, the costs would have been very high and so Ben-Gurion avoided saying ‘no’ by stalling them for two years.

Finally, Kennedy had had enough, and in a personal letter dated 18th May 1963, he warned that unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona, Israel would find itself totally isolated. Israel’s simple answer to that threat, was to place President John Fitzgerald Kennedy at the top of their hit list.

On 4th June 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110 was signed, which effectively stripped the Federal Reserve of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, Kennedy declared that the privately-owned Rothschild Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress and as a result it is safe to conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superseded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When Kennedy signed this Order, it returned to the United States federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency, without going cap-in-hand to the privately owned, Rothschild Federal Reserve Bank. EO11110 gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority, “ . . . to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.”

This means that for every ounce of silver in the US Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4bn in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department at the time of Kennedy’s assassination. It seems obvious that Kennedy was fully aware that the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency, were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

By the end of 1962, the robber barons which ran the oil industry, estimated that their earnings on foreign investment capital would fall to 15 percent, compared with 30 percent in 1955, if the ‘Oil Depletion Allowance’ was diminished in accordance with JFK’s proposal.

JFK’s attack upon the ‘Oil Depletion Allowance’ which permitted oil producers to deduct up to 27.5% of their income as tax exempt, provided the oil barons with a lower tax rate and a competitive business advantage, not shared by any other business interests. By targeting this ‘perk’ JFK’s advisors estimated that the government would retain more than $300 million in tax revenue each year. Although the allowance remained intact, due to the Congressmen who were recipients of oil company campaign contributions, JFK made some very powerful enemies in the oil industry.

It was the oil depletion allowance which made drilling for oil a no-risk venture. An oil speculator could drill five wells and if four were dry and only the fifth struck oil, the speculator would still make money because of tax breaks resulting from the depletion allowance deducted from owed taxes. Kennedy pointed out the obvious when he stated “ . . . no one industry should be permitted to obtain an undue tax advantage over all others.”

So JFK had made a deadly enemy out of the oil industry and its biggest tycoon, David Rockefeller with the proposal to reduce the oil depletion allowance. Of the two banks which together controlled 53% of the Federal Reserve in 1963, Rockefeller owned the controlling interest in both.

In the early 1960s, Dallas was spectacularly corrupt. The police force included KKK members and notorious gangster watering-holes such as Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. It was a city of great contrasts, being the epicentre of the ‘Bible Belt’ and yet also an enclave of organised crime and corruption. It was also a growing bastion of ‘new money’ and the centre of the US domestic oil industry, along with many defence contractors and military bases. A 1964 New York Times article reported on a group of businessmen who had formed “an invisible government . . . that ran Dallas without an electoral mandate.” The group was powerful and confident enough that it essentially advertised the fact that anyone seeking project approval should come to it, rather than the official government agencies. Politically, the members of this new establishment “ . . . begin with the very conservative and range rightwards,” the Times added.

The Kennedys understood the political importance of Dallas and of Texas in general. They chose Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) to be JFK’s Vice President because they needed Southern, in particular Texan, votes and after the election, they appointed Texans, like John Connally, a lawyer representing oil interests, to be secretary of the Navy, and George McGhee, the son-in-law of Everette DeGolyer, the legendary oil industry figure, as deputy Secretary of State. But political accommodation does not necessarily guarantee affection. Dallas in general was no friend of the Kennedys.

Prominent within the group of transplants from the Eastern Establishment was George H. W. Bush. As the son of a powerful Connecticut senator, he was unusually well connected, and both ingratiating and indefatigable. While his father, Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles remained anchored in the East, George and Neil Mallon had prospered in Houston and Dallas, respectively. Mallon nurtured the de facto power structure emerging in Dallas, most of which worked out of the Republic National Bank Building. A Kennedy rally would not have attracted many people from there, and not for reasons of ideology alone.

If JFK angered people accustomed to being treated with deference by mere officeholders, his brother Bobby made them apoplectic. Where Jack was charming, Bobby was blunt. Where Jack was cautious, Bobby was aggressive and his many investigations into fraud and corruption among military contractors, politicians, and corporate bigwigs, including a Greek shipping magnate named Aristotle Onassis, made them both many enemies. Bobby’s determination to take-on organised crime also angered FBI director Hoover, who had long-standing friendships with mob associates and enjoyed spending time at resorts and racetracks in the company of these individuals. Hoover routinely bypassed the Kennedys and dealt with Vice President Johnson instead. In fact, the Kennedys were hoping that after the 1964 election, they would have the clout to finally retire Hoover, who had headed the FBI since its inception four decades before.

The oil industry — in particular, the more financially vulnerable Dallas-based independents — did not welcome Kennedy’s stance on the aforementioned Oil Depletion Allowance. The trade publication Oil and Gas Journal charged that RFK was setting up a “ . . . battleground [upon which] business and government will collide” and Hoover expressed his own reservations, especially about the use of his agents to gather information in the matter. One of Hoover’s good friends, the ultra-rich Texas oilman Clint Murchison Sr., was among the most aggressive players in the depletion allowance dispute. Murchison had been exposed as far back as the early 1950s, in Time magazine no less — as epitomising the absurdity of this give-away to the rich and powerful.

Kerr-McGee was the nation’s leading producer of uranium, and profited handsomely from the arms race. Even among the sharks of Washington, Robert Kerr stood out as a vicious individual and he did not care for the Kennedys either. As an old friend and mentor to LBJ, Kerr had been so angry on learning that Johnson had accepted the number-two spot under Kennedy that he yelled . . . “Get me my .38. I’m gonna kill every damn one of you. I can’t believe that my three best friends would betray me.”

Lyndon Johnson shared the enmity towards Kennedy. In fact, he was the one person in the White House that the oilmen trusted. The Kennedys, for their part, had never liked LBJ either and had asked him to be JFK’s ‘running mate’ for political expediency alone. Within a year of the inauguration, there was already talk of dumping him in 1964 and Bobby in particular, detested Johnson, and the feeling was mutual. RFK’s investigations of military contractors in Texas increasingly pointed towards a network of corruption that was in the process of leading back to LBJ himself. According to presidential historian Robert Dallek . . .

“RFK closely followed the Justice Department’s investigation, including inquiries into Johnson’s possible part in Baker’s corrupt dealings. Despite wrongdoing on Baker’s part that would eventually send him to prison, Johnson believed that Bobby Kennedy instigated the investigation in hopes of finding something that could knock him off the ticket in 1964.”

LBJ had numerous connections with the Bushes. One was through H.W’s business partners Hugh and William Liedtke, who probably knew LBJ even before they knew Bush and whilst studying at law school in Austin, the Liedtkes had rented the servants’ quarters of Johnson’s home.

Another connection came through Senator Prescott Bush, whose conservative Republican values often dovetailed with those of Johnson during the years when LBJ served as the Democrats’ majority leader. After Johnson ascended to the presidency, he and newly elected Congressman Bush were often allies on such issues as the oil depletion allowance and the war in Vietnam. This Texas ‘Raj,’ as it has been called, was an incestuous world. Denizens sat on one another’s board, fraternised in each other’s clubs, and intermarried within a small circle, with most of the ceremonies being held in the same handful of churches. Whether one was nominally a Democrat or Republican did not much matter, they all shared an enthusiasm for the anything-goes capitalism that had made them rich and a deep aversion to ‘government inference.’ That meant anything that the government did — such as environmental rules or antitrust investigations — that was not in the oligarchs’ favour.

In many respects, RFK became the focus for the hostility that Jack deflected with his charm. Bobby did not shrink from the role of enforcer and for as long as Jack remained president — and in 1963 a second term seemed likely — Bobby would be his Rottweiler and even worse was the prospect that the Kennedys could become a lengthy dynasty. After Jack, there might be Bobby, and after Bobby, Ted by which time their sons would be old enough to take up the reins. This was a far from appealing prospect to the Bushes and their circle and it is only stating the obvious to observe that this was not a group to suffer setbacks with a fatalistic, resigned shrug of the shoulders.

The Kennedy administration struck at the heart of the Southern establishment’s growing wealth and power. Not only did it attack the oil depletion allowance, but its support of the civil rights movement threatened to undermine the cheap labour that supported Southern industry. Yet in the space of five years, both Jack and Bobby were dead, and the prospect of a Kennedy dynasty had been extinguished. Instead, within twelve years of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, a new, conservative dynasty was beginning to emerge . . . the ‘House of Bush.’ But more of that later.

Vietnam

Under the administration of President Eisenhower and his ‘domino theory,’ the United States supported the administration of President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam. Diem was a devout Roman Catholic and a fervent anti-communist. When the conflict between North and South Vietnam escalated in 1959, the military advisers placed in Vietnam, stressed their concern that the population was turning towards the communists.

Then when Kennedy became President, his administration initially remained committed to the same cold war policy of the two previous administrations but Kennedy was determined to ‘draw a line in the sand’ and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam. Although there were apparent problems with Diem and his regime, his administration was determined to support Diem because, in the words of Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, “ . . . Diem’s the only boy we got out there.”

But the quality of the South Vietnamese military remained poor, with bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all contributing to the ineptness. The frequency of guerrilla attacks rose as the insurgency gathered steam and at the Battle of Ap Bac on 2nd January 1963, a small band of Viet Cong defeated a much larger and better equipped South Vietnamese force. The South Vietnamese were led in that battle by Diem’s most trusted General, Huynh Van Cao, another Catholic who had been promoted way beyond his capabilities due to his religion and fidelity to Diem.

So Kennedy’s advisers eventually began to conclude that Diem was incapable of defeating the communists and could possibly even make a deal with Ho Chi Minh, and further discontent with Diem’s policies increased greatly with the shooting of majority Buddhists who were protesting against the ban on the Buddhist flag. This resulted in mass protests. All throughout the summer of 1963, Buddhist protesters thrust Vietnam onto the world stage and television screens, with an ongoing regime of fasting, sit-down strikes, student walkouts, mass meetings, news conferences, a plea to the United Nations, and skirmishes with police.

Buddhist pagodas were being demolished by Catholic paramilitaries throughout Diem’s rule and he refused to make concessions to the Buddhist majority or take responsibility for the deaths. Then on 21st August 1963, government forces raided Buddhist pagodas across Vietnam, causing widespread damage and destruction and killing hundreds. The US support for Diem grew shaky and Kennedy, America’s first Catholic president, gearing up for his hoped-for re-election the next year, was increasingly embarrassed by the protests alleging religious persecution from the US-backed president of South Vietnam who was also a Catholic.

Kennedy, now with an eye on the upcoming election campaign, ordered Diem to end the persecutions . . . but he refused and world opinion forced Kennedy to choose between his church and his political career. The CIA was in contact with generals planning to remove Diem and informed them that the United States would not oppose such a move nor punish the generals by withholding aid. So, on 2nd November 1963, President Diem was overthrown and brutally murdered, along with his brother.

The reason why JFK, after many months of debates and much indecision, very reluctantly authorised something so utterly distasteful, overthrowing an ally who was a personal acquaintance and fellow Catholic, is clear. He wanted a stronger response by the South Vietnam military against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. He desperately hoped, that this might be brought about by new leaders of the South Vietnamese government and if so, Kennedy hoped then that the US might be able to withdraw at some point. It was though, much more of a hope, than a firm plan.

The coup and the subsequent murder of Diem stunned the world. Lyndon Johnson, who was then VP, later referred to the coup as “ . . . the worst mistake we ever made.” And even Ho Chi Minh, upon hearing the news, gloated, “I could scarcely believe that the Americans would be so stupid.”

Indeed, the removal of Diem brought about a worse government and far greater instability in South Vietnam and its military performance suffered badly due to extreme political turmoil from late 1963 through much of 1965. The regime change led to upheavals throughout the Vietnamese government and armed forces and three months after the Diem coup, most chiefs of the 41 provinces had been replaced at least once, some major military commanders had been replaced twice and, as McNamara subsequently told President Johnson, “ . . . the political structure extending from Saigon down into the hamlets disappeared.”

The military junta that ousted Diem lasted 89 days until it was, in turn, toppled by an upstart general named Nguyen Khanh. These twin coups were described by the leading pro-Communist leader in South Vietnam, Nguyen Huu Tho, as “gifts from heaven for us.”

Khanh lasted only 390 days before being ousted by other generals and exiled abroad on 24th February 1965. Six days later, American and South Vietnamese warplanes began a sustained bombing campaign in North Vietnam and in another six days, on 8th March 1965, the first American combat unit landed near the demilitarised zone with North Vietnam. It would take another eight-plus years for the last American soldier to withdraw from Vietnam on 29th March 1973, as the US suffered its first-ever military failure, in its history.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the Catholic Hierarchy was horrified. Diem was a favourite son and all their hopes of turning Asia Catholic were pinned on him. To add insult to injury the order to dispose of him had come from the first Catholic President of the US. Kennedy had been elected President with the support of the Catholic hierarchy and yet had the effrontery to put his own political career ahead of his duty to the ‘Mother’ Church. He had double-crossed them . . .

But then, the Vietnam War was hardly just about the Catholic Church . . . or even Communism. It was also about hard drugs.

Perhaps the biggest secret of the Vietnam War was that the CIA seized control of the infamous Golden Triangle during that time period, and then, along with assistance from various elements of Onassis’ organised crime syndicate, shipped huge amounts of heroin out of that area into the west. Because huge fortunes were being made from this practice and many others, those who stood to profit from this horrendous war — the armament manufacturers, banksters, military men, and CIA drug dealers, met any suggestion to withdraw from Vietnam with immediate negativity. But that was exactly what John F. Kennedy intended to do upon his re-election. In fact, he had already planned on telling the American people that their troops would be back home by 1965.

“Kennedy’s intended change in Vietnam policy — his plan to unilaterally withdraw from the imbroglio — infuriated not only the CIA but elements in the Pentagon and their allies in the military-industrial-complex. By this time, of course, the Onassis-Lansky Syndicate had already set-up international heroin running from Southeast Asia through the CIA-linked Corsican Mafia in the Mediterranean. The joint Lansky-CIA operations in the international drug racket were a lucrative venture that thrived as a consequence of deep US involvement in Southeast Asia as a cover for drug smuggling activities.” Michael Collins Piper, ‘Final Judgment’

Piper’s simple one-paragraph explanation may be the most concise overview of the Vietnam War ever written. The military men and defence contractors were making huge profits from the war machine, whilst the CIA crooks were also lining their pockets.

“The flood of drugs into this country since WWII was one of the major ‘unspeakable’ secrets leading to the ongoing cover-up of the Kennedy assassination.” Peter Dale Scott, ‘Deep Politics and the Death of JFK’

“Since the prohibition of narcotics in 1920, alliances between drug brokers and intelligence agencies have protected the global narcotics traffic. Given the frequency of such alliances, there seems a natural attraction between intelligence agencies and criminal syndicates. Both are practitioners of what one retired CIA operative has called the ‘clandestine arts’ — the basic skill of operating outside the normal channels of civil society. Among all the institutions of modern society, intelligence agencies and crime syndicates alone maintain large organizations capable of carrying out covert operations without fear of detection.” Professor Alfred McCoy, ‘The Politics of Heroin’

On the government side, the two main ‘Golden Triangle’ runners were Ted Shackley and Thomas Clines, the same two men who ran Operation Mongoose (the plot to kill Fidel Castro.) Thus, from 1960-1975, the CIA deployed a secret force of 30,000 Hmong tribesmen to fight the Laotian Communists. They also created heroin labs in this area and then shipped it via their own private airline — Air America.

McCoy described how the CIA first gave heroin to American troops in Vietnam before shipping it into the United States, where Meyer Lansky’s mobsters distributed it onto the streets. Sam Giancana’s biographers reinforced this point by stating that while organised crime continued its trade, “ . . . The CIA looked the other way — allowing over $100 million a year in illicit drugs to flow through Havana into the US. It was an arrangement similar to all the rest they’d made. The CIA received 10% of the take on the side of narcotics, which they utilized for their undercover slush fund.”

After the ‘Mob’ and the CIA had generated this ‘dirty’ money, they laundered it into secret bank accounts controlled by the international banksters. That way, the government could not get at it and the funds could be invested in the stock market or channelled into the Secret Services’ black budgets. And this is the real reason that it was so important to the banksters that JFK did not pull America out of Vietnam. The money raised through illegal drug trafficking and for the War Machine was colossal and so many vested interests did not want their own ‘gravy train to hit the buffers.’

“Beware The Military-Industrial Complex . . . ” Eisenhower’s Farewell Speech

Especially coming from a long-term bankster puppet, mass-murdering war-criminal and traitor like Eisenhower, this was not the kind of parting shot anyone was expecting to hear . . . But maybe relinquishing his ‘power’ had awakened his conscience or maybe he feared for his immortal soul. Who knows? But either way, the warning went unheeded by both JFK, and the American people.

JFK had certainly followed orders with regards to Cuba, and the secret dealing with the Russians. Strangely though, at this time of crisis, and just a few weeks after taking office . . . On 27th April 1961, he gave a similar, warning speech of his own, before the bankster-controlled American Newspaper Publishers Association, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.

But clearly, by November of 1963, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy had more than just ‘strayed from the path.’ His conscience had been stirred, and he was now trying to do the ‘right-thing’ for both his country, and the world. Considering all the dirty deeds in which he was involved, he was certainly no saint and what his motives really were, will never be known, but it is certain that he would never consent to be dictated-to.

In less than three years in office, he had crossed the Mafia, Onassis, the Roman Catholic Church, the CIA, the military-Industrial complex, Big Oil, the Federal Reserve, and Israel . . . In short, he had transgressed against the entire bankster hierarchy in one way or another and for that gross sin of sins, he would not just simply be quietly assassinated like so many unfortunates before him. He would be made a monumental example of, a huge, spectacular warning to others who may consider straying from his proscribed agenda.

. . . He would be ritually, publicly executed.

Chapter 16

Executive Action

The JFK Motorcade about to enter Dealey Plaza, 22nd November 1963

‘The Killing of the King’ is a Masonic ritual, dating back to the murder of Hiram Abiff in King Solomon’s Temple in Masonic legend. Since then, the forces of darkness in all their various guises have used similar ritualised murders to dispose of their enemies, all down the ages. The assassination of JFK was one such episode.

“Masonry does not believe in murdering a man in just any old way and in the JFK assassination it went to incredible lengths and took great risks in order to make this heinous act of theirs correspond to the ancient fertility oblation of the Killing of the King.” James Shelby Downard

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Lincoln was elected president in 1860.
Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
The names Lincoln and Kennedy both have 7 letters.
Both were embroiled in civil rights issues.
Both their wives lost children while in the White House.
Both men were shot on a Friday.
Both were shot in the head.
Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln.
Both were assassinated by southerners.
Both successors were named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson who succeeded Lincoln was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson who succeeded Kennedy was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are comprised of 15 letters.
Lincoln was shot at the Ford theatre.
Kennedy was shot in a Ford Lincoln car.
Booth ran from the theatre and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from the warehouse and was caught in a theatre.

I do not believe in coincidences. Both murders were ritualistic in design and operation. The fact that neither story of the subsequent ‘escape’ of the assassins is true — indeed Oswald was not the murderer in any event — is totally irrelevant. It is the perception by the masses of the ritual and the ritualised account itself that is important.

The Official JFK Assassination Story

The conventional account relates that Lee Harvey Oswald, an unstable person who hated the United States, was a secret Communist and sought haven in the Soviet Union, where he worked in a factory, and married a Russian woman, Marina. Eventually disillusioned by his experiences in the ‘workers’ paradise,’ he returned with Marina to the Dallas-Fort Worth area and quickly descended into a spiral of anger and irrationality.

He then experimented with several other political creeds, bought a rifle by mail order, and travelled to New Orleans, where he made a show of expressing sympathy for Castro’s Cuba and consorted with a bewildering array of flamboyant and disreputable figures. He then returned to the Dallas area, deliberately found a job along the route of a planned motorcade for President Kennedy, and as Kennedy passed, shot him dead.

Oswald was later captured, and almost immediately was killed, live on TV, by Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner with ties to mobsters actively involved in CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Castro. The Warren Commission set-up to investigate the incident compiled an ‘official non-conspiracy theory’ in which this lone, deranged and possibly politically-motivated gunman used a cheap and poor-quality mail-order Italian bolt-action rifle with an ill-fitted and misaligned scope to fire three shots in five seconds at a moving target nearly 100 yards away, and that one ‘magic bullet’ caused seven wounds in two people, eventually emerging unscathed.

This ‘theory’ is not only physically impossible but requires that almost all the actual real evidence be ignored, and that the American public be entirely gullible and trusting of their government. Of course, this was all before the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy; the Watts, Newark and Detroit riots; the anti-war movement, the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.

The ‘magic bullet theory’ was created by Warren Commission Assistant Counsel, Arlen Specter, and is briefly, as follows . . . A bullet fired from the 6th floor easternmost window of the Texas School Book Depository struck the President in the upper back near his spine; changed from its 45°-60° downward trajectory to a rising trajectory to exit his throat just below the Adam’s apple; paused in mid-flight to turn right, then left, then downward to enter John Connally’s back below the right shoulder blade near the armpit; continued through his chest, shattering his fifth rib below his right nipple; then entered his forearm near the wrist, splintering the large radius bone, exited his arm and embedded itself into Connally’s left thigh. Then, finally dislodged itself, clean of any trace of blood or tissue, and in near-perfect condition buried itself into the mat of an emergency room stretcher (later to be discovered after Jack Ruby was seen in the hospital.) The perfection of the bullet was also inconsistent with the bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally’s wrist.

But, even ignoring this fanciful tale of a ‘magic bullet,’ the proponents of the theory were forced to ignore or bury an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence, including the sightings of multiple shooters with rifles in several locations; the discovery of a variety of bullets of various calibers in various locations; bullet marks and holes that could not have been caused by the ‘official’ trajectory; the majority of witnesses seeing and/or hearing shots from the grassy knoll; and several witnesses seeing or encountering men with guns, arriving at, standing at the fence in, or fleeing from the grassy knoll area, as well as encountering Secret Service agents guarding the fence area who were apparently not Secret Service agents.

The ‘Real’ Story

Probably the first book written about Kennedy was ‘PT109’ (1961,) an exaggerated tale by Robert J. Donovan detailing Kennedy’s WWII exploits that helped create his war-hero persona. Post assassination however, there have been books about every imaginable aspect of the life of Kennedy, including his relationship with Marilyn Monroe ‘These Few Precious Days’ (2013) by Christopher Andersen and even his relationship with a femme fatale spy while he was in Britain.

Now, there are at least 2,000 Kennedy assassination conspiracy books, including perhaps the most famous, Jim Garrison’s classic ‘On the Trail of Assassins’ (1988,) upon which Oliver Stone based his 1991 movie, starring Kevin Costner, JFK. Given this fact, coupled with countless newspaper and magazine articles, scores of documentaries, and endless radio and TV analysis and commentary you would be forgiven for thinking that now, more than fifty years later, the masses would all be more enlightened as to what REALLY happened to President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, on 22nd November 1963. But unfortunately they are not.

People are more confused now than ever in fact, and the banksters could not be more pleased about that. There is a complete overload of information, misinformation, distortion, deceit and outright lying propaganda out there now. Was Lee Harvey Oswald the lone assassin? Was there a conspiracy? How many bullets? How many shooters? And so on, and on . . . Of course, the official version of events presents small nuggets of truth here and there, but tends to stay well away from what any good homicide detective would look for in a high-profile murder case, and that is — ‘Cui Bono’ or who benefits . . . who REALLY benefits?

But then, those same ‘masses’ have not looked at JFK’s death from the unique perspective that has been provided within this book. A perspective that is replete with centuries of institutionalised conspiracy and evil — as with all the other murders, assassinations and wars presented to you so far, as evidence against the banksters. You see, the more evidence that is revealed, the more exposure and attention the JFK subject gets, the more it becomes confusing, and the easier it is to ridicule and dismiss. Just as those sitting on a trial jury, people are already predisposed to analyse such evidence against a background of their own perceptions, and as to how their own life experiences and beliefs have conditioned them.

It is that exact same conditioning, that same trust and belief in our institutions and rule of law, shared by 99.9% of the masses, that allows the banksters to commit their crimes, lie about them and yet be believed, each and every time. Whether it be a President, Prime Minister, Pope, or bombing or starving a country, the self-enslaved masses are too busy with their own problems in their everyday lives, to be overly concerned with what is really going on around them, in the world.

Indeed for centuries, this is what the banksters have relied upon and carefully nurtured; the indifference and ignorance of the masses.

A JFK author, A.J. Weberman, a US-Israeli dual citizen, said that Jim Garrison once showed him an unpublished novel which was “ . . . a fictional work that placed the blame for John Kennedy’s death on the Mossad.” Although Garrison did publish a JFK novel, ‘The Star-Spangled Contract,’ it did not allude to Mossad involvement. But if Weberman is to be believed, Garrison had ultimately discovered the Rothschild-Israeli connection to the JFK conspiracy and yet this is precisely what many JFK researchers choose to ignore. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the movie JFK which has falsely, yet so iconically defined Kennedy’s assassination for both new generations and old, was made and financed by the very same Mossad, that played a role in his horrific death.

But it was not just the Israeli Mossad, or any of the other usual suspects, the CIA, the Onassis-Meyer-Lansky-Mafia, Big Oil, the drug families, the military-industrial complex, Lyndon Johnson, the Catholic Church, anti-Castro Cubans, the FBI, Secret Service, or even the Federal Reserve, alone that carried out the JFK assassination . . . In fact it was all of the above, each playing a specific part, but all under the complete control and under orders of the banksters. The banksters, in this case, meaning ‘the Crown,’ the British Monarchy and the Rothschild’s ruling elite, the Committee of 300. It was executive action taken at the highest criminal level.

However, the actual task of executing JFK, fell to a specialist unit of Britain’s MI-6 intelligence service, the Special Operations Executive (SOE) headed by Sir William Stephenson. With an upcoming election, JFK could have easily been disgraced and impeached as a direct result of any one of numerous sex scandals, Marilyn Monroe, Judith Exner etc. And he could have easily been poisoned too, the fate of several other ‘inconvenient’ Presidents, Popes and Prime Ministers, his death being blamed on any one of his health problems, even though the public were unaware of them at the time.

But instead, JFK had to be killed brutally, publicly, and ritualistically, as an unforgettable message of warning to anyone who may consider any future attempts to hijack the ongoing agenda. As per the chapter title, the term ‘Executive Action’ was first used by the CIA in the early 1950s, to refer to their assassination operations.

Of course this is all circumstantial evidence . . . but then most court cases are judged on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. Within these pages lie an absolute avalanche of actual and circumstantial evidence, monumental coincidences, and an undeniable pattern of greed, mass murder, treason and fraud, that is not only a realistic assessment of the truth, but highly probable.

As with other assassinations, Presidential or otherwise, the ‘lone assassin’ modus operandi has always served the banksters well in the past. But just ‘in case’ and to cover all possible eventualities, including the deflection of those who may suspect a ‘conspiracy,’ the banksters present us with an array of the ‘usual suspects . . . ’ When Eisenhower and Kennedy both in their unique ways warned, (or rather distracted) us to beware of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ they were priming us to view them as an evil, yet mysterious indefinable power that could easily be blamed for anything. In a similar vein to simply saying ‘the CIA did it,’ it actually deters further scrutiny, because we all ‘know that they do bad things,’ and so it tends to be taken almost as a joke, and satisfy the majority as an explanation.

For a world traumatised by the death of John F. Kennedy, the notion that a rootless and disturbed individual could murder the President was troubling enough — but far less troubling to contemplate than the alternative possibility, that the assassination was part of a larger plot, a monumental conspiracy. I do not intend to cover all the myriad nuances of the plot within these pages. The story is so-far reaching and intricate that it would need a book of its own to do justice to it all. However, there is one aspect of it all that is worthy of some closer scrutiny, and that is regarding the famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint,) so-called ‘Zapruder film,’ purporting to prove the ‘Lee Harvey Oswald did it,’ fairy-tale. For those unaware, this is the oft-shown, grainy, silent footage that shows Kennedy being hit in the head by the sniper’s bullet and his brains exploding through the back of his head.

The Zapruder Film

The ‘official’ story, ‘straight from the horse’s mouth,’ of how the 58 year-old Dallas tailor, Abraham Zapruder just happened to capture on 26 seconds and 486 frames of film, the most iconic assassination of the 20th Century is that . . .

“As I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this,” he said, demonstrating what he saw for the local ABC affiliate shortly after the shooting. “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn’t say if it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting. That’s about all, I’m just sick.”

Zapruder handed over the footage to a Secret Service agent and it was used as part of the formal investigation, but he later decided to sell the rights to the video and its stills to Life magazine. Life outbid CBS for the footage agreeing to pay him $150,000. Zapruder then gave $25,000 of that money to the widow of the police officer who was supposedly shot by Lee Harvey Oswald in the hours following the assassination.

Before his death, Zapruder was interviewed a number of times by government officials who were investigating the shooting. “I started yelling, ‘they killed him, they killed him,’” he testified before the investigative panel in July 1964. “I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass. I don’t even know how I did it.”

Tests showed that the camera, loaded with double 8-millimetre Kodachrome II colour film, recorded at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second and there were either 486 or 487 frames with assassination-related images. Although there was no sound, the Zapruder film allowed investigators and researchers to establish the interval between gunshots. Zapruder said he had the film developed, and had three copies made — two of which he gave to the Secret Service and FBI.

Life magazine owned the original copy of the Zapruder film and it was suppressed for several years before Life originally published selected frames from the film in an issue dated 25th November 1966 in an article titled A Matter of Reasonable Doubt. It was not until the sham trial of Clay Shaw though, that the complete film was viewed in public.

Over the years, it has caused a great deal of controversy. Many assassination researchers have studied the film for decades and many of them know each frame and frame number by heart. There have been chapters on the film in hundreds of books on the Kennedy assassination and several full length books about the film by itself. There have also been dozens of videos and television specials made about the film.

The complete Zapruder film was first broadcast on TV on the 6th March 1975 on Good Night America with Geraldo Rivera, on ABC, twelve years after the event and eventually, on the 16th July 1999, a three-member arbitration panel of the US Government awarded Zapruder’s heirs $16 million for the film. After the Zapruder family was paid the $16m, they donated the film to the ‘Sixth Floor Museum,’ which is located in the old School Book Depository Building in Dallas, Texas and it is from there that Oswald is alleged to have fired the fatal shots.

In 1969, about a year before his death, Zapruder testified as to the film’s authenticity during the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, the only person ever prosecuted for the assassination. District Attorney Jim Garrison played the film for the jury ten times, a scene that formed the dramatic crescendo of Oliver Stone’s 1991 film, ‘JFK.’

Over the years, the Zapruder film has been subjected to massive scrutiny. It is said to both prove Oswald’s guilt or innocence (delete as appropriate) and has been claimed as a fake and/or that it was tampered-with and altered. No other film in history has been so controversial and the debates about what the Zapruder film proves or disproves rage-on to this day. Looking at the Kennedy assassination from an investigative perspective is like falling into a bottomless pit of contradictory evidence and ‘smoke and mirrors.’

But along with prominent JFK researchers like James Fetzer and Harris E. Livingstone, I believe that the Zapruder film is a complete forgery and a vital part of the cover-up of the conspiracy. To back-up that statement is not easy in print, so I would strongly recommend that you research this for yourself. There is a wealth of information, and disinformation on the subject to be found on the Internet and hopefully this book will help you to discern the difference.

Zapruder’s Grassy Knoll pedestal

In 1963, Abraham Zapruder of Russian descent, was a 32nd degree Mason, and was no ordinary bystander. He was an active member of two CIA-backed organisations, the Dallas Council on World Affairs, founded by Henry Neil Mallon (George H.W. Bush’s mentor,) a member of the Skull and Bones Society at Yale; and, the Crusade for a Free Europe.

Membership of these two CIA-backed domestic operations in Dallas included Clint Murchison, the Big-Oil baron and D. Harold Byrd, owner of the Texas School Book Depository, Sarah Hughes, who swore-in LBJ as 36th President whilst Air Force One, the Presidential jet, was still on the ground in Dallas, George de Mohrenschildt, CIA contract agent and best friend of Lee Harvey Oswald, George H.W. Bush close friend of George de Mohrenschildt, Howard Hunt and George de Mohrenschildt’s brother, Demitri Von Mohrenschildt.

In 1953 and 1954, a woman named Jeanne LeGon worked side-by-side with Abraham Zapruder at Nardis of Dallas, a fashion design firm. Jeanne LeGon designed clothing and Abraham Zapruder, patterns and materials. Abraham Zapruder’s obituary mis-states the date he left Nardis of Dallas, incorrectly citing 1949, the correct year was 1959 . . . the same year that his design partner Jeanne LeGon became known as Jeanne LeGon de Mohrenschildt after marrying Lee Oswald’s best friend, to-be, the CIA contract agent and rabid anti-communist, George de Mohrenschildt.

Lyndon Baines Johnson’s personal secretary, Marie Fehmer, who travelled back to Washington on Air Force One with the newly-sworn-in president LBJ, on the 22nd November 1963, was the daughter of Olga Fehmer, who also worked at Nardis of Dallas with Abraham Zapruder and Jean LeGon de Mohrenschildt. On the 29th March 1977, the day that de Mohrenschildt agreed to be interviewed by House Select Committee on Assassinations, he was found by his daughter, Alexandra, dead of a shotgun blast through the mouth. His death was ruled as ‘suicide.’ Is this all becoming ever-so-slightly suspicious yet?

But back to the film itself . . . Several respected scientists have examined the Zapruder film in fine detail and they found that, while most of it looks completely genuine, some of the images are impossible and actually violate the laws of physics. They certainly could not have come from Zapruder’s home-movie camera. However, they also concluded that the film is an excellent forgery. It is almost perfect and some mistakes took almost 40 years to find. They also proved that the film was not just changed a little to distract truth-seekers, but that the entire film is an elaborate fake!

A ‘movie’ film is nothing more than a series of still photos (frames.) The fake film was made by cutting and pasting faked photos and real film frames together to make new frames and because the Zapruder film is only 26 seconds long, only 486 photos needed to be made and the forgers had almost a year to create them, before they were eventually published. This was not difficult to achieve in 1963 and 1964, high-quality fake photographs have been created since the 1850s.

It would not be difficult to believe that a real film of the assassination was rapidly faked on the evening of the assassination, using equipment that could create Hollywood-style special effects (for example, as in Mary Poppins, created in 1964.) Remember, the CIA would have access to the very latest film technology, and it is well documented that numerous Hollywood technicians and advisors, were on the CIA payroll.

In May 2003, scientists and researchers presented their latest findings at a conference in Duluth, Minnesota. This has now been described in a book, ‘The Great Zapruder Film Hoax,’ written by Jim Fetzer and published in September 2003. They described some of the mistakes that the forgers made. Photo analyst Jack White clearly demonstrated that the famous 8mm film of the JFK assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder was altered and parts of it fabricated. One of the main reasons that fakery was used was to (a) cover-up the fact that 25 named witnesses saw JFK’s limo come to a complete stop for around 3 seconds during which time the fatal head shot(s) occurred . . . and (b) on Zapruder frame 313, which shows the moment of the fatal head shot(s,) the special-effect of spray painting of blood splatter could have been and was indeed added later — and, on Zapruder frames 314 and beyond the special effect head injury was painted-in to ‘prove’ the lie of the head shot(s) coming from the School Book Depository and Oswald. Also, JFK’s back-of-head exit wound was painted black on the 35mm film to cover his exit wound. This completely contradicted the Parkland Hospital autopsy testimony, photographs and X-rays. Secret Service agent Clint Hill, seen jumping onto the JFK limo as it pulled after having stopped for 3 seconds, always claimed that the Zapruder film was not what he witnessed.

As stated earlier but just to repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, JFK could easily have been removed from office by simply exposing his sex life, and he could have been just as easily poisoned as so many other discarded leaders have, but this was meant to be a world-class ‘public execution,’ and JFK had to leave Dealey Plaza dead, not simply wounded.

Many JFK researchers regard his assassination or more accurately, his public execution, as a coup d’état. Some even refer to 22nd November 1963 as, ‘The Day America Died.’ But unfortunately, America died long before that. A ‘bloodless’ coup d’état that went completely unreported, even unnoticed, occurred on 23rd December 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act, established the banksters’ total stranglehold on the United States, followed by their creation of the extortionate and illegal income tax. Those two incidents alone are the root cause of all the pain, suffering and despair, that have plagued the USA ever since.

Now, more than half a century later, with all the endless bisecting and speculation of the JFK assassination, those responsible are just as safe from exposure and punishment, as they were then. Their own media, entities like the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, and all the others, continue to denounce and ridicule any honest debate and analysis that challenges the ‘official,’ Warren Commission lies.

The banksters however, always alert to any signs of public opinion that shows dissent against them, have now adjusted the lies beyond Oswald as the ‘lone gunman.’ Through movies such as Executive Action and later, JFK, they have successfully brainwashed new generations with the lies that it was all the work of the ‘military-industrial complex’ and the ‘CIA,’ and why not? They are the perfect ‘fall guys,’ right out of central casting and by making them the scapegoats for all the world’s evils, the search for the truth is thus ended. The banksters of course are never implicated, or even mentioned — even with all the mountains of documented evidence against them just for massive financial crimes that run into the trillions. Even despite all their convictions and fines for money laundering, fraud, bribery and so much more, the public still fail to connect them with assassinations, wars, depressions or the drug trade.

Still, to keep the deception and the confusion going, the banksters had no problem offering-up LBJ, Lyndon Baines Johnson, as another detour from the truth. However, as far as the much more expansive JFK assassination cover-up is concerned, many of those accused parties had either a direct or indirect hand but no matter what the degree of participation, a conspiracy of silence is always the most deafening and always the most successful over the long term.

There is no question that Johnson had both the incentive and the position of power to ensure a relatively seamless operation. He also enjoyed the protection and influence of the southern ‘good-ole-boy’ network. Both Big Oil and the military-industrial complex money stood squarely behind him as did the entire Texas political machine. After all, was that not why Dallas why chosen as the site of the very public execution? It was common knowledge at the time of Kennedy’s election that LBJ was chosen as Vice President only because of his political prowess in Congress and his ability to deliver support in Texas. However, what is less well-known is that the level of animosity between the Kennedy and Johnson camps was as intense as it was toxic. They absolutely loathed and despised each other. Their backgrounds were the absolute antithesis of each other — Kennedy a pampered scion of the ‘Eastern Establishment’ and LBJ, a simple, southern country boy. Their personal animosities ran so deep, that many wondered how the sentiments would play out in the day-to-day workings of the Kennedy Administration.

Unfortunately, the disdain that each side had for each other, fed the silent participation in the JFK assassination as much as it did the subsequent cover-up; which is exactly, how this whole sordid scenario, played out from beginning to end. It is also how many other rogue elements were co-opted or associated with the assassination, whether there was any actual physical involvement or not.

During his fraudulent swearing-in as President aboard Air Force One, which was actually faked for the benefit of the media, Johnson flashed a grin at one of the assassination cohorts, Texas Congressman Albert Thomas, who responded by an obvious wink, as if to say to LBJ . . . “We’ve done it!”

It is absolutely significant in my view, that Lyndon B. Johnson was an ardent Zionist and devoted supporter of the state of Israel. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, who was a major influence on Lyndon, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. Whilst it seems very likely that his family was in fact Jewish, there is absolutely no question that Lyndon Johnson was a high-level Zionist who had been involved for decades with the Jewish Freemasonic organisation, the International Order of the B’nai B’rith, in the illegal immigration of Jews from Poland to Galveston known as ‘Operation Texas.’

The B’nai B’rith was behind the plan to bring Jews from Poland to Texas and Johnson, as a new congressman, was a key player in this operation and broke the law to facilitate the illegal immigration scheme. Historians have revealed that Johnson, while serving as a young congressman in 1938 and 1939, arranged for visas to be supplied to Jews in Warsaw, and oversaw the apparently illegal immigration of hundreds of Jews through the port of Galveston, Texas. In this operation, Johnson was working with the Zionist elders of the B’nai B’rith, not through normal government offices. Enough money could buy false passports and fake visas in Cuba, Mexico and other Latin American countries and Johnson used this method to smuggle boatloads and planeloads of Jews into Texas.

According to Louis Gomolak’s thesis, ‘Prologue: LBJ’s Foreign Affairs Background, 1908-1948,’ Johnson and his friend Jim Novy raised a very “ . . . substantial sum for arms for Jewish underground fighters in Palestine.” One source cited by the historian reports that “Novy and Johnson had been secretly shipping heavy crates labeled ‘Texas Grapefruit’ — but containing arms — to Jewish underground ‘freedom fighters’ [a euphemism for terrorists] in Palestine.”

After all, it was Johnson who formed the intimate bond between the United States and Israel, which would in four decades turn the US into Israel’s Rottweiler. It is also an established fact that Johnson had been the Zionists’ choice of Democratic candidate in the primaries and that was not the first time he had been backed politically. His campaign for a Senate seat in 1948 was masterminded by Abraham Feinberg, the financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.

During the Suez Crisis in 1957, Johnson used his position as leader of the Democratic majority in the house, to lead a successful campaign to stop President Eisenhower from supporting UN sanctions aimed at forcing Israel to retreat. He even wrote an open letter to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which he had endorsed by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, and published in the New York Times on 20th February 1957.

As a young man, he is known to have tortured and killed a dog, and on another occasion a mule, these incidents being described in ‘Blood, Power, and Money,’ the book written by Johnson’s lawyer, Barr McClellan, who points out that, although this information is readily available to researchers in the LBJ Library, it has for some reason been ignored by scholars. I wonder why? This omission is unfortunate, as it obscures the single most essential thing to know about Johnson . . . that he was a sadistic killer.

It is a widely accepted fact in the circles of criminal psychology, that children who torture and kill animals for recreation do not respect life in general and frequently grow up to kill human beings. This was Johnson’s destiny. However, as an adult, Johnson did not have to kill personally, he would simply send his own personal hit-man, Malcolm Wallace to do the job on his behalf.

Fearing that his out-of-control, ‘loose-living’ sister might pose a threat to his political career as Vice-President, LBJ assigned Wallace a ‘task.’ On Christmas day 1961, LBJ’s sister, Josefa Johnson, was found dead in bed at her Fredericksburg, Texas home at 3.15 am and the cause of death was stated to be a brain haemorrhage. Josefa had returned home at 11.45 pm from a Christmas party at Lyndon Johnson’s ranch. Disregarding state law, there was no autopsy and no inquest and the death certificate was issued by a doctor who was not present to examine the deceased. Josefa was embalmed on the same day and buried the next. All very convenient, I am sure you agree.

Another of Johnson and Wallace’s suspected victims was Department of Agriculture inspector Henry Marshall, who in the early 1960s was investigating Billy Sol Estes’ ‘cotton allotment’ schemes. This investigation was leading straight to Estes’ partner in crime, then-Vice President Lyndon Johnson, when Marshall died suddenly. On 3rd June 1961 he was found dead on his farm and “ . . . had been beaten on his head and upper body, forcefully poisoned with carbon monoxide, and shot five times with a rifle.” His death was ruled a suicide.

But in 1984, the true story emerged. In grand jury testimony for which immunity had been granted, another one of Johnson’s criminal circle, Billy sol Estes, described a 1961 meeting between himself, Johnson, Cliff Carter, and Wallace, during which the Marshall problem was discussed. Estes stated that Johnson concluded the meeting by telling Wallace to . . . “Get rid of him.”

As a result of this testimony, Marshall’s death certificate was changed to read, “Cause of death — murder by gunshot.”

On the evening of 21st November 1963, Johnson entered JFK’s Texas Hotel suite and an argument began that could be heard by the hotel staff outside in the hallway. They were arguing about Johnson’s demand to change the seating position in the cars for the next morning’s motorcade in Dallas. Johnson wanted his pal, Governor Connally to ride with him and wanted Senator Ralph Yarborough, his bitter political enemy, to ride in the Presidential Limousine with JFK. The President flatly refused and Johnson stormed out. Jacqueline Kennedy then asked JFK . . . “What was that all about? He seemed mad.” JFK answered, “That’s just Lyndon. He’s in trouble.” JFK later told his wife that Johnson was “ . . . incapable of telling the truth.”

Lyndon Johnson and the Zionist-controlled media have covered-up the truth of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because it was a crime that was carried out by the bankster-Zionist criminal network, which took power in the banksters’ coup d’état in Dallas in November 1963 and which has been in power ever since. The role of the Zionist-controlled media is to keep the population from realising that a criminal regime of Zionist agents controls their government.

Under LBJ many Zionist-Jewish influences permeated high US government positions and this can be heard in the words of Nixon (in the ‘Nixon Tapes’) complaining of all the, what he referred to as . . . “Jew-boys,” around the government. Also in the Nixon tapes there is a conversation with Reverend Billy Graham where Graham tells Nixon that he believed these “ . . . high level Jewish will ruin the country.”

It was this huge Zionist-Jewish-Israeli interest and their control over the media that helped to suppress the real issues behind the JFK murder conspiracy. LBJ would have done anything to avoid jail and his deal with the Zionists, the Masons, and the Military-Industrial complex, would make it all possible to dispose of JFK and achieve his political ambitions. These Zionist-Jewish interests were an intrinsic and significant element of the JFK cover-ups and motivations, and impossible to ignore.

The Vietnam War

The Gulf of Tonkin is a body of water that lies between the east coast of North Vietnam and the west coast of the island of Hainan. This was the staging area of the US Seventh Fleet, which included the American destroyers the Maddox, C. Turner Joy and the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga. It was also the site that would eventually lead to the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam.Throughout the melee, Maddox and Turner Joy fired 249 5-inch shells, including 24 star shells, and 123 3-inch rounds. The two destroyers also dropped 4 or 5 depth charges, one of which failed to detonate, against boats following in their wakes. The entire engagement lasted about four hours.

“American Planes Hit North Vietnam after Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression,” announced the Washington Post on 5th August 1964. That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported . . . “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.”

But there was no ‘second attack’ by North Vietnam and no ‘renewed attacks against American destroyers,’ either. By reporting these fairy tales as absolute truths, American ‘journalism’ opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War. The official story was that, in what was to become known as ‘The Gulf of Tonkin Incident,’ the alleged catalyst for the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack against a US destroyer on routine patrol” on 2nd August and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed-up with a “deliberate attack” on US ships two days later.

But the truth was very different. Rather than being on a routine patrol, the US destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering manoeuvres in sync with co-ordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

“The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam . . . had taken place . . . Those assaults were part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964.” Daniel C. Hallin, ‘The Uncensored War’

On the night of 4th August, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf, a report cited by President Johnson as he went on nationwide TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war; air strikes against North Vietnam. But in fact Johnson ordered US bombers to retaliate for a North Vietnamese attack that never happened.

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as Ross Perot’s vice presidential candidate. He said, “I had the best seat in the house to watch that event and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there . . . . There was nothing there but black water and American fire power.”

And in 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented . . . “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.”

But Johnson’s deceitful speech of 4th August 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The President, proclaimed the New York Times, “ . . . went to the American people last night with the sombre facts.” And the Los Angeles Times urged Americans to “ . . . face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities.”

The exhaustive book, ‘The War Within — America’s Battle over Vietnam,’ begins with a dramatic account of the Tonkin Gulf incident and in an interview, its author Tom Wells said that the American media . . . “described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely ‘tit for tat’ when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North.”

The day before the first incident, the North Vietnamese had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats and it was generally known that covert operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with US support and direction, had been ongoing for some time.

In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam — was passed by Congress 416 to 0 in the House and 88 to 2 by the Senate. The resolution authorised the president “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.”

This was what led to the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam and by the July of 1965, there were 80,000 US troops mobilised in South Vietnam rising to 543,000 troops by early 1969, and by that stage 400 tons of bombs and ordnance were being dropped, per day.

Twenty five years later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget “ . . . our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.” Schanberg blamed not only the press but also “ . . . the apparent amnesia of the wider American public. We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.”

But what Schanberg and all the other historians fail to recognise, dare not confront or report, is that all wars are fabricated. It is all a massive charade and there is no government anywhere, ever that will tell us the real truth.

In 2005, the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident was finally declassified, with LBJ’s presidential tapes discussing how they used the non-event as justification for air strikes, thus launching the first American attack against Vietnam. The tapes also discuss the fact that the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost. The falsification of the Gulf of Tonkin incident is significant because 58,000 American youths were slaughtered, tortured and killed in Vietnam. And several tens-of-thousands more were maimed, sprayed with Agent Orange and some even abandoned in Vietnam.

To add insult to injury, Henry Kissinger later coldly and ruthlessly stated that . . .

“Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy”

What all historians also fail to grasp when documenting and analysing all wars and conflicts in general, is that the goal of the war in Vietnam was never to win it . . . just to perpetuate it.

After deceiving the US into escalating the Vietnam War, the Globalist-banksters skilfully managed the war in order to prevent any chance of a premature conclusion. When the restrictive ‘rules’ of military engagement were finally declassified in 1985, it confirmed that the Vietnam War, like the Korean War before it, was not meant to be won. The banksters used these wars against Communism as a means to weaken the US and ‘contain’ communism without ever defeating it.

The Cultural Revolution

On 16th May 1966, the Chinese leader Mao tse-Tung launched his new terror-torture campaign . . . ‘The Cultural Revolution.’ This was in fact simply a ploy by Mao to reassert his power, whilst hiding behind a benign-sounding epithet. He launched a vicious attack on his opponents, Liu and Deng, had them placed under house arrest under which, in poor health and denied medical attention, Liu died in 1968. Presiding over massive rallies by militant youths, Mao called for them to remove old power and an end to old, traditional feudal ways to make way for a new, modern China. He also formed the ‘Red Guards’ to carry out his revolutionary policies throughout China and the army was ordered not to interfere. Their power grew, unchecked, and soon things began to get out of control. Teachers and officials were attacked, often either killed or driven to suicide and many of China’s ancient monuments and temples were destroyed by overzealous, brainwashed youths. In Tibet, thousands of monasteries were seized or destroyed.

Soon, China was gripped in the throes of an ultra-violent, communist witch-hunt. Any small sign of ‘bourgeois’ tendencies or connection would label people as a rightist, ‘enemy of the state.’ Thousands were dragged from their homes, paraded through the streets and publicly denounced in violent and often fatal struggles. Friends betrayed friends and even children were incited to betray their own parents and before sanity was eventually restored, even the Red Guard factions battled each other on the streets.

Eventually the army was deployed to restore order and by 1970, the worst of the Cultural Revolution had dissipated, but not before it had destroyed millions. In the 2006 book, ‘Mao’s Last Revolution,’ the authors estimated that in rural China alone, some 36 million people had been killed.

The ‘Six-day War’

But in 1967, Vietnam was not the only war in which the banksters were engaged. Not personally though of course — it is always the responsibility of others to fight and die for their causes.

Early in the morning of the 5th June, Israeli jets attacked and destroyed the air forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan and before noon that day the war was all but over as around 400 Arab aircraft had been destroyed. Then during the course of the subsequent week of combat, Israel destroyed or captured more than 500 tanks and 70 percent of all other Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian military equipment and more than 11,000 Egyptian, 6,000 Jordanian and 1,000 Syrian soldiers were killed. Israeli losses were tiny by comparison . . . 20 planes and 60 tanks lost and about 700 Israeli soldiers were killed.

By the end of the war on the 10th June, Israel had occupied Syria’s Golan Heights, Egypt’s Sinai and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian-Jordanian West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, territories that more than trebled the size of Israel. More than 300,000 Palestinians were made refugees.

Unlike Eisenhower, who had invoked the United Nations Charter against Israel’s occupation of Sinai in 1956, Johnson refused to demand that Israel give up its 1967 conquests. Johnson embraced what seemed to him a perfectly reasonable argument, that Israel, having been provoked, should trade the conquered lands for a permanent peace with the Arabs. Johnson did not see how profoundly he had undermined the high principle of the United Nations Charter, the inadmissibility of conquest as a means of settling disputes and nor did he foresee the corrosive effects of military occupation on lands populated by more than one million Arabs.

So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? Partially through ‘pride.’ From the Jewish perspective there was indeed much to be proud about. ‘Little’ Israel with its small but highly professional defence force, and it’s mainly citizen army had smashed the war machines of the frontline Arab states in just six days. Israeli forces occupied the whole of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip (Egyptian territory,) the West Bank including Arab East Jerusalem (Jordanian territory) and the Golan Heights (Syrian territory.) And it was not much of a secret that the Israelis could have gone on to capture Cairo, Amman and Damascus. In fact there was nothing to stop them — except the impossibility of maintaining the occupation of three Arab capitals.

But the intensity of the pride most Jews of the world experienced with Israel’s military victory was in large part a product of the intensity of the fear that came before it. In the three weeks before the war, the Jews of the world truly believed, because (like Israeli Jews) they were conditioned by Zionism to believe, that the Arabs were poised to attack and that Israel’s very existence was at stake and very much in doubt.

The Jews of the world including those in Israeli could not be blamed for believing that, but in fact it was nothing but insidious propaganda. Although Egypt’s President Nasser had asked UNEF forces to withdraw, had closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and had reinforced his army in the Sinai, neither Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any intention of attacking Israel and Israel’s leaders, and indeed the Johnson administration, were fully aware of that.

In short, and as documented in the book ‘Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews,’ the offensive Israel launched at 07.50 hours on Monday 5th June was not an act of self-defence nor a pre-emptive strike. It was a war of aggression. A large part of the reason why today rational debate about making peace is impossible with the vast majority of Jews everywhere is that they still believe that Egypt and the frontline Arab states were intending to annihilate Israel in 1967, and were only prevented from doing so by Israel’s ‘pre-emptive strike.’

If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Zionist state was not in danger was only that of a goy (a non-Jew,) it could be dismissed by supporters of Israel, rightly or wrongly as ‘anti-Semitic conjecture.’ In fact the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players — after the event, of course. Here is what was said . . .

“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” Israeli Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, Le Monde 28th February 1968

“The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.” Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government, the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar 14th April 1971

“We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never even thought of such a possibility.” General Haim Bar-Lev, Israeli chief of staff, Ma’ariv, 4th April 1972

“There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.” General Ezer Weizmann, Israeli Chief of Operations, Ma’ariv, 4th April 1972

In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv and he said . . . “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war. Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel. Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said . . . “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon — as the memoirs of President Johnson proved — believed in this danger.”

On June 3, 1972, Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote . . . “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizmann was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “ . . . not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”

It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword.

When reporters and commentators today, make reference to the Six Days War, almost all of them still tell it as the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. For anyone who may still harbour doubts about who started the Six Days War and why, here is a quote from Prime Minister Menachem Begin in an unguarded, public moment in 1982 . . .

“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

The ‘USS Liberty’ Incident

In the mid-1950s, the US was allied with Egypt and so David Ben Gurion, an avid Zionist and Israel’s first Prime Minister, envisioned an Egyptian terrorist attack against the US in order to destroy that alliance forever. However, this was an unlikely scenario, given the relationship between the two countries. So instead, the Israeli government developed a scheme whereby young Israelis would disguise themselves as terrorists of whichever country they were attempting to implicate in their insidious shenanigans.

Then, on Thursday 8th June 1967, Israeli air and naval forces promulgated a concentrated, unprovoked attack upon America’s most advanced surveillance ship, the virtually undefended, USS Liberty, killing 34 of its crew and wounding 174, many seriously.

Many people are totally unaware of this incident and even to this day in America, as it has conveniently been slipped down the ‘memory-hole,’ by those in whose interests it is to cover-up such clandestine operations. Even those who are vaguely aware of what happened have also been led to believe that although Israel did it deliberately, it was simply an attempt to blame Egypt and garner western sympathies towards the Israeli cause. This is true, but there is also a deeper, more sinister agenda behind what happened . . .

Israel insisted at the time (as it still does,) that its attack on the Liberty was an unfortunate ‘accident,’ and a case of ‘mistaken identity.’ The attack ought to have been a sensational, headline-grabbing news story, but beyond the fact that an ‘accident’ had happened and that Israel had apologised, it went unreported by the world’s media. It was too controversial an issue for them to handle and pursue. Had it been an Arab attack on an American vessel it would have been an entirely different matter, of course. In that event there would have been saturation coverage with demands for retaliation, with Zionist and other pro-Israeli columnists and commentators setting the pace and tone of the clamour for revenge. In fact, the Johnson administration’s subsequent cover-up was led by the President himself.

The upper echelons of the US government led by the traitor, Lyndon Johnson, were actually complicit and fully aware of the insidious Israeli plans. The US Zionist-banksters directed the whole operation and were actively pushing for the US to become active in the war and this would have been the perfect catalyst to bring the American public ‘on-side.’ Where have we heard this all before and why change a successful tactic?

The Zionist attack was co-ordinated with elements of the US Navy, US intelligence and Lyndon B. Johnson, under the influence of several Zionist intelligence agents, namely Arthur and Mathilde Krim, Arthur Goldberg, the Rostow brothers, Abe Feinberg and others.

The American Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff one month after the incident, subsequently said to former US Congressman Paul Findley, “If it was written as fiction nobody would believe it.”

Moorer also said to Findley, that the attack was “ . . . absolutely deliberate. The clampdown [cover-up — JH] was not actually for security reasons but for domestic political reasons. I don’t think there is any question about it.” The truth is that Johnson was scared to death of the possible reaction of Jewish voters, but more particularly the awesome power of the Zionist lobby and its many stooges in Congress. Moorer added . . . “The American people would be goddamn mad if they knew what goes on.”

As it happened, the government in America did not succeed in keeping the truth covered-up because there were eye-witnesses who would not be silenced. They were the survivors of the Liberty’s crew. The prime source of information about the actual attack is the book ‘Assault on the Liberty,’ which was written by Lieutenant James M. Ennes. He was the Officer of the Deck on the Liberty throughout the attack.

On 5th June 1982, there was a reunion of Liberty survivors in the Hotel Washington in Washington DC and the guest speaker was none other than retired Admiral Moorer. He told the survivors that he had “never been willing to accept the Israeli explanation that it was a case of mistaken identity.” And that he could not accept that Israeli pilots “ . . . don’t know how to identify ships.” It followed, he said that there “ . . . must have been some other motive,” which he was confident “ . . . someday will be made public.”

Retired Admiral Moorer’s confidence has not yet been justified. Some of the official documents have been de-classified with the most sensitive (for which, read ‘most embarrassing’) passages blacked out, but other official documents and reports remain classified, Top Secret, and are likely to remain so for as long as America’s cowardly, compliant politicians are frightened of offending the Zionists.

The ‘motive’ for the attack has to be deduced from what happened in the context of the whole war of June 1967 and Moshe Dayan’s determination to stop at nothing to create the desired Greater Israel of the Zionist’s deluded, psychopathic plans. And the key to its complete understanding is knowledge of the Liberty’s capabilities and what its mission was.

The Liberty was, in fact, a converted WWII Victory ship — the former Simmons Victory. It had been refitted by the NSA for use as a signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, in other words, a floating listening post. It had a very sophisticated system of radio antennae including a sonar-radio listening device with a range of over 500 miles and up to that distance the Liberty could intercept virtually any form of wireless communication, including military and diplomatic traffic, telemetry data, rocket guidance and satellite control, among others. It could then decode and process the intercepted messages and relay them back to the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland, via short-wave radio or through a secret communications system called TRSSCOM, using a 10,000-watt microwave signal bounced off the surface of the moon. The USS Liberty was in fact, America’s most advanced ‘spy ship.’

Below decks, the communications areas, which housed the computers, listening and decoding devices manned by linguistic experts and other personnel who were changed according to the ship’s mission, were off-limits to the crew, including Captain William I. McGonagle. The communication areas were under the direct control of an NSA technician who was known to the crew only as ‘the Major.’ With two other civilians he had joined the Liberty at Rota in Spain shortly before the spy ship sailed from there for the Middle East on 2nd June 1967.

The Liberty’s movements were controlled by the JCS and the NSA in Washington and not the Navy itself. With a top speed of 18 knots it was faster than most ships of its kind and on both the forecastle and deckhouse aft of the bridge there were two pedestal-mounted 0.50-calibre Browning machine guns. These four guns, on open mounts without shrapnel shields, were the spy ship’s only defences. Strictly speaking the Liberty was not an unarmed vessel but for all practical purposes it was a ‘sitting duck’ if attacked.

The Liberty’s mission was Top Secret and has not been acknowledged to this day but it was on patrol, listening, because some in the Johnson administration at executive level maybe even Defence Secretary McNamara himself, did not trust the Israelis to keep their word with regard to the scope of the war. The Johnson administration had given tacit approval for Israel to attack Egypt and only Egypt, and it was understood that the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) would have to respond to Jordanian intervention, should it occur, but on no account was Israel to broaden the war for the purpose of appropriating Jordanian or Syrian territory.

Apart from President Johnson’s public statement that he was as firmly committed as his predecessors had been to the “political independence and territorial integrity of all the nations in that area,” Washington feared what could happen if the Israelis occupied Syrian territory — if they did this then there was also a possibility of Soviet intervention. Soviet leaders could just about tolerate the Egyptians being annihilated by the IDF, but not the Syrians too. Through the CIA, the Johnson administration was aware of the IDF’s secret agreement with the Syrian regime so, the Johnson administration, was reasonably confident that the Syrians would not seek to expand the war by engaging the Israelis in any serious way. The aim therefore of US counter-intelligence was to prevent Israel from attacking Syria and this was indeed the Liberty’s mission.

When the Liberty was ordered to the Middle East, everybody who needed to know, knew that the Israelis would have only a few days in which to crush the Egyptians — because the UN Security Council would demand a quick end to the fighting and Israel would have to then cease hostilities or face some pretty onerous sanctions. This meant that when Israel went to war with Egypt, it would be assigning the bulk of its armour to the Egyptian front. So if Israel then decided to attack Syria, it would have to re-deploy its forces, very quickly, from the Egyptian front to the Syrian front and any such orders for redeployment would be given by radio from Tel Aviv to the commanders in the field and they, naturally, would also need to talk to each other by radio.

If there was such talk, the Liberty would pick-up on it and pass it urgently to the NSA in Washington. President Johnson would then demand that the Israelis abort their intended attack on Syria and so long therefore, as the Liberty was in place and still functioning, the US would have some control of Israel.

In fact the Liberty was the Johnson administration’s ‘insurance policy.’ It was there to prevent Israel’s ‘hawks’ running wild and, in the worst-case scenario, provoking Soviet intervention and possibly World War III. With Zionist Israel as its ‘friend’ the US certainly needs no enemies. But from Israel’s perspective, before it could order an invasion of Syria for the purpose of grabbing the Golan Heights, the Liberty had to be put out of business.

The USS Liberty was close to El Arish at the time, and loaded with $10.2 million of sensitive equipment eavesdropped on Israel’s Six-Day War with Egypt and the Israelis were aware by 10.55 am on the morning of 8th June that a clearly-marked US ship was off the coast and unmistakably visible from El Arish. Then, without any warning, the Israeli Navy and Air Force attacked the ship with torpedoes, rockets, white phosphorous, cannons and armour-piercing bullets and used napalm, a highly-flammable, liquid petroleum to turn the Liberty’s deck into a 3,000-degree firestorm. Thirty-four Americans were killed and 171 others were wounded, one of whom died later from his wounds.

The first wave of attacks, comprised of as many as eight planes using heat-seeking missiles, destroyed the transformers (miraculously, all except one) which fed the aerial systems. This was a well-planned, premeditated strategy to prevent the USS Liberty from alerting the world of the murderous attack. The surveillance ship was no longer able to listen-in to the war or send messages and if that was the objective of the attack, then the goal was met and the attack should have ceased. However, the real objective was also to slaughter the crew and send the ship to the bottom of the Mediterranean. Finally, the planes left, only to be followed-up by three surface craft which fired torpedoes. One hit below the water line and made a hole which measured 45 feet by 37 but amazingly, the ship did not sink but listed eleven degrees. When the crew inflated the lifeboats, the torpedo boats even attacked those.

The war was as good as over by 8th June and Egypt was defeated. The men on the Liberty first assumed that the Arabs, in unmarked planes and ships, were attacking their ship in retaliation for US support of Israel. But firstly, it was impossible for the attacking Israelis to have been unaware of the identity of their target. From the masthead on the ensign staff the Liberty was proudly flying the standard American flag — five feet by eight feet and the ship’s US Navy markings, GTR-5, were on both sides of its bows in white letters, ten feet high. And the ship’s name was clearly visible on its stern. Not to mention the sophisticated system of radio antennae, which the Israeli’s would have known could only have belonged to an American vessel.

Secondly, As Stephen Green noted, “The IDF command did not have to consult Jane’s Fighting Ships to learn about the eavesdropping capabilities of the Liberty.” Israeli military intelligence had a very close working relationship with both the CIA and the US Defence Department and knew well that the Liberty could listen to the movement orders for IDF units — movement orders that, on the evening — morning of 8th June, would be concerned with rushing units from Sinai to the northern Galilee border with Syria, in preparation for an invasion.

Shortly after 8.30 pm, local time on Wednesday 7th June, Israeli aerial reconnaissance reported to IDF Central Coastal Command in Tel Aviv a change in the Liberty’s course. The spy ship was now heading towards a point on the Israeli coast midway between Tel Aviv and the naval base at Ashdod. The change of course was noted on the Israeli control table. Then at about 10.00 pm, the Liberty’s sophisticated radar-sensing equipment detected Israeli jets circling the ship. That was not surprising given where the vessel was. The surprise was though, that fire-control radar was being directed at it. The Israeli jets were homing their rockets as though preparing for an attack.

The small group gathered around the Liberty’s radar screen playfully employed the ship’s electronic countermeasure (ECM) to ‘spoof’ the Israeli pilots. The Liberty’s ECM equipment was of the latest and most sophisticated type and enabled the ship to distort its radar image and send it back to the Israeli planes — making the Liberty appear to be much smaller and then much bigger than it was. First Class Petty Officer Charles Rowley was subsequently to recall that no one took the contact seriously. The Israelis, it was assumed, were only playing games.

They certainly were not and indeed there was a link between the directing of fire-control radar at the Liberty and what had happened an hour or so earlier. The Office of the US Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv had sent a startling message by telegram in code to the US Army Communications Centre in Washington. The message was that the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty if the ship continued to move closer to the Israeli coast. It is unbelievable to think that this threat was not relayed around Washington immediately and it was surely only a matter of minutes before everybody in Washington who needed to know, did know about it.

The attack, the cold-blooded murder at sea, was in two main phases lasting more than one hour and it was launched after aerial reconnaissance of the Liberty, over a period of eight hours. The aerial reconnaissance had begun at 06.00 am, when an Israeli spotter plane slowly circled the ship three times. On the bridge, Ensign John Scott, near the end of his watch as the Officer of the Deck, studied the plane through his binoculars.

The French-built transport plane had been modified by the Israeli Air Force and was not carrying fighting men but photographers and, to direct them, specialists from the directorate of military intelligence. The pictures that were being taken of the Liberty on this and several subsequent passes would determine the precise plan of attack.

The key to complete success of the operation would be destroying the Liberty’s transmitting facilities before it could transmit a call for help to the American Sixth Fleet which was not too far away. If the Liberty did succeed in transmitting an S.O.S. when it was being attacked, there was at least the possibility that fighter planes from the Sixth Fleet would be ordered to take on the attackers.

Then at 07.20 am Lieutenant James Ennes replaced Scott as the Officer of the Deck and by now everyone on-board the Liberty was well aware that their ship was being examined very, very closely. The ship was now perfectly placed to listen to IDF movement orders — orders for the Israeli forces in Sinai to turn around and move north, to assist with the consolidation of Israel’s capture of the West Bank and, more importantly, an attack on Syria.

Then, at 10.00 am, two delta-winged jets armed with rockets circled the ship three times. On this occasion the planes came close enough for Ennes and other officers on the bridge to see the pilots in their cockpits through binoculars. The odd thing, or so the Americans on the Liberty’s bridge thought, was that the two planes did not seem to have any markings. In retrospect, it is now obvious that the 10.00 am ‘visit’ was something of a trial run, to enable the pilots to decide whether or not the first set of pictures taken, would enable them to attack the Liberty’s communications facilities with pin-point accuracy. Events suggested that the two pilots who were to lead the attack were not happy and wanted more photographs to enable them to guarantee such accuracy. After their report, the reconnaissance plane made three more over-flights at 10.30, 11.26 and 12.20 pm.

At 13.10, the crew of the Liberty conducted a series of drills including fire, damage control and gas attack which took 40 minutes. Captain McGonagle then addressed the ship’s officers and crew. In the normal course of events he would have confined himself to complimenting them (or not) on the job done in the drills but on this particular afternoon, the fourth of the war, they could see the smoke of battle on the shoreline and he knew that his men were in need of reassurance and indeed after the Israeli plane’s fourth reconnaissance over-flight there had been mutterings of fear.

The Israelis had obviously identified the Liberty several times over. The Americans must all have wondered what they were doing. McGonagle addressed the concerns of his ship’s company by stressing that they had been under surveillance by ‘friendly’ forces. Given that and the fact that they (the ‘friendly’ forces) could not have failed to identify the Liberty, the captain was implying that his men should dismiss from their minds the possibility of an attack. He was saying, without actually using those words that the Israelis could not attack the Liberty without knowing that it was the Liberty they were attacking.

Their ‘friends’ returned again at 14.05 pm, led by three Mirages each armed with 72 rockets and two 30-mm cannons. This time there was no circling around as they flew at high speed straight for the Liberty, so fast that between the times they appeared as blips on the ship’s radar and the start of their attack, Ennes and others on the bridge barely had time to grab and focus their binoculars.

For seven minutes the three Mirages made multiple attack runs, hitting the Liberty extremely hard and destroying several of the ship’s antennae. After the Mirages departed and for about another 20 minutes, the air attack was continued by several Mystere fighters. They were slower than the Mirages and therefore able to drop canisters of napalm more accurately. The fact that the Israelis resorted to use of napalm for their attack on the Liberty is on its own proof enough that Israel wanted no-one left alive to tell the story.

Within a minute or so of the start of the attack, Captain McGonagle had ordered a report be made to the Chief of Naval Operations. It was an order he gave more in hope than expectation of it being executed — because he was aware that the ship’s transmission facilities had been the first priority for the attacking planes. But . . . at 14.10, five minutes after the attack began, the Liberty’s Chief Radioman, Wayne Smith, did succeed in transmitting an open-channel ‘Mayday’ distress call for assistance. He was subsequently to tell the Navy Board of Inquiry that as soon as the attack started, the participating planes and/or shore-based units were jamming the Liberty’s radios. He recalled that five of the ship’s six shore circuits were very quickly jammed and that whoever was doing it “went searching” for the last circuit. It was on this unidentified last circuit that Smith was able to transmit the call for assistance but because it was an open-channel transmission, the Israelis obviously heard it. The question then was, would any of the warships of the American Sixth Fleet hear it and, if they did, how would they respond?

Or maybe a more pertinent question would be, would President Johnson allow them to respond?

Vice Admiral William I. Martin, a former WWII test pilot had assumed command of the Sixth Fleet in April 1967. During Israel’s assault there were several US ships in the area, the aircraft carrier Saratoga commanded by Captain Joseph Tully, the Flagship commanded by Vice Admiral Martin, a Cruiser commanded by Rear Admiral Roger Payne, and the USS America, a new aircraft carrier which was under the command of Captain Don Engen. Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis was the Sixth Fleet carrier Division Commander.

Additionally, there were approximately twelve escorting destroyer ships. The Saratoga’s Communications Officer received a message from the Liberty, addressed to any or all US ships or stations, “Liberty is under attack by unknown enemy air and surface units. Request assistance.”

Assistance was only about 15 to 20 minutes away from the Liberty and Captain Tully notified Vice Admiral Martin saying . . . “Unless otherwise directed, I plan to launch my Ready Strike Group in support of Liberty.” Martin approved and directed the USS America to launch their Ready Strike Group. However Rear Admiral Geis of the USS America recalled his aircraft which created a dilemma for Captain Tully. Martin ordered another strike to give aid to the Liberty but it was again recalled by Rear Admiral Geis and according to an independent, unofficial study, the “ . . . White House deliberately prevented the US Navy from coming to the defence of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack . . . ” McNamara recalled the aircraft that had been launched from the Saratoga within minutes and he certainly would not have made such a move without Johnson’s approval.

Admiral Geis was told that President Johnson had ordered the aircraft to be returned, “He would not have his allies embarrassed, he didn’t care who was killed or what was done to the ship.” According to Admiral Geis, President Johnson, known for his ruthlessness and vile profanity told Geis, “I want that goddamn ship going to the bottom. No help — recall the wings.” Tony Hart, a Navy communications technician stationed at the US Navy Base in Morocco in June 1967 reported that McNamara responded, “We are not going to war over a bunch of dead sailors.” If the Liberty had sunk, as Johnson wanted, Egypt would have been blamed. Government officials, including the McCains have maintained absolute silence ever since, regarding the Liberty assault.

All of which clearly demonstrates the sheer, utter contempt for ordinary people shown by these ruthless, war-mongering, self-serving, mass-murderers.

And what happened next was yet more evidence that LBJ and Israel wanted no survivors. At 14.35 pm, torpedo boats launched five 19-inch torpedoes at the Liberty. One torpedo struck starboard directly into the NSA area, accounting for 25 of the total of 34 deaths. Torpedo boats then circled, machine-gunning the ship with armour-piercing projectiles for another 40 minutes.

The order “Prepare to abandon ship!” was given, accompanied by the lowering of the first lifeboats. As they touched the water, the Israeli MTBs moved closer and shot them to pieces. Among the Liberty crewmen who witnessed this was Petty Officer Charles Rowley. He also observed the concentration of machine-gun fire on the life-boats still stored on deck and after the attack he carefully photographed the shredded boats, thinking that one day his pictures would tell the story. When he eventually told his story, Rowley said, “They didn’t want anybody to live.”

At 15.05 the MTBs suddenly broke-off their attack and departed at high-speed to a distance of about five miles to await further orders. The Liberty now had no engines, no rudder and no power, and was taking-on water. Nine of its officers and crew were known dead, another 25 were missing and correctly presumed to be dead (in the communications room that had taken the torpedo hit) and 171 were wounded. Those who were wounded but not incapacitated, joined with the other 90 who had survived unscathed and set about collecting bodies, dressing wounds, fighting fires, stringing lights and hand-operated phone sets, repairing the engines and, above all, trying to keep the Liberty afloat.

While they laboured at those tasks, two large Israeli helicopters arrived and slowly circled the stricken ship. Both were clearly marked with a large Star of David but this was no rescue mission. Presumably there had not been time to paint out the Stars of David because the attack was not going according to plan and the Liberty was meant to have been sunk by now. The cargo bay doors were open and Liberty crewmen could see that both helicopters were crammed with armed Israeli Special Forces troops and a machine gun was mounted in each of the cargo bays.

On the Liberty, Captain McGonagle gave the order he deemed to be appropriate . . . “Standby to repel boarders!”

As reported by Ennes, the next voice heard was that of an ordinary sailor, hysterical but logical and probably speaking for many. “They’ve come to finish us off!” Indeed they had, but not yet. For the moment the helicopter pilots and the commanders of the Special Forces on board were under orders to observe, to take their measure of the target and pass by, awaiting further orders.

Then at 15.36, phase two of the attack was executed by three Israeli MTBs, accompanied by two unmarked jets. The Liberty’s crew were still fighting the fires caused by the air attack when the MTBs announced their arrival by opening fire with their 20-mm and 40-mm guns. The Special Forces on board the helicopters were meant to do the ‘mopping-up,’ shooting dead any survivors bobbing helplessly in the water. There were meant to be no survivors to tell the tale of what had really happened and, just as critical from Israel’s point of view, no survivors to reveal to the American authorities any of the information that the Liberty’s complex intelligence apparatus had gathered about the IDF’s preparations for an invasion of Syria.

But fortunately it did not happen. At the last moment, the third and final phase of the Israeli attack was aborted. Realising that their mission to sink the ship and kill everyone aboard had failed, the Israeli’s adopted a position of ‘damage limitation’ and transmitted an ‘apology’ that an unidentified “maybe Navy” ship had been erroneously attacked. With the attack now aborted, Israeli helicopters circled the ship and some of the crewmembers, not yet realising that Israel was the perpetrator of the attack, were glad to see their ‘friendly’ ally.

The survivors were completely stunned by what had happened and by the total lack of response from US rescue planes and ships. The ship then managed to generate sufficient steam to begin moving away from the area. There had been 851 rocket hits and it was estimated that there were at least fifteen planes that had targeted the USS Liberty. One hit could be rationalised as an accident but not 851.

For some reason, the attack failed to sink the Liberty, despite tons of explosives, rockets, cannon-fire, napalm and torpedoes expended against the ship in attacks that went on for almost two hours. Nuclear-armed American bombers were launched against Cairo from a US aircraft carrier but were recalled when the Liberty managed to send a distress signal with a repaired radio and antenna. The operation had to be abandoned because it required absolute radio silence and the disappearance of the ship. The initial strike by IDF fighters destroyed all antennae, combined with jamming of all five secret radio frequencies.

The top-secret plan was intended to result in the sinking of the Liberty with all hands, to be blamed on Egypt and to be exploited by permitting the bombing of Cairo and the entry of the United States into the war on Israel’s side. The Soviet Union’s relationships with Arab countries would have been damaged and perhaps cut, with America and Israel seizing control of all Middle-east oil production and Israel’s borders would have expanded from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers.

At around midnight that same night, a Soviet guided-missile destroyer sent a message by Aldiss lamp in English, “Do you need help?” and Liberty responded, “No thank you.” The Soviets then replied, “I will stand-by in case you need me.” Few people in America or Russia are aware today of the crucial role played by Destroyer 626/4 of the Soviet Navy. The commander and crew of this ship guarded the USS Liberty, after the attack on it by the combined air and naval sections of the Israeli Defence Force. Destroyer 626/4 in fact stayed with her until US forces were allowed to approach about seven hours later. It has been reported that the American submarine, USS Amberjack, was standing by to sink the Liberty and ‘save’ the false-flag operation but the presence of 626/4 prevented this from happening.

The dead and wounded were eventually evacuated the next morning by the US Navy destroyers Davis and Massey and later that day the Israeli Lieutenant Colonel, Michael Bloch telephoned to explain that because she was not flying a flag, the Liberty had been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Queseir. The US State Department then assured Congress that the attack was ‘accidental.’

On 14th June the Liberty arrived in Malta and a total news blackout was unsurprisingly imposed. Rear Admiral Kidd warned the crew that . . . “You are never, repeat never, to discuss this with anyone, not even your wives. If you do, you will be court-martialled and will end your lives in prison or worse.”

The Secretary of Defence McNamara informed the media that, “The Department of Defense will have no further comment.”

Captain Ward Boston, the chief Navy attorney for the 1967 US Navy Court of Inquiry, revealed that the clear-cut evidence demonstrated that the ship was clearly marked as an American ship. He also said, “Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Admiral Kidd had, in 1967, concluded that the attack was ‘a case of mistaken identity’ because he was under direct orders to do so by Defense Secretary McNamara and President Johnson.”

USS Liberty 9th June 1967

Through its mouthpieces in Congress, the mainstream media and elsewhere, and endorsed by the Johnson administration, Zionism’s message to the people of America was, effectively, ‘Because the attack was a mistake, and because Israel has apologised, let’s just forget about it, shall we?’

In private, the one top-level American official who initially refused to be a party to the cover-up was Secretary of State, Dean Rusk. Like all of his predecessors, and because he believed it was his duty to put America’s interests first, he had to live with Zionism’s smears to the effect that he was anti-Israel and therefore by implication ‘anti-Semitic.’ Rusk was outraged by the Johnson administration’s collusion with Israel and in fact he was so concerned about the damage being done to America’s interests in the Middle East by Johnson’s decision to take sides with Israel that, at a meeting in Luxembourg, he told NATO Secretary General Manlio Brosio and others in attendance some of the truth about the attack on the Liberty.

Fifteen years after the attack an Israeli Pilot who was ordered to participate in the attack came forward, approaching Liberty survivors and former Congressman Paul N. McCloskey. The pilot related that he had identified the ship as American and informed his superiors, but was told to proceed with the attack. When he refused to do so, he was arrested upon returning to base.

There is absolutely no doubt that the USS Liberty was set-up by the US government to be sunk by the Israeli military so that they could prevent the detection of their troop movements and blame the attack on Egypt. After this attack, two American aircrafts were launched carrying nuclear-tipped missiles in order to bomb Cairo. That city was within three minutes of being obliterated and there is little doubt that it would have started WWIII.

“If the truth ever came out, it would change history and how people felt about the Israeli state. If the mainstream media devoted an entire week of stories to the USS Liberty and exactly what happened, the American people would be up in arms, begging for blood. Even though I’ve been accused of being an anti-Semite for trying to tell the truth, everyone should remember one important point . . . USS Liberty crewmembers did not murder anyone. The state of Israel did. The truth will change history.” USS Liberty survivor, Phil Tourney

On Memorial Day 2012, in San Diego, Senator John McCain (son of Admiral McCain,) showed his true colours and his own utter contempt for the USS Liberty treasonous betrayal, when ignoring James Morris, a man in the crowd representing the USS Liberty Veterans Association, who raised the issue. For speaking-out, Morris was forcibly removed and called ‘a jerk’ by McCain, to the thunderous applause of the crowd and the Zionist-bankster-owned media who reported it, and who still remain fully complicit with the murderous treason perpetrated on that black day in history . . . the day when the world came closer to World War 3, than at any other time since 1945, closer even than during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Around three minutes away, in fact . . .

Chapter 17

RFK, Kissinger, Nixon and Watergate

In June of 1968, the younger brother of JFK and President-elect, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated by yet another in a long, long series of ‘lone nut’ gunmen — or so we are told. In fact the official story still remains the same; Bobby Kennedy was shot to death in cold-blood by a disaffected young Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan, and who at the time of writing, almost half a century later, still languishes in the heavily-populated US prison system.

It was shortly after midnight and the exhausted Kennedy had just finished addressing the crowd gathered to celebrate his victory in the California primary for the Democratic nomination to the Presidency. His next destination was Chicago and if he was to take Illinois, then the nomination was his.

Today it is difficult to put into words, exactly what Robert Kennedy meant to so many people in the US at that time.

There is really no parallel that can be drawn with any politician since. Following the death of his brother in Dallas less than 5 years previously, the nation had been brought almost to the brink of civil war under the Johnson administration. Millions were taking to the streets across the country to protest the war in Vietnam, and new political factions were being created in an attempt to bring some sense to all the unrest and upheaval. The country of which Robert Kennedy sought the presidency, was fractured and on the brink of collapse.

It could have exploded at any time. Whites were afraid of the uprising Blacks, Blacks were arming themselves to defend themselves from police who had clearly demonstrated that they thought nothing of murdering them in cold blood, and Hispanics were rising up to demand fair treatment and pay. The Florida Education Association also instituted the nation’s first state-wide teachers’ strike and the bankster-directed US Congress had recently repealed the trivial law of requiring the dollar to backed with gold, ensuring that currency values were now completely under their control.

And into the middle of this chaos came Bobby Kennedy. He had served as Attorney General in his brother’s administration and during that time, had earned a reputation for being highly intelligent, indefatigable, and extremely honest. As one contemporary stated, Bobby Kennedy’s integrity was tested time and again, always with the same result. He was, as far as anyone could tell, incorruptible. However, Bobby had more than just integrity, he had the looks, self-assurance and ‘stage-presence’ of a Hollywood icon. He could make everyone with whom he spoke feel respected and at ease and his popularity transcended all races. Bobby Kennedy was a man who many believed would be able to begin the process of healing the rifts that were tearing the country apart and institute social policies that could put the US back on the path to become the nation it had always believed itself to be.

Given the above, naturally, the banksters were terrified of what might happen if Bobby Kennedy became President.

All those responsible for the assassination of his brother in Dallas would have been the first to experience RFK’s wrath. Given his track record as Attorney General, there could be no doubt in the minds of anyone involved, about whether he would succeed. But, in order to find the truth behind the events of that day, Bobby needed control over the Justice Department and the only way he could gain that control was to become President of the United States.

The banksters were not going to wait and take their chances of Bobby not becoming President. They knew he was the overwhelming favourite to win the election and so he had to be removed immediately and so to take the blame, another ‘crazy, lone-nut,’ tailor-made ‘patsy’ was provided . . .

On 5th June 1968, just after midnight, 42 year old Bobby Kennedy delivered the final words of his California primary, victory speech to an adoring crowd in the Embassy Ballroom at the Ambassador Hotel and then left the stage to thunderous applause. He was now one success away from securing the Democratic nomination, but unbeknown to him, only minutes away from his death.

Following his speech, Kennedy was scheduled to give a press conference in the Colonial Room of the hotel and it was suggested to him that he take a ‘short cut’ through the kitchen areas. He was led through by hotel security guard Thane Eugene Cesar but as Cesar pushed him through the crowd, a young, quiet Palestinian, Christian man named Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, with no previous history of violence, psychological problems or political activity, suddenly appeared. He pointed a .22 calibre revolver at Kennedy and fired two shots before being subdued. Members of Kennedy’s entourage, subdued Sirhan, but not until he had fired the other six rounds still in his pistol, wounding five others in the crowd.

And then events really took a strange turn. What follows, only scratches the surface of a vast web of coincidence and conspiracy surrounding the assassination. Of course many people saw Sirhan pull a gun and fire at Kennedy and he was wrestled to the ground with the gun still in his hand and was still pulling the trigger while he was being subdued. An ‘open and shut case’ indeed, if ever there was one.

And yet, things are rarely as they appear on the surface. Yes, Sirhan did point a .22 at Kennedy and pull the trigger and yes, he was witnessed doing so. Yes, he did still have the gun in his hand when he was subdued but there is far more to this story. It can be shown from the evidence presented in court that not only did Sirhan not fire the fatal shot that killed Bobby Kennedy, he apparently fired no shots at him at all. His gun, it would appear from the evidence at hand, was quite likely loaded with blanks.

A crime is like a jigsaw puzzle and the theory that Sirhan killed Kennedy is an ill-fitting piece, unsupported by the physical evidence. Here are two facts that are not in dispute:

The medical evidence showed that Kennedy was shot four times from behind, from a distance of one to six inches. The fatal shot entered Kennedy from an inch behind his right ear.
All witnesses placed Sirhan in front of Kennedy. Not one witness put Sirhan’s gun muzzle closer than a foot to Kennedy, and most witnesses placed the muzzle about 3 feet away.

Based on these two facts alone, Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi wrote in his memoir, “Thus I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.”

In his resulting 62-page report, Noguchi stated that the shot that killed RFK, “ . . . had entered through the mastoid bone, an inch behind the right ear and had travelled upward to sever the branches of the superior cerebral artery. The largest fragment of that bullet lodged in the brain stem.”

Another shot had penetrated Kennedy’s right armpit and exited through the upper portion of his chest at a 59-degree angle. The coroner determined that the senator’s arm must have been upraised when that bullet entered. Yet, another, a third shot entered one-and-a-half inches below the previous one and stopped in the neck near the sixth cervical. This is the bullet that was found intact. Upon checking Kennedy’s clothing, for other evidence, Noguchi followed the path between two bullet holes in his jacket and announced that a fourth bullet had been fired at RFK. It entered and exited the fabric without touching the senator.

One more issue remained, one that neither Noguchi, the LA police, nor the witnesses at the crime scene could explain — and one that continues to haunt theorists and historians of the assassination to this day . . . The shot that both Noguchi and the Los Angeles police conclude killed Kennedy, the one that entered the back of his neck, fragmented upon impact and lodged in his brain stem, was fired so close to him that it left thick powder burns on the skin. Coroner Noguchi estimated and the LA police department agreed that the shot was fired at a range of no more than one-and-a-half inches. Yet, according to all witnesses, Sirhan Sirhan shot in front of Kennedy and, as far as anyone knew, the senator never had the chance to turn his back towards his alleged assassin.

Here are some more strange facts . . .

Seven bullets were recovered from six victims and another bullet was lost in the ceiling space. Sirhan’s gun could only hold eight bullets. But an FBI agent photographed four additional bullet-holes. Sound engineer Philip Van Praag used sophisticated equipment to analyse the tape and found at least 13 shot sounds on the tape and also found that two pairs of shots came too close together to have been fired from a single gun. The evidence clearly pointed to at least two shooters that night in the Ambassador kitchen.
Richard Lubic, a television producer, was standing behind Kennedy during the shooting. Lubic saw an arm to his right with a gun but could not see who was holding the gun. After Kennedy fell, Lubic knelt to help Kennedy and saw a security guard, Thane Eugene Cesar, with his gun drawn and pointing toward the floor. The Los Angeles Police later put enormous pressure on Lubic to change his story. Lubic was visited at home by LAPD investigators, who told him, “Don’t bring this up and don’t be talking about this.”
Donald Schulman, from a local TV station, claimed he saw security guard Cesar fire his gun.

Cesar worked for Lockheed Aircraft and according to interviews with fellow employees there, Cesar’s job was unspecific, although he had access to the most highly secured areas. He was also a staunch Kennedy detractor. In an interview, Cesar had this to say about the Kennedy’s . . . “And I definitely wouldn’t have voted for Bobby Kennedy because he had the same ideas as John did and I think John sold the country down the road. He gave it to the commies. He gave it to whoever else you want him to. He gave it, he literally gave it to the minority. He says here, you take over. I’m giving it to you, you run the white man. Nobody should be run. I’m not saying that the whites should be the slaves of the black or black the slaves of the white. But he turned the pendulum too far the other way.”

As stated above, Cesar was the security guard that led Kennedy through the kitchen area of the Ambassador Hotel and to his death. He was ‘moonlighting,’ working for Ace Security and had only just started work with the company and yet was placed ‘in charge’ of security for the area of the hotel through which Kennedy would be led as a short-cut to his press conference. Is that not a more than a little strange?

The fact that Kennedy was wounded from the back, while Sirhan approached him from the front, has been a matter of contention. Furthermore, the autopsy showed that all of the shots hitting Kennedy came from behind and from a low angle. In other words, they appeared to come from some who was behind Kennedy and low to the ground.

Every single witness to the shooting that night, placed Sirhan at least three feet in front of Senator Kennedy. No-one has ever come forward claiming that Sirhan ever got closer than this and nor has there ever been a witness to Kennedy turning around far enough for Sirhan to shoot him in the back. Also, the fatal shot entered Kennedy’s head near his right ear from a distance of not more than an inch or two, as evidenced by the powder burns found there. In other words, there was only one man at the Ambassador Hotel that night who was armed and was in a position to fire the fatal shot and that man was Thane Eugene Cesar.

The CIA had strong relationships with the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, and L.A. county officials and also had enormous influence over the media, including national coverage of both Kennedy assassinations, as Carl Bernstein’s explosive October 1977 exposé in Rolling Stone magazine later demonstrated. Even the all-powerful FBI chief, J. Edgar Hoover had never been able to rein-in the CIA. If anyone had the power and influence to engineer the assassination and completely cover their tracks, it would be a small handful of people from the covert side of the agency.

Perhaps most significantly, the CIA was, by 1968, extremely experienced in various mind-control scenarios that involved drugs, hypnosis and a combination of the two. One of the CIA’s initial forays into this area came through a project code-named ‘Artichoke.’ One Artichoke document presented the question . . . “Can an individual . . . be made to perform an act of attempted assassination involuntarily under the influence of Artichoke?” This later evolved into the MK-ULTRA programme, an umbrella designation for hundreds of experiments that involved drugs, hypnosis and biological and chemical warfare. It is a distinct possibility that Sirhan was under the control of Artichoke at the time of the murder, hence his having no recollection whatsoever (even under intense hypnosis) of the actual event.

During his brother’s administration, Robert was a constant thorn in the side of the CIA. After the agency’s disastrous Bay of Pigs operation in April 1961, JFK asked Bobby to closely monitor the CIA, which infuriated the operatives who had for years prided themselves on their independence from authority and after Bobby was elected to the Senate in 1964 and became a growing critic of the war in Vietnam and the Johnson administration, the CIA began to keep a close watch on him. In fact the CIA was so concerned about Robert Kennedy in the last year of his life that it put spying on him on a par with spying on the Soviet Union, according to a report in the Washington Post after it obtained this data.

Perhaps the CIA was also anxious about RFK because, as David Talbot recounted in his 2007 book, ‘Brothers,’ Robert Kennedy harboured suspicions about the CIA’s possible complicity in his brother’s death. If members of the CIA were involved in the death of JFK, could they afford to let Robert ascend to an office where he’d have the power to discover it for himself?

But, as previously stated, Sirhan Sirhan, as of 2016, is still serving time for the murder of RFK, and still does not recall anything at all about the incident. And this is not simply a case of him ‘stonewalling,’ he has been subjected to many hypnotic and mind-control procedures down the years all of which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that his memory has blacked-out the event . . . probably forever.

Martin Luther King

The banksters faced several threats in 1968. While Lyndon Johnson had cooperated fully with their desires in Vietnam and in other parts of the world, he had not met their requirements in other areas. He had gone too far in appeasing the blacks and had also shown some signs of submitting to the demands of young people.

So, through threats to expose his role in covering up the truth about the JFK assassination or personal threats to the safety of his family, the banksters forced his withdrawal from the 1968 election race. Their plan now was to install Richard Nixon as president at all costs. But Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King posed real threats to this plan. King was beginning a movement in the direction of a coalition with Malcom X followers and other black militant groups and was speaking out vociferously against the Vietnam War. His influence might have helped defeat Nixon at the polls and so the banksters created an environment in which he could be assassinated by his arch enemies.

The FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover had no love for King either and was harassing him in several ways. The banksters undoubtedly let Hoover know that it would be a good idea to have King out of the way before the election campaigns really warmed up and they also passed the idea to some of the groups who were out to get King, that the crime would probably not be stopped or investigated thoroughly afterwards. The intelligence author, Fletcher Prouty described this methodology in some detail. The net result of these actions was the assassination of King, by a group of wealthy white bigots who employed two of the intelligence community’s own expert assassins. One of these men, Frenchy, had fired shots at JFK and the other, Jack Youngblood, was a mercenary and CIA contract killer. These two recruited James Earl Ray and set him up as the patsy, another ‘lone-nut’ assassin.

The FBI removed King’s protection in Memphis and after the assassination they took the case out of the hands of the local police to control and suppress the evidence of conspiracy. Hoover did not know exactly who was going to assassinate King or where and did not know in advance who the patsy was supposed to be. The best evidence in support of this is that from April to June 1968 the identity of the patsy was a mystery, first unidentified, then identified as Eric Starvo Galt, then as Raymond Sneyd, and finally as James Earl Ray. If Hoover had been in on the plan, Ray’s identity would probably have been revealed immediately and in fact, the scenario might have been similar to the JFK case, with Ray being killed in a shoot-out.

Ever since Ray was jailed for 99 years, the FBI and the banksters have been hard at work covering up the truth, bribing or influencing judges who have heard Ray’s appeals for a re-trial, publishing disinformation like Gerold Franck’s book, ‘An American Assassin,’ suppressing evidence, and placing key witnesses in psychiatric wards. And it still continues to this day. They have killed at least one reporter, Louis Lomax, who was getting too close to the truth.

The mechanics of the assassination were as follows . . . Youngblood and Frenchy recruited Ray in Montreal for smuggling drugs into the US from Mexico and Canada. Frenchy (Ray knew him as Raoul) set up Ray as a patsy by planting evidence with Ray’s prints on it near the fake firing point. He had persuaded Ray to rent a room opposite King’s motel, to buy a rifle with telescopic sight, and a white Mustang, and park the Mustang outside the rooming house to wait for Frenchy to come out. Youngblood stationed himself nearby, beneath the rooming house where Frenchy was located.

Then when King came out on his balcony, Youngblood killed him with one shot fired at an upward angle. Frenchy ran from his position overlooking King’s balcony making plenty of noise to attract attention, and dropped a bag full of items with Ray’s prints on them in front of an amusement arcade next door to the rooming house. Meanwhile, Youngblood mingled with the crowd under King’s balcony and then slipped away unnoticed. A false trail was created by another member of the team who drove away in a second white Mustang and then created a fake car chase on the police band radio.

Youngblood was tracked down by several reporters in early 1976 and began negotiating to tell his story for a very high price and meanwhile, judge after judge and court after court denied Bernard Fensterwald and James Cesar, Ray’s new lawyers, who appealed in vain for a new trial based on the new evidence. All of the above has had substantial factual evidence to support it, in several articles, one book, and at Ray’s legal hearing for a new trial in Memphis in 1975.

Edward (Teddy) Kennedy

After RFK’s death, Teddy knew who had done it and went to Onassis, in fear of his own life, and swore eternal obedience. In return, Onassis granted him his life and said he could be President, too, just like his big brother, if he would just ‘behave himself’ and follow orders.

In fact, with the assassination of RFK, a huge amount of political pressure was placed on Teddy in 1968, by many of his peers trying to persuade him to run for the presidency. Every attempt was met with failure though, due to one specific incident that would haunt him for the rest of his life, his career-defining moment, the Infamous ‘Chappaquiddick incident.’

Now, could it possibly be that those involved in the assassination of first JFK, and then RFK, were once again worried by the prospect of another Kennedy making a bid for the White House? After all, it would be dangerous for them, as Teddy from his newly-gained position of authority, would no doubt immediately begin his own investigations into the deaths of his older brothers, or at the very least, the possibility for him to do so would be apparent. So, what could be done to prevent this from happening? Murder him perhaps? Well, it is a possibility of course, but one that would certainly cause suspicions to be raised. Three assassinations of three members of the same family, from the same generation in fact, one of whom was the President, another likely the President-elect and finally another one who was in a strong position to challenge for the Presidency. And furthermore all occurring within a timeframe of only seven years? Serious questions would no doubt be raised.

So, instead, why not frame him? It would spare his life of course, but would ruin his political career, probably forever and would certainly keep him out of the White House — which was after all, the intended goal. And In fact, during Teddy’s future presidential campaign, the Chappaquiddick incident was constantly raised by his opponent, effectively ending his presidential ambitions there and then. But, what actually happened exactly?

The incident took place on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts on 18th July 1969, after a party attended by both Kennedy and Mary-Jo Kopechne. As part of his backroom staff, Mary-Jo had been charged with the task of clearing-up Bobby Kennedy’s files after his assassination in LA and it is believed that she had discovered too much about who and what had been involved in the assassination plot. After partying all that day at the Lawrence Cottage on the island, at around 11.15 pm, Mary-Jo decided to leave the party and head back to her hotel situated off the island, Kennedy being at the party also decided to leave at this time and offered to drive Mary back, as both had to catch a ferry off the island at the same location.

Over the years it has been insinuated that Teddy and Mary-Jo were more than just acquaintances at this time, particularly as at the time they drove away from the party together almost secretly. But anyway, the story goes that despite the fact that Teddy knew the island fairly well, he took a wrong turn and instead of heading to the ferry, he drove in completely the opposite direction, heading across a dirt-track, before encountering a narrow bridge which was where he somehow managed to overturn his car into the water before escaping himself. Mary-Jo on the other hand, was not so lucky.

Those who believed that he and Mary were having an affair, despite Teddy being married at the time, claimed that he was driving to a quiet location where he and Mary-Jo could be ‘alone’ together. Teddy’s actions after this incident have been heavily scrutinised over the years and are the direct reason why his career was said to have been ruined. In his own words he described the events as follows . . .

“On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11.15 pm on Chappaquiddick Island, Martha’s Vineyard, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned onto Dyke Road instead of bearing left on Main Street. After proceeding for approximately a half mile on Dyke Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. The car went off the side of the bridge. There was one passenger with me, Miss Kopechne, a former secretary of my brother Robert Kennedy. The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom. I attempted to open the door and window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car. I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown.”

What is particularly odd is that Kennedy had always claimed he had no idea how he managed to get out of the car and it has been suggested that Kennedy was lying about this — potentially in an effort to cover his own tracks, or maybe to save himself from those placing him in this position perhaps?

Here is an Interesting quote from researcher Richard Sprague on this theory . . .

“They ambushed Ted and Mary-Jo after they left the cottage and knocked Ted out with blows to his head and body. They took the unconscious or semi-conscious Kennedy to Martha’s Vineyard and deposited him in his hotel room. Another group took Mary-Jo to the bridge in Ted’s car, force-fed her with a knock out potion of alcoholic beverage, placed her in the back seat, and caused the car to accelerate off the side of the bridge into the water. They broke the windows on one side of the car to ensure the entry of water; then they watched the car until they were sure Mary Jo would not escape. Mary Jo actually regained consciousness and pushed her way to the top of the car (which was actually the bottom of the car -- it had landed on its roof) and died from asphyxiation. The group with Teddy revived him early in the morning and let him know he had a problem. Possibly they told him that Mary-Jo had been kidnapped.

They told him his children would be killed if he told anyone what had happened and that he would be hearing from them. On Chappaquiddick, the other group made contact with Markham and Gargan, Ted’s cousin and lawyer. They told both men that Mary-Jo was at the bottom of the river and that Ted would have to make up a story about it, not revealing the existence of the group. One of the men resembled Ted and his voice sounded something like Ted’s. Markham and Gargan were instructed to go the Vineyard on the morning ferry, tell Ted where Mary-Jo was, and come back to the island to wait for a phone call at a pay-station near the ferry on the Chappaquiddick side. The two men did as they were told and Ted found out what had happened to Mary-Jo that morning.

The three men returned to the pay phone and received their instructions to concoct a story about the ‘accident’ and to report it to the police. The threat against Ted’s children was repeated at that time.”

Another theory about the incident was formulated by the author Bruce Roberts and was published in the ‘Gemstone Papers . . . ’

“She, (Kopechne) was an idealistic American Catholic. She did not like murdering-hypocrites and died trying to get off Chappaquiddick Island, where she had overheard (along with everyone else in the cottage) Teddy Kennedy’s end of the D.H. Lawrence cottage telephone calls from John Tunney, and to Joe Alioto, and Democratic bigwigs Swig, Shorenstein, Schumann, and Bechtel.

Teddy’s good friend John Tunney had called to complain that Alioto’s friend Cyril Magnin and others had tried to bribe Jess Unruh to switch from the Governor’s race to run for the Senate — for the seat John Tunney wanted — so that Alioto would have an easier run for Governor. Teddy called Alioto, who told him to go to hell; then Teddy called the rest to arrange for yet another Mafia murder. Mary-Jo, up to there with Mafia shit, ran screaming out of the cottage on her way to Nader. Drunken Teddy offered to drive her to the ferry.

Wanting to get away from curious Sheriff Look, Teddy sped-off toward the bridge, busted Mary Jo’s nose when she tried to grab his arm from the back seat, and bailed out of the car as it went off the bridge. Mary Jo, with a busted nose, breathed in an air bubble, diluted with carbon dioxide from her exhalations. It took her 2 hours and 37 minutes to suffocate, while Teddy had Joseph Kennedy III steal a boat and ferry him across to Edgartown.

Mary-Jo was still pounding on the upturned floorboards of Teddy’s car while Teddy called Jackie and Onassis on the yacht Christina. Teddy also called Katherine Meyer Graham, lawyers, etc. Jackie called the Pope on Teddy’s behalf, who assigned Cardinal Cushing to help. The next morning, the first person Teddy tried to call after deciding he’d have to take the rap himself was lawyer Burke Marshall, Onassis’ friend in the US Liberty Ships deal back in the forties; and also, the designated custodian for JFK’s brains after Dallas (the brains have since disappeared.)

The Cover-up of the Chappaquiddick murder required the help of:

Massachusetts Highway Patrol, which confiscated the plates from Teddy’s car after it was fished out of the pond.
The Massachusetts Legislature, which changed a 150-year-old law requiring an autopsy (which would have revealed the suffocation and broken nose.)
Coroner Mills, who let Kennedy’s aide, K. Dun Gifford, supply him with a death certificate, already prepared, for Mill’s signature listing cause of death as drowning.
Cardinal Cushing’s priests, who appeared before the Kopechne’s ‘direct from God’ with personal instructions from him that Mary Jo was not to be disturbed.
A Pennsylvania mortuary where Mary-Jo’s broken nose was patched-up.
East and West Coast phone companies, which clamped maximum security on the records of calls to and from the cottage (S.F. Police Chief Cahill was reassigned to a new job: Security Chief of Pacific Telephone.)
The U.S. Senate, which never said a word about Teddy’s mock Hearing.
James Reston, editor of Martha’s Vineyard’s only newspaper, who ‘never heard a word’ about Teddy’s phone call at the cottage, though residents called in to tell the newspaper.
The New York Times, Washington Post, etc., etc., etc.

John Tunney’s sister Joan heard her brother’s end of the phone call made from her house in Tiburon to the Chappaquiddick cottage. The next day, after Mary-Jo died, Joan ran away to Norway, where she was kidnapped by Mafia hoods Mari and Adamo. They locked her up in a Marseilles heroin factory for 60 days, where heroin fumes turned her into a junkie (no needle marks,) then they turned her loose outside the factory. Joan’s husband complained, so she chopped his head off with an axe, and was subsequently locked up in a nuthouse belonging to the Marquess of Blandford, then Tina Livanos, Mari and Adamo got pressed into scrap metal in a New Jersey auto junkyard.

In the panic of trying to cover up Teddy’s guilt at Chappaquiddick, many things came unglued . . . ”

Anyway, according to the official story of events, Kennedy, after allegedly jumping back into the water on more than one occasion in order to save Mary-Jo, and despite having no memory of the events which had taken place, then proceeded to return to the party where he and Mary-Jo were previously, at no time reporting the incident to authorities despite passing several houses, and even an open fire station.

Kennedy also claimed that . . . “Instead of looking directly for a telephone number after lying exhausted in the grass for an undetermined time, I walked back to the cottage where the party was being held and requested the help of two friends, my cousin Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham, and directed them to return immediately to the scene with me — this was some time after midnight — in order to undertake a new effort to dive.”

Bizarrely, Kennedy once again refused to call the authorities after failing in this alleged new attempt and after failing for a second time to rescue her, he decided to just give up, presumably hope for the best, and to catch the ferry and head back to his hotel. He claimed that unfortunately the ferry was now closed for night and it was then that he decided, very strangely, to swim over the channel of water, almost drowning in the process. But whilst at his hotel on the mainland, he yet again refused to call the authorities to report what had happened.

Then, the following morning at around 8.20 am, two nearby fisherman reported seeing an overturned car in the water near the bridge where Kennedy and Mary-Jo had crashed and it was at this time that authorities were first called to investigate. Police Chief James Arena arrived shortly afterwards and after an unsuccessful attempt to gain access to the car, which at this time was still in the water, a professional diver was called in, to investigate, the diver being John Farrar, who arrived at approximately 8.45 that same morning. It was then that Mary-Jo’s body was discovered in the water.

At around 9.00 am, Teddy joined Gargan and Markham on the ferry back to Chappaquiddick Island. Steve Ewing, the ferry operator, allegedly claimed that Kennedy showed no real signs of distress, in fact, he was said to be in a ‘jovial mood’ on the return trip. It was only when Kennedy reached the island though, that he eventually admitted the incident to the proper authorities, forever tarnishing his name and certainly ending any presidential ambitions, forever.

Mary-Jo’s cause of death however, has always been subject to severe scrutiny . . . “There were also doubts about the way Kopechne died. Dr. Donald Mills of Edgartown, wrote on the death certificate: ‘death by drowning.’ However, Gene Frieh, the undertaker, told reporters that death “was due to suffocation rather than drowning.” John Farrar, the diver who removed Kopechne from the car, claimed she was “too buoyant to be full of water.” It is assumed that she died from drowning, although her parents filed a petition preventing an autopsy.”

They later claimed that they only did so in order to first determine whether or not Mary was pregnant.

Kennedy claimed that he got back to the cottage at 12.20 am. He got the time from the clock in the car while he sat in the back seat discussing the problem with his two friends, Joe Gargan and Paul Markham. This was a lie as it was later discovered that the rental car did not have a clock. According to their testimony, Kennedy, Gargan and Markham then went back to the scene of the accident and tried to get Mary-Jo out of the car.

After 45 minutes they accepted defeat. Kennedy told the men he was going to report the accident once back in Edgartown and then swam back as he thought the last ferry had gone. This was a risky thing to do and as Kennedy admitted afterwards, he nearly drowned getting to his hotel. Gargan and Markham claimed that they got back to the cottage at around 2.15 am and if so, this leaves an hour unaccounted for. This point was not explored at the inquest.

Jared Grant operated the Chappaquiddick Ferry. The last ferry usually left at midnight, however, that night his last run was 12.45 am but he did not actually close the ferry until 1.20 am. He later testified that he saw several boats “running back and forth” between the island and Edgartown. During this period he was never approached by Kennedy, Gargan or Markham but that night Kennedy did speak with the clerk at the Shiretown Inn at 2.30 am and according to Gargan this was to establish an alibi. At this stage he still intended to claim that he had not been driving the car.

We will never know the real truth of what happened that night.

Kennedy was found guilty only of leaving the scene of an accident and the true extent of his involvement has never been revealed, and most likely never will be. Locally, where the Kennedy dynasty was absolutely revered, the Chappaquiddick incident did not harm him politically and he was easily re-elected to a further Senate term in 1970, and went on to remain the senior Senator for Massachusetts until his death in 2009.

Richard M. Nixon and Watergate

In 1968 President Johnson signed the gold reserve requirement elimination act, and thereby the Federal Reserve Bank was no longer required to hold any gold in reserve to back its Federal Reserve notes. Then on 15th August 1971, President Richard Nixon illegally and unconstitutionally finally severed the link between gold and the dollar for good by closing the window in the treasury which prevented other countries from converting their dollar holdings into gold. He did this without the consultation of Congress or the American people.

This is extremely important as once the dollar was no longer backed by gold, the nature of money changed forever. The value of the money in circulation was no longer derived from a real asset, no longer commodity-based money, but ‘fiat’ money backed only by the ‘goodwill’ of the United States government. There were now, no more constraints on how much of this fiat money, the government could print. And, in the years that followed, the fiat money supply exploded.

The results of this explosion in money creation was a huge surge in credit and the biggest economic boom in the history of mankind, which finally came to an end with the financial meltdown in 2007, due the fraudulent practices carried out by the financial sector.

So why did Presidents Johnson and Nixon go to such lengths to remove the dollar from the gold standard? Firstly during President Johnson’s reign, the Vietnam War was at its height. An astronomical amount of money was being spent on the war, and also Johnson’s extravagant social programmes were inflicting a heavy toll on the budget. Before the passing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 the amount of money that could be created, was restricted by the fact that all dollars created, had to be backed by gold. In other words there had to be an equivalent value of gold in reserve, for every dollar in circulation, thus restriction the inflation of the money supply. Then with the bill’s passing, the required percentage was 40 cents worth of gold for each paper dollar issued and by the end of WWII, Congress had reduced the ratio to 25 cents.

The cost of the Vietnam War alone, was approaching $100 billion (which would equate to over $1 trillion today) and this ‘debt’ was exacerbated by Johnson’s social spending and it was now clear that the United States was spending far more money than could possibly be backed by gold reserves. Johnson and his Zionist bankster friends had successfully, through theft and corruption, drained the coffers dry.

In 1971, during Nixon`s term in office, the US Treasury, through the Federal Reserve, was still printing more and more notes to cover the nation’s debt. The Vietnam War was still raging and foreign countries being paid in US dollars were growing worried that the Treasury was printing too much money, so they began exchanging their dollars directly for gold. The actions of these foreign countries, were depleting most of the US gold reserves and also the country was importing more than it was exporting. But from 1971, with the Gold Standard now completely gone, the US could spend recklessly, and then borrow unlimited counterfeit money from the Zionist-owned Federal Reserve which sounds reasonable on the surface, but this action can only ever lead to rampant inflation — as has been the case for the last forty five years.

Meanwhile in China, Mao Tse-tung was not only the greatest mass-murderer in world history, surpassing even Stalin in that regard, but his gang had also murdered US POWs during the Korean War 20 years earlier. The only important consideration for the globalists however was that Mao had served their goals by consolidating once-free China under centralised state control. The oceans of blood he shed in doing so, were of no concern to the Globalists and they now believed that the time was now right to ‘open-up’ China for a gradual transition into The New World Order.

To that end, Nixon followed-up on a secret trip that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had made to China the year before and in a speech attended by Mao, Nixon expressed his wish to “ . . . build a New World Order,” which would include China. It was this event that marked the origins of China’s economic rise and transition into the ‘world community’ from where she had been excluded since Mao’s inexorable rise to power in 1949.

In 1972, the banksters were faced with the objective of ensuring Nixon’s re-election at all costs and continuing their agenda. Governor George Wallace had run for the Democrat nomination for President in 1964, and again as a 3rd Party candidate in 1968. He was an anti-Establishment nationalist, following in the tradition of Huey Long (who was assassinated in 1935) just as he was about to challenge FDR from within his own Party.

Wallace made it clear in his election campaign that he wanted to either win the Vietnam War quickly, or pull out totally, neither of which solution fitted-in with the Globalist agenda. He was anti-Communist, opposed to foreign aid, and opposed to Globalism. Echoing Huey Long, Wallace declared . . . “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” In 1972, Wallace again declared himself a candidate for the Democrat nomination, entering the field against liberals George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey and in Florida’s primary elections, Wallace triumphed in every single county.

Nixon’s best chance of success in the Presidential election was a head-to-head contest with McGovern and so, the banksters decided that Wallace simply had to go, but how could it be done this time and yet still ‘fool all the people, all the time?’

Wallace at this time was garnering round 18% of the vote, according to the polls, and most of that was in Nixon territory. There was always the option of eliminating George McGovern, but then the Democrats might come up with Hubert Humphrey or someone else even more dangerous than McGovern and even the banksters knew that they could not easily ‘get away’ with eliminating politicians en-masse.

So Arthur Bremer was selected as the ‘lone-nut,’ this time. The first contacts were made by people who knew Bremer in Milwaukee and he was then programmed over a period of months. He was first ‘set’ to track Nixon and then Wallace. As Bremer held the gun in his hand in Laurel, Maryland, facing George Wallace, it might just as well have been in the hand of Richard Nixon.

But what evidence is there that Bremer’s attempt on Wallace’s life was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Well, firstly Bremer himself had told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Also, the researcher William Turner unearthed evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin, that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cossini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz.

Secondly, there is evidence to prove that Bremer had an ‘unknown’ source of income. He spent several times more than he earned or saved in the year before he shot Wallace and Bremer’s appearance on TV, in court and before witnesses resembled that of a man under hypnosis or some form of mind-control.

A CBS photographer, Laurens Pierce caught part of the shooting on film and a clip from this piece is even included in the film Forrest Gump. Wallace may be seen with his right side exposed as Bremer reaches forward through the crowd, places the gun near Wallace’s stomach, and fires. Bremer fired four more shots, all in essentially the same forward direction, roughly parallel to the ground and due largely to what was shown on the film, and to the apparent premeditation exhibited in his alleged diary, Bremer was arrested, tried and convicted.

With Wallace’s elimination from the race and McGovern’s increasing popularity in the primaries, the only question remaining for the banksters was whether McGovern had any real chance of winning. The polls all indicated Wallace’s votes going to Nixon and a resultant landslide victory and that, of course, is exactly what happened. It was never close enough to worry the banksters very much but McGovern, on the other hand, was worried. By the time of the California primary he and his staff had learned enough about the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King that they asked for increased CIA protection in Los Angeles.

But realistically, if the banksters had decided to eliminate McGovern, the CIA would probably have been involved anyway. However, they did not, because Nixon’s election was now a virtual certainty. They did however, pull-off one more dirty trick by publicly revealing Thomas Eagleton’s psychiatric problems, which reduced McGovern’s odds considerably.

George Wallace however, did not die but was left paralysed and was confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life. He died in 1998, aged 79 and Arthur Bremer was released ‘early’ from the Maryland Correctional Institution on 9th November 2007, having served 35 years.

Dr. Henry Kissinger

Just as George Soros betrayed the United Kingdom for billions, Henry Kissinger betrayed the citizens of the USA in favour of the banksters. Eager to influence US Foreign policy in such a manner as to destroy the United States from within, Henry Kissinger aligned himself with like-minded anti-American Americans such as the banksters very own, Nelson Rockefeller, then the Governor of New York. Indeed, Kissinger was nothing less than an outright Rockefeller agent ready to carry the family’s ‘Grand Design’ into the White House.

He was the man who said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” and who was quoted in the New York Times magazine as allegedly jokingly, but we of course know that he was serious, said, “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

In 1955, the Rockefellers set Kissinger to work as a ‘change agent’ to implement their centuries-old plot to establish the New World Order. The ‘poor, Jewish refugee’ was thus elevated to power through the Rockefeller family using him as a proxy. In 1956, he was named editor of the influential magazine Foreign Affairs (the official publication of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) the American branch of RIIA (Royal Institute of International Affairs,) both of which actually function as global government employment agencies for the banksters, ‘appointing’ supposedly ‘elected’ officials.

It may seem incredible that a man respected as much as Kissinger, would turn out to be a Soviet spy, but if the intrinsic linkage between the Rockefellers, the USSR, and the United States is understood fully, it is not so bizarre. After all, it was the Rockefellers who financed the Bolsheviks in the first place and several credible sources document Kissinger’s involvement with espionage for the USSR, beginning with his career in the US Army counter intelligence unit after the war.

Kissinger was drafted into the US Army in 1943 where he was later assigned to the 970th Counter-Intelligence Detachment where he ruled a German town after the cease fire in 1945, somehow ‘earning’ the princely salary of $10,000 per year. To put that income into perspective, the median male annual income in 1950, which had risen substantially due to rampant post-war inflation, was only $2570. His reign ended in April 1946 when he was transferred as an instructor to the European Command Intelligence School. Around that time, Kissinger was recruited by Soviet intelligence as a double agent through a spy ring known as ODRA whose purpose was to penetrate British and American military intelligence. Eventually one of the chiefs of the Polish GZI, corresponding to the KGB, Colonel Michael Goleniewski, defected to the USA with a large cache of documents, including a 1,500 page report on the activities of the ODRA which contained a list of spies and their code names.

Goleniewski defected in 1961 when Kissinger was a professor at Harvard and in the employ of the Council on Foreign Relations and Goleniewski’s ODRA documents also included the name of Henry A Kissinger, code named ‘Bor,’ whom they noted in 1954 had returned to the USA to work at Harvard and was collaborating with the CIA. Finally, to confirm Kissinger’s espionage, all of which was endorsed by Nelson Rockefeller, President Nixon personally intervened to waive the background check which was required of all who entered White House service.

Goleniewski exposed dozens of confirmed KGB agents in Western countries, who were tried and convicted. However, in the USA, “ . . . no action was taken on his information.” ‘Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent,’ 1974, Frank A. Capell, p.3, 76-77. Capell also explained that Kissinger had always been a Rockefeller lackey commencing from his receipt of a Rockefeller Fund fellowship when he was a student. In other words, Kissinger worked for both Rockefeller and the KGB. The Rockefellers are Illuminati banksters and all intelligence agencies and as pointed-out throughout this book, MI-6, Mossad, CIA and KGB, all ultimately serve the banksters and not their host countries. We already have a de facto world government. The USSR was created by the banksters to create a Hegelian dialectic and indeed this is why many Illuminati agents like Kissinger rise to the top-levels of the US government with impunity.

Cappel wrote that the Communists, the first globalists, gained power by internal subversion . . . “This required that key people in government be Communists, Communist agents or persons under Communist control through blackmail, bribery or other devious means.” Far from representing the masses, these Communists actually represent the banksters, whose goal is to absorb all of the world’s wealth, using debt and ‘money’ created from nothing.

On 25th January 1972, President Nixon announced a proposed ‘eight point peace plan’ for Vietnam and also revealed that Kissinger had been secretly negotiating with the North Vietnamese. However, Hanoi rejected Nixon’s peace overtures and so Kissinger orchestrated the most massive bombing campaign in world history, dropping almost 4 million tons on an area inhabited by some 50 million people, twice the 2 million tons dropped on hundreds of millions through Europe and the Pacific in World War II. He also dropped 1.6 million tons on South Vietnam, as many as Lyndon Johnson at the height of US involvement, quadrupled the bombing of Laos, from 454,200 to 1.6 million tons, initiated widespread bombing of previously peaceful Cambodia, including B52 carpet-bombing of undefended villages, and vastly expanded the bombing of civilian targets in North Vietnam.

In Cambodia, Kissinger ordered Alexander Haig to undertake “ . . . a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia” in order to kill . . . “ . . . anything that flies or anything that moves,” which was the clearest possible violation of international law.

Kissinger’s bombing of Cambodia also played a major role in bringing the genocidal Khmer Rouge to power. He then compounded his crimes against Cambodia after the victory of the Khmer Rouge, when he told the Thai Foreign Minister on 26th November 1975, that “ . . . you should also tell the Cambodians (i.e. Khmer Rouge Government) that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in the way. We are prepared to improve relations with them. Tell them the latter part, but don’t tell them what I said before.” The historical record is replete with similar incidences of Kissinger’s cynicism, callousness and viciousness. And as for referring to the Khmer Rouge as ‘murderous thugs,’ well ‘it takes one to know one’ would seem an appropriate assessment. In fact, Kissinger could probably have given them a few pointers, himself.

Kissinger bears the major responsibility for murdering, maiming and making homeless more than ten million Indochinese, including countless civilians, as officially estimated by the US Government, between 20th January 1969 and 30th April 1975, placing him firmly and indisputably in the top five of the all-time, mass-murderer charts. In all truth, Kissinger’s overall record in Indochina constitutes some of the most massive violations of the Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Conventions and UN Charter since World War II, particularly those provisions requiring protection of civilians in time of war. There is no serious doubt that had these rules of warfare been applied to his massive and indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in Indochina and had double-standards NOT been the order of the day, he would have been indicted, convicted and executed for having committed multiple war crimes.

Watergate

There have been many scandals throughout American Presidential history, but only one has ever brought down a President. To understand Watergate, it may help to understand the culture of this particular bankster-run administration, and of the psyche of the man himself. Richard M. Nixon was a secretive man who did not tolerate criticism and who engaged in numerous acts of duplicity, kept lists of enemies, and who used the power of the presidency to seek petty acts of revenge on those enemies.

During Nixon’s first term he approved a secret bombing mission in Cambodia, without even consulting or informing Congress, and he fought to prevent the New York Times from publishing the infamous Pentagon Papers. Most striking, however, was Nixon’s strategy for dealing with the ‘enemies’ he saw everywhere. Nixon ordered Vice President Spiro Agnew to blast the media, and any protestors or intellectuals who criticised the Vietnam War and/or Nixon’s policies.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man to the core. He was owned by them, having been rescued from financial ruin by them, and by this time he was in the White House, becoming ever more paranoid and unpredictable by the minute. Something had to be done and someone, somewhere decided that the President had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. Yes, there were sub-plots and other contributory factors, but the prime mover was to get Free Trade back on track and seek revenge on the latest puppet in the White House who veered from his script.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was seized-upon, after the fact, as an unmissable opportunity, is irrelevant. It happened and it was used to great effect. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two junior reporters to break Nixon’s grip on high office. And if the Rockefellers needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the President as the situation came to the boil, they had reliable old Henry Kissinger, who was a totally dedicated Rockefeller ‘gofer.’

The inspiration for Watergate it was later revealed, grew out of a secret, inner White House group known officially as the Special White House Investigating Unit but unofficially as the ‘Plumbers’ who had been created in 1971 by Kissinger himself to prevent ‘leaks’ through his own staff. Hence the term ‘plumbers.’ Both Nixon aides, John Dean and Charles Colson reported that Kissinger had Nixon so upset over leaks that the President decided, at Kissinger’s suggestion, to set-up the investigating unit. John Dean went even further, and claimed that it was Nelson Rockefeller who had Kissinger fool Nixon into forming the ‘Plumbers.’ Nixon of course was totally unaware of the fact that at the time, he was being set-up for a heavy fall.

“Dick, you will come to depend on Edgar [J. Hoover.] He is a pillar of strength in a city of weak men. You will rely on him time and time again to maintain security. He’s the only one you can put your complete trust in.” Lyndon Johnson, the outgoing President, to President-elect Richard M. Nixon on 12th December 1968.

Nixon saw Hoover as a man who could help him fight those many enemies just the way he had done for Lyndon Johnson and other Presidents before him. “Edgar, you are one of the few people who is to have direct access to me at all times. I’ve talked to [Attorney General John] Mitchell about it and he understands.” That really was untrue since Nixon did not really want Hoover dropping in his office all the time, but he wanted to show respect for the man to whom he had after all, owed his start in politics.

Like Johnson, the biggest problems that Nixon had to deal with early in his administration were leaks and demonstrations. Richard Powers explained how these distractions threatened Nixon’s ability to govern the country . . .

“Having to wage a massive, undeclared war in Asia, while simultaneously trying to negotiate with the North Vietnamese, made both Johnson and Nixon depend on secrecy to mask their moves. They had to keep the enemy from knowing about their negotiating positions and to keep the antiwar opposition from mobilising to frustrate their war strategy.” Nixon had counted on Hoover to control these leaks and demonstrations that were undermining his presidency and Hoover convinced him that in addition to physical surveillance and background checks, wiretapping and electronic surveillance were the best ways to solve the problem. Nixon arranged for Henry Kissinger to provide Hoover with the names of those individuals suspected of leaking critical information.

The problem of the leaks continued however, and Hoover was continuously pressured to increase surveillance, which he resisted and by 1970, relations between the White House and Hoover were very strained. The country was in terrible turmoil on many fronts, new ‘Left’ groups had become militant and there had been bombings and takeovers of college campuses. When Nixon authorised American troops to be deployed to Cambodia, the college campuses around the country exploded in violence and National Guardsmen infamously wounded nine students and killed four others at Kent State University in Ohio.

While Hoover was in sympathy with Nixon on controlling the student activists and black nationalists, he was not about to jeopardise his own position by involving the Bureau in any widespread intelligence gathering programmes, except for ones that he closely supervised, such as COINTELPRO. The FBI was now under pressure. Earlier in 1971, there had been a series of negative articles and revelations about the Bureau, its large expenditures on bullet-proof limousines, the capricious firing of an agent whose wife was dying and general low morale. This meant that Hoover was no longer untouchable and indeed he was now wearing a large target on his back.

In April, Hoover had to fend off a full-scale investigation of Bureau practices and Teddy Kennedy was openly calling for Hoover’s resignation. Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Rights was given the opportunity to investigate the FBI, but he declined saying, “ . . . I think [Hoover] has done a very good job in a difficult post.” That same month, Hoover dismantled the COINTELPRO ops as the risk of exposure was just too great to continue them. Whilst this did not mean that all domestic intelligence programmes were curtailed, only a few selected operations would be allowed and even then, only in highly controlled situations.

Nixon was reported to have a ‘hate list,’ containing some 200 names of mainly Democrats, including James Reston, Jack Anderson, Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand and Paul Newman. But the first target of the ‘Plumbers’ was Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press. The team then burgled the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding, in the hope of securing information that the White House could use to smear Ellsberg’s character and undermine his credibility. Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, who supervised the ‘Plumbers,’ later said that the Ellsberg burglary was “ . . . the seminal Watergate episode.” The author Barry Werth wrote, “ . . . like all original sins, it held the complete DNA of subsequent misdeeds.”

During the court battle over the documents, Nixon told his aide Charles Colson . . . “We’ve got a counter-government here and we’ve got to fight it. I don’t give a damn how it’s done. Do whatever has to be done to stop those leaks. . . . I don’t want to be told why it can’t be done.”

Whatever damaging information the ‘Plumbers’ could find on Ellsberg would be itself leaked to the press and Nixon remarked . . . “Don’t worry about his trial [referring to Ellsberg’s arrest on conspiracy and espionage charges.] Just get everything out. Try him in the press . . . leak it out.” As he was wont to do, Nixon referred to his own success in convicting suspected Communist spy Alger Hiss in 1950. “We won the Hiss case in the papers,” he said. “We did. I had to leak stuff all over the place. Because the Justice Department would not prosecute it, it was won in the papers . . . . I leaked out the papers. I leaked everything. . . . I leaked out the testimony. I had Hiss convicted before he ever got to the grand jury.”

In July 1973, FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, told the reporter Bob Woodward that Nixon created the Plumbers because the FBI would not do his bidding in regards to Ellsberg. Had the FBI agreed to investigate Ellsberg to the extent Nixon wanted, he would not have created the Plumbers. “The problem was that we [the FBI] wouldn’t burglarize”, Felt stated. Ehrlichman later testified that . . . “Those fellows were going out as substitutes for the FBI.”

On 1st May 1972 the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was nearing his fifty five-year anniversary with the Justice Department, just one month before Watergate and there is considerable evidence that he may have known about the White House ‘dirty tricks.’ An article in the Harvard Crimson quoted Felipe de Diego, a Cuban exile who took part in the break-in at psychiatrist Daniel Ellsberg’s office, as saying . . . “Two burglaries took place at Hoover’s Washington home. The first was in the winter of 1972 to retrieve documents that might be used for blackmail against the White House. After the first burglary, a second burglary was carried out; this time, whether by design or misunderstanding, a poison, thyonphosphate, was placed in Hoover’s personal toilet articles. Hoover died shortly after that.”

Thyonphosphate is a drug that induces heart seizures. Its presence in a corpse is undetectable without an autopsy and no autopsy was ever performed on the body of J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover had served his bankster masters well, but by this time had outlived his usefulness to them and was simply and swiftly eliminated by the usual, preferred modus operandus, poisoning.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller family. Several years later, she would be awarded a medal of honour by the University of Chicago, an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller and she and Nixon already loathed each other by the early 1970s. The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was a past-master at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval Intelligence man, he was impressed by one of his junior reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for Navy intelligence.

When Woodward approached Bradlee with a story about a man who was allegedly passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the responsibility for a major investigation to two junior reporters, Woodward and Carl Bernstein, with nothing other than Bradlee’s reputation and the integrity and future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line, if the ‘boys’ got it wrong.

We are also supposed to believe that Bradlee gave the go-ahead, without knowing who the alleged informer was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted and without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead. And also that Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who gave away secrets, simply said to Woodward and Bernstein . . . “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two hugely inexperienced young reporters let loose in a cage with tigers? The odds of that happening were zero. Bradlee had to have known a great deal more than he admitted, from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s approval, to make a move. The series of breaking stories was in fact ‘spoon-fed’ to the two unsuspecting young reporters both of whom were driven by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident that the operation would be a success because he had all the foreknowledge he needed of Nixon, the target’s involvement, well in advance of his two reporters.

Henry Kissinger was and maybe still is, perhaps the greatest threat to US national security ever. To understand this, a little background is necessary. Nixon felt that his place in history was to normalise relations with China. He brought Kissinger on board based on Henry’s academic credentials, his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, his relationship with the NSC, and the fact that he was also a protégé of Nelson Rockefeller.

Nixon allowed Kissinger free rein, and chose not to challenge unilateral decisions in pursuing the China Policy -- even though Kissinger’s personal decisions and actions were systematically undercutting the US Military and destroying US intelligence operations around the world.

Nixon dreamed of open relations with the People’s Republic of China to . . .

Neutralise China as a US potential adversary
Enhance China as a USSR potential adversary
Create a viable trading partner for US goods and services, benefitting both countries

The vulnerability of the process was that Nixon turned over the negotiations for these goals to Kissinger, whose reputation and ego far exceeded his actual ability. Kissinger launched his personal diplomatic campaign in 1970, at the height of the Vietnam War, to open discussions with China, bypassing, and therefore unmonitored by, the CIA and the State Department. He chose not to use existing CIA or State Department contacts, assets or special resources to initiate discussions, but blundered around trying to connect via ‘friends of friends’ at foreign embassies, thereby becoming the laughing-stock of international diplomatic circles. His amateurish manoeuvres squandered a century of State Department expertise, and the CIA’s direct links to Mao’s inner circle which dated back to a World War II OSS operation (Operation Dixie Cup -- in which US officers advised both Mao and Chiang ensuring that the US would remain on good terms with whomever ended up in power.)

China had mastered diplomacy over a millennium and was light years ahead of Kissinger. Eventually, Zhou en Lai, tiring of Kissinger’s clumsy and amateurish efforts at diplomacy, contacted him and opened discussions -- in which Taiwan was deemed an expendable ally, and Vietnam/Southeast Asia was declared by Kissinger to be of no further interest to the United States.

Kissinger, was not a skilled diplomatic negotiator, but apparently feeling he was the reincarnation of Machiavelli, gave away too much in terms of concessions and got nothing more in return than what Zhou was already willing to offer. Zhou would have been perfectly content to simply open trade relations with the US and had Kissinger consulted the CIA or the State Department, he would have learned that the Chinese commercial link with the West had been thriving for years via Hong Kong. Zhou, of course, could not pass up the opportunity to exploit Kissinger’s obeisance, and extracted as many concessions from Kissinger as he could.

All of these negotiations were of course monitored by US Intelligence, to the great frustration of William Rogers (Secretary of State.) Kissinger again, by-passed both the State Department and CIA in his manipulations resulting in the Director of the CIA, Richard Helms, excluding him from the National Security Council and access to the White House. A series of leaks, believed to be via Kissinger, regarding CIA activities and operations, found their way into the media resulting in several media-hyped scandals leading to a series of Congressional investigations. With Helms disgraced by the flood of leaks about the CIA, Kissinger had Nixon demote Helms and reassign him in 1973 as Ambassador to Iran, where Kissinger could easily control him.

Kissinger then assumed the position of Secretary of State after forcing the resignation of the highly skilled diplomat, William Rogers. The Intelligence Community recognised that Kissinger’s newly-elevated status gave him unprecedented power to destroy intelligence and subvert National Security. He had succeeded in displacing the Director of Central Intelligence as well as the Secretary of State, thus becoming Nixon’s only link to the international community. Kissinger was completely insulated since he could limit access to the President, so any attempt by anyone outside the White House to persuade Nixon of his destructive actions would be prevented.

Then J. Edgar Hoover died, conveniently (he had been in excellent health but succumbed to a ‘heart stoppage,’) a month before the Watergate break-in, he was therefore unavailable to lead an FBI investigation into the Watergate event. Nixon appointed L. Patrick Gray, an inexperienced Department of Justice lawyer as new head of the FBI. The anomalies of the scandal, although crystal clear to Intelligence officers, never got in the way of the Washington Post reporting.

On 17th June 1972, five men, carrying electronic surveillance equipment, were arrested inside the Democratic National Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, Washington, DC, the Watergate building complex. They were attempting to bug the DNC offices, supposedly to spy on them in order to gain intelligence to boost Nixon’s re-election campaign. After the arrest of the five burglars at 2.30 am, a call was received by Douglas Caddy, attorney for E. Howard Hunt (former client and friend of Caddy) at his office in Washington. Hunt then drove to Caddy’s home at 3.35 am and was immediately retained as their attorney by E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, and the five arrested burglars. Caddy claimed that Hunt and Liddy were in charge of the burglary operation by the CIA and was at the Watergate Hotel which was next door to the Democratic Headquarters. When the arrests of the five burglars took place, Hunt and Liddy were therefore able to avoid entrapment themselves.

There were several ‘curious’ anomalies

The burglars were discovered after a building security guard found the door to the office repeatedly propped open with tape -- which he removed, each time re-locking the door, and each time, the tape was replaced and propped open again — thus guaranteeing their discovery.
Cash found on the burglars was connected by the FBI to a Republican Party Re-election Committee Slush Fund.
The burglars included senior career intelligence officers notable for their experience in Black Ops, to include weapons, demolitions, surreptitious entry, Psy-Ops, special security, money laundering, espionage, and assassinations. Why were highly-skilled, senior level intelligence operatives involved in a simple break-in? They were all highly experienced ‘spooks.’
Nixon commented, upon learning of the event:
“It sounded preposterous. The whole thing made so little sense. Why in such a blundering way? Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of set-up.”
The two Washington Post reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, just happened to be assigned to Night Court to witness the five burglars being charged.
Oddly, the intelligence operatives, who had lived both covert and clandestine existences and were completely accustomed to subterfuge, cover identities, arrests, torture, and lying their way out of similar situations, all confessed immediately that they worked for the CIA.
Standard procedure in this type of situation would have been a quick phone call, a release in anonymity -- and then to disappear forever.
Instead, trained, experienced professional spooks freely confessed-all to two ‘cub’ reporters, without any prompting, much less an inquiry by the judge.
The only conclusion, from an intelligence perspective, is that these so-called ‘Plumbers’ had purposely made a series of highly visible blunders and left an obvious paper trail that a child could have followed, creating a highly visible story for Woodward and Bernstein to report.

The political theatre, the charade of Watergate was indeed a set-up. It was a fairly elaborate covert operation, with three parts . . . 1) creating the crime, 2) implicating Nixon by making him appear to be knowledgeable and complicit in a cover-up, and 3) ensuring that an aggressive effort would be mounted to use the ‘facts’ of the case to prosecute Nixon and force him from office. Obviously, those that wanted Kissinger removed, were disappointed. Indeed, he became more powerful, received the Nobel Peace Prize for killing millions, and was hailed as one of America’s greatest statesman, as he continued to work in the shadows for the next several decades.

On 7th November, Nixon was re-elected in one of the biggest landslides ever in American political history, taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, George McGovern.

It is not exactly every day that the President of the United States plots to assassinate his own Vice President, but that is precisely what Richard Nixon did, according to Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s own Vice President. Agnew even wrote a book about it, ‘Go Quietly . . . Or Else . . . ’ Most people have never even heard of it of course. In his book, Agnew wrote that Nixon, acting through Alexander Haig, the President’s chief of staff, threatened to have him assassinated if he did not resign, hence the title of the book.

The threat on his life, Agnew wrote, came in early October 1973. The Watergate Scandal was still simmering, threatening to take down the Nixon presidency but Agnew had more immediate concerns. An investigation had uncovered credible evidence that he had taken bribes whilst governor of Maryland, and pressure was building for him to resign. Nixon, worried about saving his own reputation, decided to throw Agnew ‘to the wolves.’ Agnew, however, insisted that he was innocent and refused to resign . . . that is, until Alexander Haig made it clear what would happen if he did not.

“I received an indirect threat from the White House that made me fear for my life. I did not know what might happen to me. But I don’t mind admitting I was frightened. This directive was aimed at me like a gun at my head. That is the only way I can describe it. I was told, ‘Go quietly — or else.’ I feared for my life. If a decision had been made to eliminate me — through an automobile accident, a fake suicide, or whatever — the order would not have been traced back to the White House. I was just a pawn on the chess board to be played in whatever way would help Nixon survive.” Spiro Agnew

According to Agnew, Nixon was worried that if he did not resign, the House of Representatives would start impeachment proceedings against Agnew, and that . . . “ . . . there were plenty of people around who would want to make it a doubleheader.” But Agnew, who the Democrats in Congress hated even more than Nixon, quite astutely saw himself as Nixon’s only hope of not being impeached. “Nixon did not seem to realise that I was his insurance policy against his own ouster. The left-wingers who despised us both would never push him out of the White House until they were certain I would not be around to take his place.” But Nixon panicked and pushed him out anyway.

The individual who most deserves the title of traitor and who is most guilty of sedition is General Alexander Haig. This desk-man whose paper-shuffling career did not include commanding any troops in battle, was suddenly thrust upon the scene by the banksters and Nixon once described him as a man who ‘had to ask Kissinger’s permission to go to the bathroom.’ Haig was a product of the bankster-created Round Table. On Round Table orders, Kissinger had Haig promoted from colonel to four-star general in the most meteoric rise ever recorded in the annals of United States military history, in the course of which Haig was promoted over the heads of 280 more senior US Army generals and high-ranking officers.

As a result of Haig’s ‘promotion,’ 25 senior generals resigned and as a reward for his treachery towards Nixon, and the United States, Haig was subsequently given the plum job of Commanding General of NATO even though he was the least qualified commander ever to hold that position. Once again, he was promoted over 400 senior generals from NATO countries and the United States.

When the news of his appointment reached the Soviet Armed Forces High Command, Marshall Orgakov recalled his three top Warsaw Pact generals from Poland and East Germany, and there was much merrymaking, clinking of glasses and quaffing of champagne until well into the night. All through Haig’s tenure as commander of NATO forces, the professional elite cadre of the Soviet Armed Forces, men who have never been anything else but professional soldiers, held Haig in the utmost contempt and openly referred to him as the ‘office manager of NATO.’ They knew that Haig owed his appointment to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the Crown-controlled RIIA) and not to the United States military.

On the insistence of the RIIA, Haig virtually took over the management of the Government of the United States after the April 1973 coup d’état. Appointing Round Table agents chosen from the Brookings Institution, Institute Policy Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations, Haig filled the top one hundred posts in Washington with men who, like himself, were beholden to a foreign power. In the ensuing debacle, the Nixon Administration was torn asunder and the United States along with it.

Thrusting aside the pious platitudes and pretence of defending the Constitution, Senator Sam Ervin did more to change the United States than anything President Nixon was alleged to have done, and the United States has not yet recovered from the near-mortal wound of Watergate, a ‘Committee of 300’ sponsored operation conducted by the RIIA, the Round Table and ‘hands on’ M1-6 officers based in the United States. The way that Nixon was first isolated, surrounded by traitors and then confused, followed to the letter, the Tavistock method of gaining full control of a person, according to the methodology laid down by Tavistock’s chief theoretician, Dr. Kurt Lewin.

On 10th October 1973, Spiro Agnew became only the second Vice President to resign the office. Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges of tax evasion, as part of a negotiated resolution to a scheme wherein he was accused of accepting $29,500 in bribes during his tenure as Governor of Maryland. Agnew was fined $10,000 and given three years’ probation. His resignation from the office of Vice President triggered the first use of the 25th Amendment, as the vacancy prompted the appointment and confirmation of Gerald Ford, the House Minority Leader, as his successor. It remains as one of only twice that the amendment has been employed to fill a Vice Presidential vacancy.

After he left office Agnew avoided publicity and went into business as an international broker. In 1981 he was ordered by a Maryland court to repay more than $248,000 to cover the bribes he took while in state office. Whether Agnew was truly guilty of corruption, or not, he was certainly no friend of Zionism. As an outspoken critic, he denounced Israel’s bullying in the Middle East, and in Washington. So it has to be said, that the timing of the ‘corruption’ and tax evasion charges was highly suspect. Of course Nixon, as evidenced by the White House tapes, was also no supporter of Zionism.

Nixon wanted to replace Agnew with his former Treasury Secretary and ex-Texas Governor John Connally, he of JFK fame but instead, he was ‘pressured’ by the Republican National Chairman and the banksters’ loyal ‘friend,’ the man who always seemd to be in the right place at the most convenient time, George H. W. Bush, to make the affable but bumbling ‘team player,’ Gerald Ford his VP.

The truth is that, far from being an ‘impartial campaign’ to rid the US government of corruption and the abuse of power, Watergate was a City of London-instigated, Rockefeller/bankster plot to destroy America’s constitutional institutions. No matter what Nixon’s flaws may have been, he did nothing that could possibly be constructed as an impeachable offence and it was Watergate itself which represented the real offence against the Constitution. It contravened all accepted constitutional procedures, it discredited the office of the Presidency, not simply Nixon personally. It weakened the morale of the entire nation and it opened the door for Kissinger and a host of fellow British operatives to consolidate their grip over the essential policy-making institutions of the United States.

Although it was ultimately the banksters in London who directed the Watergate proceedings from the top level, it would have been impossible without the traitorous complicity of Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, and their co-conspirators at the Washington Post and on Capitol Hill — especially among Democrats allied with the Kennedy family and such anglophile conservatives as then Senator, James Buckley. Working from a sophisticated psychological profile that stressed Nixon’s paranoia both about the Eastern Establishment and communist infiltration of the United States (the latter exemplified by Nixon’s complete mis-reading in the 1950s of Alger Hiss, whom he labelled a communist, when Hiss was actually working for the British,) Haig and Kissinger manipulated Nixon into extending the Vietnam war, over the opposition of then-Defence Secretary Melvin Laird.

This provided the impetus for an expanded anti-war movement, the development in the Nixon administration of a liberal anti-war ‘counter-government’ (composed primarily of Kissinger protégés such as National Security Council member Morton Halperin,) and a series of major ‘leaks’ to the press, including most importantly the Pentagon Papers. In turn, conditions were created under which Kissinger, with Haig in-tow, could persuade Nixon that ‘national security’ required countermeasures, including the wiretapping, break-ins, and other offences for which Nixon was hounded from office.

One of the most important aspects of the Watergate incident was the Daniel Ellsberg affair. Without the Ellsberg-Pentagon Papers fiasco, there would have been no ‘Plumbers,’ and no ‘handle’ with which to bring-down Nixon.

It is therefore notable that the operative chosen for this assignment had been trained at Cambridge, England (a well-known recruiting ground for British intelligence) who then became a protégé and close friend of Kissinger’s at Harvard. The two remained so intimate, that even after Ellsberg had transformed himself from a nuclear super-hawk into an anti-war liberal and was preparing the Pentagon Papers for publication whilst writing letters to the New York Times and Washington Post denouncing the Vietnam War, the two continued to meet regularly. There is even reason to suspect that Kissinger — who had prepared the outline for the Pentagon Papers project when it was commissioned in 1967, may well have given Ellsberg access to some of this secret material that found its way into Ellsberg’s exposé, which was published by the Times in June 1971.

Kissinger not only supplied the motivation for the ‘Plumber’s’ creation, he also supplied its director. Two weeks after the Pentagon Papers broke Kissinger transferred his appointments secretary, a young Oxford University graduate and former Nelson Rockefeller aide named David Young, to the White House basement to oversee the day-to-day deployment of the Plumbers’ staff. As chief liaison to the unit, Kissinger assigned Alexander Haig.

By July 1974, the Watergate schemers were moving in for the kill, but they wanted Nixon to resign rather than go through with the impeachment proceedings, for fear that the latter could backfire in the President’s favour. But in practice, this was not so easy to accomplish.

As pressure began to build on Nixon to resign, he responded by insisting that to do so would be unconstitutional. When Haig confronted Nixon at the end of July, and told him point-blank that he should resign, Nixon replied that he would, “ . . . let the constitutional process run its course.” So, realising that they needed a more subtle approach, Kissinger and Haig created the myth of the ‘smoking gun’ tape in an effort to convince Nixon he had no other choice than resignation. Haig argued that the tape proved Nixon’s guilt and would make his case before the Senate untenable. But Nixon brushed-off Haig and his lawyers, telling them, “ . . . it’s utter nonsense to make such a deal as this.”

On the 5th August, Nixon totally shocked Haig and Kissinger by convening a cabinet meeting to announce that he was going to see it through. “My view is that I should not take any step that changes the Constitution and sets the precedent for the future . . . I have not committed an impeachable offence and therefore resignation is not an acceptable course.”

He then stated he would hold an economic summit to tackle the growing problem of inflation. Republican National Committee head George H.W. Bush implored Nixon to hold off on the summit but Nixon angrily snapped back, “No, this is too important a problem.”

After the meeting broke up, Kissinger spent two hours trying to make Nixon change his mind and resign, but he refused to accept Kissinger’s advice. Then later that evening, Kissinger and Schlesinger completely usurped presidential authority by putting the US military command on an ‘internal alert’ and ordering all commands not to accept any orders emanating from the White House without the countersignature of the Secretary of Defence. In the face of Nixon’s adamant refusal to step down, Kissinger and Haig resorted to a final piece of treachery. Unbeknown to the President, Haig had already instructed the White House staff to type up unedited transcripts of the ‘smoking gun’ tape. The transcript was then sent to Nixon’s closest supporters in Congress and the Republican Party and then as news of this supposedly devastating tape began to circulate, panic began to spread, a panic compounded by the fact that it was the President’s own Chief of Staff who was creating it.

Haig then began to bring the remaining Nixon loyalists to the White House, where he told them that an anti-impeachment fight would be futile, and that Nixon must be forced to resign in order to save the party. He then invited Representative John Rhodes and Senators William Scott and Barry Goldwater to the White House to inform the President he had lost his political base of support and earlier, George H.W. Bush had sent Nixon a letter urging him to resign.

These were the final nails in Nixon’s presidential coffin and in return Haig promised Nixon that there would be no impeachment trial and no trouble.

So, London’s coup had been effectively carried out against the US government and the two men most responsible for that, as well as for all the offences for which Nixon was the scapegoat, were left unscathed by the media and by the official bodies constituted to investigate Watergate. Kissinger sold himself to Gerald Ford as an indispensable foreign-policy adviser, while Haig left for Europe to head up the NATO forces and to prepare his own political, bankster-enhanced future.

The President submitted his resignation to none other than Henry Kissinger on 9th August 1974.

So why did the banksters turn against Nixon? In addition to the previously mentioned economic changes, he infuriated Kissinger by bombing North Vietnam without consulting anyone. It was even rumoured that Nixon was planning to get rid of Kissinger. However, Kissinger was the bankster/Rockefeller’s man in the White House and his job, was to control Nixon, so he was the one really running the show.

Nixon also angered the banksters because of his choice of Vice President. After Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned because of income tax evasion charges, Establishment insiders had urged Nixon to appoint Nelson Rockefeller. However, Nixon instead appointed Gerald Ford. If Rockefeller had been appointed, he would have become President after Nixon was destroyed.

So in effect, Nixon ruined their plans and may have known that, because after he resigned he was having problems with a swollen leg and said that if he had gone to Bethesda Naval Hospital to have it attended-to he would like so many others, in his own words, “ . . . have never come out alive.”

Chapter 18

To Infinity . . . and Beyond!

“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.” Adolf Hitler, 1925

If you believe that the US actually landed men on the moon, you really need to think it through more carefully. I am about to present proof that the Apollo moon landings in the late 1960s and early 70s were all one huge fabrication.

As already well documented herein, our whole financial system is based upon a gross lie as is almost all of our fake ‘reality.’ So if most of what we are taught to believe-in is one massive lie . . . then why should learning that the moon landings were faked, be any more difficult to accept? Firstly, keep in mind that there were probably only about 100 people involved in the moon landings hoax. Mission Control in Houston as well as most of the men and women who worked on this project almost five decades ago, had no idea it was a fake. But how is this possible you ask? It is very simple really . . . the bankster elite who planned and executed this utter charade, never let anyone see too much of the whole picture. The thousands of people involved only had their own small parts of the whole upon which to concentrate. Mission control was in Houston, the launch site in Florida. The engineers, mechanics, computer programmers etc., mostly in California, were all isolated from each other and there was no crossover between them. So most people would never be able to figure out that the whole thing amounted to nothing more elaborate than a Hollywood production — and a very unconvincing one at that which is fairly simple to expose once we scratch even slightly below the surface.

In, 1962, then President JFK said that he had a vision of America “ . . . putting a man on the moon and returning him safely before the decade is out.” Now, as stated earlier, Kennedy knew this was impossible, he knew that the Russians had faked Yuri Gagarin being the first man in space and the Russians knew that the US technology was only at a similar state of advancement as their own, so they were complicit with each other’s claims and lies. The best rocket scientists in the world, those involved with the space programme, informed Lyndon Johnson that the science was at least 30 years away from being able to accomplish such a task but the fact is . . . they were actually over-optimistic.

Indeed, almost half a century later and we still do not possess the technology to send a man to the moon and return him safely to Earth. The powers that decided on this fraud concluded that if they could not send a man to the moon and get him back safely, then they would simply have NASA fake the project then keep the billions of taxpayer money used to fund this operation for themselves. After all, as elaborate as the plan to ‘fake it’ was, it would have been an order of magnitudes less expensive than the ‘real thing’ would have cost. The cost of the entire Apollo programme was $25.4bn in 1969 dollars and $180bn in 2015 dollars.

Several motives have been suggested for the US government to fake the moon landings — some of the recurrent elements are:

Distraction — The government benefitted from a popular distraction to take attention away from the carnage of the Vietnam War. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, at exactly the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.

Cold War Prestige — The government considered it vital that the US should win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.

Money — NASA raised approximately $30bn dollars by pretending to go to the Moon. Some of this could have been used to pay-off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterised as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.

Risk — The available technology at the time, and even that of today, is still not capable of landing humans on the moon. The Soviets, with their own competing moon programme and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried ‘foul’ if the US tried to fake a Moon landing. However, Ralph Rene responded to that accusation by saying that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the US silently began shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He regarded this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. In fact, the Soviet Union in fact had its own moon-landings programme which were mysteriously shelved.

There is an old saying that, ‘a liar needs a good memory.’ Nowhere is this more evident than in the Apollo programme. NASA constantly tells lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings by altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made. This only serves to reinforce the evidence that NASA are fire-fighting, and being forced into a corner from which they cannot escape. The longer that NASA’s extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract them, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous.

Many Apollo astronauts have since died, as have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have sometimes not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA’s longest serving Administrator Dan Goldin, when interviewed by British TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgotten that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit, 25 years previously.

The Van Allen Radiation Belts, some 600 — 22,000 miles above the Earth, is probably the main argument for not having reached the moon or anywhere near it. The Van Allen belts refers to dense layers of charged particles trapped around the Earth by the Earth’s magnetic field. The particles include protons, electrons, heavy ions that come from solar wind and cosmic rays (high energy particles from outside the Solar System.) Interestingly, Dr. James van Allen himself, for whom the belts are named, was a critic of the moon landings programme throughout the rest of his long life, (he died at the age of 92 in 2006,) stating that it was ‘impossible’ that humans could pass through them safely. But of course his words were never widely reported.

Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares from the sun. Astronauts orbiting Earth in near space, such as those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the Earth’s Van Allen belts. But the Moon is 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows that there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said that shielding at least two metres thick would be needed to protect humans from the radiation generated by the Van Allen belts, yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moon’s surface were about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil — according to NASA themselves.

How could that possibly stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why did rescue workers not use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the radiation dose that the Apollo astronauts would have encountered? Not one of them ever contracted cancer — not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a huge solar flare erupted. “They should have been fried,” said author and researcher, Ralph Rene.

Bill Kaysing, a pre-eminent Apollo researcher, worked as a technical writer for Rocketdyne, a company heavily involved in the Apollo programme. During this time, Kaysing claimed, NASA carried out a feasibility study which found they had only a 0.0017% chance of landing a man on the moon and returning him to Earth with the available technology and Kaysing argues convincingly that it was totally impossible for NASA to go from 0.0017 to 100% by 1969. Surely if we could get to the moon with 1960s technology, it should be easy for us to get to the moon today. However, all nations STILL have extreme difficulty placing an object in a high Earth orbit.

In his book, ‘We Never Went to the Moon,’ Kaysing writes that NASA and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) worked together on faking the Apollo 11 moon landing. An empty Saturn V rocket was launched but fell back to Earth when it was out of the public gaze and NASA also allegedly created a lunar landscape in ‘Area 51’ in the Nevada desert and according to Kaysing, the film-set was still there at the time of his writing. Meanwhile, the astronauts and Mission Control were taking part in a meticulously staged hoax designed to fool the public into believing they had landed on the moon. Fake photographs and film were taken and the astronauts’ return to Earth was staged by dropping a dummy space capsule from an army plane into the ocean. Kaysing went on to suggest that the astronauts were brainwashed and they and their families were threatened, to guarantee their co-operation with the hoax.

Another American author, Ralph Rene, also believes that astronauts could not have made it to the moon. In his book, ‘NASA Mooned America!’ Rene claimed that the Apollo spacecraft would have needed at least an equivalent mass in lead of two metres of water shielding to prevent cosmic radiation from cooking the astronauts inside. The hoax theorists believe that, when NASA realised they did not have the technology to take men safely to the moon by the end of the 1960s, they resorted to faking the lunar landings. This ensured that they would score a propaganda coup against the Soviets and keep the money rolling in for funding their real space projects.

Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a “Hole in History” and historian A.J.P. Taylor referred to it as . . . “The biggest non-event of my lifetime.”

“NASA and other connected agencies couldn’t get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. . . . We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage . . . No-one in the media was given the raw footage. The world tuned-in to watch the moon landing and what looked like two blurred white ghosts throwing rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, inexplicably, NASA provided no direct link-up. Networks actually had to film man’s greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston, making it impossible for anyone to examine it.” Bill Kaysing

Bill Wood has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and is a space rocket and propulsion engineer. In other words, a rocket scientist. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with McDonnell Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle.) He also worked at NASA’s Goldstone facility as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions. This facility in California, was responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from Apollo to Houston and he says that early video machines were used to record the NASA footage by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was ‘live’ was not, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage.

It has to be said, that the Moon Hoax debunkers, all those that believe the moon landings were real, tend to believe most of what they are told about everything by the bankster-controlled mainstream and nothing that they are told via the alterative media. That is, they would also try to debunk everything else in this book. And yet, as I hope I have proven, both in fine detail and through a continuous pattern, a proof of ‘system’ if you will, the banksters mastered the arts of deception and distraction, a long, long time ago.

This shot (below) of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the US flag on the moon’s surface was taken by a 16mm camera mounted on the lunar module. Aldrin’s shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong’s and yet the only light on the moon — and the only light source self-admittedly used by NASA, was the sun, and this alone should not create such unequal shadows. It is fair to suggest therefore that all shadows should run parallel to one another and be of equal, relative length. But this is definitely not the case with many of the moon landing videos and photographs which clearly show shadows that fall in different directions and are of relative, unequal length.

This therefore must mean that multiple light sources are present, strongly suggesting that the photos were produced on a film set. There are indeed hundreds of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting, which was certainly not transported to the moon.

NASA has attempted to blame uneven landscape on the strange shadows, with subtle bumps and hills on the moon’s surface causing the discrepancies. This explanation is frankly laughable. How could hills cause such large angular differences? In the image below, the lunar module’s shadow clearly contradicts those in the foreground, the differential being almost 45 degrees.

In consecutive Apollo 17 photos (AS17-135-20588 and 89,) the rock’s shadows change almost 180 degrees as if they switched studio-lights between shots and in shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that could not possibly occur in the blackness of space.

There are also anomalies with the ‘moon rovers.’ In one Apollo 17 shot (AS17-140-21370) the moon rover is shown still packed-up, not yet unloaded, but there are clear wheel tracks to be seen across the foreground of the entire photo, (below) . . .

There are many pictures which show moon rovers with no wheel tracks in front or behind them (as though they were set down into place) even though there are many footprints visible in the picture. There are also pictures of astronauts with footprints all around them, but no prints leading to or from where they are, as if they were also lowered into place by wire.

And there is also one Apollo 12 shot that shows the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light . . .

Many people have pointed-out that when the first moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Photos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image above which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to ripple.

Many explanations have been put forward to disprove this phenomenon as anything unusual. For example, NASA claimed that the flag was stored in a thin tube and the rippled effect was caused by it being unfurled before being planted. Other explanations involve the ripples caused by the reaction force of the astronauts touching the aluminium pole, which is shown to shake in the video footage.

Next, I would also like to delve deeper into the question; where are all the stars in the moon photographs? Not a single photograph allegedly taken from the surface of the moon shows even so much as one star in the background. Because of the prevailing circumstances and a single-light source only (the sun,) there should have been a vista almost filled with tiny specks of light, in any direction away from the sun. More stars then you could ever possibly see on even the clearest of nights on Earth because the moon has no atmosphere to distort and dim the images. This phenomenon is explained away by NASA and its shills as being due to the fact that setting the exposure level to take account of the brightly glaring spacesuits would mean that the stars would be rendered invisible. However, this does not explain why in instances where the exposure was of a much lower level than when taking shots with the bright space suits, that stars still did not show, even on those photos.

For example, the scenes below which are obviously not very well lit, would have required a long enough exposure that would have been certain to capture every star in that part of the sky. So where are they all?

One could also legitimately question why there were no specific attempts to photograph the stars themselves? It would surely have made a beautiful visage, one never able to be seen from Earth and a change from all the pictures of the lander and the rover, moon rocks and mountains etc.

“It’s as if someone went to Niagara Falls and the only photos they brought back were of the car they drove, sitting in a nondescript parking lot.” David McGowan, 2009

In fact the astronauts were asked this very question about the stars at their press conference, post splash-down and the almost disinterested answer came back to the effect that they ‘did not even notice’ the stars in the sky! Did not even notice them — excuse me? It must have been the single-most wonderful sight they saw on the whole trip, the vast, unimaginable vista of all of creation stretched out before them to infinity. That is if they went in the first place, which of course they did not. Amazing is it not how lying is so difficult to permanently maintain? And speaking of the press conference, if you have never seen the footage of this event, the DVD is available to buy at a very reasonable price on the Internet and I would strongly suggest that you track it down and do so. What is so striking and revealing about this is the absolute downbeat demeanour of the astronauts themselves throughout the entire session.

If someone had just completed the most wonderfully uplifting experience and had been on the most incredible adventure ever undertaken by the human race in its entire history, would I be wrong to suggest that they may have appeared happy, elated and exhilarated, flushed with success, even self-satisfied, experiencing a feeling of great achievement that they would wish to share with the world? Obviously someone forgot to tell them this then in that case. I have never seen a more morose, sullen, disinterested, less co-operative bunch of people in my entire life. Anyone would have thought that they did not really go to the moon at all and were resentful of being ‘put on the spot’ and having to ‘think on their feet’ to answer all the awkward, unplanned-for questions they were being asked, including the one about the stars.

However, I think we may all have guessed the answer as to why NASA was so extremely coy about the star photography. Could it have possibly had anything to do with the fact that the moon is at a different angle to the stars in comparison with the Earth, albeit a barely detectable one, given the vast distances involved? And this would then have been guaranteed to constitute proof that the photographs had actually been taken on Earth as it would have only taken one vigilant, enthusiastic amateur astronomer somewhere in the world to find the nearest stars, take a few quick measurements and calculations and the whole thing would have been blown wide-open forever.

Of the seven Apollo missions to put ‘men on the Moon,’ six were claimed to be ‘successful’ and Apollo 13 was ‘aborted.’

As with the political assassinations already presented, there are also highly suspect, and very convenient deaths involved in the Apollo project also. None more so than . . .

Virgil (Gus) Grissom

On 27th January 1967, the astronaut Gus Grissom along with two fellow astronauts, perished in a fire in what was to be Apollo 1 at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Even in death, Grissom is still tormented by those who would believe that he did not live up to his country’s expectations, not to mention his own expectations.

On 13th April 1959, Air Force Captain Gus Grissom received official word from the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson air-force base that he had been selected as one of the seven Project Mercury astronauts. Six others received the same notification; Lieutenant Malcolm Scott Carpenter, US Navy Captain, Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr. (33rd Degree Mason,) US Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel John Herschel Glenn, Jr. (33rd Degree Mason,) US Marine Corps Lieutenant Commander Walter Marty Schirra, Jr. (33rd Degree Mason,) US Navy Lieutenant Commander Alan Bartlett Shepard, Jr., and US Navy Captain Donald Kent (Deke) Slayton.

The Mercury programme was the United States’ first manned space venture and the first step in the country’s quest to reach the moon. Being a Mercury Astronaut meant being constantly subjected to scrutiny both by the public and by the media. Hailed as heroes when the missions went well, they could equally expect to be chastised for any problems which might occur along the way. Indeed, Grissom’s first space flight, aboard the Mercury Redstone ‘Liberty Bell 7,’ was somewhat less than a complete success.

Although take-off and re-entry went as expected, upon splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean, the 70 explosive bolts which held the hatch in place unexplainably exploded prematurely, forcing Grissom to evacuate the capsule and swim for his life while the rescue helicopter frantically tried to save the capsule from sinking. It was unsuccessful, and Grissom nearly drowned whilst the Liberty Bell sank to the bottom of the ocean, never to be recovered.

This was only the beginning of Grissom’s media woes. The press hounded him mercilessly, and he underwent an inquiry by NASA into the loss of the spacecraft. Although his fellow astronauts strongly supported him, and the inquiry led to the eventual conclusion that the explosive hatch blew of its own accord, Grissom never recovered his previous reputation with the public or the media. Much to his dismay, the exhaustive testing done on similar spacecraft with the same explosive bolts yielded no explanations for the explosions, as the bolts, never again exploded prematurely in any of the tests.

“I didn’t do anything. I was just lying there and it just blew,” he protested. However, the media painted him as a failure, a coward who panicked and blew the hatch in an attack of claustrophobia. Even after his death, perhaps because he was an easy target and could not defend himself, the public opinion of Grissom was still questionable. In the book and the movie, ‘The Right Stuff,’ Tom Wolfe portrayed Gus as . . . “ . . . the goat among the astronauts, a hard-drinking, hard-living type who courts the favours of barmaids with gewgaws he promises to carry into space. He is also held up to the world as a man who screwed up, who panicked, blew the explosive hatch off his capsule and allowed it to sink to the ocean floor after re-entry.”

Grissom’s luck was better on his second space flight, however. Selected to command the Gemini 3 mission shortly after his completion of the Mercury 7 flight, he became the first man ever to fly twice in space. But he had yet to live down his reputation with the loss of his Liberty Bell capsule.

After his second, successful flight, he was notified confidentially by NASA that he had been chosen to be the first man to set foot on the moon. Project Apollo was now underway, and Grissom with Edward H. White and Roger Chaffee, were selected for the first mission.

The Apollo I mission was undertaking a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight, when a fire stated to be caused by an arc of electricity in the pure oxygen atmosphere of the sealed capsule of Apollo 1, destroyed the capsule and incinerated all three astronauts. A tragic end to the career of Gus Grissom, who even in death, was pilloried by both the media and Congress.

Dr. John McCarthy, the director of research, engineering, and testing for North American Aviation, the aerospace company primarily responsible for building the Apollo capsule, laid the blame literally at Grissom’s feet. His hypothesis was that the command pilot may have kicked or scuffed a wire lead connected to an air-sampling instrument.

The ignition source was never determined, but there were over a dozen fire hazards in the module, and the module’s design was grossly flawed in terms of safety. Most notable of these hazards was the inward-opening exit hatch. There was very little room inside, and in the panic of fire, the crew would have been severely hampered in exiting had they opened it. This is a moot point however, as the hatch would not even open with a crowbar after the module was pressurised. The interior was supplied with 100% medical-grade oxygen during the pre-launch, and thus, the air itself instantly burst into flame once the fire started, blowing out one of the cabin’s walls within 15 seconds. The three men did not die from smoke inhalation, since they were fully suited with their helmets on, but were killed by the fire itself.

As unfair as McCarthy’s observation obviously was, it was rescinded almost immediately when he could not find proof to support his hypothesis. Grissom would have had to have been a contortionist to have reached that particular wire and create enough force to move it.

NASA eventually concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, White and Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote-off the catastrophe as an accident.

“My father’s death was no accident. He was murdered,” Scott Grissom, son.

In February 1999, Scott Grissom, went public with the family’s long-held belief that their father was purposely killed by fire aboard Apollo I. They believed that the numerous safety flaws were so grossly negligent that NASA could not possibly have overlooked them all, but instead deliberately provided them, and then sabotaged the equipment in some way as to ensure an electrical spark once the cabin was sealed and pressurised.

Scott Grissom strongly suspected that his father had somehow irritated the NASA hierarchy in the past, possibly due to the embarrassment of the Liberty Bell 7 incident, and his general outspoken-ness. Scott claims that in 1990, he was able to inspect the Apollo 1 command module, and found a “fabricated metal plate” behind a switch on one of the instrument panels. The switch controlled the capsules’ electrical power from an outside source to the ship’s batteries and he argued that it was the placement of this metal plate that was an act of sabotage. He claimed that when one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship’s batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.

NASA denounced the younger Grissom’s conclusion as “ . . . the ravings of an understandably angry child,” but has never bothered to refute it. Whether such a metal plate existed in the cabin is not publicly known, but in another stunning development, a leading NASA investigator charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and the two other astronauts.

Clark MacDonald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, MacDonald said that he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire. He also claimed that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space programme. “I have agonised for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn’t want to hurt NASA’s image or cause trouble, but I can’t let one more day go by without the truth being known.” He said.

Grissom’s widow, Betty agreed with her son’s claim that her husband had been murdered . . . “I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon.”

There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch could accidentally blow without being pulled -- a fact that led NASA to remove the devices from future spacecraft designs. Also, had Grissom pulled the explosive release on the hatch, his hand or arm should have had powder and bruise marks, but neither were ever found.

Grissom, was the senior astronaut and also maybe significantly, the most critical of the problem-plagued Apollo programme, and the main Apollo contractor, North American Aviation. With billions of dollars at stake, Grissom had become a problem for NASA.

On one occasion, shortly before the tragic fire that claimed their lives, Grissom hung a lemon on a wire coat hanger on the Apollo 1 rocket (picture below) during a publicity photo-shoot and in addition made an unauthorised statement to the press in early January 1967 to the effect that he believed that the ‘Moon landings’ were at least ‘a decade away,’ for which he was severely reprimanded.

Grissom’s lemon

That was probably his death sentence signed and sealed right there and then. Indeed, less than a month later all three ‘rebels’ were dead. Shortly before his untimely death Gus Grissom had also said to his wife . . . “If there is ever a serious accident in the space programme, it’s likely to be me.” And among his last words before he died, when there was a communications failure with the capsule just prior to the fire, were, “How are we going to get to the moon when we can’t communicate between two buildings?”

Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space programme. The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his own home to a secure safe-house.

The Apollo I disaster led to a series of congressional hearings into the incident and NASA. During the hearings, one launch pad inspector, Thomas Ronald Baron, sharply criticised NASA’s handling of the incident and testified that the astronauts attempted to escape the capsule earlier than officially claimed. Baron was a safety inspector on the Apollo project who after the fire, testified before Congress that the Apollo programme was in such disarray that the United States would never make it to the moon. He also claimed that his opinions made him a target, and on 21st April 1967, reported on-camera to news reporters that he and his wife had been harassed at home. As part of his testimony, Baron also submitted a 500 page report detailing his findings. Then exactly one week after he testified, Baron’s car was struck by a train and he, his wife and his stepdaughter were all killed instantly. His report mysteriously disappeared, and to this day it has never been found.

In fact, no less than eleven Apollo astronauts were mysteriously killed before undertaking their missions, three had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, seven died in six separate (yes, six separate) plane crashes, and one died in a car crash. Overall, a highly unlikely series of coincidences that I will allow the reader to make-up his or her own mind upon.

Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San Francisco, at the request of Bill Kaysing, interviewed the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington about the so-called ‘moon rocks.’ “Did you examine the ‘moon rocks,’ did they really come from the Moon?” Jacobs asked and the geologist’s only response was to laugh. Both Paul Jacobs and his wife died from ‘cancer’ within 90 days of this incident. Yes both, within 90 days!

Astronaut and ahem, ‘first man to walk on the Moon,’ Neil Armstrong, could have made millions through endorsements and personal appearances. Courted by kings, praised by politicians, he could have signed a myriad of book and film deals telling his amazing story. But instead, he became a virtual recluse who used a fake name to receive his mail and refused to talk about his incredible feat. He also suffered with mental illness in his later years, some say maybe as a direct result of his name being used as the ‘foundation stone’ for the biggest lie in history. Or maybe it was that he became paranoid by the overwhelming number of sources exposing him as a liar?

In fact none of the astronauts give public interviews or took questions at speaking events and as already stated were all very unconvincing, nervous and shifty in their first press conference upon their return from the Moon. This press conference in its entirety is actually very enlightening and is well worth a watch if you can get hold of a copy. It was certainly still available as a mail-order DVD at the time of publication of this book.

Rumour also has it, that Apollo 12 astronaut Charles (Pete) Conrad Jr., was intending to ‘go public’ about the fake Moon landings on their 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was however unfortunately ‘killed in a motorcycle accident’ one week before the anniversary. Another sad ‘coincidence.’

President Lyndon Johnson made certain Apollo files classified, with a declassification date of 2026. This is so that those involved in the Apollo scam would be long dead and gone, but we need not wait until then for the truth behind Apollo, as the truth is now already well known.

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the Earth’s gravity and, having travelled all the way to the Moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to Earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three . . . each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.” ‘Conquest of the Moon,’ Wernher von Braun, 1953, Viking Press.

Of course, Wernher von Braun obviously quickly forgot this opinion completely, when his ‘sponsors,’ the CIA, had put him in overall charge of the ‘team,’ in the race to outdo the Soviets in space and weapons research, not to mention make a whole boatload of money for the banksters and their greedy friends.

Ironically, it was an American, Dr. Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945,) the rocketry genius, who was the father of the space programme. A man of great vision and humanity, he was ignored by the US government, only to see his revolutionary research and patents put to another use by Wernher von Braun and his crew.

So, how and where did NASA fake the lunar approach, lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar take-off, for all the Apollo Moon landing TV transmissions? Contrary to what many believe, the sequences were not shot in a desert, Hollywood studio, or Area 51. There may well have been some pictures taken at the infamous Area 51, and a few Apollo pictures that were taken in some remote desert, but the majority of stills and video were performed at NASA’s own Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. NASA Scientists knew in the early 1960s that a manned mission to the Moon was impossible within 8 years, and so the plan to fake the Moon landings was put into operation.

The Lunar Orbiter and Landing Approach simulator (LOLA,) was a $2 million facility built at the Langley Center around 1963/64. The lunar terrain detail within it was gathered by the American Lunar Orbiter series of probes that mapped the entire surface of the moon in greater detail than ever before.

This facility had an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long and the massive crane system supported five-sixths of the vehicle’s weight through servo-driven vertical cables. The remaining one-sixth of the vehicle weight pulled the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force. During actual flights the overhead crane system was ‘slaved’ to keep the cable near vertical at all times. A ball-joint system on the vehicle permitted angular movement for pitch, roll, and yaw.

According to Bobby Braun and other NASA officials the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled lunar module. However no rocket powered LM was ever suspended from this crane and in any case, most people know that it is totally IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine. The landings were controlled purely by traverse and the raising and lowering of the LM in the same way as a conventional crane.

The mock LM was traversed the full length of the crane, and simultaneously lowered at the same time in order to create an authentic looking lunar landing, when viewed from within the mock LM itself. The power supply to the mock LM was by cable from the crane tower. This enabled a large fan, (fitted beneath the mock LM), to create the dust scatter effect of a rocket engine as it descended to the fake Moon surface.

The film shown to public of the LM supposedly blasting off from the Moon’s surface was also created beneath this crane at LRC. The mock LM was simply attached to the crane, and hoisted very rapidly at the same time a pathetic looking blast-off simulation was enacted beneath it. The film was then speeded-up for showing to the public, and it is interesting to note that the camera filming this sequence cut short once the LM had reached the crane maximum height. In other words WHY did the camera not continue to film the LM until it was out of view? Quite simply because it was not possible to do so under the circumstances in which the ‘lift-off’ was faked.

Fake lunar surfaces beneath the crane

The above pictures were taken by Bob Nye on 20th June 1969, one month before Armstrong supposedly made his ‘giant leap for mankind.’ The picture on the right shows the lander hovering above the fake Moon crater surface beneath the crane. The picture on the left, taken at night, looks like a realistic Moon setting, and the light source seen in left picture is the same light source that highlights Buzz Aldrin in the controversial picture of him allegedly on the Moon. Those lights are fixed on top of the crane gantry, as shown in an earlier picture.

The pictures below demonstrate how the astronauts were suspended from the crane in order to simulate low gravity.

They eventually settled for an upright position with the astronaut suspended by strong elastic bungee cord, so that his feet were only just touching the ground, similar to a ‘baby bouncer.’ As the astronauts walked in any given direction, the overhead crane moved in the same direction and this enabled the astronauts to literally float along in a crude ‘moon walk’ fashion.

There is a classic piece of film that depicts Apollo 17 astronauts supposedly cavorting on the Moon and one of them is actually suspended 2 feet horizontally off the ground. This sequence lasts for a couple of seconds, so how do NASA officials explain that and why is it that no-one else has passed comment on this patently absurd shot? It is clear evidence that the ‘astro-not’ in a fake space suit is suspended from wires.

The high-resolution picture above left, depicts a 20-foot diameter sphere which can be rotated from below. In the left of that picture can be seen a huge blank placard. This is the scene before work began on converting the sphere to an authentic looking Moon complete with craters, (for lunar approach), and the placards were to be used to depict the orbiting of the moon.

Notice also the rail track around the placards, (there were 3 placards in all) and note the moving trolley gantry on the track upon which the camera was mounted. Firstly, it began to film the rotating sphere, (lunar approach) and then would swing around and began scanning the fake lunar surface on the placard to simulate a lunar orbit. The picture above right depicts the sphere after modelling work. Notice how the background is dark with no stars visible. Remove that man from the picture and it could EASILY pass as being taken by the Apollo command module circling the Moon. It is absolutely evident that there were a number of people involved in the faking of Apollo but NASA’s response to these allegations was that if it were faked, someone would have ‘blown the whistle.’ Well, the NASA staff involved are all sworn to secrecy, and they surely would prefer that they and their children remain alive. There is no doubt that the threats used to buy their silence would have been taken extremely seriously.

NASA claim that picture on the right is far side of Moon, taken by Apollo 8. Compare this sphere with the one shown on the left. It speaks for itself, does it not? In all of these pictures notice the black background. We really need to ask the question also . . . ‘What possible purpose could these no doubt incredibly expensive to produce, life-like models of the moon have served, if not to fake mission photographs? What would have been the point of all the time and expense taken to construct them? I have given this a lot of thought and I personally cannot think of even one single, plausible reason for it.

But in fact, the vast majority of NASA’s fake moon pictures were created in the mid-1990s. The proof lies in the fact that most do not appear in any books or magazines prior to 1990. Ninety-five percent of NASA’s fake Moon pictures on their websites, were never seen in any form, prior to the launch of the internet. Once the internet became widely available, they had to produce a considerable number of fake moon pictures, for all six missions; otherwise the public would want to know why there were so few.

Science fiction’s portrayal of covered-up or faked space missions dates back many decades. In the February 1955 issue of Galaxy Science Fiction magazine, author James Gunn published a story entitled The Cave of Night. The story dealt with a manned mission to Mars which goes wrong, stranding an astronaut with no hope of rescue and the climax of the story is shocking, utilising the notion of fakery to portray an erroneous perception of the outcome of the mission.

The plot of the 1969 movie Marooned also involved a manned mission to the Moon going wrong. The failure of a re-entry rocket leaves the occupants of the lunar capsule stranded in space and although there is no cover-up inherent to the actual space-flight, the original script called for the suggestion that a story would be created to perpetuate the notion of a heroic attempt to rescue the astronauts, should they have perished. The film received the full support of NASA, including the use of Cape Kennedy for interior and exterior location filming.

Capricorn One (1978) however, went much further than Marooned, featuring a plot that utilised Hollywood trickery and gimmicks to fake the first manned space flight to Mars. In the film, the astronaut crew are removed from their rocket and driven to a film set in the desert to record fake footage of their planetary touchdown. However things spiral out of control for the hapless fake astronauts when their rocket is seen to explode on take-off, in front of millions on live TV, thus meaning that NASA now has on its hands three ‘dead’ astronauts. Of course they realise that their lives really are in danger now and attempt to escape before the space agency can deal with them in the usual manner.

Bizarrely, this film also received full support from NASA, which is strange given how NASA has generally avoided supporting Hollywood productions that cast the agency (or fictional agencies with a resemblance to NASA) in an unflattering light. The film was directed by Peter Hyams, who would go on to also direct ‘2010: The Year We Make Contact,’ the sequel to Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ six years later.

According to the Clavius website, the first mention of Stanley Kubrick and his possible involvement with the Apollo cover-up appeared in 1995 on the Usenet newsgroup. The Clavius group have dedicated themselves to sceptically debunking all notions of an Apollo cover-up (meaning that they are not exactly the most unbiased or objective source of reference material.) However the time-frame to which they refer, does seem to tally. There are no apparent references to Kubrick and the Apollo cover-up before this time period.

As documented earlier, Hollywood has always served its bankster masters well. From everything we know about the truly great film-maker Stanley Kubrick, he was certainly not what could be called a Hollywood ‘team player.’ In fact, the total opposite is nearer the mark. Fiercely independent, he was a perfectionist who moved over 5,000 miles away from the centre of the movie universe, just to be free to do things his own way. But, given his love of new technology, creative challenges, and absolute control, the idea that NASA would be ‘over the moon’ as it were, to have him on-board to help them fake the Apollo Moon landings . . . well, it would be the perfect match, the perfect challenge, if it were true.

In October 2002, the William Karel-directed ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ mockumentary film was aired on the French TV channel Arte. The film seemingly supported the idea that the television footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked and recorded in a studio by the CIA, with help from Stanley Kubrick. The film included interviews with notable agenda players such as Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Vernon Walters and Apollo astronaut, Buzz Aldrin. However, further investigation of these interviews revealed that they were actually carefully edited from existing interviews that had no connection to Kubrick or the faking of the Apollo 11 footage.

The official blurb of the film says . . . “Filmmaker William Karel pursues his reflection on the relation of the United States with image, cinema and their capacity to produce ‘show.’ What other story can lend itself to such an examination but the space conquest, a war of image and show more than anything else. What if it was just a huge hoax initiated by the two great powers? Between lies and truths, this film mixes actual facts and others, completely trumped-up. Playing with irony and lie, its purpose is to entertain and raise the question of the use of archive, which can be made to tell whatever you want.”

Whatever one makes of the mockumentary, there is a certain irony to this exercise in contextual dissembling, given that this is something the mainstream media appears to do on a daily basis. Tellingly, the film exercises techniques that have been the hallmark of certain media psy-ops, such as Orson Welles’ 1938 ‘War of the Worlds,’ radio broadcast.

It is curious that the film also contains interviews with Kubrick’s widow Christiane, who discusses the Kubrick / Apollo connection in a far more ‘realistic’ context than the other featured interviews. We really should ask why she became involved. The most interesting and detailed parts of the film are contained in her interviews and if, as some have suggested, the film was a CIA exercise in debunking, was Christiane a willing participant?

The ‘Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Hoax’ article and the Dark Side of the Moon mockumentary have done much to muddle the notion of Kubrick’s possible involvement in the Apollo cover-up. But, if Kubrick’s involvement was real, then these pieces are certainly convenient for those agenda players wishing to prevent researchers from getting too close to the truth.

It is also worth mentioning the theory that ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ was also utilised as part of the agenda-driven drug-related counter-culture of the late 1960s. It is important to note that this phenomenon has a clear overlap with the work of NASA and the state-sponsored mind-control paradigm, respectively.

For all the examination of the ‘Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Hoax’ article and the Dark Side of the Moon mockumentary, please understand that a great deal of strong circumstantial evidence existed long before the notion was ever fully articulated. For example, Jay Weidner, a researcher and expert photographer who has virtually dedicated his studies to Stanley Kubrick and the global agenda, has plausibly demonstrated that the front-projection process (used so successfully in the ‘dawn of man’ sequences of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey) shares key similarities with some of the abnormalities identified in the Apollo ‘moon’ footage, such as the clear lines of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.

In order to understand Kubrick’s connection with the bankster Elite and the military-industrial complex, one must look back at his career as a whole. Kubrick is remembered as being a notorious perfectionist with a meticulous attention to detail and the production of his films was often laboured and incredibly lengthy. Actors were pushed to the limits of their ability and patience, as often scores of ‘takes’ of one short scene were repeated until Kubrick was satisfied with the result. It is known that there was no piece of set dressing or background that hadn’t been placed or framed without his prior approval or specific reasoning and the same is also said of his wardrobe choices and actors’ appearances. This should come as no surprise, given that Kubrick began his profession as a photographer — an art that requires a precise knowledge of framing and context in order to be fully proficient.

Some researchers have claimed that Kubrick became trapped within his profession and that his art became a conduit through which he used illusion and imagery to reveal the greater truths that he had come to realise. It is also claimed that his alleged involvement in the Apollo hoax would have abetted these circumstances. However, Kubrick’s disdain for aspects of the establishment was already apparent much earlier in his career.

In February 1993, the legendary researcher, the late Bill Cooper discussed 2001: A Space Odyssey on his radio show. Cooper described the Monolith as a symbolic catalyst for the beginning of the programming / control of humanity and how the Monolith effectively imparts ‘forbidden knowledge’ to humanity, dismantling ‘paradise’ in its wake. As witnessed in the ‘dawn of man’ sequence of the film, the ‘forbidden knowledge’ leads to the death of one ape at the hands of another. Cooper believed that the ape, ‘Moonwatcher,’ was a symbol of the first priest or initiate of the mystery school teachings — instrumental in guarding the secrets of the ages, astral theology, the study of the Sun, Moon and Stars, etc. Cooper also highlighted the six transformations that Bowman goes through in the finale of the film, the sixth level of attainment in the mystery school teachings, and the associated ‘666’ paradigm of occult teachings.

There are also further subtle indications of 666 embedded in the film . . . “It also appears that the ‘monoliths’ in the movie appear for 666 seconds. The time between the first appearance and final disappearance of each of the four ‘monoliths,’ the four times added together, is 666 seconds. Additionally, there are apparently 666 camera shots starting from ‘The Dawn of Man’ (the first shot after the opening credits) to ‘The End’ (the last shot of the closing credits.) The running time of the film in seconds, from the beginning of the Overture to the end of the Exit Music (total exhibition time), is allegedly equal to the number of moon orbits contained in 666 years (8903.) Alternatively, the running time in seconds, from the beginning of the MGM lion logo to the fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases contained in 666 years (8237.) Everything before and after the movie proper, that is, the overture, end credits, and exit music times, adds up to 666 seconds. For an ‘added bonus,’ the director Stanley Kubrick was reported to have died 666 days before the year 2001, on March 7th, 1999.” Jay Weidner.

Jay Weidner has also proposed that Kubrick created ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ as a “visual and alchemical initiation into the on-going transformation and evolutionary ascent of man to a so-called Star Child destiny.” The obvious analogies are the celestial alignments that precede each of the alchemical transmutations in the film. The second main allegory is the monolith or ‘black stone’ that initiates these transmutations. Again this mirrors the alchemical lore about the black stone (known under numerous names — most notably ‘The Philosopher’s Stone’) causing the transmutation of the alchemist. The film itself (the dimensions of the movie screen) shares the same dimensions as the monolith, prompting some researchers to consider the act of viewing the film as part of a greater, symbolic ritual.

“Kubrick completely reveals that he understands the ‘Great Work.’ The monolith represents the Philosopher’s Stone, the Book of Nature and the Film that initiates. Stanley Kubrick has truly made the Book of Nature onto film. Using powdered silver nitrates, that are then glued onto a strip of plastic, and then projected onto the movie screens of our mind, Kubrick has proven himself to be the ultimate alchemist-artist of the late 20th century.” Jay Weidner.

Despite clearly being on the inside (and obviously a Hollywood ‘illusionist,’) Kubrick’s films have told us more about the hidden, global bankster agenda, than any other Hollywood endeavour, albeit largely in the form of allegory and metaphor. Was Kubrick’s decision to enact a form of disclosure, to hide hidden clues, hidden meanings in his work, prompted by guilt or some twisted, dark sense of humour? Did he become a prisoner of an industry that he once loved, and decided to articulate the things he came to see and understand?

There are those that believe Stanley Kubrick was killed by the bankster-Illuminati for revealing too much about the secret society in his final film ‘Eyes Wide Shut.’ While his official cause of death was listed as cardiac arrest (certainly not shocking for a 70 year-old man,) some researchers point to the preponderance of Illuminati symbolism in his films, his clean bill of health prior to dying, and the strange editorial takeover of the film before its release as evidence there was more going on than initially meets the eye.

Believers of this theory, many of whom also believe that Kubrick was enlisted by the US government to produce the faked Moon landings, view the prevalence of Illuminati symbols in his films as more than just the result of unconscious archetypes. They are evidence that Kubrick himself was a part of the Illuminati, and was using his films as a vehicle for communication with outsiders, as way to reveal the existence of a globalist conspiracy. Indeed, many if not all of his films, including ‘The Shining,’ ‘2001,’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange,’ are full of Illuminati symbols, most notably the ‘one eye’ symbol.

The ubiquitous ‘one eye’ symbol and the pyramid shape, often seen in popular culture indicate strong evidence that the world’s major celebrities are puppets of the Illuminati.

However, if Kubrick’s body of work is rife with Illuminati symbolism, his final film ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ is the climax. Not only is this film about a mysterious, perhaps murderous, secret society, it is drenched in allusions to the New World Order cabal. Occult symbols such as the pentagram can be found throughout the film, as well as multiple references to rainbows and looking glasses, which are notoriously used to evoke ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and the cultural brainwashing of MK-ULTRA and other CIA operations.

The story of the Wizard of Oz is actually an allegorical representation of the Crown Temple, the controlling force behind the British Crown and all its foreign offshoots (Commonwealth countries) including the United States of America which is proven never to have really been given independence from the Crown, despite all appearances to the contrary. It tells us the covert story of who we are, our place in the New World Order and how we can end its oppression.

Although dressed-up as merely a simple, innocent children’s story written by L. Frank Baum, in fact ‘Oz’ represents gold by weight (shortened form of ounces) and the yellow brick road, bricks or ingot bars of gold. So, the ‘Wizard of Oz’ himself is one of the Elite banksters, the owners of wealth and one of the ‘powers-that-be’ who tightly control every aspect of our day to day existence.

The character known as the scarecrow or ‘straw-man’ represents your non-existent, ALL-CAPITALS legal-fiction straw-man, in other words, the PERSON that the State created as a legal representation of you with the same spelling as your birth name in order to subjugate and control you.

And what does the straw man want most of all from the Wizard of Oz? A brain. A ‘legal fiction’ PERSON does not have a brain because a ‘capitalised’ PERSON is not a living entity but all that the straw-man receives from the ‘great’ Oz is a certificate, a Birth Certificate perchance, as a newly ‘legalised’ entity — as indeed we are all regarded in the eyes of the State. He is so proud of his new ‘legal’ status, plus all the other legalisms he is graciously granted by Oz, that he lives up to his character as the brainless sack of straw, proudly clutching his Birth Certificate and defying all common sense. This tells us much about the state of affairs today and the mind-set of the utterly brainless populace duped into believing that they have rights of freedom from servitude.

Likewise the tin man. TIN is the US Taxpayer Identification Number. The poor TIN Man is simply a mindless, robot-like worker striving to fulfil his master’s wishes until his body literally seizes-up and stops functioning. He will eventually work himself to death because he has neither a heart nor soul and is merely just an emotion-less creature robotically carrying out his daily tasks as if he were already dead. He is the horse pulling the carriages of the wealthy and the mule toiling under the yoke of slavery. His masters keep him numb on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control him totally. He is the physical representation of the millions of soulless entities that throughout the ages are born, serve the system from cradle to grave and die miserably in poverty.

The pitiful Cowardly Lion is always too scared to stand up for himself. Of course, he is a bully and picks on those smaller and less powerful than himself. He represents those people who on the outside appear to possess great courage, but in reality have none at all, the kind of person who will bully his way to a minor position of authority but who is really too much of a coward to stand up to those at the apex of the pyramids. The Cowardly Lion will always back down and whimper when anyone of higher status challenges him. He desperately wants to be granted courage by the great Wizard, so he is awarded the ‘medal’ of ‘official recognition’ by the powers that be. These people thereby remain loyal to our oppressors in return for a few crumbs from the metaphorical table.

They are the armies of bullies with ‘official’ status who hide behind their ‘officially’ recognised authority and the lion represents people such as politicians, the military, the police and security forces and the legal profession who first and foremost protect the Masters of the Universe and their status and power, from the masses.

The character of Dorothy represents the ubiquitous ‘everyman’ on his / her journey through life trying to find happiness and contentment, in Dorothy’s case her trying to get home to Kansas.

The two witches, Glinda the good witch and the Wicked Witch of the West, represent the perennial struggle between good and evil. The Wicked Witch of the West is a parody of western society and its appalling values. All she cares about is procuring the legendary ‘silver slippers’ (changed to ruby slippers in the film version) belonging originally to her sister and given to Dorothy by Glinda, which she believes will increase her powers. ‘Silver slippers’ represents the wealth of the masses, that is silver the precious metal, representing our meagre wealth and our constant chasing of illusory dreams whilst the Elite do everything they can to deprive us of a share of the world’s bounty.

The journey through the field of poppies represents the fact that the Crown (and to a lesser extent the US and UK governments) control the world-wide drug trade and has done so for centuries. Even in Baum’s day, more than a century ago, there had been the long and oppressive Opium Wars. The Crown already had vast experience, for example in the conquering of all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?

And it was Toto, Dorothy’s small dog who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was. ‘In toto’ in Latin means ‘in total, all together’ and it is significant that Toto is not scared of the Wizard’s posturing, despite his diminutive stature.

The Wizard’s smoke, flames and holographic projections and booming voice are simply designed to frighten us (we the masses) into doing his every bidding. ‘Toto,’ representing us ‘all’ (when we get our collective acts together) simply looks behind the curtain, sees that it is all one big illusion and begins barking to draw it to the attention of the others (the rest of the world.) This enables them to see the Wizard as he really is; just an ordinary, vulnerable, defeat-able man controlling the levers that create the illusion of his non-existent power and authority.

So, metaphorically the veil hiding the truth behind the ultimate flimsiness of the New World Order is removed and the Wizard’s illusion is easily exposed.

And the moral of the story?

We as a group do not realise how much power we really have, to expose and thereby end the current state of affairs. If we all bark loud enough, we too can draw the attention of the rest of humanity to the scam being perpetrated by the fraudsters and criminal banksters who control the world and our every move.

In reality, their façade is every bit as flimsy as the one erected by the seemingly ‘all-powerful’ Wizard behind the curtain. All we need is a brain, a heart, a soul and courage and if we can learn to somehow work together ‘in toto,’ we can change the world.

But I digress. In another anecdotal connection, ‘Eyes Wide Shut’s costume store, the Rainbow is actually across the street from a Masonic lodge. The secret society in the film is often compared to the Masons, as they have both been associated with ritualised sex magic orgies in which human life is sacrificed. This association is also frequently tied to Satanism and paedophilia, both of which are alluded-to in the film. There is even a character named after the creator of the Church of Satan, Anton Sandor LaVey and the Rainbow store owner’s underage daughter is depicted as a prostitute to rich men.

Eyes Wide Shut, the phrase itself, is a calling card among secret societies, meaning ‘my eyes are shut to your misdeeds, brother.’ This anonymity is required of the participants, otherwise the society’s moneyed elite would be revealed. As one character in the film says, “If I told you their names I don’t think you’d sleep so well.”

Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising evidence for Kubrick being murdered by the Illuminati is the events surrounding his death. Kubrick had no history of heart disease in his family and was very healthy prior to his passing. More importantly, he died only days after submitting the first cut of the film to Warner Brothers at which point, the film was commandeered by them and heavily edited. At the time, the editing was attributed to the need to mask out the hard-core sexual imagery in the orgy sequence, yet edits to the film regarding sexuality were very minor. It is difficult to believe that so much energy would be invested into editing images that displayed sexual deviance no more lascivious than the vast majority of Hollywood films of today.

Is it possible that this scene and others, originally contained images and/or dialogue that revealed the New World Order in a way that was dangerous to their security? Was Kubrick trying to ‘out’ the secret society, or at least ‘mess with their heads’ in some way?

Regardless, it is worth noting that Stanley Kubrick’s wife has gone on record at least once claiming that she does not believe that Kubrick died from a heart attack. So perhaps it is no coincidence that Kubrick passed exactly 666 days before 1st January 2001 the first day of the year in which his most famous film takes place and symbolically, the first day of the 21st century.

Finally, I humbly suggest the following alternative theory and ask you respectfully NOT to dismiss it as totally absurd, until you have read it in full. This explanation actually acknowledges that the astronauts DID go to the Moon, but I guarantee it is not the explanation that you were expecting. It is probably the very stiffest test of your ability to dissipate your own cognitive dissonance, so far. I am not even saying that I believe it myself, but it certainly is a tantalising possibility . . .

As demonstrated and coupled with the extensive research available on the Internet, there is considerable doubt that the reported technology of the space programme, both in the United States and Russia, and now also China, the technology of rocket propulsion, did not get men to the Moon. It could never get them through the Van Allen radiation belts, or even get the sheer weight of the immense quantity of fuel required, off the ground.

No, the technology needed, would have to be something that has been kept totally secret from us for many decades, technology that numerous whistleblowers have died trying to warn us about. The Internet is known to be the best place for learning ever created, yet it is also known for being the most deceptive. The truth is out there, but unfortunately it is often protected by well-crafted dis-information as well as outright lies. The banksters, the ruling elite, are experts in playing with our minds; they have conditioned us to pay illegal taxes, to fight their wars for profit, and to believe what they tell us about anything and everything.

Some insiders report that the reason the astronauts returned to Earth as ‘changed’ men was because of the shock of seeing bases belonging to extraterrestrial races and subsequently being sworn to secrecy, by the US shadow government. It may not have been such a monumental task to achieve a successful moon mission in the 1960s when there has been the back-engineering of ET craft since 1947, with the assistance of ET survivors from several crashed ships. Indeed, many insiders have confirmed this to be ‘fact.’

But why fake it at all? What would be the motivation? Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens have both provided incontrovertible proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. They also have proved that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country, through Operation Paperclip, in order to build these highly advanced flying machines. Furthermore, many believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology.

When we look up at the night sky and gaze upon the majesty of our Moon we only see one side of it, the other half is permanently shrouded in darkness and turned away from us. This is because the Moon’s ‘day,’ the period during which it rotates on its own axis is exactly equal to its ‘year,’ the period of time it takes to travel around the Earth. This in effect means that it always shows the same ‘face’ to us here on Earth and the far side is always pointing away from us. This has obviously stirred up both the curiosity and imagination of the human race in equal measure, giving birth to stories of aliens and alien moon bases. But this supposedly all changed in 1959 when the Soviet, Luna 3 spacecraft flew to the far side of the Moon and photographed it for the first time. From those photographs it was clear that the far side of the moon was just as lifeless as the near side and so dispelled any ideas of aliens . . . but not for long. We did return to the far side of the moon and from 1967-1972 an infinitely more detailed view of the Moon was obtained both through human eyes and many more photographs. So why have we not been back to the Moon since 1972? Does it not seem strange that all this progress was halted inexplicably, despite the great discoveries being made?

The aforementioned Bill Cooper was privy to some intriguing information which he shared quite readily. According to him, the US Naval Intelligence Community referred to the Alien Moon Base as ‘Luna.’ He also stated that it was known that the aliens were undertaking a huge mining operation and that their massive mother ships were kept near the mining site on the dark side, while they used smaller craft to visit Earth.

“The Alien base on the far side of the Moon was seen and filmed by the Apollo astronauts. A base, a mining operation using very large machines, and the very large alien craft described in sighting reports as mother ships exist there.” Bill Cooper

Bill Cooper was shot dead by law enforcement officers near his home on 6th November 2001. Interestingly, he spent much of his time attempting to inform the world of the presence of aliens both on our planet and on the moon, among other ‘secrets.’ According to him, the US government had been cooperating with the aliens who were far superior to us in terms of technology, for decades. But why specifically was he killed?

Cooper (1943-2001) was a former US Naval Intelligence Officer, shortwave radio host, author and lecturer. In the 1980s he began to give testimonies of his UFO/USO sightings while in the military. Cooper meticulously explained the Mystery Schools, secret societies, Luciferianism, the shadow government, and the NWO movement. He was an outspoken defender of the US Constitution and advocated true freedom, flying in the face of the systematic dissolution of most of our rights and privacy. He also hosted his own radio broadcast, ‘The Hour of The Time.’ His radio show was not a nationally syndicated programme, nor did it have any major commercial backing, however, Cooper’s persistent, ongoing whistle-blowing came to the attention of a certain President, who stated that “ . . . Milton William Cooper is the most dangerous man in America because of the issues he addresses on his radio show.” Bill Clinton

Cooper created the Citizen’s Agency for Joint Intelligence (CAJI,) which was the world’s largest civilian intelligence organisation. CAJI researched, gathered, and catalogued evidence and proof concerning all the topics covered by Cooper and The Hour of the Time broadcast. His motto was to ‘prove everything with facts,’ and CAJI aided in that cause, seeking to collect relevant information and inform the public. Cooper also created the Veritas News Service, which served as a full-size newspaper covering the many relevant issues ignored and left unreported by the mainstream media.

His most well-known book, ‘Behold, a Pale Horse,’ published in 1991, warned us of propaganda indoctrination, the NWO movement, the shadow government, the empowerment of FEMA through Presidential Executive Orders, the hidden tyranny of the Anti-Drug-Abuse Act of 1988, engineered wars, false-flags, and more. I would highly recommend this book to readers. It is still available to purchase online.

Sadly, we must also acknowledge the possibility that Cooper was driven into paranoia, not by his work, but maybe by governmental MK-ULTRA-style manipulation or maybe he was actually set-up to self-destruct. Either way, he had become a problem and those responsible certainly succeeded in tarnishing his memory, and in branding him a ‘nutcase.’ William Cooper also predicted a major false-flag terrorist attack to be blamed on Osama bin Laden almost 3 months before 9/11, and we will hear more of that later.

But anyway, according to Cooper, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin upon landing on the Moon, allegedly saw a number of UFOs watching them as they disembarked from their craft. Here is part of a radio exchange picked up by unnamed radio hams (who presumably had no obvious motive for lying,) with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA’s broadcasting outlets . . .

NASA: “Mission Control calling Apollo 11 . . . , what’s there?”

Apollo: “These ‘babies’ are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn’t believe it! I’m telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined-up on the far side of the crater edge! They’re on the Moon watching us!”

In 1979, Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems came forward and confirmed that the two astronauts had indeed seen UFOs around the rim of a crater and had reported it to mission control. “The encounter was common knowledge in NASA, but nobody has talked about it until now,” he revealed.

“According to our information, the encounter was reported immediately after the landing of the module,” said Dr. Vladimir Azhazha, a physicist and Professor of Mathematics at Moscow University. “Neil Armstrong relayed the message to Mission Control that two large, mysterious objects were watching them after having landed near the moon module. But his message was never heard by the public because NASA censored it.”

According to another Soviet scientist, Dr. Aleksandr Kazantsev, Buzz Aldrin took colour moving film of the UFOs from inside the module, and continued filming them after he and Armstrong went outside. Dr. Azhazha claims that the UFOs departed minutes after the astronauts emerged on to the lunar surface.

Maurice Chatelain also stated that NASA censored transmissions with Apollo 11 by interrupting on several occasions, in order to keep the public in the dark about the aliens. A clear connection can be seen between this case and the Cooper one and the high rank of all of these individuals involved does indeed add more food for thought.

The subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and aliens, has been ridiculed and belittled from the very beginning. Long before such subjects as 9/11, the JFK assassination and questioning the legality of income tax; those that believed in UFOs and creatures from another planet, or even creatures living within the bowels of the Earth, were simply labelled as ‘looneys,’ and yet, among the true believers and those that have questions, there are numerous academics and scientists who do not laugh at the possibility.

It is the CIA and Government orchestrated campaigns of dis-information and fear propaganda, that keeps the public amused with all the alien jokes, the alleged abductions etc. The last thing they want is for us to be well-informed and educated to the possibilities, and to the evidence, that UFOs and aliens actually do exist. Whether the banksters intend to use the threat of an invasion by aliens in flying saucers, as the catalyst to promulgate their New World Order, or whether the whole idea is a sophisticated psy-op to mask secret technology they do not want us to know about, it is damned certain that they are never going to tell us the truth.

It is hardly well-known that governments have been covering up the fact that the aliens have bases on the Moon. There are many facts, pictures, videos, satellite images, and testimonies that create hard evidence of this and several well-known and respected scientists, astronauts, and military personnel have spoken out and confirmed that this speculation is accurate.

The picture below is a superior image of one of the moon bases. It is undeniable. You can see perfect shapes, buildings, roads, and walls and is one of the ‘classified’ images that was not supposed to be seen by the public but which has somehow found its way into the public domain.

Majestic 12 or MJ-12 was the code name given to a top-secret group of military officers, scientists and Government officials ostensibly assembled by Executive Order of President Harry Truman, in 1947. Reporting directly to the President, the goal of the group was to ‘manage’ the aliens issue and exploit, if possible the recovered alien technology by ‘back-engineering.’ They were commissioned to recover and study the remains of a spacecraft, along with its four dead occupants that crashed near Roswell, New Mexico, in June 1947, and also the remains of a later crash in Texas, in December, 1950. UFO ‘conspiracy theorists’ believe it to be a key component of a Government scheme intended to keep knowledge of alien contact from the public.

Moon base — Alien or Human?

The evidence for the above, is linked to a series of US Government documents allegedly containing proof of the fact that some Unidentified Flying Objects are actually of alien origin, along with confirmation of an extensive government plot designed to keep their existence a secret. The US Air Force however says they are a hoax, whilst the UFO community itself is divided on their authenticity. In 1978, previously classified UFO documents were uncovered by researcher Arthur Bray and dating from 1950/51 they named a Dr. Vannevar Bush as being head of a secret group of UFO investigators.

All of the people mentioned in the documents were, in fact, employees of the United States Government in 1947. The document details the dis-information campaign of explaining away the Roswell Incident as “a misguided weather research balloon” and also describes four ‘EBEs,’ or ‘extraterrestrial biological entities.’ The short document, which was intended to introduce the new President, Eisenhower to the existence of solid proof that Extraterrestrial aliens (ETs) visited Earth on at least two occasions, is concluded with a memo signed by Truman himself.

The MJ-12 documents were first made public in 1987 by documentary producer Jamie Shandera, Roswell researcher Bill Moore and author Stanton T. Friedman. Another copy of the same documents Shandera received in 1984 was mailed to British researcher Timothy Good in 1987, again from an anonymous source and Good first reproduced them in his best-selling book ‘Above Top Secret’ in 1988, but later disowned the documents as likely fraudulent.

The development and testing of theories about extraterrestrial life is known as exobiology or astrobiology and several controversial claims have been made for evidence of its existence within our planet and its close environs. One theory for the existence of extraterrestrial life relies on the vast size of the observable Universe and according to this argument, it would be improbable for intelligent life not to exist somewhere other than Earth.

President Eisenhower allegedly had three secret meetings with aliens. He supposedly met the extraterrestrials at a remote air base in New Mexico in 1954, according to Timothy Good. The two parties finally met up on three separate occasions at the Holloman Air Force base and there were ‘many witnesses’ to this, Good has claimed.

Eisenhower was known to have had a strong belief in life on other planets and his meeting with the extraterrestrials is said to have taken place while officials were told that he was on vacation in Palm Springs, California, in February 1954. The initial meeting was supposed to have taken place with aliens of a type known as ‘Nordics’ due to their blonde-haired, blue-eyed appearance, but an agreement was eventually signed with a race known colloquially as the ‘Greys.’ The ‘Greys’ are the stereotypical image of an extraterrestrial; the short, grey coloured beings with large triangular-shaped heads and large black almond-shaped eyes. In fact the image which has now become ubiquitous today as representative of the alien form.

A ‘Grey’

“We know that up to 90% of all UFO reports can be explained in conventional terms. However, I would say millions of people worldwide have actually seen the real thing.” Timothy Good.

According to de-classified documents released by the British Ministry of Defence in 2010, Winston Churchill ordered a UFO sighting to be kept secret. The UFO was seen over the east coast of England by an RAF reconnaissance plane returning from a mission in France or Germany towards the end of the war and Churchill allegedly discussed with Eisenhower how to deal with UFO sightings.

After the famous Roswell incident of 1947, where an alien craft was shot down by the American military, revenge attacks took place across the world, including attacks on civilian aircraft, as well as military. Between 1952 and 1956, the US military lost 18,000 planes in ‘accidents,’ many disappearing altogether with no crash. Of that number, most can be attributed to pilot error, adverse weather or equipment failure etc., but at least 9%, more than 1,600 incidents, are listed as being of unknown cause and possibly of UFO origin. This would also possibly explain the planes that always seem to go missing in the mysterious ‘Bermuda Triangle’ area.

The astronaut, Gordon Cooper revealed that not a day goes by in the USA without UFOs being visible on radar screens. He also claimed that he and many other pilots had been able to fly actual or replicated, reverse-engineered alien craft, and had been doing so for quite some time.

There is considerable evidence that the US has entered into a series of technology exchange agreements with a limited number of extraterrestrial races, and we need to understand the nature of these agreements to identify the possible threat posed by extraterrestrials. A number of alleged whistleblowers such as Charles Hall, Michael Wolf, Daniel Burisch, Clifford Stone, Phil Schneider, and William (Bill) Cooper, have described and presented evidence for the various agreements with extraterrestrials of which they personally saw direct evidence, during their participation in projects or assignments with the highest possible security classifications. Furthermore, there is considerable circumstantial and testimonial evidence pointing to President Eisenhower being actively involved in meeting with, and reaching agreements with extraterrestrial races. Colonel Phillip Corso alluded to such agreements reached by the Eisenhower administration in various passages in his book, ‘The Day after Roswell.’

For example, he wrote . . . “We had negotiated a kind of surrender with them [extraterrestrials] as long as we couldn’t fight them. They dictated the terms; because they knew what we most feared was disclosure.”

On 20th February 1954 a delegation from benevolent extraterrestrial groups met with the Eisenhower administration in an unsuccessful effort to reach an agreement on the US thermonuclear weapons programme. The stumbling block to these negotiations was that the ETs were not willing to provide technology that might have been used by the military-industrial factions of the Eisenhower administration for aggressive purposes. These peace loving, humanoid beings refused to be co-opted into the emerging military industrial extraterrestrial complex in the US, Britain, Russia or elsewhere on the planet.

This was not the first attempt to sign a treaty with the ETs. On 11th July 1934 the very first treaty was signed with the ‘Greys’ from the Orion constellation on board a US naval ship in Balboa, California. This was probably one of the most important events in human history, entirely unreported of course, because it thrust us into a role we were not prepared for as regards to being a host to a malevolent extraterrestrial race. The US federal government totally disregarded the constitution of the United States by doing this and not informing the people of their actions. The treaty stated that in return for the Greys providing their technology (anti-gravity, metals and alloys, free energy and medical technology) the government would allow them to proceed unhindered, with human abductions. But this was meant be only as long as the ETs provided a list of abductees to the government and the abductees were returned unharmed with their memories of the events erased. Of course this element was reneged upon by the ETs and thousands of abductions are still taking place worldwide, many of whom are never returned.

In May 1954 under the Eisenhower administration an extension to this treaty was signed. Known as the ‘Grenada Treaty,’ it was agreed upon at the Holloman air force base in New Mexico by the Greys and the ‘Ultra’ unit in the NSA. The original document and the ET materials from it can be found today at the NSA facility, ‘Blue Moon’ beneath Kirtland AFB in New Mexico with an entrance in the Manzano Mountains. Also, at this location is the technological base of the secretive Department of Energy and today free energy devices developed from Grey technology are being built for use in space at the DOE base.

Extraterrestrials that have entered into agreements with those secret government authorities were complicit in the creation of a national security system based on secrecy, unaccountability and illicit funding. This directly threatened US national security both in terms of a covert take-over by extraterrestrials, and an erosion of the constitutional principles upon which the US is supposedly based. The real national security threat posed by some extraterrestrial visitors was a result of the desire of the ‘secret government’ to acquire and develop extraterrestrial technologies at any cost, even if this meant giving permission for a limited number of abductions.

On the other hand, extraterrestrials who have not entered into such technology exchange agreements with secret government authorities have behaved in ways that have demonstrated great consideration and benevolence towards humanity. This is evidenced in the extensive number of contactee or ‘space brother’ reports from the 1950s, right up to the modern era with alleged contactees such as Billy Meier, Sixto Paz Wells and Carlos Diaz, et al. These extraterrestrials show great respect for human free-will and follow what appears to be a clear directive for non-interference or molestation. Extraterrestrials that are trying to assist humanity, as described by these alleged contactees, are secretly being targeted by space weapons in order to capture their technology or the ETs themselves.

The abduction phenomenon needs to be understood in terms of the classified agreements reached between the ‘secret government’ and extraterrestrials, and their respective hidden agendas.

It is very plausible that there are various factions, both human and non-human, that want to create as much misunderstanding and conflict as possible between the US military and different extraterrestrial races. It should be pointed out that military officials such as Corso did not appear to be briefed about friendly extraterrestrials and the latter’s non-intrusive activities. Instead, Corso was given information on abduction related activities and other extraterrestrial intrusions that construct the psychological framework for the creation of ‘enemy images’ (or ‘enmification’) as pointed out by Sam Keen in his important book, ‘Faces of the Enemy.’

In 1952, Henry Kissinger became a consultant to the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) that was responsible for covert psychological operations. The PSB’s main role was to persuade the American population that, flying saucers and reports of encounters with extraterrestrial life were fabrications exploited by enemies to weaken the US in the Cold War.

Kissinger also served as an advisor to Nelson Rockefeller who was responsible during the Eisenhower administration for government reorganisation and the contracting of classified research and development projects into the corporate world. According to whistle-blower testimonies, Kissinger played a direct role in the development of US foreign policy towards UFOs and extraterrestrial life. He was instrumental in covert operations that took a ‘power politics’ approach with visiting extraterrestrial vehicles whereby ‘shoot to kill’ orders were implemented against UFOs in an effort to retrieve advanced extraterrestrial technologies.

The banksters’ long-time stooge, Kissinger’s long history in the world of US covert operations and extraterrestrial affairs means that he has a ‘need to know’ classification in areas denied to almost all other political leaders and their advisors.

In a UFO Digest article by Tony Brunt, a New Zealand UFO researcher, ‘Dr. Henry Kissinger’s UFO Role Revealed,’ quotes the wife of the late Dr. Eric Wang, who reverse engineered UFOs at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico before his death in 1960 . . .

“He [Kissinger] is deeply involved in the Flying Saucer Programme . . . In fact, he was completely in charge,” she said in 1984.

It is however in secret policy decisions over the release of information about extraterrestrial life and/or technologies that Kissinger’s influence is felt most. It takes the inhuman and contemptible thinking of someone like Henry Kissinger, to understand, or to attempt to comprehend what our Governments have REALLY been doing with our money down the decades. Not just money from the illegal income taxes, but also drug money which when not used for personal purposes has been filtered into the massive ‘Black Budget’ of greater than $1 trillion per year. ($1,000,000,000,000)

When we begin to comprehend where this money has gone, what it has been invested in, as opposed to what it should have been invested in; when we understand that just a fraction of that annual multi-trillion dollar figure, could have paid for free healthcare for everyone, forever, or rebuilt our infrastructures, eliminated poverty and disease worldwide, and provided so many other benefits to mankind and when we understand just what the banksters’ plan for the human race really is, then maybe, just maybe, we will all pay more attention to what is REALLY going on in this sick world.

There are at least 1,400 ultra-top-secret deep underground military bases (DUMBs) worldwide, of which, 131 of are in the United States; with two being constructed each year. The average depth of these bases is four and a quarter miles and with an average size of that of a medium-sized city. Each DUMB base costs between $17-26bn to build which is funded through the ‘Black Budget’ and each of them employs 10,000 to 18,000 workers.

These projects are being run by the banksters and their stooge governments around the world.

This is a map of just some of the DUMBs in the USA . . .

Construction of these DUMB bases started throughout the world, back in the 1940s. These bases are in effect, large underground cities connected by high-speed magneto-leviton trains that reach speeds of up to Mach 2, which is over 1,500 miles per-hour.

Conventionally, by comparison, the Channel Tunnel also known as the Eurotunnel is a rail link under the English Channel between Folkestone, Kent, and Coquelles near Calais, France. The Channel Tunnel is 31 miles long, of which 24 miles are underwater; it comprises two railway tunnels and a service tunnel. It was one of the greatest civil engineering projects of the 20th Century and around 600 trains pass through each day.

Its two 25ft. diameter rail tunnels, and 16ft. diameter access tunnel, which at the lowest point was only 250 feet deep, took some six years to build, between 1988 and 1994, at a cost of £5bn, using 15,000 workers and 11 Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs.) For comparison, the highest speed that the Eurotunnel trains can achieve however, is 186 mph.

Channel Tunnel TBM

DUMB tunnels and bases were not drilled conventionally, but were excavated by a nuclear boring machine that literally melts and deflagrates the rock to an extremely fine powder, melts it, and then coats it onto the walls. There is no detritus because the rock is essentially vapourised and the molten ash residue forms a coating on the walls. The technology was allegedly developed by the Krupp Works in Germany and these underground bases were constructed using nuclear powered laser drills that can drill an incredible 7 miles per day in tandem with small nuclear explosions to create large underground spaces.

The nuclear sub-terrene has an advantage over mechanical TBMs in that it produces no residue that must be disposed of by conveyors, trains, trucks, etc. This greatly simplifies tunnelling and is difficult to detect, for the simple reason that there are no tell-tale debris piles that are associated with conventional tunnelling activities.

In case you may think that this is all unverified speculation, the 1972 patent makes these facts quite clear. It states that . . .

“Debris may be disposed of as melted rock both as a lining for the hole and as a dispersal in cracks produced in the surrounding rock. The rock-melting drill is of a shape and is propelled under sufficient pressure to produce and extend cracks in solid rock radially around the bore by means of hydrostatic pressure developed in the molten rock ahead of the advancing rock drill penetrator. All melt not used in glass-lining the bore is forced into the cracks where it freezes and remains . . . Such a vitreous lining eliminates, in most cases, the expensive and cumbersome problem of debris elimination and at the same time achieves the advantage of a casing type of bore-hole liner.” US Patent No. 3,693,731, 26th September 1972

Most tunnelling activity is under military installations and all information is highly restricted. Former employees of said facilities have surfaced over the years to talk of massive underground installations in places like Area 51, the Northrop facility in Antelope Valley, California (rumoured to have 42 levels,) and the Lockheed installation near Edwards, California — and of course, Dulce, New Mexico the alleged site of the infamous, alleged 1970s Battle of Dulce, that was fought between a group of aliens and the tunnel constructors

I believe that the Dulce base is very real, as is the very deep subterranean aspect of it. The complex is obviously huge and underground development there is clearly ongoing and current. However, whether this involves aliens or not is not something I cannot answer. The problem with the revelations/stories that circulate about Dulce is that the most successful secrecy counter measure is to spread so many different stories, so that we can never get an objective angle on what is true and what is not.

The late, Phil Schneider, victim of a probable ‘suiciding,’ in the 1990s, worked for 17 years on highly classified Black Projects for the United States Government, with whom he held a Level three security clearance. Schneider’s expertise lay in the fields of engineering and more specifically, geological engineering and his talents were highly regarded. His achievements were many, including the co-invention of systems used in explosives that greatly enhanced the construction of underground and submarine military bases.

Dulce Base

In August 1979, in Dulce, New Mexico, Phil Schneider was drilling into the desert during the construction of an auxiliary base at the southern end of Dulce above an already existing underground base. This base had originally been built by the US Government in the 1940s under the project name of ‘Operation Blue Note’ but had been taken over by the ‘Greys’ and reptilians under some unspecified circumstances. Unknown to Schneider and his team, the aliens were still present when after two days of boring, they had drilled four large holes in the desert that descended several thousand feet.

One of the bore-holes had become problematic for the team. The boring process was stalled by the presence of putrid odours and boring machines and lasers that persistently came back from underground, seriously damaged. A probe was eventually deployed that mysteriously disappeared without trace and so it was decided to send down an investigative group in an attempt to discover what was happening to the expensive equipment. Schneider led the party which was lowered down into the cave but when he arrived at the bottom of the shaft, standing around ten feet away were two, seven-foot tall ‘Greys.’ He was totally petrified and fired his pistol at them, but as he was reloading one of the Greys hit him with some kind of particle-beam weapon which gave him a very high dose of nuclear radiation poisoning, similar to cobalt radiation. Schneider’s torso burst open, his lungs were burnt, his fingers on his left hand were burnt off and even some of his bones were burnt. Afterwards, for the rest of his life he had a huge scar running down his chest which he often showed as evidence of the massive injuries he sustained, at his public lectures. Afterwards, Schneider was in radiation isolation and therapy for over a year.

According to Schneider, had it not been for the heroic actions of an accompanying soldier, who rescued him and operated the lift control to raise him back to the surface, he would have died right there and then. Sadly that brave man was killed, along with many others in the party, after returning Schneider’s broken body to the surface.

Upon his recovery, Schneider’s ‘whistle-blowing’ lectures gave people their first insight into the truth behind the DUMBs that existed in many secretive locations within the US. However, he had to pay a very high price for his revealing lectures, facing covert surveillance and ongoing harassment for many years before finally in 1996, just as he was about to publish his tell-all book, Schneider was murdered in his own apartment.

In 1979 shortly after the deadly firefight with hostile Greys that had killed over 70 US black ops security officers, Green Beret, and US Air Force personnel someone who became known only as ‘Colonel X’ was ordered to conduct a debriefing of the survivors. In the 48 hours that elapsed after the deadly battle, the Colonel interviewed those who had been in the midst of the firefight to describe the event as well as the effects it was having upon those who had witnessed the conflict.

According to Colonel X, there were two factions of alien inhabitants. One group of Greys had formed a co-operative alliance with humans and had demonstrated their loyalty when several of them had actually fought on the side of the humans against those that had attacked Phil Schneider.

He also told an intriguing story of being taken into the confidence of one of the long-time Dulce facility officers who had an excellent working-knowledge of not only the facility but the extraterrestrials who now peacefully coexisted with their human counterparts. Whereas the US Army and its agencies were allowed to use the upper caverns of the subterranean complex, the lower levels were to remain solely in the possession of the aliens, with access only allowed upon request.

Philip J. Corso, was a former Army intelligence Captain who served in World War II in Europe before experiencing his extraterrestrial awakening as he was stationed at Ft. Riley in Kansas. In 1947, he published his book, ‘The Day after Roswell’ in which he related how the alien technology recovered from the Roswell crash, played a vital role in launching mankind into digital technology, integrated circuits and fibre optics. Under the direction of his superior, General Trudeau, Corso became the go-between for US defence contractors who reverse-engineered the Roswell artefacts into human technology. According to Anthony Sanchez, Colonel X acknowledged Philip J. Corso’s name as appearing on a whole stream of documents conveying this new, secret technology to the bankster-military industrial complex for practical application in US military usage.

Bell Northern labs, the laboratory owned by Bell Telephone was the originator of mostly all inventions in telephony and electronics for decades but one of their professors was puzzled. According to him, the sudden development of integrated circuitry, fibre-optics, lasers, and digital technology should have been decades away. In his fifty years as a researcher he had not seen anything so revolutionary, materialise with such speed and purpose and he was convinced that this was an example of the impact of alien technology being assimilated.

When defence contractors began the task of back-engineering the Roswell artefacts, one of the first innovations that they were able to extract from the Alien technology was the miniature circuit technology that was discovered in the ‘skin suits’ worn by the dead Greys who were found at the crash site. The diminutive bodies of the Greys were examined and were discovered to be wearing body suits that electrically interfaced with their space ships, and so mankind was able to quickly develop equivalent microcircuits, immediately enabling the miniaturisation of electronic components and eliminating the need for bulky, heat-producing vacuum tubes and greatly short-circuiting the usual long lead-time to develop any form of radical, new technology. This one instance of back-engineering, accelerated human technology development by several decades whilst very few people knew or even suspected that this development had little to do with a human inventor.

There are all kinds of horror stories that have emerged from the Dulce area regarding cattle mutilations and the abduction and disappearances of human residents of the region as well as persistent rumours of horrendous genetic experimentation and the hybridisation between animals, humans and the alien genome that many believe are simply the product of cheap tabloid journalism and the fabricated lore of hoaxing, opportunistic hacks. But what is the real truth regarding these human mutilations and the hundreds if not thousands of missing people? The truth of the matter is that the Greys and Reptilians feed-off human glandular secretions and hormones through a type of osmosis. And it has been reported by several credible witnesses, that Greys have been observed, absorbing these mixtures through their skin.

Researchers Bill Hamilton and Tal Levesque (AKA Jason Bishop) received reports from workers at the Dulce DUMB in the mid-1970s when it was being jointly run by the CIA, Greys and reptilians. This was before the ETs completely took the base over and evicted the humans. The story told of the fact that the Dulce facility is on at least seven levels. Level six is privately called ’nightmare hall’ amongst workers who speak of bizarre experimentation and multi-legged humans that look half human and half octopus, reptilian humanoids, furry creatures with hands like humans that cry like babies, and mimic human words. There are also allegedly a huge mixture of lizard-humans in cages, several cages of winged humans, three and a half to seven feet tall bat-like creatures and gargoyle-like beings.

In level seven are thousands of rows of human and human genetic mixtures in cold storage, humanoid embryo storage vats containing embryos in various stages of development. Other workers said they witnessed scenes even more terrifying than this and refused to talk about them. One worker told Bill Hamilton . . . “I frequently encountered humans in cages, usually dazed or drugged, but sometimes they cried and begged for help. We were told they were insane and involved in high-risk drug tests to cure insanity. We were told never to speak to them at all. At the beginning we believed the story but finally in 1978 a small group of workers discovered the truth.”

Thomas Castello, one of the security workers at the Dulce facility as well as being a prominent whistle-blower, said that below the second level of the Dulce facility everyone is weighed naked, and any change in weight is noted and if there is a change of three pounds or more, they must submit to an x-ray. All employees’ weights must match with their ID card and code in order to be allowed entry. Castello smuggled many things out of the Dulce facility before he escaped, including twenty seven sheets of 8 x 10 photos of alien and genetically modified creatures. One particular surveillance camera video tape, depicts, multiple shots of ‘nightmare hall,’ two shots of Greys, one shot of the terminal shuttle sign saying ‘To Los Alamos’ and thirty seconds of the shuttle train arriving.

There are also . . .

Twenty five pages of diagrams, chemical formulas, schematics and alien equipment.
A copy of the new Government/Alien treaty with signatures.
Two pages of original documents signed by Ronald Reagan (then Governor of California.) Each page has Ronald Reagan’s signature plus other political signatures and four Alien signatures.
Thomas Castello’s ‘flash gun’ (a laser type weapon used by the security officers at Dulce.)

Castello placed the original set of these items in a sealed, one piece oxygen-free, heavy plastic box. Five sets of copies are in five different boxes in five different locations guarded by five different individuals known only to him. Castello has since, disappeared without trace.

“I am saying that there are Aliens in several underground bases in this country and terrible things happen in those places. If I die before it is proven, search for proof. Demand that the government admits it. If enough people demand it, they will find a way to explain the base or at least explain why they must keep it secret. There are many people that work at Dulce that know me and I am challenging those co-workers to speak up anonymously. Send a letter to confirm what I have explained. In the name of the brave men, women, children and aliens that died trying to let the public know what is going on at the Dulce facility, expose that horrid place before thousands more innocent people are tortured and die unspeakable deaths.” Part of an interview with Thomas Castello before his mysterious disappearance.

The Rand Corporation which is involved in the construction of these underground bases has recently released ‘The Roper Report.’ This is a report that states, according to their research, that thousands of people have been abducted and implanted by the Greys and Reptilians and returned with their memories erased. This report has also been distributed to one hundred and ten thousand clinical psychiatrists in the US. As fantastic as all this sounds, it is backed-up by some credible doctors and there are around ninety concerned psychiatric scientists in the US who are trying to form an organisation to prevent secrecy on this horrendous situation. According to the Roper Report 99.3% of the abductees being used in this ongoing ET genetics programme are female, and 0.7% male.

Through the diplomatic agreement between the US Government at the time and the aliens, by the late 1950s through the Eisenhower administration, a limited arrangement was agreed upon that allowed a certain number of human abductions, provided that these abductees were returned quickly to their homes, unharmed. Yet, as time went on, it became apparent that many violations of the terms of that agreement were occurring. In fact, there was little that the US government could do, as humans were still at a vast technical disadvantage, and they did not want to lose the technological advancements that were being provided by the aliens, even if it meant that many innocents would suffer. Nothing much changes down the years, does it? Indeed, the hostile Greys who refused co-operation with humans, eventually began ‘upping the stakes’ and challenging the American military for superiority.

During the 1960s, stories of a wave of incredible abductions that involved policemen, mutilations involving US servicemen and pilots, civilians, and the widespread mutilations of bovine livestock began to surface including the story of a US airman having been mutilated and killed near White Sands proving grounds while his commanding officer watched. This Air Force officer was actually put on trial over suspicion of murdering the soldier, but was acquitted but a totally understandable amount of denial and frustration ran through the ranks of the US armed forces as many US installations were breached by UFO incursions.

Sadly, there are no reliably accurate statistics for people who go missing each year, never to be heard from again but staggeringly around 900,000 people a year are reported missing — in the US alone! Many of that number are later found, but realistically, at the very least, 10% of those are never found. They actually do vanish completely . . .

In 2001 in London, police admitted openly that they had been unable to find any trace of three hundred black boys aged between 4 and 7 that disappeared from London in a three-month period between July and September in 2001. Journalist Yinka Sunmonu an expert in missing children told the BBC’s Today programme . . . “The children were just here one day, and gone the next!”

In 1989, in Westchester, New York, which was the site of numerous UFO overflights and reports of human abductions at that time, over three thousand missing children reports surfaced. After extensive investigation by local police departments none of the children were ever found and researchers and law enforcement officials were baffled.

There is also the infamous case of the CIA being found to be directly involved in child kidnapping. This was revealed in a 1987 US Customs report as a result of customs officials and police raiding a Washington DC warehouse which was used by the CIA. There they found a set of instructions broadcast via a computer network which advised the CIA to move a huge amount of kidnapped children that were originally being held at the warehouse (customs and police found a large stock of nappies (diapers) and other baby requisites there) and advised them to keep on the move across state jurisdictions. There were also instructions on how to avoid police detection and perhaps significantly the destination for the children in the instructions was stated to be New Mexico. Coincidence? You decide.

It must be noted however, that as the vast majority of the American public went about their business unaware of the nocturnal Alien threat that loomed from above and that would harvest some of them, along with livestock, the US government deliberately allowed the disappearances, mutilations, and the memory-erasing victimisation of abductees and others of the unsuspecting to occur. This they did whilst denying any knowledge of the atrocities and even ridiculing witnesses as the bankster-controlled news media, marginalised those people making UFO sighting reports, and implied that these witnesses were pranksters or mentally unstable. This was the multi-pronged threat that loomed over the American public as the government condoned and hid the true danger facing US citizens behind their strenuous propaganda.

In 1983 a new generation of UFO investigators embarked upon the investigation of the enigmatic mystery of mutilations and abductions.

Linda Moulton Howe achieved national recognition in her ground-breaking findings involving the massive cattle mutilations that were being minimally acknowledged by the authorities. She appeared in HBO’s America Underground and wrote the first of many of her books, ‘An Alien Harvest.’ UFO researcher Norio Hayakawa led a courageous and confrontational investigative effort into the events in Dulce, New Mexico as well as Area 51 in Nevada, another deep underground military facility that was not supposed to officially exist until recently, and reluctantly acknowledged by the Federal Government.

With the banksters’ global agenda advancing faster now than ever, it seems that they are steadily preparing us for full disclosure of the presence of alien beings. Of course, they have been doing just that through Hollywood films from the very beginning. And indeed there are numerous researchers who believe that aliens have inhabited Earth, many millennia before we humans came along. In fact, they strongly believe that we, human beings, are merely a primitive hybrid of alien genetic engineering and experimentation. This tends to be my view I think too, upon investigation of all the credible evidence available . . .

. . . And maybe, just maybe . . . therein lies the real, original sin. But whatever the REAL truth is, one thing is for certain . . . we will never, ever get to hear it whilst withholding it gives the banksters and their armies of stooges any advantage whatsoever, over us all . . .

Chapter 19

The Rockefellers, the Cowboy and the Iron Lady

Nelson Rockefeller ‘saluting’ opponents of the Vietnam War

“Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”

The original family Patriarch, John D. Rockefeller’s traitorous sons were David, Chairman of the Board of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop; John D. Jr., an advocate of people control; Nelson, the ‘political’ Rockefeller; and Laurance. And after years of manoueverings and chicanery, a brilliant coup d’état finally installed Nelson in the White House, and all without the risk or inconvenience of an election.

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or the ‘Rockefeller Amendment’ as it became known, is proof in itself that Nelson Rockefeller wanted the Presidency of the United States as his crowning achievement. It was ratified in 1967 but originally, the framers of the Constitution declared it should be Congress that would declare who is next in line.

President Richard Nixon feared that appointing the prominent bankster Nelson Rockefeller as Vice-President may make him a target for assassination and so instead, he appointed Spiro Agnew. But Agnew was then, possibly falsely, accused of tax fraud and forced to resign. Nixon then appointed Gerald Ford as his VP, under the Rockefeller Amendment. Many believe that, by not appointing Rockefeller, Nixon had thereby sealed the fate of his Presidency.

Nelson Rockefeller was eventually however, sworn-in as Vice President in December 1974 under the Presidency of Gerald Ford, a move which then made Ford a primary target. Rockefeller was indeed only one heartbeat away from the Presidency when he served as Vice President under Ford. To the shock of his family and the entire nation, two women (undercover Rockefeller/bankster stooges) attempted to shoot President Ford in separate incidents in September of 1975. As Ford greeted well-wishers outside the Senator Hotel in Sacramento, Lynette Fromme, aged twenty-six, a follower of the (faked) mass-murderer Charles Manson, levelled a Colt 45 at Ford and squeezed the trigger at point blank range. It was Ford’s lucky day. The gun misfired and Fromme was wrestled to the ground before she could fire a second shot.

Then, two weeks later in San Francisco, Sara Jane Moore, a one-time FBI informer, fired a .38 revolver at Ford but the shot missed because she was distracted by a bystander. Both women were convicted under the 1965 law making attempted assassination of the President a federal offence, punishable by life imprisonment. Fromme was eventually paroled in 2009 having served 34 years and Moore was released in 2007.

On 4th April 1973, the World Trade Center opened in New York. It was conceived whilst Nelson Rockefeller was the Governor of New York and his brother David, was Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. Their deep involvement in the project was such that the twin towers were nicknamed David and Nelson. Then in July 1973, the CFR Chairman, David Rockefeller instructed Zbigniew Brzezinski to establish an organisation of 300 elites from finance, political and business leaders from all around the World. He called this group the Trilateral Commission (TC.)

The stated goals of the Trilateral Commission were and are . . . “Close Trilateral co-operation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, in fostering economic redevelopment, and alleviating world poverty which will improve the chances of a smooth, and peaceful evolution of the global system.”

In other words, the Trilateral Commission was yet another bankster-run, criminal cabal to facilitate the push towards their New World Order. In the Wall Street Journal, David Rockefeller explained that . . . “ . . . the Trilateral Commission is, in reality, a group of concerned citizens interested in fostering greater understanding, and cooperation among international allies.” Which of course all sounds very plausible and innocent, but not according to Jeremiah Novak, who wrote in the Atlantic (July 1977) . . .

“The Trilateralists’ emphasis on international economics is not entirely disinterested, for the oil crisis forced many developing nations, with doubtful repayment abilities, to borrow excessively. All told, private multinational banks, particularly Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan, have loaned nearly $52bn to developing countries. An overhauled IMF would provide another source of credit for these nations, and would take the big private banks off the hook. This proposal is the cornerstone of the Trilateral plan.”

Senator Barry Goldwater put it even less sympathetically. In his book ‘With No Apologies,’ he termed the Commission “David Rockefeller’s newest international cabal,” and said . . . “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial, and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.”

In 1973, President-to-be, Jimmy Carter dined with the David Rockefeller at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York estate. Also present was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was helping Rockefeller screen candidates for the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski later told Peter Pringle of the London Sunday Times that . . . “ . . . we were impressed that Carter had opened up trade offices for the state of Georgia in Brussels, and Tokyo. That seemed to fit perfectly into the concept of the Trilateral.” Carter must have passed his interview as he became a founding member of the Trilateral Commission — and his rise to prominence was thus assured.

Senator Barry Goldwater wrote that, “David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination, and the Presidency. To accomplish this purpose, they mobilised the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community — which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations — and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR, and the Trilateral.”

Seven months before the Democratic nominating convention, a Gallup Poll revealed that less than 4% of Democrats favoured Jimmy Carter for President. But, almost overnight, as with several others before him, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower to name but two, before him — he became the candidate. This is probably one of the very best illustrations of the great power of the banksters. They can make or break any President or candidate for President. They ‘made’ Jimmy Carter and broke Senator Barry Goldwater in his failed attempt, but more of this, shortly.

The TC membership is made up of present and past Presidents, Ambassadors, Secretaries of State, Wall Street investors, international bankers, foundation executives, Think Tank executives, lobbyist lawyers, NATO, and Pentagon military leaders, wealthy industrialist, media owners, and executives, university presidents, and key professors, select Senators, and Congressmen, and wealthy entrepreneurs. They hold secret, annual meetings including only members, and very select guests. In fact it represents the best Democracy that money can buy. However it does have some competition in that regard . . .

“The Trilateral Commission doesn’t run the world; the Council on Foreign Relations does that!” Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of State, the US State Department.

At his Vice Presidential confirmation hearings, Nelson A. Rockefeller never once let his mask slip as he solemnly told the assembly that . . . “I hope that the myth or misconception about the extent of my family’s control over the economy of this country will be totally brought out and exposed and dissipated . . . There is not this network of control which is popularly conceived.”

In fact the assembled Senators could not have been more polite. No-one laughed, not even surreptitiously. After all, fools do not gain election to the Senate these days. Nelson and David Rockefeller, as clan leaders, were the closest thing that the USA had to a monarch and no politician with any ambition whatsoever of remaining in situ, ever laughs at a king.

Guessing the actual magnitude of the Rockefeller financial empire has been a favourite sport since the turn of the last century. In a front-page story on 29th September 1916, the New York Times reported that family patriarch John D. Rockefeller’s oil holdings alone were worth $500m, and that he was America’s first billionaire. Eight hours after the story appeared, his oil shares had increased in value by $8 million. Not a bad return for a few hour’s ‘labour,’ even for a Rockefeller.

The Rockefellers have almost always hidden their wealth from the public — and the taxman — in trusts and foundations. For two generations, the great fortune passed down by John D. Sr., has been fractionated and made more complex by increasing layers of trusts and closely held companies, where no public reports are required, none volunteered, and all inquiries politely rebuffed. Indeed, Rockefeller invented a scheme, still used by the super-rich today, whereby the more money you appear to give away, the richer and more powerful you become. Through the assistance of compliant politicians, and using the dubious inside knowledge of ultra-expensive lawyers, legislation was written and passed which would protect the Rockefellers and many other elite super-rich, from the insidious and repressive taxation they have foisted on everyone else.

The key to this system is giving up ownership but retaining control. For example, most people do not believe they really own something unless they retain title to it in their own name. The Rockefellers know that this is a common misconception and that often it is better to have your assets owned by a trust or a foundation-which you control, rather than have them in your own name. For example, when Anti-Trust laws forced Standard Oil to be broken-up in 1911, sly old John D. simply created some new foundations and gave his stock to them. The net effect was the same as removing your wallet from your right-hand pocket and secretly placing it in the left. In his case however, Rockefeller not only managed to avoid income taxes, but also escaped the probate, estate and inheritance taxes which have often decimated the wealth of those not ‘in the know.’

So great was public suspicion of the Rockefeller wealth that the family’s financial adviser J. Richardson Dilworth, was invited to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Prior to joining the Rockefellers he had been a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co., perhaps the most politically powerful international banking firm in the world. Kuhn, Loeb was, and still is, also an asset of the immensely rich and powerful Rothschild family of Europe. Kuhn Loeb you may remember, was instrumental in the funding of the banksters’ very own, Bolshevik Revolution. Dilworth’s leaving Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to assume control of the Rockefeller family purse strings was considered significant by students of the international financial and political machinations of the super-rich.

Dilworth maintained an office designated as Rockefeller Family and Associates, occupying three entire floors at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York. Rockefeller Family and Associates is not a legal entity or corporation; it is simply a name to describe the organisation which coordinates and manages the investments of the 84 descendants of John D. Rockefeller Jr. With the oily assurance of a successful undertaker, the urbane, sophisticated Dilworth laid to rest the Judiciary Committee’s concerns regarding the Rockefeller financial octopus. Using five charts, crammed with statistics, he efficiently dispelled the notion that the family exercises inordinate power over the nation’s economy.

Critics found it difficult to dispute Dilworth’s bewildering collection of figures. Indeed at times they could hardly keep up with them. The whole performance was almost as confusing as a speech from ‘Bush the lesser,’ and probably as deliberate. As one observer commented at the time . . . “The talk of convertible stocks, coupons and fiduciary obligations and the fact the vast holdings of The Rockefeller Foundation and other family-collected funds were not included in Dilworth’s presentation, left most members little more enlightened than they had been.”

The Rockefellers learned long ago that there are two standard ways for one of their companies to absorb another corporation. If the firm to be acquired is much smaller, a ‘take-over’ is the simplest procedure, but if the competitor is more your equal, a ‘merger’ is more expedient. The same principles hold true regarding nations. Recognising this financial and political fact of life, the banksters have devised the strategy of a ‘merger’ among nations. But before such a merger can be promulgated, and the United States becomes just another province of a New World Order, there must at least be the semblance of parity among the senior partners in the deal. So, how is it possible to make the nations of the world more nearly equal?

They soon determined that a two-pronged approach was needed. Firstly use money and know-how to build up your competitors, whilst at the same time use every devious strategy you can devise to weaken and impoverish the western, first world nations. The goal is not to bankrupt them as such, it should be emphasised, but rather to reduce its productive might, and therefore its overall standard of living to the meagre subsistence level of the already ‘socialised’ nations of the world. Only a socialist dictatorship would have the power to accomplish such a redistribution. But you may be assured, however, that the Rockefellers and their bankster allies are not proposing a reduction in their own quality of life. It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order.

The Rockefeller game plan is to use population, energy, food, and financial controls as a method of ‘people control’ which will lead, steadily and deliberately, into the ‘Great Merger,’ the New World Order. Much of the ground work in the instigation of this policy in the early to mid-1970s was being carried-out by Henry Kissinger, who was a personal employee of Nelson Rockefeller for a decade before being placed into the Nixon Administration. On numerous occasions, Kissinger openly declared that his goal was to create a ‘New World Order,’ but of course conveniently forgetting to detail exactly what was involved in the process.

One of the most obvious ‘back-door’ approaches to the New World Order is through the control of food. The ploy was to establish a World Food Bank, a concept proposed at the International Monetary Fund Conference in Nairobi by long-time Rockefeller front man Robert McNamara (CFR.) McNamara advocated that the food-producing nations of the world should surrender their surpluses to a ‘world authority,’ which would then take charge of re-distributing the bounty to the ‘have-not’ nations. The topic was to be discussed at the UN’s World Food Conference in Rome in November 1974 but between the time of the original proposal and the Rome conference, Richard Nixon was forced to take ‘early retirement,’ and was replaced by the next puppet, the bumbling oaf, Gerald Ford.

One of Ford’s first official acts was to go before the UN General Assembly and assure the international flotsam gathered there that the voice of the Rockefeller’s Henry Kissinger, was the very voice of America in all matters pertaining to international relations. Later, Ford announced that the Secretary of State would appear as keynote speaker on behalf of the United States at the upcoming World Food Conference, superseding the more logical choice, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, who was the official head of the US delegation. Of the hundreds of political commentators around the country, only Paul Scott had the courage to assess the implications of Ford’s actions . . .

“Whether he fully realises it or not, President Ford has put his stamp of approval on Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s grand design foreign policy for the establishment of a loosely knit world government before the end of the 1970s.”

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organised, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the already considerable wealth of the richest 0.1%, into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say that the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) Almost all the machine’s creators had CIA backgrounds and during the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism.

The CIA’s expert and comprehensive organisation of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1% owned 22% of the world’s wealth but by 1992, this had nearly doubled, to 42% — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.

The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite; millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media and Ivy League scholars. During WWII, General ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS,) as previously stated, the forerunner of the CIA and he recruited so exclusively from, the nation’s rich and powerful, that members eventually came to joke that OSS stood for ‘Oh, so social.’

Another, early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller Empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels. He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. However, his financial interests across the world became a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he recruited exclusively from society’s elite and by the 1950s, the CIA had riddled the nation’s businesses, media and universities with tens of thousands of part-time, on-call operatives. Their employment with the agency took a variety of forms, which included both leaving a profession to work for the CIA in a formal, official capacity and staying in a profession, using the job as cover for CIA activity. This undercover activity could be full-time, part-time, or on-call, occasionally passing along information useful to the CIA and passing through the revolving door that has always existed between the agency and the business world.

Historically, the CIA and society’s elite have, been one and the same people and so this means that their interests and goals are one and the same. Perhaps the most frequent description of the intelligence community is the ‘old boy network,’ where members socialise, conduct business and do favours for each other, outside the formalities of government.

Many common traits made it inevitable that the CIA and Corporate America would become allies. Both share an intense dislike of democracy, and believe that they should be free from democratic regulations and oversight. Both share a culture of secrecy, either hiding their actions from the public or lying about them to present the best public image possible, in order to maintain the great pretence of benevolence. And both were in a perfect position to complement each other. International businesses give CIA agents cover, secret funding, top-quality resources and important contacts in foreign lands and in return, the CIA allocates corporations billion-dollar federal contracts (for example for, sophisticated weaponry, satellites and other hi-tech spy-craft.) Businessmen enjoy the quixotic thrill of participating in spying operations and the CIA also provides a certain amount of protection and privacy from the media and government watchdogs, for businesses, all under the guise of ‘national security.’ The CIA also helps American corporations remain dominant in foreign markets, by bribing or overthrowing governments hostile to unregulated capitalism and instead installing puppet regimes whose policies favour American mega-corporations, all of course, at the expense of the good citizens of that country.

The CIA’s alliance with the elite turned out to be an unholy one. Each enabled the other to rise above the law and indeed, a review of the CIA’s history is one of such crime and atrocity that no one can reasonably defend it, even in the name of anti-communism. From corrupting and fixing elections to overthrowing democratic governments, from assassinating elected leaders to installing murderous, US-sympathetic dictators, the CIA has virtually always replaced democracy with dictatorship. The CIA has always run by businessmen, whose hostility towards democracy or even any form of accountability is legendary.

The people usually vote for policies that multi-national corporations abhor and for things that prevent them from maximising profits, for instance such minor issues as land reform, strong labour unions, nationalisation of their industries, and regulation protecting the interests of workers, consumers and the environment.

To the people who work within it, the CIA is known as ‘The Company.’ The ‘Big Business’ mentality pervades everything in and around it, for instance, its agents are called ‘assets,’ and the head of the United Kingdom ‘desk’ is said to ‘own the UK account.’

American multinational corporations have built up colossal interests all over the world, and wherever there are US business interests, there is guaranteed to also be a strong CIA presence. The multinational corporations need a peaceful status quo in countries where they have investments, because that gives them undisturbed access to cheap raw materials, cheap labour and stable markets for their finished goods. This status quo also suits the banksters, because their money remains secure and profits are maximised.

And, of course, the status quo suits the small ruling groups that the CIA supports abroad, because their aim is to keep themselves on top of the socio-economic pyramid and the majority on the bottom. And what does being at the bottom of the pyramid really mean in most parts of the world? Usually, ignorance, poverty, privation of all kinds and often early death by starvation, overwork or disease. Remember, the CIA is only an instrument of the banksters, via the parroted decrees of their puppet President.

By the mid-1970s two young newcomers, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard ‘Dick’ Cheney were already ‘players’ in the banksters’ Presidential power games.

As previously related, James Earl Carter, the grinning peanut farmer and Governor of Georgia, was actually the first presidential candidate for which evidence exists to suggest that he was actually ‘interviewed’ for the job of President of the United States. At that time David Rockefeller and the man who would become Carter’s ‘Edward Mandel House,’ Zbigniew Brzezinski, broached the subject of creating what Brzezinski called the Trilateral Commission to address the larger concerns of ahem, ‘mankind’ through dialogue between the United States, western Europe and Japan at the Bilderberger meeting in Knokke, Belgium in the spring of 1972. Then in July, 1972, an exploratory meeting of the Trilateral Commission took place at Rockefeller’s very private Pocantico Hills, estate in New York’s Hudson Valley. Two hundred and fifty industrialists and bankers, most with interlocking Bilderberger memberships, attended this first gathering.

Between that meeting and the official launching of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, Carter became a founding member it appears, due to his association with Brzezinski through the Council on Foreign Relations. Brzezinski arranged the interview with Rockefeller and Rockefeller decided that he had found the man who was going to become the 39th President of the United States. Indeed, Carter became the CFR’s first ‘official’ US President.

The job of Carter’s handlers was to make the peanut farmer governor a household name and, that was not an easy task. In early 1973, he appeared on a popular TV show ‘What’s My Line,’ a show whereby the resident panel had to deduce the occupations of their ‘guests’ by the use of ten questions to which the guest was only obliged to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ He beat them — it seemed that no-one outside of Georgia had ever heard of Jimmy Carter. Then on 5th March, Carter was named as the Chairman of the National Democratic Party Campaign Committee. He obviously desperately needed some exposure if the coup was to succeed. In the following September, Teddy Kennedy, unexpectedly announced he would not run and a Harris Poll listed 35 prominent Democrats who could possibly win the 1976 Democratic nomination. Carter was not even on the list. And so it came to pass that Carter, the man who stumped the ‘What’s My Line’ panel a year earlier, won the presidential election with 50.8% of the vote. Gerald Ford, a man who was recognised worldwide, lost with 48%. Such is the power of those who control the world.

The Democrats then put-up the moderate, Eugene McCarthy as a third party ‘spoiler’ to siphon conservative Democratic votes that would otherwise have been cast in Ford’s direction, thereby guaranteeing the election of Carter. Rockefeller and the CFR now had their puppet president.

In 2002 David Rockefeller wrote his autobiography entitled, ‘David Rockefeller: Memoirs.’ In it, on page 406 in Chapter 27, entitled ‘Proud Internationalist,’ Rockefeller says . . .

“ . . . Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists,’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty. And, I’m proud of it.”

He also said that . . . “We are on the verge of a major transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

Upon Carter’s election, Brzezinski was appointed assistant to the President for national security matters. Named as the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the President, some said that Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the US. Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was unsurprisingly perhaps, also a member of the Trilateral Commission. What are the odds of three virtually unknown men capturing the three most powerful positions in the country?

By Christmas Day 1976, Carter had already chosen his cabinet. Three of his cabinet members; Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown, were Trilateral Commissioners and the other non-Commission members were ‘sympathetic’ to Commission objectives and operations. In addition, Carter appointed another fourteen Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts. There were therefore nineteen Trilateralists, including Carter and Mondale, holding tremendous political power and representing almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission members from the United States. The odds of that happening ‘by chance’ or even on merit alone, are beyond calculation. I ask again, where is there even a hint of democratic involvement in this insidious process?

Carter was the first President in the history of the United States who was completely controlled by the CFR. The most important decisions of his Administration, those which branded him as political idiot, were actually made by his CFR handler, Madeleine Albright, a Czech Jew and rabid Zionist. Her official title in 1977 was ‘Congressional Liaison to the National Security Council,’ which incidentally was headed by Albright’s former professor at Columbia University, Brzezinski. In reality, she was the CFR liaison to the White House.

In October 1979, the Rockefeller puppet, Jimmy Carter established the Department of Education. For 200 years, Americans had been a well-educated people, without the help of a Federal bureaucracy. For what purpose did America suddenly need a new Cabinet Department? The answer would become apparent in the years to come, as the UN-connected US Department of Education grew larger and more powerful, influencing school curriculums at every level in America.

As a result of this sea-change, American children today learn next to nothing about America’s founding doctrines, its original principles or its true history. And instead of learning to think critically, surely the real goal of any education philosophy, students are force-fed Globalist and socialist propaganda, fairy tales about Global Warming, the Holocaust, hatred for American ideals, pornographic ‘sex education,’ and the ‘joys’ of homosexuality. And when this is all combined with a constant drip-feed of unnecessary medication, vaccinations, junk and GM food, a daily dose of the proven intellect-suppressant, fluoride and regular aerosol spraying of heavy metals from above, in the form of ‘Chemtrails,’ these poor, dumbed-down children will one day grow into easily controlled and malleable ‘global citizens.’

Common Core, No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Goals 2000, School To Work were all benevolent-sounding names for so-called ‘education’ programmes that were all directed towards the same goal; education for the New World Order. What they are really doing is indoctrinating and brainwashing children to be compliant, docile adults who will never question what they have been told, nor ever even contemplate resisting their ‘programming.’

Some may think that the term ‘New World Order’ is just meaningless drivel that some ‘conspiracy nut’ made up. They may think that there is nothing to see here, or to worry about and just ignore it. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is something to see — and something to worry about and education indoctrination is the key to success in turning the world on its head. In George Orwell’s novel ‘1984,’ the controllers of mankind promoted the slogan to the sleeping masses, “ignorance is strength,” and indeed it still is. As your ignorance grows, so does their strength. Another slogan was, “freedom is slavery.” Again, a similar adage applies; their freedom is your slavery. They, the banksters and their lackeys, have been using education to forge the chains of your bondage, one link at a time, for centuries.

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” Voltaire

During the Reagan administration, the US Department of Education, Senior Policy Advisor was a school board director, Charlotte Iserbyt. Iserbyt has now long been virtually a lone voice of opposition to outcome-based education and Skinnerian methodology. It was she who compiled the mammoth, informative exposé on the devolution of American education, ‘The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America.’

“An alien collectivist (socialist) philosophy, much of which came from Europe, crashed onto the shores of our nation, bringing with it radical changes in economics, politics, and education, funded — surprisingly enough — by several wealthy American families and their tax-exempt foundations. The goal of these wealthy families and their foundations — a seamless non-competitive global system for commerce and trade — when stripped of flowery expressions of concern for minorities, the less fortunate, etc., represented the initial stage of what this author now refers to as the deliberate dumbing-down of America.

Seventy years later, the carefully laid plans to change America from a sovereign, constitutional republic with a free enterprise economic base to just one of many nations in an international socialist (collectivist) system (New World Order) are apparent. Only a dumbed-down population, with no memory of America’s roots as a prideful nation, could be expected to willingly succumb to the global workforce training planned by the Carnegie Corporation and the John D. Rockefellers, I and II.” Charlotte Iserbyt, ‘The Deliberate Dumbing-down of America’

John Taylor Gatto, author of ‘The Underground History of American Education,’ was New York ‘Teacher of the Year,’ for the 3rd time in 1991 when he left his 30-year teaching career behind, stating that he was . . . “ . . . no longer willing to hurt children.”

“I feel ashamed that so many of us cannot imagine a better way to do things than locking children up all day in cells instead of letting them grow-up knowing their families, mingling with the world, assuming real obligations, striving to be independent and self-reliant and free . . . I don’t mean to be inflammatory, but it’s as if government schooling made people dumber, not brighter; made families weaker, not stronger . . .

The training field for these grotesque human qualities is the classroom. Schools train individuals to respond as a mass. Boys and girls are drilled in being bored, frightened, envious, emotionally needy, and generally incomplete. A successful mass-production economy requires such a clientele. A small business, small farm economy like that of the Amish requires individual competence, thoughtfulness, compassion, and universal participation; our own requires a managed mass of levelled, spiritless, anxious, family-less, friendless, godless, and obedient people who believe the difference between ‘Cheers’ and ‘Seinfeld’ is a subject worth arguing about.

An executive director of the National Education Association announced that his organization expected ‘to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force.’ You can’t get much clearer than that. WWII drove the project underground, but hardly retarded its momentum. Following cessation of global hostilities, school became a major domestic battleground for the scientific rationalization of social affairs through compulsory indoctrination.” John Taylor Gatto.

It is very important for both governments and corporations, aka the banksters and the NWO, that schools constantly churn out unquestioning, uninformed sheeple, bereft of creativity and individuality, who are emotionally needy, respond in group-think patterns, and find their only form of relief in materialism. As Gerald Bracey, a leading promoter of ‘government’ schooling wrote in his 1991 annual report to business clients, “we must continue to produce an uneducated social class.” Lifetime Learning Systems, a new corporation helping advertisers infiltrate US schools, announced to its clients, “School is the ideal time to influence attitudes, build long-term loyalties, introduce new products, test-market, promote sampling and trial usage — and above all — to generate immediate sales.”

Suzanne Cornforth of Paschall and Associates public relations consultants was quoted in the New York Times in 1998 as saying, “Today’s corporate sponsors want to see their money used in ways to line up with business objectives . . . This is a young generation of corporate sponsors and they have discovered the advantages of building long-term relationships with educational institutions.”

“The secret of American schooling is that it doesn’t teach the way children learn, and it isn’t supposed to; school was engineered to serve a concealed command economy and a deliberately re-stratified social order. It wasn’t made for the benefit of kids and families as those individuals and institutions would define their own needs. School is the first impression children get of organized society; like most first impressions, it is the lasting one. Life according to school is dull and stupid, only consumption promises relief; Coke, Big Macs, fashion jeans, that’s where real meaning is found, that is the classroom’s lesson, however indirectly delivered . . . Advertising, public relations, and stronger forms of quasi-religious propaganda are so pervasive in our schools, even in ‘alternative’ schools, that independent judgment is suffocated in mass-produced secondary experiences and market-tested initiatives.” John Taylor Gatto.

Scientifically subjecting young children to factory-style seating, standardised, ‘one-size-fits-all’ type testing, and government textbooks bring ‘order out of chaos,’ and create manageable future working populations. Modern schools in the entire western world and cultures, create uniformity whilst suppressing individualism, scepticism and creativity. They over-develop competitive spirit whilst undermining compassion and curiosity. They promote cliques, gangs, small-group mentalities, and ‘small-picture’ thinking. Examining and testing procedures hinder ‘big-picture’ understanding of any subject and force students to focus on a simplistic view whilst true education and mastery of the subjects at hand, are not encouraged at all. All students are merely required to memorise trivial information like names, dates, places, events etc. just long enough to regurgitate for standardised multiple-choice tests. Then after examination, the trivial information stored in their short-term memory disappears along with their superficial understandings of each subject.

It is saddening to now realise that somehow ‘knowledge’ or ‘facts’ are now firmly equated with ‘intelligence.’ For example, someone with a wide-ranging knowledge of a subject is often fêted as a genius, or at the very least as ‘very intelligent,’ simply for having learned facts and figures and as result of which, is now in the possession of an honours degree or even a PhD. Surely the true test of intelligence, or at least what used to be generally accepted as intelligence, is an unusually high ability to logically deduce, and to understand complex concepts and generally contribute to the world’s knowledge base — and not simply churn out random facts and figures.

By way of an example of this general ‘dumbing-down,’ here is a true story. A man recently purchased a burger at McDonald’s for $1.58. The girl at the counter, took the $2 he offered and believing he was being helpful, he then took 8 cents from his pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the coins, whilst looking at the screen on her cash register in confusion. He sensed her discomfort and to help out further, asked her to give him two quarters (50 cents) in return. However, she called for the manager for help and whilst he was attempting to explain the enormous, bewildering complexities of the transaction to her, she simply burst into tears.

The term ‘Neo-Conservatism,’ originated in the early 1970s, and had blossomed by 1979. The founders of Neo-Conservatism (neo-cons) were self-professed ‘ex-Marxists,’ who claimed to have realised their error and now wished to embrace American conservatism. The first major ahem, ‘intellectual’ to come out as a neo-con was Irving Kristol, a Zionist member of the CFR and the so-called ‘Godfather’ of the neo-cons.

Gullible, traditional ‘conservatives’ welcomed these media-hyped neo-con ‘cuckoos in the nest’ into their circles and true to form it was not too long before the ‘ex-Marxist,’ Zionist-Globalists had hijacked true conservatism. The neo-cons were and are Globalists that differ from other ‘liberal’ Globalists in one key area. Whereas Bilderberger / Trilateral-type Globalists, have no special love or loyalty for Israel, the neo-con Globalists are hard core, Israel-First, Zionists.

The genocidal destruction that has smitten the Middle East for the past several decades was launched at the behest of a small cadre of conniving Jewish-Zionist ideologues who deceptively refer to themselves as ‘neo-conservatives.’ This ploy was the brainchild of three Zionist-Communists, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Leo Strauss and neo-conservatism is, and has always been, a Jewish movement, led by Zionist motivations and to undermine the sovereignty of the US, for Zionist gain.

“One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamoured of Third World causes (e.g., Palestinian rights.) In the Reagan-ite right’s hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neo-cons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel’s security.” Jewish political scientist, Benjamin Ginsberg

Jewish neo-cons often speak in public about ‘global crusades for democracy,’ but this is just a clever ruse to deceive the ‘Goyim’ about their real agenda which is to bolster the hegemony of Israel in the middle-east.

Even as a CFR man and despite all the attempted control imposed upon him, Jimmy Carter, began to veer away from the course that the banksters had decreed, the same day that he became President. His first mistake was in firing the powerful, CIA Director George H. W. Bush and 800 others in the agency. Bush had promoted many covert operations practitioners, protected agents from indictment by President Ford’s Justice Department, and protected former CIA Director Richard Helms who was only given a fine and a suspended sentence for lying to Congress. Bush did not take this snub, well — and he certainly did not forget it.

But Carter’s biggest ‘mistake’ of all, was to overtly act against the interests and the might of Israel and its power over American politics . . .

In 1977, Carter became the first American President to call for the creation of a Palestinian ‘homeland.’ He signed the Camp David Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel, and called for the self-governance of the Palestinian people. After his presidential term, he authored several books on the conflict, including the controversially titled ‘Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.’ As for Israel, the Prime Minister, Menachem Begin was furious about Carter’s ‘high-handed’ actions at Camp David in 1978, which effectively forced Israel to trade the occupied Sinai to Egypt in the peace deal. Begin feared that Carter would use his second term to bully Israel into accepting a Palestinian state on the West Bank that they considered part of Israel’s ‘divinely granted’ territory.

Presidents Carter and Sadat, and Prime Minister Begin signed the ‘Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel,’ on the 26th March 1979. However, Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David. As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue still ‘hanging around Israel’s neck.’ So, in order to gain time for Israel to move Jewish settlers into the West Bank in an attempt to short-circuit the agreement, Begin decided that Carter’s re-election had to be prevented at all costs. A new president would undoubtedly give Israel a better opportunity to deal with its ‘problems’ on its northern border with Lebanon.

And so, as a result of this, ‘the CIA within the CIA,’ the inner-most circle of powerful intelligence figures who felt that only they best understood the strategic needs of the United States, believed that Carter and his ‘naïve’ faith in American democratic ideals, represented a grave threat to the nation. These attitudes of ‘the CIA within the CIA’ and the Israelis appeared to stem from their genuine beliefs that they needed to protect what they regarded as vital interests of their respective countries aka themselves. However, the real mystery (or maybe not) is whether or not these two groups treacherously, in league with Republicans, prevented Carter from gaining the release of the 52 hostages then held in Iran and thereby scuppering his re-election hopes.

The answer, was that the ousting of Carter, as with Nixon, was a MI-6/CIA plot sanctioned by the banksters. The whole ‘Iranian hostage crisis’ was merely the contrived reason, to humiliate Carter, much as the contrived Watergate crisis had done for Nixon.

Carter’s inability to resolve that hostage crisis did indeed set the stage for Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in November 1980, as American voters reacted to the long-running hostage humiliation by turning to a candidate they believed would be a tougher player on the international stage. The Iranians initially planned to hold the hostages only briefly to embarrass Jimmy Carter, but according to the ringleaders, ‘Carter blinked,’ resulting in 52 hostages being held until 12 noon, 20th January 1981. Iran released them at almost the same moment that Carter left office and Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States. How coincidental!

Upon meeting with the freed hostages, Carter declared, “The acts of barbarism which were perpetrated on our people by Iran can never be condoned. It has been an abominable circumstance that will never be forgotten.”

Ex-bankster, CFR and Trilateral Commission President Jimmy Carter, left office disgraced, branded as the worst ever, the liberal, wimp President and the ‘people,’ the ignorant TV-raised masses, think the ‘big, bad Arabs’ released the hostages, because they feared the new, tough ‘sheriff’ that was about to ride into town.

Again, the people were grossly deceived by the pure political theatre, heavily and convincingly ‘sold’ to them by the bankster-owned media. And for added measure, in December 1979, the banksters influenced the Soviet Union into an invasion of Afghanistan, starting another highly profitable, yet unwinnable war that would last nine bloody years, and further contribute to the NWO agenda.

Reagan’s macho, ‘all-American boy’ image was reinforced when the Iranians quickly released the hostages immediately after he was inaugurated in January 1981, ending the 444-day standoff. This ‘coincidence of timing,’ which Reagan’s supporters cited as proof that foreign enemies ‘feared’ the new president, also provided momentum to Reagan’s larger agenda, including sweeping tax cuts heavily biased toward the wealthy, reduced government regulation of corporations, and renewed reliance on fossil fuels. Carter’s previously installed solar panels were pointedly dismantled from the White House roof.

On 26th January 1979, Nelson Rockefeller died suddenly, aged 70.

The official coroner’s report, stated that he had died of a heart attack whilst having sexual intercourse with 25 year-old Megan Marshack, which seems to beg the question . . . ‘What was it that first attracted you to the multi-billionaire, Nelson Rockefeller, Megan?’ At least he probably died with a smile on his face. But to be a little more serious, perhaps justice would have been better served had he, like so many others of his insidious ilk, died by public execution, convicted for massive crimes against humanity and not in the very human act of procreation.

So, after unceremoniously disposing of Carter, on the 4th November 1980, America elected, sorry correction, the banksters ‘chose’ the Hollywood ‘B’ movie, cowboy actor, stalwart Republican, anti-communist, GE spokesman, and ex-California Governor, Ronald Reagan as their 40th and the nation’s oldest-ever, President.

Along with waving the flag and quoting the Bible, most Americans of that era loved a man who knew how to wear a Stetson, and who also knew how to repeat the worn-out clichés of western movies and TV shows with smiling sincerity. As for the banksters, they have always known how to manipulate us. Of course, Reagan was only the front, the window-dressed image for the dumbed-down public. The real man-in-charge was the banksters’ long-time loyal, obedient servant, ‘Vice-President,’ George H. W. Bush ready to step-in, just in case Reagan suddenly started to take his part too seriously in this whole contrived, perverted, Hollywood-inspired, political scenario.

Unfortunately, what had been happening all along and especially what was still to come, was actually taken from a horror movie . . . rather than a cheap, ‘B’ western.

‘The Cowboy and the Iron Lady’ may well sound like the title of yet another Hollywood ‘B’ movie, but the very imagery, the very perception of law and order, and fair-play it conjures-up in the public’s mind, is exactly what the illegal and foul playing banksters were counting upon. It is hardly that much of a risk for them, as they knew ‘exactly’ how we would think and react, as they themselves have ‘taught’ and programmed us all, right from the very beginning, as it is the banksters’ paid stooges that both write history, and teach it, whether through Wikipedia™, or in the schools and universities, or through such mediums as TV’s, so-called ‘History Channel,’ or lying propaganda movies.

As for being fondly remembered, of those two so-called ‘leaders,’ Reagan is still perceived by many to have been a ‘nice guy,’ despite the fact that he followed orders and set America on the road to self-destruction, just as Thatcher did for Britain. However, the very mention of Margaret Thatcher’s name in Britain is almost guaranteed to stir-up negative emotions, and for many, a great deal of pain. Ironically, it was a Soviet journalist who gave her the nickname of the ‘Iron Lady’ and her draconian policies became known as ‘Thatcherism.’

The banksters, forever on the lookout for potential political recruits for their evil cause, began monitoring Thatcher in the early 1960s whilst she still just a junior Member of Parliament. By 1970, she had become Education Secretary, in 1975 she was elected leader of the Conservative Party and on the 4th May 1979, she became the first woman Prime Minister of Great Britain. But make no mistake, this was no lady — when it came to taking-on the men, of either major party. Born Margaret Hilda Roberts in 1925, the grocer’s daughter had an Oxford education and a Methodist upbringing. She was selfish, egotistical, ambitious, opinionated and totally lacking in compassion, maybe even psychopathic. In short, just the type to further the banksters’ agenda.

The second grandest funeral Britain had ever given to a non-royal, after Winston Churchill, was awarded to the grocer’s daughter who had spent 11 years in Downing Street. It was straight, serious and functional and even the Queen and Prince Philip attended. It was most definitely a political statement, a sort of ‘in yer face,’ ‘up yours, you common British folk,’ and there was no way that the current Prime Minister David Cameron could pretend otherwise. Margaret Thatcher was without doubt, the most divisive British politician since Oliver Cromwell!

The police code name for the event was ‘Operation True Blue’ and it was a state funeral in everything but name, costing taxpayers up to £10m. The cruel irony being, that in addition to their heritage, the hundreds of thousands of jobs, the vast billions of pounds her policies had taken, and continue to take, would now see the plain ordinary Brits, stuck with even more elitist debt.

Now most political leaders are certainly guilty of treason, of selling out the people, and their country, but remember in Britain, all politicians, judges, lawyers, police and military take an oath of loyalty to the bankster-owned ‘Crown,’ they are not there to serve the people. Baroness Thatcher, as she later became, was always an obedient servant to the bankster establishment, right to the bitter end.

Thatcher’s predecessor, Edward ‘Ted’ Heath, was named by Michael Shrimpton, barrister and author of the book ‘Spyhunter’ as a paedophile and child murderer (or at least an accessory to murder.) According to Shrimpton, Jimmy Savile, the infamous child molester, procured children from Haute de Gaurenne children’s home in Jersey and took them to Heaths boat, Morning Cloud, where they were abused and murdered and thrown overboard. Children’s homes and ‘care’ homes are the main source of children for the paedophile rings and child-procurer Jimmy Savile was also connected to the North Wales abuse scandal, as he was to several others, such as the one at Haute de la Garenne on the Channel Island of Jersey.

What even the most open-minded people cannot seem to grasp is the almost unimaginable scale of child abuse, murder and human sacrifice worldwide, and how it is part of the fabric that holds the global Establishment together, locally, nationally and internationally. It is only the low-level paedophiles that are prosecuted, and that we even hear about. The high-level types, the ones in powerful positions, in government, industry, the judiciary, church, and royalty, they are always protected — because paedophilia is deeply connected to Satanism, and all those secret societies, whose members run the world.

But the members of this evil, global web, cover their own backs by ensuring that any claims about their activities — and not just paedophilia either — are ‘investigated,’ dismissed and covered-up by other members of their network in the police and other, higher levels of ‘law’ enforcement. Should a case go to court or some sort of ‘public inquiry,’ then ‘safe’ members of the judiciary are appointed to keep the lid on everything. Members of the network, or ring, in all these positions, watch each other’s backs and are only convicted if the barriers of the network are breached by genuine people inside the political and legal systems.

Thatcher had a sister Muriel, their father, Alfred Roberts’ ‘favourite’ daughter. There is strong evidence to believe that he sexually abused both his daughters and indeed many other young girls.

In 1997, the magazine Punch published an article by Professor Bernard Crick featuring allegations, including one from an alleged victim, that Alfred Roberts had been involved in several sexual assaults on young women. The article claimed that Roberts was the inspiration for a lecherous character who was a local councillor and grocer in the 1937 satire of Grantham, ‘Rotten Borough.’ Alfred Roberts sexually abused young female assistants working in his grocer’s shop, according to Professor Crick, the assaults allegedly taking place behind the counter of the shop.

Professor Crick was told by a Grantham friend that, “Older teachers all remembered . . . trying to steer girls away from taking jobs at his shop . . . but they were frightened to hint at the real reason for he was a figure of real power in the town.”

According to Peter Hadlow, who was a neighbour of the Roberts’, “Quite a broad spectrum of people said it . . . it was all over Grantham virtually . . . but he was an Alderman and so that sort of thing got hushed up. It was a question of who do you believe, a teenage girl, or Mr Roberts?”

A 74-year-old woman from Grantham told the Independent on Sunday that she had been sexually abused on frequent occasions by Alderman Roberts, when she worked in his shop, aged just 15. She said, “He was a bad one. He came round and put his arms around me, feeling my breasts. He used to put his tongue in my mouth. I got quite frightened. I didn’t like it and I’d push him away. He’d say nothing and go, but then he would come back again. He used to chase other girls round the counter.”

The woman later became a chorister at the Methodist chapel where Roberts was a lay preacher.

Margaret Thatcher had little in common with her mother, Beatrice, who was known as Beatie. Alf Roberts served as a councillor for 25 years, including a term as mayor but he and Beatie always took separate holidays.

Margaret Thatcher’s children knew little of their grandparents and Alf left Margaret nothing in his will. When she was elected as MP for Finchley, in London, she regarded Finchley’s large contingent of Jewish residents as ‘her people’ and became a founding member of the Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley as well as a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. She also appointed Lord Victor Rothschild as her unofficial security adviser. If you recall, he was also Winston Churchill’s ‘handler’ and was also known to have been the head of the ‘Cambridge’ Soviet spy ring, which included Blunt, Burgess, MacLean and Philby.

Official biographies relate that Rothschild was recruited by MI-5 during the war in the same way as Anthony Blunt the notorious paedophile, but in fact, Rothschild ran British Intelligence and also the wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill, another reported paedophile. The ‘national hero’ Churchill was a despicable character who worked covertly for the global enemies of freedom and peace — the Rothschilds. They were the secret source of the vast majority of his income. Rothschild was known within British Intelligence as the ‘Black Bag Man’ because he controlled the secret ‘stash’ that covertly funded off-the-record projects that the official government had refused to sanction. He knew ‘where the bodies were buried,’ throughout the entire Establishment and who was doing what to whom among royalty, politicians, media and academia. This allowed him to manipulate and dictate at will, through the ever-present threat of public exposure.

It is believed that it was Rothschild’s decision to sink the Argentinian battlecruiser, the ‘General Belgrano’ during the Falklands conflict and Thatcher simply did as she was told. Rothschild had several lucrative investments in the mining of minerals in the Falklands region and he was not going to give-up those without a fight.

Jonathan Freedland wrote in The Guardian newspaper on 31st October 2003 that Margaret Thatcher had a Cabinet . . . “ . . . which included no fewer than five Jews.” Bearing in mind that half of one percent of the British population are Jewish, yet in Thatcher’s cabinet they held 25% of 20 cabinet positions.

Foreign Office officials were so concerned about Margaret Thatcher’s pro-Israeli sympathies when she became Tory leader that they wanted her to cut links with local Jewish groups, according to newly-released official papers. And files released to the National Archives in Kew, West London, under the 30 year rule revealed that diplomats feared she would be regarded by Arab countries as a ‘prisoner of the Zionists.’ One official even suggested that she should give up her Finchley parliamentary seat in North London — with its large Jewish community — for somewhere more palatable to Arab opinion. She was the first British Prime Minister to visit Israel whilst in office.

Part of the global success of Thatcherism was the key support of Ronald Reagan. As Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Schulz described it, they were “ideological soulmates” — the ultimate 1980s ‘power couple.’ But Thatcher’s special transatlantic relationship was predated and enabled by another, that with the Australian-born media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.

He was the son of a media baron, she the daughter of a grocer, but they had a cause in common, they were both simply devout Zionists. They also both attended Oxford University and chafed at the snobbery of English elites and together they formed a radical right-wing populism that railed against the ‘establishment,’ even when they were both subsumed into it.

It was the lowest common denominator tabloid, ‘yellow’ journalism of Murdoch that had Thatcher elected by the masses, and it was on the day of the general election in May 1979, that Murdoch’s tabloid the Sun newspaper, which had only just taken over from the Daily Mirror as Britain’s bestselling paper, shifted from its traditional Labour support, with a front-page editorial arguing that Thatcher’s election would benefit the ‘working classes.’

This of course turned-out to be grossly untrue. Within two years of Thatcher taking office, British unemployment had risen to 2 million. Damian Barr, author of ‘Maggie and Me,’ was the child of a Scottish steelworker at the time, and saw the direct effect of her policies on his family and his community. “She ripped the heart out of the community. My family, were no longer working class, but effectively an underclass, living on state benefits.”

Mid-way through her first term, Thatcher was polling as the most unpopular prime minister in recent history, but the real threat did not come from a divided opposition or disaffected country, but from members of her own party. It was just at this moment that Murdoch launched a bid for the Times Group Newspapers. The deal should have been referred to the competition authorities as Murdoch already owned a substantial part of the British media. The Tory government was legally bound to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which no doubt would not have sanctioned it, but of course they did not. The press was in an uproar and questions were raised in the House of Commons. Not only was Murdoch proposing to take over the historic paper of record, The Times of London (which Abraham Lincoln had once described as having more power than anything except the Mississippi,) but combined with the already-owned Sunday Times and his existing tabloids, this meant that he would now own 27% of the British newspaper market.

For decades, the full story of Murdoch’s eventual acquisition of the Times Group consisted of guesswork. He wooed the unions and editorial staff by promising jobs and independence, promises he rapidly broke. Many suspected a behind-the-scenes deal, and the diaries of Woodrow Wyatt, a confidante of both Murdoch and Thatcher, outlined the quid-pro-quos of political support. However, until now, any personal meetings between the media mogul and the prime minister on the bid have been denied. But, as revealed by the Thatcher archives during the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics in 2012, Murdoch secretly met with the prime minister at her country residence, Chequers in early 1981, to discuss the takeover.

The Thatcher Foundation released papers detailing Murdoch’s secret lunch with Thatcher in January 1981 and Murdoch (who had moved to the US in 1973) promised to introduce Thatcher to President Ronald Reagan and key members of his entourage. Meanwhile, the bid was passed on a technicality and The Times, often considered the in-house journal of the British ruling classes, joined the tabloids in supporting Thatcher’s radical right-wing reforms. She then won in a landslide in the 1983 election, albeit with a smaller share of the vote and when Murdoch moved his News International newsgroup to a new headquarters in Wapping, (pronounced ‘wopping’) east London overnight in 1986, he was widely hailed as the saviour of the British press despite the fact that his despicable organ, the Sun newspaper soon acquired the predictable nickname of the ‘Wapping Liar.’

The nightly confrontations with print union pickets outside the new building became almost as iconic as the nationwide miners’ strike two years before and so Thatcher promised Murdoch brutal police support, sowing the seeds of a close relationship between News International and the Metropolitan police. But Thatcher owed Murdoch more than just press advocacy. As the minutes from the 1981 meeting made clear, Murdoch offered to introduce her to key players behind the scenes in Washington just before Reagan was to be inaugurated as president. He had already relocated to New York from London several years before Thatcher’s election, and was attuned to the combative style of American ‘new right’ thinking.

She never forgot her debt. Even on the brink of being forced to resign in 1990, she waived-through a merger of his off-shore company Sky with the licensed British satellite company, BSB. Thus Britain’s satellite monopoly, BskyB, which now has far higher revenues than the BBC, was born. Behind the ideological marriage of Reagan and Thatcher then, Rupert Murdoch was the best man.

The rest, Murdoch’s unflagging support for Thatcher, is history. But it is maybe not the kind of history that you will find written down. Well certainly not if you are looking for the truth, that is. The rise of Murdoch and the rise of Thatcher, were both orchestrated by the banksters. They both played the main role in privatising, de-industrialising and de-unionising Britain. It was an unholy alliance, made in hell, from the very beginning.

In a 2004 poll of academics, Clement Atlee was voted the best British Prime Minister of the 20th century. The longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century, Margaret Thatcher, set Britain on a course to undo everything he did — and more besides.

Attlee became Prime Minister on 26th July 1945, as the leader of a Labour party that had won a landslide general election victory with a majority of 144 seats, against Winston Churchill’s incumbent Conservative party — thus proving what the British people really thought of Churchill and his hero status. Atlee’s government was a transformational one. At home, the government created the welfare state and the National Health Service, whilst abroad, it decolonised vast swathes of the British Empire, including India, and cemented Britain’s relationship with the United States. Its strategy of maintaining high levels of employment, with major industries under public ownership, was the dominant model in post-war British politics until Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government of 1979 — 90.

These great achievements are even more remarkable when considered in context. In August 1945, at the end of the WWII, the US abruptly cut Britain’s supply lines. Lend-Lease, which had given Britain vital supplies in return for military bases, was ended at a stroke, and John Maynard Keynes memorably said that Britain faced a ‘financial Dunkirk.’ But Attlee’s government was able to negotiate a loan from the US in November 1945, when a line of credit of $3.75bn was made available. Britain also received around $3bn in Marshall Plan aid between April 1948 and December 1951. Yet this external help should not detract from the great credit the Attlee government deserved for its management of the immense task of rebuilding the post-war economy. However, despite its 1945 victory, the Labour party was narrowly defeated in the 1951 general election, and condemned to opposition for a further 13 years.

In a Parliamentary speech after Thatcher’s death, the Oscar-winning actress turned Member of Parliament, Glenda Jackson, speaking of the legacy of Thatcherism, said . . . “In coming to the basis of Thatcherism, I come to the spiritual part of what I regard as the desperately wrong track, down which Thatcherism took this country. We were told that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice, and I still regard them as vices, was, in fact, under Thatcherism, a virtue. Greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees, all these were the way forward. We have heard much, and will continue to hear over next week, about the barriers that were broken down by Thatcherism, the establishment that was destroyed.”

Margaret Thatcher becoming known as The Iron Lady, ironically came about through an anti-communism speech she made in 1976, three years before she was elected Prime Minister, when she was merely the leader of the Conservative Party in opposition. It was the Soviet Army newspaper Red Star that bestowed the title upon her.

On the other hand, Ronald Reagan had been making anti-communist speeches ever since his ‘B’ movie acting career began to decline in the early 1950s. In Hollywood they used to say of Ronald Reagan, “ . . . he takes direction well.” And always on the lookout for fresh, malleable, political ‘talent,’ the banksters believed that they had the ‘part of a lifetime’ for him . . .

Whilst Reagan’s film career could be regarded as totally underwhelming, how he used his Hollywood status was not. He used his position as the head of the Screen Actors Guild to swindle many Hollywood actors, and his behind-closed-doors collaborations with MCA (Music Corporation of America) head, Lew Wasserman did as much to change the way that Hollywood worked as did the studio system’s demise. Whilst simply just ‘President of Hollywood,’ he swindled those he was supposed to protect and in this way, his Hollywood history prepared him for the role of a lifetime . . . that of the seemingly competent, wholly compassionate, President of the USA.

While Reagan was in Hollywood, he was never quite a star. He operated on the fringes, sometimes almost making it ‘big,’ but never quite. But he learned the way that the system worked and which people to befriend and who to avoid crossing, and he picked up the most valuable secret of the trade, how to manufacture an image, and how to manipulate that image to get people to want to associate with you.

Indeed, all US Presidents of the last century resemble studio-made movie stars, plucked from the obscurity of life as a jobbing studio extra, and groomed to represent an idea and a societal attitude much larger than themselves, their images reconciling the contradictions inherent within their ideology. For example, Reagan was proof positive that cutting benefits to the poor could be regarded as compassionate, and the stars that embody ideologies most adroitly, most seamlessly, those are the stars who endure, as Reagan did, and eventually come to signify a completely different meaning for a new generation.

In 1966, when Reagan was running for Governor of California, his first public office, he campaigned as a conservative with speeches attacking ‘big government,’ the misuse of power and over-taxation, and promises of sweeping reform. But after the election, many of his conservative supporters were in for a shock. One week after his victory, he announced that he would be appointing Democrats to key cabinet positions as well as Republicans. Rather than party or philosophy Reagan proclaimed, “professionalism is the test.”

“We are going to squeeze and cut and trim until we reduce the cost of government. It won’t be easy, nor will it be pleasant, and it will involve every, department of government, starting with the Governor’s office.” Governor Ronald Reagan’s inaugural address, January 1967

Then, despite his promise to cut the budget and taxes, he immediately approved the largest budget and the greatest tax increase in the state’s history. In order to tackle all the student protests over the Vietnam War, Reagan fired University of California President Clark Kerr in 1967 and reduced support for the university and state colleges by 30% — three times more than he had promised during his campaign.

And this was just the beginning of his political career. It was soon to be followed by much, much more of the same, culminating in the ultimate political accolade in US politics . . . ‘Election’ to the highest office of all — with more than a little help from his friends in high places of course.

Remember, though, that upon election, Reagan’s Vice President was the banksters’ friend and CIA stalwart, George H. W. Bush and on the 30th March 1981, on his 70th day as President, at the age of 70 . . . A ‘deranged’ young man attempted to assassinate him. Just another lone nut, with no particular agenda, acting on his own, or was there something more to Reagan’s shooting?

The official story is that John Hinckley Jr., then 25 years old, shot Reagan as the President walked to his limousine after delivering a speech at a Washington, DC hotel. Hinckley fired several shots, one of them ricocheting off the limousine and hitting Reagan in the chest. Reagan was wounded but made a quick recovery, and the would-be-killer was soon despatched to an institution for the criminally insane. He claimed that he attempted to kill the President to get the attention of actress Jodie Foster, with whom Hinckley was obsessed, but there is sufficient evidence to determine, that Hinckley was merely set-up as a mind-controlled patsy, a diversion, as was Sirhan Sirhan in the Robert Kennedy assassination.

Could it possibly be that the bankster-controlled CIA, with whom Bush had a close association long before becoming its Director, wanted their own man, Vice-President George Bush, in the White House instead of Reagan, and used the pathetic Hinckley to clear the way for him? As already demonstrated, George H. W. Bush, was clearly involved with the Bay of Pigs incident, the JFK assassination and Watergate and indeed seems to be associated with so many iconic misdeeds.

Consider this . . . John Hinckley had flown from Nebraska to Nashville in October 1980 with plans to assassinate President Jimmy Carter, but Nashville airport officials detained him when it was found he had three guns in his luggage. Amazingly, he was released and only fined, after a mere five hours in detention, in a city where President Carter was expected. Hinckley also had links with the American Nazi Party and the Islamic Guerrilla Army and a member of the latter group apparently warned the US Secret Service of Hinckley’s plan to shoot Reagan two months before the shooting, but did nothing about it.

It is also a fact that the Hinckleys and the Bushes, not only knew each other, but the two family-heads were business partners, and Hinckley senior had made large contributions to Bush’s political campaign, the Houston Post reported. They also said that Scott Hinckley, brother of John W. Hinckley Jr., who allegedly shot Reagan, was due to dine at the home of Neil Bush, one of the Vice President’s sons on the day of the shooting. Such an astounding, monumental coincidence . . . yet it was never followed-up by the FBI, or by the media. And it is also very interesting that Hinckley never had a trial, where this truth may have been revealed, but was sent straight to an insane asylum, without the inconvenience (to the banksters) of his having to attend court.

Most people assume that Reagan was hit under his left armpit by a straight shot from Hinckley. Reagan had been shot in the chest and was in such pain that he felt paralysed and began coughing up blood. The bullet struck Reagan just under his left armpit, hit the top of his seventh rib, and was deflected into the lower lung about an inch from his heart and aorta.

“After they took it out of me, I saw the bullet. It looked like a nickel . . . First the bullet had struck the limousine, then it had ricocheted through the small gap between the body of the car and the door hinges. It hit me under my left arm, where it made a small slit like a knife wound. I’d always been told that no pain is as excruciating as a broken bone, that’s why I thought Jerry had broken my rib when he landed so hard on me. But it wasn’t Jerry’s weight I felt. According to the doctors, the flattened bullet had hit my rib edgewise, then turned over like a coin, tumbling down through my lung and stopping less than an inch from my heart.” Ronald Reagan

Flattened like a coin from hitting the limo, then bounced through the narrow gap of the open door, and hit him underneath his left armpit while his arms were pinned down by the Secret Service agent? Amazing! Another ‘magic bullet.’

As you have been shown in this indictment of the banksters, so many seemingly unconnected people and events, connect with each other . . .

Three months earlier in New York City, another so-called, ‘lone nut’ assassin, Mark Chapman, approached the ex-Beatle and political activist icon, John Lennon, and shot him dead.

The idea that a ‘crazed’ fan killed John Lennon has never computed, especially considering that Mark David Chapman had no particularly strong feelings either way, toward the Beatles or John Lennon. He was merely indifferent, not filled with rage, or so obsessed with him that it should drive him to murder for reasons unknown.

Interestingly, the doorman of the Dakota apartment building outside which, Lennon was shot four times and killed, knew and had worked closely with George H. W. Bush. José Perdomo, an ex-CIA hit man, was once part of an elite anti-Castro brigade which worked with Bush, who was their recruiter for the Bay of Pigs invasion almost twenty years earlier. Indeed it was Perdomo who told police that Chapman was Lennon’s assailant. One of the arresting officers, Peter Cullen, did not actually believe that Chapman shot Lennon but that the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, but Perdomo convinced Cullen it was Chapman. Cullen’s view was that Chapman “ . . . looked like a guy who worked in a bank.”

According to the Cuban Information Archives, Perdomo was also known as ‘Joaquin Sanjenis,’ and ‘Sam Jenis.’ He was known as an anti-Castro Cuban exile and a member of Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, a miserably failed CIA operation, which cost ‘Company’ head Allan Dulles his job. In fact, during that evening, while Chapman waited hours for Lennon’s return, Perdomo had spoken at length with him about the invasion and Cuban-American politics. Strange topics for strangers, one of whom was waiting for a rock star to arrive.

“Sanjenis was an opportunistic little man who managed to punch a CIA meal ticket the rest of his life. Along with Frank Sturgis, he was a member of Operation 40, the secret police of the Cuban invasion force. The ultra-secret Operation 40 included some nonpolitical, conservative exile businessmen, but its hard core was made up of informers, assassins-for-hire, and mob henchmen whose sworn goal was to make the counter-revolution safe for the comfortable ways of the old Cuba. They were the elite troops of the old guard within the exile movement, who made effective alliance with CIA right-wingers.” ‘The Love You Make: An Insider’s Story of the Beatles,’ Peter Brown and Steven Gains

The fact that Chapman knew Reagan’s would-be assassin John Hinckley Jr., is also very interesting. The fact that they were both the same age, both from dysfunctional families, and both allegedly fanatical fans of J.D. Salinger’s controversial book, ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is also perhaps significant. And the fact that both Chapman and Hinckley were members of World Vision, an ultra-right-wing ‘Christian’ charity organisation which amongst its other insidious activities, trains military operatives, must be more than a coincidence, surely?

Indeed, the head of World Vision at that time was none other than John Hinckley Sr., who contributed to George H. W. Bush’s political campaigns.

One of the police who arrived on the scene said that Chapman looked like he had been ‘programmed.’ There is little doubt that Chapman pulled the trigger that night, but I believe the policeman was correct and that he had been programmed to do so, to operate in an alternate personality (alter) which could be controlled by the CIA when he did so. His training may well have begun in childhood when he was selected for the MK-ULTRA program as children of banksters and banksters’ stooges often are.

Whilst John Lennon’s assassination had the expected, belated effect upon the American people, it served no useful purpose, politically. In fact, it brought Hinckley out of his drug-related fantasies with a vengeance. He was so upset by Lennon’s assassination that he travelled to New York, and attended a service in Central Park to honour his contributions to music and art. As the debate about who was behind it, and the release of the prisoners in Iran grew, Hinckley increasingly sided with Mae Brussell who explained Lennon’s assassination thus . . . “It was a conspiracy. Reagan had just won the election. They knew what kind of president he was going to be and there was only one man who could bring out a million people on demonstrations in protest at his policies and that was Lennon.”

Under the circumstances, questions about Hinckley’s stability, and allegiances became widespread in official circles. On 13th January 1981, Mae Brussell noticed a white car, with a man and woman sitting inside, parked across the street from her house. As she explained in a 14-page letter to FBI Director Clarence Kelly, she thought that the pair were conducting surveillance on her, and she characteristically confronted them about it. The woman in the car explained that they were not, but the man said nothing. However, after the shooting of Reagan she recognised photographs of his assailant as being the same quiet young man she had seen parked in front of her home.

After the FBI checked out this claim, it concluded conveniently in a memo that she was ‘mentally unstable,’ and ‘not to be taken seriously.’ This is of course one reason why, as with all these highly complex conspiracies that the public can always be counted on to ridicule and dismiss them as ‘looney.’

The Falklands Conflict, 1982

If ever there was a career defining moment in Margaret Thatcher’s reign, correction, tenure as Prime Minister . . . it was the Falklands war.

The popularity of the Argentinian military dictatorship, during which thousands of people were murdered or disappeared, had fallen dramatically in its sixth year, 1982. The succession of power at the top — from General Jorge Videla to General Roberto Viola and General Leopoldo Galtieri had not improved its standing, and many in the government hoped that contesting the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands would be their salvation.

Argentina’s economy was also performing poorly during this time. Unemployment was soaring, gross domestic product (GDP) was shrinking by almost 6% per year and inflation was around 160%.

For a country that almost single-handedly supplied the Allied forces with grain during World War II, this was a major catastrophe. Politically, the junta’s worst nightmare was unfolding. The trade unions were joining forces with ‘Las Madres de Mayo,’ an organization representing relatives of the political and ‘disappeared’ prisoners which meant in effect that the enormous Argentinian middle class was uniting against the government.

The Falkland Islands or Islas Malvinas were always a focus of national unity and returning them to Argentine rule is, even today, an important goal for most Argentinians. Thus the government saw the potential in them as being a primary means of regaining popularity.

The conflict occurred as a result of a series of miscalculations, the first error in judgment being made by the British. In September 1979, an Argentinian businessman, Constantino Davidoff purchased a former whale slaughterhouse in the South Georgia Islands, southeast of the Falklands, from Christian Salvesen, a British businessman from Edinburgh. Davidoff planned to dismantle the slaughterhouse and sell it as scrap metal and asked the British authorities for permission to use the ship, HMS Endurance to transport the scrap metal. However, his request was denied. Two years later, he informed the British Foreign Office of his intentions to again work in the South Georgia Islands, and hinted that he would use an Argentine Navy vessel for transport instead of a British one. Davidoff hired 41 Argentinian workers and left for South Georgia in March 1982, on the Bahia Paraiso Suceso, an Argentinian Navy ship.

Soon after he arrived, some residents of South Georgia complained to the British governor in the Falklands about an Argentinian flag that Davidoff’s workers were displaying near the work site. In response, the Foreign Office sent HMS Endurance to remove the flag and prevent the disembarkation of Argentinian military personnel on the Islands. In reaction, on 23rd March, the Argentinian government sent the Navy transport Bahia Paraiso Suceso to South Georgia in an attempt to occupy them, peacefully.

The Argentine President, General Galtieri, and his high command had been planning an invasion of the Falkland Islands since he became leader of the junta in December 1981 and Galtieri wanted to force a negotiation with the United Kingdom over the sovereignty of the islands and he had strong reasons for using military means to achieve this goal.

As head of the ruling Argentinian junta, Galtieri intended to improve his government’s popularity among the masses and forcing negotiations over the Falklands was a gamble, but it was up to the British to call his bluff. It seems hard to believe that a ‘second-world’ nation such as Argentina could successfully challenge a world power like the United Kingdom but there were several reasons why Argentina was confident that it could deter a British response and force the United Kingdom to recognise Argentinian sovereignty over the islands, without a military confrontation.

However, many people believe that the British totally underestimated Argentinian military power.

At the time, Argentina had a sizeable Navy with surface, air and underwater capabilities. Max Hastings, in The Battle for the Falklands, described its capabilities . . .

“She had at least six ships fitted with Exocet sea-skimming missiles, also the principal surface weapon of the Royal Navy. She had four submarines, two of them formidably difficult to detect with sonar.”

Argentina’s airforce included planes regarded as the finest dogfighters in the world. Both the Mirage and the Super-Etendard were capable of reaching speeds close to Mach 2, which gave them a great advantage over the British vertical/short take-off and landing Harrier GR-3 and its naval version, the Sea-Harrier. Both of these British airplanes were subsonic and, at least on paper, were inferior to the Argentinian fighter planes.

Among other Argentine advantages were its pilots, who were exceptionally well trained. Some had been trained in Israel, and were famous for their bravery. This was confirmed later by the British pilots. Argentina also had a distinct geographic advantage. The Islands were reachable from continental air bases, just 400 miles away, whereas Great Britain was more than 8,000 miles away. That presented a greater logistical and financial burden for Great Britain, which was also suffering from an economic recession at the time.

Although the United States was the UK’s closest ally, Argentina was counting on the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (RIO Treaty,) signed in 1947, to provide it with US support. Given this scenario, it seemed fairly reasonable to assume that the Argentine strategy was sound. Argentina’s original plan was to invade the Falklands and the South Georgia Islands sometime between the months of July and October 1982, for several reasons . . .

To arrive before the 150th anniversary of British seizure of the islands, to be celebrated in March 1983. Argentina hoped to thus avoid an outpouring of British nationalism.
July through October, are the winter months in the Southern Hemisphere, which Argentina hoped would hurt Britain’s ability to respond quickly.
By June, the junta believed, the British government would have retired HMS Endurance, the only military vessel protecting the Islands. The British, as the Argentinians had hoped, misinterpreted the situation, as Max Hastings further wrote . . . “Messages warning of increased Argentine pugnacity sent to the defence ministry by Captain Barker of Endurance, were being discounted as part of his campaign to save his ship from withdrawal.”
And finally, by that time the Argentinian Navy would finally have received a large number of weapons it had previously purchased from France. A military embargo imposed by the Carter administration in 1978, had made Argentina ineligible to renovate and supply its Skyhawks. The French shipment however, would bring more Super-Etendards and air-to-surface AM-39 Exocet missiles.

Unfortunately for Argentina, the chaos of its internal political situation forced it to bring forward its invasion plans. In late March, protests against the government were growing to alarming levels and so they decided to use the skirmish developing between Davidoff’s scrap metal workers and HMS Endurance in South Georgia as an excuse for military intervention. This is evident in the conversation between President Galtieri and Ronald Reagan on the evening before the military invasion. Galtieri said, “Great Britain has threatened Argentine citizens that were legally working in South Georgia and my government duty is to protect them.” But by the time Reagan responded to Galtieri, Argentinian ships were already on their way to the Falklands and the invasion began on 2nd April 1982.

By moving ahead with the invasion months before originally planned, Argentina relinquished its greatest advantage. This precipitation of its plans proved to be Argentina’s worst mistake, and ultimately cost it the war. Without rough, winter weather to deal with, British planes were able to support the disembarkation of troops in the islands and because the British were able to land without hindrance, the 10,000 Argentinian troops had a considerable problem dealing with both land and air attacks.

Argentina’s change in plans also caused their military to overlook several important logistic points. Firstly, the Argentinian armed forces were not prepared for battle. Reserves had not yet been called on duty, new recruits were supposed to start training later that month, and professional personnel had not yet been fully trained for war. Nor was the Argentinian Navy ready to begin the shipment of supplies to the islands. This was a key-point, because Port Stanley airport — the Falklands’ major airfield — was too small to serve as a base for Argentina’s fighter jets. This therefore severely limited the flexibility and scope of operations of the Argentinian Air force since the islands were at the outer range of their reach from their home air bases. That left the planes without enough fuel to sustain the occupation of British planes in dogfights or take advantage of their speed superiority. This was confirmed by the final statistics at the end of the war. The faster, superior Argentine planes had not taken down a single British fighter, however, five Harriers and sea-Harriers were shot down by the effective Argentinian anti-aircraft systems.

Before dawn on the morning of 2nd April 1982, Argentinian commandos took over the barracks of the English marines near Port Stanley in East Falkland and were soon joined by the rest of the invading force. By the end of the day, the Falklands’ British Governor Rex Hunt had surrendered and the commander of the invasion force, Major General Mario Menedez, was named governor of Las Islas Malvinas.

Of course, there is nothing like a war to stir-up the masses into a tidal wave of patriotic fervour, and distract them from the chicaneries of politics, both in Argentina, and Britain — or for that matter, anywhere else . . .

The volcanic swell of flag-waving patriotism, roused by the likes of Rupert Murdoch in his despicable tabloids, ignored all the real issues, the real priorities with which Thatcher’s government should have been concerned.

By 1982, the imposition of Margaret Thatcher’s bankster-decreed policies upon the British public, had already resulted in the privatisation of the nation’s utility companies — both gas and electricity, buses and public transport systems, the partial privatisation of British Aerospace and local governments had been prevented from building new social housing. In addition, urban rioting in Brixton, London, in Toxteth, Liverpool, in Moss Side, Manchester and in St. Paul’s, Bristol was adding to the massive unrest, nationwide. In January 1982, the unemployment figures had exceeded 3 million and Thatcher’s poll ratings were at an all-time low.

And so, similarly to the prevailing mood in Argentina, Thatcher and her government found themselves in position of extreme unpopularity and for much the same reasons as the Argentinian government, decided that war would now fit the bill nicely. An island of 2,000 people and a half-million sheep, 8,000 miles away, was now at the mercy of the Argentinian invaders, who claimed that it was illegally taken from them in 1833!

Of course, the British people were not told about the mineral interests that the Rothschilds were worried about, and even worse, they were not told the real reason for the war. Of course all the ensuing, hypocritical propaganda on both sides of the divide, conveniently failed to mention that the brutal Argentinian junta had been a good friend to the British. Not only did a succession of British governments sell arms to the junta and remain silent about its murderous activities, but they were also quite prepared to settle the disputed question of the Falkland Islands — before the junta invaded. From the point of view of both establishments, the islands themselves were largely irrelevant to the conflict that followed.

The real reason that Britain decided to go to war over the Falklands was not in defence of the rights of a small handful of islanders and nor was it, as many have surmised, the oil and fishing riches of that area. Indeed, only some thirty years after the war, did the British decided to develop the economic potential of the Islands. This fact alone, proves beyond doubt that the real reason for the war was that British Imperialism could not accept the seizure of the Islands by Argentina because it would have undermined its prestige in the eyes of the wider world.

When the Argentinian army captured the Islands, British Imperialism was humiliated before the entire world and the much-publicised photographs of British POWs of the Argentinians, placed a question mark over every treaty signed by Britain with countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. This could never be accepted. Overnight, the attitude of London to the junta changed. They suddenly ‘discovered’ that the regime in Buenos Aires was ‘fascist,’ which of course could not now be tolerated, but only because that suited the purpose of the day. As The Guardian newspaper pointed out . . . “The ‘fact’ that we had traded with the junta, welcomed its leaders, and sold arms to them, but now realised, that it was a filthy dictatorship after all, was all swallowed without a burp.” The Guardian, 25th February 2002

Naturally, the defence of the islanders was not a consideration for the British establishment, despite all their hypocritical propaganda. This was admitted, again by The Guardian . . . “The fact that we had been trying for decades to off-load the islands, with the ardent Thatcherite, Nicholas Ridley presenting a leaseback solution to the House of Commons only two years previously was forgotten.”

The Thatcher government’s overriding concern was the maintenance of the power and prestige of British Crown and bankster-imperialism.

From a military point of view, the British action was a, ‘Boy’s Own’ adventure, which nevertheless could have ended badly, and almost did. Thatcher and her fawning clique were quite prepared to cause the deaths of thousands of young Argentinian conscripts and British soldiers, many of whom were working class kids, and many of whom had joined the army to ‘escape’ from the massive unemployment, caused by Thatcher’s policies in the first place. They showed a cold indifference to the fate of those involved.

Neither the Argentinian nor British people had anything to gain from this conflict. A victory for either side however, would have meant the consolidation of their respective establishments, and all the while, the Falkland Islanders were mere pawns in the imperialist game of ‘cat and mouse.’ Thatcher’s foreign policies were, as those at home, designed only to satisfy the interests of British capitalism. This was not, as they claimed, a war of democracy versus ‘fascism,’ but a war to defend the power and prestige of the British bankster elite.

The filth emanating from the bankster-controlled gutter press and into the sewer, sank to all-time lows during the Falklands War. Newspapers such as The Sun used disgusting, anti-Argentinian demagogy, verging on overt racism in an attempt to whip-up a jingoistic mood of nationalism and with their customary cunning, the government appealed to the natural sympathies of the workers towards their brothers in the armed forces, and the Falkland islanders. Despite this however, there was no great enthusiasm for the war among the ordinary British people and the prevailing attitude was one of reluctant acquiescence, no doubt brought about by the severe trauma already wrought by two years of Thatcher’s insidious policies.

Alexander Haig, the US Secretary of State, briefly headed a ‘shuttle’ diplomacy mission before President Reagan declared US support for Britain and instituted sanctions against Argentina. The support of the US was far from assured however and was reportedly the result of urging by Caspar Weinberger, who encouraged Reagan to support the UK. Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over a “bunch of icy rocks.” The US also provided anti-aircraft missiles (although obsolete) and, so Weinberger later claimed, would have also lent an aircraft carrier, although this was not public knowledge at the time.

The British Royal Navy barely had enough warships to prosecute the Falklands War. Two cruise liners were requisitioned by the government to serve as troopships, the Queen Elizabeth 2 from the Cunard Line and the SS Canberra from the P & O Line.

A controversial victim of the war as the Argentinian Navy cruiser, the ARA General Belgrano which was sunk by a British submarine during the Falklands War as she sailed away from the conflict zone. 321 people died, many of whom were young sea cadets. On 26th April 1982, the General Belgrano, accompanied by two destroyers, left the port of Ushuaia in southern Argentina and on the 30th April the ship was detected by the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror which gradually closed over the next day. On 2nd May, HMS Conqueror fired three torpedoes, two of which hit the Belgrano and with the ship badly holed, with no electrical power, and unable to pump water, the Belgrano soon began to list to port and sink by the head. The Captain therefore ordered the crew to abandon ship using its seventy rubber dinghies.

Tragically, the Belgrano’s two escort vessels were unaware of the attack and continued on a westward course. By the time that the escorts realised something was amiss with the Belgrano, it was already dark, the weather had worsened, and the Belgrano’s life rafts had been scattered. Consequently, even though Argentinian and Chilean ships did eventually rescue 770 men over the next two days, 321 members of the Belgrano’s crew died. In early editions of Murdoch’s Sun newspaper on Tuesday 4th May 1982, the infamous headline appeared . . . “GOTCHA: Our lads sink gunboat and ‘hole’ cruiser.”

When news began to emerge that the Belgrano had indeed been sunk, with a large number of casualties, later editions of the Sun led with the more sombre headline “Did 1,200 Argies drown.” The sinking of the Belgrano became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners in Britain. This was for a variety of reasons, including the ship being well outside the 200 mile ‘Total Exclusion Zone’ that the British had declared around the Falklands, because the ship was on a westerly heading at the time it was attacked, and because a Peruvian peace proposal was still on the table at the time of the attack. But was the sinking of the Belgrano, justifiable under international law?

Since that fateful incident, the sinking has been regarded as the most controversial event of the Falklands War. In the eyes of so many critics, the action was seen as a ‘war crime,’ a disgraceful act of provocation by Thatcher, designed to escalate the conflict. During a BBC interview, Thatcher was famously grilled by Diana Gould, a 56-year-old teacher, who accused her of ‘sabotaging any possibility of any peace plan succeeding,’ but as was always her style, she vehemently denied the charge, and stressed that she was “proud” of giving the order.

However, the attack had an added bonus for the British, in that it utterly demoralised the Argentinian Navy, whose surface warships, including its aircraft carrier, did not venture more than a few miles away from Argentina’s coastline for the rest of the duration of the conflict.

But whereas, the decades old controversy was later confined to the possibility of the sinking of the Belgrano constituting a war crime, the real issue is, that both Britain and Argentina, committed a much bigger war crime by fabricating the unnecessary war in the first place.

From this point onwards, the war swung dramatically in favour of the British and by the 14th June 1982, they were able to reclaim the Falklands for Thatcher. It was all over.

Statistically, the 74 day Falklands War cost Argentina 649 dead (half of which were from the Belgrano,) and 1,700 wounded whilst Britain, suffered 255 dead and 775 wounded. Of course, these figures do not reflect the subsequent deaths from injuries or suicides. As their ‘reward,’ the Falklands Islanders were allowed to become full British citizens, or subjects and the junta soon collapsed after the war, and Argentina became ‘democratic.’ However, the conflict left behind 25,000 land mines for the islanders to remember it by.

In all, the Falklands/British prestige ego-trip, cost the British taxpayers £1.6bn, reversed Margaret Thatcher’s disastrous standing in the polls, and ensured that the Iron Lady was re-elected in 1983, in a landslide. Who said war and violence does not pay?

Thatcher’s second term as PM saw Britain’s economy boom . . . but the prosperity for the rich had been ‘paid for’ by millions of working men and woman and the result of this was that 1980s Britain under Thatcher was bitterly divided. While champagne corks popped in the ‘City,’ the unions were battered by her assault on organised labour and in the spectacular stock-market boom of the late 80s, Britain’s rich became even richer. More than half of all the tax concessions effected during Thatcher’s 11 years in office went to the top-earning 10%. In addition, her government passed plenty of legislation, destroying hundreds of years of labour ‘safeguards,’ slowly accrued with the blood, sweat and tears of the ‘workers’ and brought untold riches to the new financial over-class of City stockbrokers, bankers and financial ‘wizards’ in the wake of “selling-off the family silver,” as former Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, described her actions. Many state-owned utilities such as British Gas and British Telecom, British Shipbuilding, Associated British Ports, British Leyland and others, were ‘sold’ to Thatcher’s rich pals, all at bargain-basement prices.

Some City whizz-kids, nicknamed ‘yuppies,’ an acronym for ‘Young Upwardly-mobile Professionals,’ were making more in a month than most people did in an entire lifetime previously, by merely strategically moving the banksters’ non-existent money around the globe, contributing nothing to the economy, or to the nation’s general standard of living, apart from their dubious ability to play financial computer games. And all the while, government-backed ad campaigns lured ordinary folk with promises of ‘easy money’ by urging them to become shareholders in the newly privatised companies and gamble their life-savings on the stock market roller-coaster.

After her landslide back to office, Thatcher then had the mandate and the opportunity to rid the country of the power of the trade unions, thereby leaving British workers exposed to exploitation, and destroying whole industries. She cared nothing at all for the lives of those of the lower strata of society and their families, her only concern was maximising the profits and lining the already considerable wallets of her upper-class friends, at whatever detriment to all else.

She began cautiously at first, winning some minor skirmishes with unions. In 1982, both the NHS (National Health Service) and the railway workers lost out after lengthy strikes and it seemed, for a time, as if some of the other unions were scared of confrontation with her. The National Union of Mineworkers, three times rejected the calls of its new President, Arthur Scargill to strike, and British Leyland workers also voted to accept a derisory pay increase that their leaders wanted to reject.

But in 1984, the gloves came off. Thatcher’s government had secretly built-up large stocks of coal reserves at power stations around the country and had also converted as many as possible of them, to oil. Fleets of trucks were put on standby in preparation for moving coal if the railway workers came out on strike in sympathy with the miners. The strike was however, eventually precipitated by the appointment of Ian McGregor, a hardliner who had been head of British Steel and who had a track record in the US of beating a two-year mineworkers’ strike. To stem £250m-a-year losses, he proposed closing mines in Yorkshire, Scotland and South Wales. Conflict was inevitable.

Yorkshire, Scotland and the Kent coalfields were all solidly in favour of strike action but when union boss, Scargill called for an all-out strike, he set miner against miner, village against village, father against son and brother against brother and what followed next was truly appalling. Police were recruited in huge numbers from forces across the UK and there were pitched battles between them and the striking miners. It was almost civil war, although thankfully no shots were fired, it was just a bloody, attritional fight for superiority using batons, sticks and stones. The worst of the fighting took place at Orgreave, near Sheffield, where 5,000 pickets tried to stop coke being moved from the coking works there. Even greater numbers of police, many on horseback, battled with the pickets daily for over three weeks and on the first day alone, 104 police officers and 28 pickets were injured. By the end, several hundred, including Scargill, had been arrested.

Newspapers and television showed picture after picture of battered and injured men. Miners’ wives, in the meantime, set-up soup kitchens and appeals were launched nationally for food to feed their children. Tony Benn, MP said at the time . . . “They were skilled and courageous men who had built the prosperity of Britain. They were treated like criminals by Thatcher, and they were right economically as well. It’s a story that will never be forgotten.”

And Dennis Skinner, Labour MP for Bolsover, said . . . “It was an honourable dispute. It was the only strike I can recall that wasn’t about pay, but was about saving jobs for other people.”

Whilst there was widespread sympathy for the miners, Scargill himself attracted hostility. He soon acquired a reputation for being an unreasonable, intransigent bully. Of course, the media seized on this opportunity to turn the strike into a ‘personality’ contest, comparing and contrasting Thatcher’s cool and assured leadership with Scargill’s ‘ranting madman’ image that he had acquired. And with Scargill marginalised and his men becoming increasingly isolated by the deliberate, media-generated public opinion, Thatcher knew she would win. There was enough coal at the power stations to generate electricity for the next two years and she was confident that the NUM would have broken long before then. Although other unions expressed support, few did anything to actively help the strike practically, and of course the Government treated their pay claims leniently, in order to keep them ‘on-side.’

By the end of October 1985, a year after the strike had begun, the miners started to drift back to work. It had become all too clear that the Government could sit-out the winter, and the miners were given ‘deferred bonuses’ for returning to work. But it was not until the following March, that the union finally ordered the remainder of its men back to the mines. Thatcher had prolonged the strike by both her unwillingness to compromise and the knowledge that time was on her side.

And, like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher had also been very lucky, when she got her early morning alarm call on the 12th October 1984 . . .

In the United Kingdom, the major political parties have an ‘annual conference,’ attended by all of its Members of Parliament and many other delegates from all the local party branches from around the nation. In 1984, the Conservative party chose Brighton as its conference venue. Located on the south coast of England, directly facing France, it is a popular holiday resort with a mild climate, only an hour or two from London, at very most.

The Grand Hotel in Brighton is (still) one of the largest hotels in the town and on the 19th September a so-called ‘Irish terrorist,’ Patrick Magee, booked into room 629, using a false name. Somehow, without staff noticing, he managed to tear down a wall in the bathroom and plant 30lbs (13kg) of gelignite in the wall cavity, before rebuilding it and leaving it ‘as new.’ Thatcher returned to her room about 11.00 pm, around 3 weeks later, in order to finish the speech that she was to deliver the next day at the conference but at 2.54 am that next morning, while still working on her speech, the bomb exploded. The bathroom was wrecked but as Thatcher was in her room, she survived without injury. However, five other conference attendees were killed.

The Grand Hotel, Brighton after the explosion

As was the case with the Falklands conflict, there were major disagreements between Thatcher and Reagan. In 1983, when Thatcher allowed the US bombing of Libya to take place from British air bases, it was on the proviso that Reagan stopped the US funding, both from CIA and public support, to the IRA. However the Americans broke this agreement soon afterwards, but there is so much more to this than meets the eye.

The British public were appalled by the Brighton bombing incident, as they had been with Mountbatten’s assassination five years earlier, along with so many other atrocities that were attributed to the IRA. But this induced horror would be as nothing compared with what they would have thought had they only known that the IRA was not just heavily infiltrated by the British Security Services, it was also controlled by them too.

The IRA was not just used as a political pawn in the banksters’ long-game, it was also a very convenient and believable ‘scapegoat’ that MI-5, MI-6 and the CIA, could use to take the blame for anything, including assassinations, as in Mountbatten’s case. If only the general public would just wake-up to what is really going on in the world.

On the 8th June 1982, Ronald Reagan informed the British Parliament that, “ . . . the march of freedom and democracy . . . will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history.” Thus the banksters were beginning their preparations for the end of communism.

The United States at this time, was in the midst of its worst economic recession since the Great Depression and for the first time since the 1930s, the ‘official’ unemployment rate exceeded 10%. Of course, as we all know, the true unemployment rate is always higher than that reported, as is also the rate of inflation. By stark contrast, Reagan’s approval ratings had also fallen to an all-time low of 35%.

From what we have already seen about how these banksters operate, I am sure you can just imagine them laughing heartily, over the fact that whilst the First Lady, Nancy Reagan was crusading for her ‘Just Say No’ to drugs campaign, her husband and good friend of the Zionist drug-pushing mafia, commander in-chief of the US military and the CIA, was allowing those self-same drugs to finance covert wars. This was the age-old bankster ‘Hegelian dialectic’ of opposing forces creating a ‘synthesis,’ an opportunity for them to further their agenda. On the one hand, there were the world’s largest drug dealers, the CIA, importing the drugs by the plane/ship-load and on the other, the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) was allegedly ‘trying’ to stop them.

Nancy, presumably with all good intentions, started ‘Just Say No,’ in 1982 and two years later, Los Angeles police chief Darryl Gates started the DARE programme which went global, with thousands of decent, dedicated youth volunteers, social workers, educators, doctors and police, trying their hardest to fight the plague of illegal drugs which their very own governments were controlling, and profiting from.

Under Reagan, the US not only increased its involvement in the Middle East by supplying arms to both Iraq and Iran in their war against each other, but also stepped up its involvement in conflicts around the world, especially South America.

The ‘War on Drugs,’ really began with Richard Nixon and his attack on marijuana, but Reagan became known as the ‘Just Say No’ President for his campaign against recreational drugs in America and his policy of international drug eradication. At a time when Americans were being presented with strong anti-drug propaganda, the CIA was in fact the largest narcotics smuggling ring in the United States. It was in fact Reagan’s policies that led to the co-operation between the CIA and the Contras. The Contras were a counter-revolutionary group that was fighting against the Sandinistas in an attempt to return the corrupt Somoza regime to power in Nicaragua.

The real truth was though, that the ‘War on Drugs’ was more about international politics and control than about concern for the health of Americans. Drugs had been a major factor in the funding of revolutions for centuries, simply because they are a ‘scarce’ commodity and therefore a very highly profitable product that could be grown by even the most primitive people, and thus are very difficult to control. In fact the American Revolution had also been funded by drugs, in a sense. The main ‘drug’ being tobacco, but opium played a role too. Tobacco was regulated by the King of England not only for health reasons, but also because he knew that it was funding American colonial ‘terrorism.’ America was also able to pay for French support in the war against England largely through tobacco money and at the time, the American Revolution was also known as ‘The Tobacco War’ and the area of Massachusetts Bay was known as ‘The Tobacco Coast.’

Likewise, opium and cocaine have also funded many wars and revolutions over the past few centuries. In fact through history, a common strategy to raise large amounts of money was to sell drugs to their local population. This was done by the British from the 1600s through the 1800s, selling not only to their own citizens, but to all of the people of the British Empire, plus perhaps the most famous example, China, in what became known as the ‘Opium Wars.’ It is estimated that the opium trade was the largest single source of revenue for the British Crown during this time and was one of the major enablers of British Imperialism. In addition, during WWII, the Japanese began large-scale opium production and sales, selling both to their own people and to the occupied Chinese. This opium trade raised significant amounts of money which funded the Japanese military.

The reason that the Reagan administration began the so-called ‘War on Drugs,’ was to cut-off the money supply to revolutionary groups in South America, the Middle East, and Asia that were using drug money to fund wars for national independence from foreign occupation forces. The US was also able to selectively apply pressure to various regimes under the guise of the ‘War on Drugs,’ which is simply one more way that elements of the US government have been able to fund military action against foreign governments who refuse to allow or promote American (bankster) interests on their shores.

The man who always stood for ‘Law and Order’ in the movies, the simple-minded, anti-communist crusader himself, Ronald Reagan, was the first American president to place ‘terrorism’ at the heart of his foreign policy discourse. During his first term, Reagan did so mostly in reference to conflicts in Central America. In Nicaragua, US policy followed the covert route, namely the provision of military aid to various anti-Sandinista groups collectively known as the Contras. Revelations in the press rapidly dragged Reagan’s ‘secret war’ from the shadows and led many in Congress to question the programme’s morality and legality. The Executive branch systematically met such inquiries with claims of secrecy.

While Reagan was preaching freedom around the world, at home he was escalating a war on his own people better known as the failed ‘war on drugs.’ And while American youth was ‘just saying no’ the banksters were in league with Iran, Manuel Noriega, the Medellin Cocaine Cartel in Colombia, mercenaries, arms smugglers, drug smugglers, rogue CIA agents, the Contras, crack dealers, and just about every other nefarious individual or groups that one can imagine. The tactic was to allow the drugs to be imported and then have law enforcement arrest the users.

On the morning of 10th December 2004, the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Gary Webb, was found dead in his modest, California home. Webb allegedly died from two ‘self-inflicted’ gunshot wounds to the head from a .38 calibre pistol. The coroner hastily ruled Webb’s death a suicide, with his now infamous pronouncement . . . “It is unusual in a suicide case to have two shots, but it has been done in the past, and it is in fact a distinct possibility.” However there was little doubt in most people’s minds that Gary Webb was murdered.

But Webb’s ‘suicide’ was the tragic end of a man whose livelihood and reputation were destroyed by a phalanx of major newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, all serving as protectors of a corrupt power structure rather than as sources of honest information as is their mandate.

Webb’s important whistle-blowing role began in 1996, when his ‘Dark Alliance’ investigative series for the San Jose Mercury News revived public interest in the CIA’s tolerance of cocaine trafficking by President Reagan’s beloved Nicaraguan contra rebels in the 1980s, and at a time when Reagan was promoting his ‘just say no / zero tolerance / war on drugs.’

Though substantial evidence of the contra crimes had surfaced in the mid-1980s (initially in an article that Robert Parry and Brian Barger had written for Associated Press in December 1985 and later at hearings conducted by Senator John Kerry,) the major news outlets had refused to take the disclosures seriously. For instance, reflecting the dominant attitude toward Kerry and his work on the contra-cocaine scandal, Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a ‘randy conspiracy buff.’

This of course was the younger, more idealistic Kerry, not the compliant, bankster-manipulated puppet he has now become. In the spring of 1986, he assigned staffers to investigate whether the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua were involved in drug trafficking and gunrunning. Kerry’s inquiry stumbled into Oliver North’s still-secret contra support network, and for several years Kerry pursued the cocaine-Contra angle. It was a lonely task. The investigators of the House-Senate Iran/contra committee kept clear of the Contra-drugs business.

“Kerry took crap from everybody. The White House was telling the press our witnesses were full of shit, the story was crazy. There were Democrats in the Senate, like Sam Nunn, looking at us like we were nuts. And he kept going. Did he enjoy it? No. He was frustrated that so much of our work was written-off by the Senate and much of the press.” Jack Blum, head of the Senate investigation

After three years of investigation and several hearings that discomfited the CIA, Kerry produced a report that stated that . . . “It is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking . . . and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers.” And the report also indicated that the CIA had been aware of this.

Kerry’s findings actually provoked little reaction in the media or from Washington. Almost a decade later, the CIA inspector general released a study confirming these conclusions. But the Contra investigation led Kerry into other stinking cesspits of corruption. He discovered that the US government had withheld information regarding the crimes of Manuel Noriega, the puppet dictator of Panama. The Noriega investigation also led Kerry to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI,) a $23bn institution used by money launderers, arms merchants, drug dealers, terrorists and spy services, including the CIA.

BCCI was also the primary conduit for CIA funds to the Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan. As the first Third World multinational bank, it had been created in 1972 by Pakistani banker, Agha Hasan Abedi, and initially funded by Sheik Zayed of Abu Dhabi, in anticipation of the petro-dollar bonanza of the oil crisis.

“BCCI had been built from oil, from the enormous wealth that flowed into the Middle East after the huge OPEC oil price increases of the 1970s. Although Abedi could not claim full credit for it, the timing of BCCI’s launch was nothing short of miraculous.” ‘The Outlaw Bank,’ Beatty and Gwynne

One of BCCI’s early moves to gain legitimacy was its purchase in 1976 of 85% of the Banque de Commerce et Placements of Geneva, Switzerland. After taking-over the bank, BCCI installed Alfred Hartmann as manager. Hartmann then became the chief financial officer for BCC Holding, and thus one of BCCI’s most influential directors. He of course maintained strong connections to the Rothschilds, being president of Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich. Hartmann was also vice-chairman of NY-Inter-Maritime Bank of Geneva, run by the Mossad operative, Bruce Rappaport, who was also on the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons in London. Though BCCI was created by a Pakistani, it was ultimately a British-based and British-controlled bank.

BCCI was initially incorporated in Luxembourg, famous for its lax banking restrictions, and soon branches and holding companies appeared in the Cayman Islands, the Netherlands Antilles, Hong Kong, Abu Dhabi, Washington DC and just about everywhere else. However, by 1980, when the BCCI finally applied for and received a licence from the Bank of England, there were already more branches in the UK than in any other nation. In fact, one of BCCI’s primary economics advisors was the former British Prime Minister, Lord James (Jim) Callaghan.

‘Black funds’ for the CIA were laundered through BCCI for the Contra war, the Iranian-Israeli payoffs, and the covert wars in Afghanistan and Angola. Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey had wanted to establish an offshore entity capable of conducting covert operations that was ‘stand-alone,’ financially independent, and free from congressional oversight. BCCI was the solution.

The CIA assistant director, Robert Gates, once referred to BCCI jokingly as the “Bank of Crooks and Criminals.” It quickly became the ‘bank of choice’ for discerning Middle Eastern terrorists, arms and drug runners, South American drug cartels, organised crime barons, and intelligence services such as the ISI, Mossad, MI-6 and the CIA. A branch was set up in Panama, for the cash that Manuel Noriega was funneling out of his country. Noriega, who was a long-standing US intelligence asset, was also an informant for the Mossad. He had undergone military and intelligence training in Israel, and similar to Uganda’s dictator, Idi Amin, wore his Israeli paratrooper wings on his uniform for years afterward. On one of his visits to Israel, in the 1980s, Noriega bought a seaside villa in the Tel Aviv suburb of Herzliya. In Panama, his children attended the Jewish community’s prestigious Alberto Einstein day school and even spent time in an Israeli kibbutz, during one summer.

Noriega’s ‘handler’ was Michael Harari, a Mossad intelligence agent. When Harari finished directing Mossad death squads against the PLO in the early 1970s, he was transferred to Central and South America. Harari supervised what became known as the ‘Harari Network,’ set up in 1982 by the Reagan administration and the Israeli government, to run a secret aid program for the Nicaraguan Contras. Operating out of Mexico, Panama, and Florida, the network integrated his operations with the emerging cocaine trade, particularly those of Colombia’s Medellin and Cali cocaine cartels, and shipped guns to the Contras and smuggled cocaine from Colombia to the US via Panama. It was the CIA that had set up the meetings in which various Colombian drug dealers organised into a drug trafficking Medellin cartel in 1981, and permitted it to deal with a group rather than many independent drug dealers.

Harari had been based in Panama since 1973, where he knew both Omar Torrijos, who was killed in a highly-suspicious 1981 plane crash, and his successor, Noriega. Harari knew Noriega particularly well because, during the period Noriega was working as Torrijos’ intelligence chief, and moonlighting as a $200,000 a year informant for the CIA, he was also an informant for Israel’s Mossad.

Although critics say that the US ‘bought and paid for’ Noriega, he was also an Israeli creation and a great admirer of the ruthless ‘Israeli way,’ as was the utterly deranged Idi Amin, the most brutal despot in 20th Century African history. Indeed it was Harari who reorganised, renamed and trained the Panamanian Defence Forces when Noriega succeeded Torrijos and had also instructed Noriega’s personal bodyguard and his ‘Special Anti-Terror Unit.’ Harari obtained advanced technical equipment and weapons for them, and there is no doubt he taught them how to anticipate and neutralise many of the attempts to monitor Noriega’s activities launched by American intelligence officers from their bases in the Canal Zone.

In his book, ‘Defrauding America: Encyclopedia of Secret Operations by the CIA, DEA and Other Covert Agencies,’ Rodney Stich reported a conversation recorded by one of his informants, Gene Tatum, a helicopter pilot for the US Army and the CIA, where Harari explained to him . . . “What we do has nothing to do with preserving a country’s integrity. It’s just business and third world countries see their destiny as defeating borders and expanding. The more of this mentality we can produce the greater our wealth. We train and we arm: that’s our job. And in return we get a product far more valuable than the money for a gun. We’re paid with product and we credit top dollar for product [i.e., drugs]. Look, one gun and 3,000 rounds of ammo is $1,200. A kilo of product [cocaine] is about $1,000. We credit the Contras $1,500 for every kilo. That’s top dollar for a kilo of cocaine. On our side we spend $1,200 for a kilo and sell it for $12,000 to $15,000. Now that’s a profit centre. And the market is much greater for the product than for weapons. It’s just good business sense. Understand?”

The more ‘conventional’ departments of BCCI handled such services as laundering money for the drug trade and helping dictators loot their national treasuries. BCCI also operated a clandestine division of the bank known as the ‘black network,’ which functioned as a global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad. The black network used sophisticated spy equipment and techniques, along with bribery, extortion, kidnapping, prostitution, and even assassination.

According to an international arms dealer, who frequently worked with the black network . . . “BCCI was a full-service bank. They not only financed arms deals that one government or another wanted to keep secret, they shipped the goods in their own ships, insured them with their own agency and provided manpower and security. They worked with intelligence agencies from all the Western countries and did a lot of business with East bloc countries.”

The complexities of the Iran-Contra operation, and the arming of the fundamentalist Islamic Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, were orchestrated by William Casey, then director of the CIA. Known as ‘off-the-shelf,’ meaning unaccountable and invisible, Casey’s operations involved arms being traded with the Contras for cocaine, and profits from its sale to street gangs in Los Angeles, funds which were then used for various covert, CIA campaigns.

This is exactly what the investigative journalist, Gary Webb had discovered. He had unearthed evidence that one Contra-connected drug conduit had funnelled cocaine into Los Angeles, where it helped fuel the crack epidemic. Unlike the AP stories a decade earlier, which focussed on the Contras assistance in shipping cocaine from Central America into the United States, Webb said that his series would examine what happened to the Contra cocaine after it reached the streets of Los Angeles and other cities.

Webb had contacted the AP journalist Robert Parry asking about his recollections of the Contras and their cocaine smuggling, and wanting to know why the scandal never gained any real traction in the US national news media.

“I explained that the ugly facts of the drug trafficking ran up against a determined US government campaign to protect the Contras’ image. In the face of that resistance, I said, the major publications, the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, had chosen to attack the revelations and those behind them rather than to dig up more evidence.

Webb sounded confused by my account, as if I were telling him something that was foreign to his personal experience, something that just didn’t compute. I had a sense of his unstated questions: Why would the prestige newspapers of American journalism behave that way? Why wouldn’t they jump all over a story that important and that sexy, about the CIA working with drug traffickers? I took a deep breath, sensing that he had no idea of the personal danger he was about to confront. Well, he would have to learn that for himself. I thought, it surely wasn’t my place to warn a journalist away from a significant story just because it carried risks.

So, I simply asked Webb if he had the strong support of his editors. He assured me that he did. I said their backing would be crucial once his story was out. He sounded perplexed, again, as if he didn’t know what to make of my cautionary tone. I wished him the best of luck, thinking that he would need it. When I hung up, I wasn’t sure that the Mercury News would really press ahead with the story, considering how the big national news outlets had dismissed and ridiculed the notion that President Reagan’s beloved Contras had included a large number of drug traffickers.

It never seemed to matter how much evidence there was. It was much easier, and safer, career-wise for Washington journalists to reject incriminating testimony against the Contras, especially when it came from other drug traffickers and from disgruntled Contras. Even US law-enforcement officials who discovered evidence, were disparaged as overzealous and congressional investigators were painted as partisan.

In 1985, as we were preparing our first AP story on this topic, Barger and I knew that the evidence of Contra-cocaine involvement was overwhelming. We had a broad range of sources both inside the Contra movement and within the US government, people with no apparent axe to grind, who had described the cocaine-smuggling problem. One source was a field agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); another was a senior official on Reagan’s National Security Council (NSC) who told me that he had read a CIA report about how a Contra unit based in Costa Rica had used cocaine profits to buy a helicopter.

However, after our AP story was published in December 1985, we came under attack from the right-wing Washington Times. That was followed by dismissive stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post. The notion that the Contras, whom President Reagan had likened to America’s Founding Fathers, could be implicated in the drug trade was simply unthinkable. Yet, it was always odd to me that many of the same newspapers had no problem accepting the fact that the CIA-backed Afghan mujahedeen were involved in the heroin trade, but bristled at the thought that the CIA-backed Nicaraguan Contras might be cut from the same cloth. A key difference, which I learned both from personal experience and from documents that surfaced during the Iran-Contra scandal, was that Reagan had assigned a young group of ambitious Zionist intellectuals such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan to oversee the Contra war.” Robert Parry

These neocon-Zionists worked with anti-communists from the Cuban-American community, such as Otto Reich, and CIA propagandists, such as Walter Raymond Jr., to aggressively protect the Contras’ image and the Contras were always on the edge between receiving congressional funding and having it completely cut-off. So, that combination, the propaganda skills of Reagan’s Contra-support team and the fragile consensus for continuing Reagan’s pet Contra war, meant that any negative publicity about the Contras would be met with a fierce counter-attack.

When Webb’s Dark Alliance series finally appeared in late August 1996, it initially drew little attention. The major national news outlets applied their usual studied indifference to a topic that they had already judged unworthy of serious attention. It was also clear that the media careerists who had ascended the corporate ladder by accepting the conventional wisdom that the Contra-cocaine story was a looney ‘conspiracy theory,’ were unwilling to admit that they had contributed to a major journalistic failure to inform and protect the American public.

But Webb’s story eventually proved difficult to ignore. Webb’s series was not simply a story of drug traffickers in Central America and their protectors in Washington. It was also about the consequences, inside the United States, of that drug trafficking, and how the lives of Americans were blighted or destroyed as the collateral damage of a US foreign policy initiative. In other words, there were real-life American victims, and they were concentrated in African-American communities. This meant that the ever-sensitive issue of race had been injected into the controversy. Anger from black communities spread quickly to the Congressional Black Caucus, which demanded answers.

Also, the San Jose Mercury News, which was the local newspaper for Silicon Valley, had posted documents and audios on its state-of-the-art Internet site so that its readers could examine much of the documentary support for the series. A further effect of it was that the traditional ‘gatekeeper’ role of the bankster-owned and run, mainstream media newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, was under assault. If a regional paper like the Mercury News could finance a major journalistic investigation like this one, and circumvent the judgments of the editorial boards at the major media outlets, then this may result in a massive shift in the power structure within the American news media. There could even, God forbid, have been a breakdown of the established order.

This combination of factors led to the next phase of the Contra-cocaine battle the vitriolic counter-attack on Gary Webb. The first major attack on Webb and his ‘Dark Alliance’ series did not come from the expected direction, but from the rapidly expanding right-wing news media, which was in no mood to accept the notion that Reagan’s beloved Contras were drug traffickers. That would have cast a shadow over the Reagan Legacy, which the Right was elevating to near-mythical status.

It was the right-wing Washington Times that began the anti-Webb vendetta. Sun Myung Moon, the owner, a South Korean theocrat, the self-styled ‘new Messiah,’ had founded his newspaper in 1982, partly to protect Ronald Reagan’s political flanks and partly to ensure that he had powerful friends in high places. But to refute Webb’s contentions, the Washington Times turned to some ex-CIA officials, who had participated in the Contra war, and quoted them as completely denying the story and this soon led to the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times lining-up behind the Washington Times to character-assassinate Webb and vehemently refute his articles.

The large, powerful newspapers made much of the CIA’s internal reviews in 1987 and 1988, almost a decade earlier that had supposedly cleared the agency of any role in Contra-cocaine smuggling. But the CIA’s cover-up began to weaken when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only twelve days, and the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review. The ‘Big Three’s’ assault on Webb and his work, had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury News. As it transpired, Webb’s confidence in his editor’s support had been misplaced. By early 1997, the executive editor Jerry Ceppos, who had his own career to worry about, was in denial.

In May 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying that the series “ . . . fell short of my standards.” He criticised the stories because they “strongly implied CIA knowledge” of Contra connections to US drug dealers who were manufacturing crack cocaine. “We did not have enough proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship,” Ceppos wrote. Ceppos’ last resort, the only possible career-saving move, now open to him, was to denounce Webb and his journalism, in the process also re-assigning Webb to a small ‘backwater’ in California, far from his family base. Webb predictably resigned from the paper in disgust, which was probably Ceppos’ goal, all along.

By contrast, as a reward for neutralising Webb, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national Ethics in Journalism Award by the Society of Professional Journalists. Oh, the irony, but a bankster reward no doubt.

From that moment, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage disintegrate but nevertheless, he had now instigated internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan administration had conducted the Contra war. In 2000, the House Intelligence Committee grudgingly acknowledged that the stories about Reagan’s CIA protecting Contra drug traffickers were true. The committee released a report citing classified testimony from CIA Inspector General Britt Snider admitting that the spy agency had turned a ‘blind eye’ to evidence of Contra-drug smuggling and generally treated drug smuggling through Central America as a ‘low priority.’

As would be expected, the bankster-controlled press barely mentioned the House Intelligence Committee’s findings, and certainly did not mention that Gary Webb was right all along, that he was accurate and truthful in what he wrote. Unfortunately, Webb never could overcome the pain caused by his betrayal at the hands of his journalistic colleagues and his peers. In the years that followed, Webb was unable to find gainful employment in his chosen profession, the conventional wisdom somehow remained that he had been exposed as a journalistic fraud.

But Webb, despite all that had happened to him was not the type to give up without a fight, and the banksters knew it. Knowing how the banksters operate, knowing how they just ‘love’ whistle-blowers, Gary Webb’s death, more resembled ‘suicided,’ than suicide. Webb had more powerful and sinister enemies than just the press, as evidenced by his telling one of his primary sources, drug dealer, Ricky Ross, who said that Gary had received death threats and had complained of recent break-ins by government agents. Allegedly he was already involved in working on a new story about the CIA and drug trafficking.

But to add insult to injury, the same corrupt bankster/CIA press that had ridiculed, smeared, and tried to break the courageous truth-seeking journalist, could not even resist spitting on both his grave, and his memory, by giving Webb a ‘character assassination’ obituary, as if to say, here lies Gary Webb, who was crazy enough to think that he could write what he wanted. Of course, the freedom of the press, if it ever truly existed was long gone, even in 1880, when prominent New York journalist John Swinton made his famous speech.

But a century later, whilst Reagan and Thatcher were at the height of their respective powers, and as if by magic, as though you may actually believe it really was ‘their’ idea, the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, began the process of ending the Cold War. Gorbachev also began the reform of the failed Soviet system. Although the end of communism and Soviet tyranny were desirable, Gorbachev’s liberalisation programs of ‘Perestroika’ and ‘Glasnost’ had little to do with the love of liberty or free-market economics.

As Margaret Thatcher stated, “I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together.” But again, in order to believe that, you would have to believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, that the moon is made of green cheese and that mere Prime Ministers, Presidents, Popes and politicians, decide these things. No, it was simply a case of, the banksters deciding that their four decade-old, untold trillions of dollars, untold hundreds of thousands of lives, East vs. West Cold War, had served its purpose, run its course and should now be gracefully wound-down.

Unlike previous Russian leaders who were Soviet supremacists, Gorbachev was a total bankster-owned globalist. Soviet Communism had served its historical, Hegelian dialectic purpose. Now, instead of Moscow plotting to rule the world, Gorbachev had been instructed to deliver the USSR to the London-New York based communist-socialist masters of the New World Order. In a 1988 United Nations speech, Gorbachev leaving no doubt whatsoever about the prevailing intentions, spoke in clear Globalist-code . . .

“Global progress is possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards the New World Order.”

As a result of ‘his’ radical volta-face, Gorbachev was feted by the fawning western media and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 — the reward for many a bankster stooge down the years.

The anti-Communist crusader and now ageing Ronald Reagan, was however, completely ignorant of the bigger picture . . .

The old, hard-line Stalinist supremacists in Russia still had not figured out who the ‘real’ bosses of the Global Game really were. They still opposed the West, but it was too late by this time to save their evil, failed system. Gorbachev and his ‘reformers’ assumed complete control of the soon-to-be dismantled USSR.

And George H. W. (bankster) Bush, also rises . . .

Chapter 20

Bush-whacked! Evil Personified

On 20th January 1989, George H. W. Bush was inaugurated as the 41st President of the United States. In his inaugural address, he called for a “kinder, gentler America,” which many saw as a radical departure from the Reagan agenda. But as we have already discovered, there was/is nothing whatsoever, either ‘kind’ or ‘gentle’ about George Herbert Walker Bush, or any of his criminal family. He was indeed personally responsible for millions of deaths during his years of ‘office.’

From the Bay of Pigs incident, and the JFK assassination, to the CIA drugs-dealings, the CIA arms-dealings, the CIA money-laundering deals, and a thousand other dubious, highly suspect transactions, Bush was always close to the ‘money,’ and even closer to his bankster masters.

The US Savings and Loan industry had been experiencing major problems through the late 1960s and 70s due to rising inflation and rising interest rates and because of this, there was a move in the 1970s to replace the role of S&L institutions, with banks. So, in the early 1980s, under Reagan, regulatory changes were effected that endowed the S&L industry new powers and for the first time in history, measures were taken to increase the profitability of S&L companies at the expense of promoting home ownership.

The industry was deregulated under the Reagan administration and restrictions were eased on the industry to such an extent, that abuse and misuse of funds became rampant, and remained unchecked. Significantly, George Bush Sr., and his sons, Jeb and Neil Bush were all implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax-payers over $1.4 TRILLION!

In the 1980s, when the then VP, George Bush finally announced that there was a ‘Savings and Loan crisis,’ the Reagan administration had constantly strived to cover-up S&L problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of them, as well as attacking political opponents who were beginning to recognise the issues. Industry insiders were aware of significant problems in S&L as early as 1986, that they argued would require a ‘bailout.’ However, this information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 election.

Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56m loan from Broward Federal Savings and after federal regulators closed the company, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56m to finance, was reappraised by the regulators at a mere $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers then had to pay-back the remaining $4 plus.

But Neil Bush was the most widely-targeted member of the Bush family, by the press, in the S&L scandal. Neil became director of Silverado Savings and Loan at the age of 30 in 1985 but only three years later, the institution had been wound-up, at a further cost of $1.6bn to tax payers.

Bush’s actions in this scam were as follows:

He received a $100,000 ‘loan’ from Ken Good, of Good International, with no obligation to pay-back any of the money. Good was a large shareholder in JNB Explorations, Neil Bush’s oil-exploration company. Bush failed to disclose this conflict-of-interest when loans were made to Good from Silverado, because the money was to be used in joint-venture with JNB. This was in essence, giving himself a loan from Silverado through a third party. Bush then helped Silverado S&L approve Good International for a $900,000 line of credit.

Good defaulted on a total $32m in loans from Silverado but during this time Bush did not disclose that $3m of the $32m that Good was defaulting on, was actually for investment in JNB, his own company. Bush maintained that he did not see how this constituted a conflict of interest.

Bush then approved $106m in Silverado loans to another JNB investor, Bill Walters, yet never formally disclosed his relationship with Walters and Walters subsequently also defaulted on his loan, all $106m of it.

Bush was charged with criminal wrongdoing in the case and ended up paying $50,000 to settle out of court. The chief of Silverado S&L was also sentenced to 42 months in jail after pleading guilty to $8.7m in theft. (But, please bear in mind that you can receive a longer sentence than this for holding-up a supermarket, for $50.)

The S&L scandal was by no means the only incident of questionable, and actually illegal, financial activity in which the Bush family has been involved. It has been a crime family that traditionally goes back at least to Prescott Bush Sr., George Bush Sr.’s father and the grandfather of the idiot, George Jr., Neil and Jeb. Prescott Bush was a Senator from 1952 — 1963 but prior to this, Prescott was a bankster and businessman, a director of Union Banking Corporation which if you remember, helped to finance Hitler’s regime. Now of course there was nothing wrong per se in funding the Hitler regime. Germany, at that time, needed substantial investments in order to re-build its shattered infrastructure in the wake of the punitive Treaty of Versailles’ decimation of the nation. However, what is very wrong about it is the absolute, rampant hypocrisy surrounding this action. We are led to believe that Nazi Germany and Hitler himself was evil personified, and if that is a ‘given’ (which it is, in current and past, official versions of history) then of course the Bush family at the time, was guilty of a horrendously immoral, if not actually illegal, act.

‘Islamic Terrorism’ is born . . .

By 1990, the banksters had virtually brought to a close their Communism/Cold War plans and so the Communists were about to be replaced with ‘Islamic terrorists,’ as their new pantomime villains . . .

The United States used Kuwait as the spark to ignite the Iraqi ‘tinderbox,’ and the ‘Gulf War — part 1.’ Capitalising on all of the disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, US leaders encouraged Kuwait to continue a foreign policy guaranteed to provoke Iraq into an invasion in which the Americans would claim to be neutral. In fact, the US planned to use the invasion as a pretext to declare war on Iraq, a war which would subsume Iraq and most importantly of course, its vast oil resources, into the greater American Empire.

From the 1960s to 1991, Iraq had enjoyed considerable economic progress and huge improvements in standards of living, with electricity and water now available to the entire country. Since 1982 the government had built 18 new hospitals some of which were renowned in the Middle East for their excellence. Health care was virtually free and education was universal and even free through college. Food was both inexpensive and abundant and people without land were offered low-interest loans on the condition that the land became productive within five years. Malnutrition was therefore non-existent and a strong infrastructure of highways, dams, hydroelectric power, flood control, irrigation systems, and an efficient telephone system contributed to the growing strength of the economy and of the nation in general.

Iraq was also at the forefront of the Arab world in its treatment of women. In 1969, the government created the General Federation of Iraqi Women to campaign on behalf of women’s rights and by 1983, the Federation launched a four-year plan to encourage women to seek employment. But overshadowing these advances was the rule of Saddam Hussein who assumed the presidency in 1979 and maintained his rule through one of the most oppressive internal security apparatuses in the world.

Absorbing Kuwait, which had historically been a part of Iraq under the Ottoman Empire until the British carved it up in their own interests, was a key goal, but so was dominating the entire region politically. Saddam knew that if he defeated Iran, then Iraq would be the dominant power in the region. He was also quietly assured by the United States that it would have no objection to his invasion of Kuwait, once he had defeated Iran. The assurances however, were very low-key and significantly, deniable.

In his meeting with the US Ambassador, April Glaspie on 25th July 1990, just before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam calmly explained his intention to invade and Glaspie, who had not been informed by the State Department of any change in policy, gave Saddam the reassurance of American support, which had been the US policy for a decade or so. But what Glaspie did not know, and what she had not been told, was that the United States had never expected Iraq to defeat Iran and it certainly was not prepared to allow Saddam to collect his ‘prize’ of Kuwait.

So on 2nd August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United States of course acted totally ‘surprised, shocked and outraged,’ even though that is exactly what they had wanted Saddam to do. Ever since the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s, the US had been seeking an opportunity to dominate the Middle East, so all that remained now, was to justify the proposed attack on Iraq, in the hearts and minds of the US public.

The announcement of the proposed ground war ‘coincidentally’ came, days after Neil Bush’s involvement in the S&L scandal had been revealed. Of course, as soon as ‘daddy’ announced the Operation Desert Storm campaign in Iraq, Neil’s name quickly disappeared from the headlines.

This was the stage then set for the inevitable war against Iraq. Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein had been depicted as the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler, the usual MO, who posed a threat to the region. In order to gain the support of the American people, the government hired a number of public relations firms to ‘educate’ the American people about the necessity of declaring war against Iraq. Kuwait funded an estimated 20 public relations firms, lobby groups, and law firms including the Rendon Group (public relations) for a retainer of $100,000, Neill and Co. (lobbyists) for $50,000 per month, and Hill and Knowlton (the world’s largest public relations firm at the time) which served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign.

Craig Fuller who ran the Washington office of Hill and Knowlton was one of Bush senior’s closest friends and advisors. Their activities included arranging media interviews for visiting Kuwaitis, setting up days of observance such as ‘National Free Kuwait Day,’ organising public rallies, releasing hostage letters to the media, distributing news releases and information kits, contacting politicians at all levels, and producing dozens of video news releases which were distributed to the media.

Hill and Knowlton was also responsible for inventing a horror story to evoke a strong emotional response in order to strengthen public support for a war against Iraq. (Stop me if you have heard this one before!) This emotionally-charged ‘horror story,’ came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah who supposedly could not reveal her last name for fear of putting friends and family still in Kuwait, at grave risk. She tearfully recounted that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies from incubators and leaving them on the cold floor to die. She also provided written testimony, which was packaged in media kits prepared by ‘Citizens for a Free Kuwait.’

These utter lies were repeated frequently by Bush who claimed that 312 babies had suffered the same fate. However, the real horror story was not about babies and incubators but about how the US government used yet another gross lie to sell to the public, a war during which over 100,000 people died. Hill and Knowlton, by the way, had omitted a minor detail about the identity of the 15-year-old Kuwaiti volunteer, namely that she was, in fact, the daughter of Saud Nasir al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. They also somehow forgot to mention that she had been coached by them before her appearance in front of the Caucus. It must have slipped their minds. You know, too busy, busy with all the other propaganda and lies they were in the process of concocting.

In World War I, the huge lie was that the Germans were spearing babies on their bayonets. But then, all the banksters’ wars, throughout history have been based on lies.

This was easy to disprove, but only after the event and when it was too late. After the war, human rights investigators and reporters completely discredited the story. John Martin, an ABC news reporter, travelled to Kuwait in March 1991, and interviewed Dr. Mohammed Matar, director of Kuwait’s health-care system and his wife Dr. Fayeza Youseff, chief of obstetrics at the maternity hospital. They both denied any knowledge of babies being snatched from incubators. Martin also visited al-Addan hospital where Nayirah had claimed that she witnessed the removal of 15 babies from incubators, where Dr. Fahima Khafaji, a paediatrician at the hospital, refuted the stories. One month later, Amnesty International discovered the truth and issued a retraction of its previous confirmation of the lies. However the damage was done and it is safe to say that there are probably millions of people worldwide who still believe the fairy-tale.

On 16th January 1991, US B-52s were on their way to their targets in Iraq and cruise missiles were being fired from ships in the Indian Ocean to unleash a ‘reign of terror’ on the innocent Iraqi people. The euphemism ‘collateral damage,’ refers to the ‘accidental’ destruction of civilians and civilian property during a bombing raid, but the phrase’s Orwellian-inspired name masks the fact that it is often a relatively innocuous expression used to describe the slaughter of innocent people. During the savage and cruel bombing of Iraq, the whole country became collateral damage. Iraqi military forces were absolutely incapable of defending the country against bombers that dropped bombs from 40,000 feet, or cruise missiles that were fired from ships anchored twenty miles out at sea.

The result of American (and other coalition members’) bombing campaigns cannot even be described as a ‘victory,’ but more accurately as the perpetration of sustained and unconscionable carnage.

In ‘Killing Hope,’ William Blum referred to the observations of a UN inspection team that declared that the allied bombardment had had a “ . . . near apocalyptic impact” on Iraq and had transformed the country into a “pre-industrial age nation . . . which had been until January a rather highly urbanised and mechanised society.”

To create the illusion that the conflict in Iraq was really only a battle, the United States greatly exaggerated the current strength of the Iraqi military. The Pentagon described the Iraqi armed forces as a dangerous threat, but according to Major General Matti Peled, a retired Israeli Major General . . .

“The Iraqi Army was not an unknown quantity. After eight years of war in Iran it was very clear that it was not a threatening army, it was not a first-class fighting force. But the United States spread throughout the world, the legend about the invincibility of the Iraqi Army, knowing full well that it was not true.”

But this provided the US with justification for conducting what it referred-to as the ‘strategic bombardment’ of the entirety of Iraq, demolishing almost their entire civilian infrastructure. During this bombing, Iraq did not mount even one air attack. Its air force was incapable of defending Iraqi cities and Iraqi commanders considered any attempt to do so as suicidal. Even the anti-aircraft fire illuminating the sky over Baghdad created the impression of a real defence but in reality, Iraqi ground-to-air defences were incapable of reaching bombers at 40,000 feet. Even the Soviet SA-6 surface-to-air missiles were ineffective and not a single B-52 bomber was lost in combat.

The bombing campaign continued for 42 days, dropping over 80 million pounds of explosives. In the first days of the campaign, the bombing destroyed the Iraqi ground forces access to military supplies, reinforcements, food, water, and medical supplies and communications systems were very severely damaged as were tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, and other mechanised equipment. These losses effectively rendered the Iraqi forces defenceless, whilst the US used weapons such as fuel-air explosives, napalm and cluster bombs that are highly illegal in international law. Estimates of the number of soldiers killed ranged from 100,000 to 200,000 and the dead and injured were left wherever they were hit because Iraq did not possess field hospitals and American bombers destroyed at least five military hospitals.

One of the most evil decisions in the campaign was to destroy Iraq’s water supply, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, long after the war was over. The capacity of Iraq to produce food was severely limited by the attacks on agriculture, food processing, food storage and the food distribution system. Fifty percent of Iraq’s agricultural output depended on irrigation systems, which were also targeted.

Important non-military targets such as 28 civilian hospitals, 52 community health centres, 25 mosques, and 676 schools were destroyed, amidst many casualties. Clearly all these targets were not bombed accidentally, particularly given the highly accurate delivery capabilities of the coalition bombs and missiles.

Densely populated cities were bombed daily, killing thousands of civilians and Basra, Iraq’s second largest city with a population of 800,000, was bombed repeatedly. One of the targets in Basra was a bridge which the Americans attempted to destroy twice, each time bombing surrounding neighbourhoods and the people of Basra were so terrified about another attempt that they contemplated blowing it up themselves.

But maybe the worst of the horror stories was the bombing of the Amariyah bomb shelter in Baghdad where 1,500 civilians, mostly women and children, were seeking refuge from the carnage. One bomb penetrated the shelter’s roof and opened up a hole through which the second more powerful bomb entered the shelter and exploded, incinerating most of the people in the shelter. All of the mainly, women and children were incinerated when two F-117 stealth fighter-bombers each dropped a 2,000-pound laser-guided ‘smart bomb,’ on the civilian shelter.

When there was nothing much more left to bomb, the American military launched a ground war that was superfluous but, nevertheless, brutal. On 21-22nd February 1991, the Soviet Union secured an agreement from Iraq in which they offered to withdraw completely from Kuwait the day after a ceasefire of all military operations went into effect. The agreement included specific timetables and monitoring. Bush refused to offer a ceasefire although he did promise that retreating Iraqi soldiers would not be attacked. So, Iraqi forces began to withdraw from Kuwait on 25th February 1991.

A division of Iraq’s Republican Guard withdrew on 26th February. Baghdad radio had just announced Iraq’s acceptance of a cease-fire proposal and, in compliance with UN Resolution 660, retreating Iraqi troops were ordered to withdraw to positions held before 2nd August 1990.

Nonetheless, the mass-murderer Bush derisively called the announcement “an outrage” and “a cruel hoax.” This was what was to become infamously known as the ‘Highway of Death.’

“US planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles at the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours,” Joyce Chediac, a Lebanese-American journalist

Mike Erlich, of the Military Counselling Network, testified at the European Parliament hearings on the Gulf War that . . . “Hundreds, possibly thousands, of Iraqi soldiers began walking toward the US position unarmed, with their hands raised in an attempt to surrender. However, the orders for this unit were not to take any.”

“When you see the battlefield littered with dead bodies as far as you can see and there’s smoke swirling around, and the smell of the dead bodies, the ammunition, the fuel, the explosions, it’s very overpowering,” said Paul Sullivan, a combat veteran from Operation Desert Storm who went on to create the National Gulf War Resource Center. Sullivan later described the so-called ‘Highway of Death’ as “ . . . miles and miles and miles of charred trucks, tanks, blown up buildings, pieces of arms and pieces of legs every which way.”

“Many of those massacred fleeing Kuwait, were not Iraqi soldiers at all but Palestinians, Sudanese, Egyptians, and other foreign workers.” US Attorney General-turned-peace activist, Ramsey Clark

“Every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, and every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it’s impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.” Joyce Chediac.

At the end of the war, Iraq was incapable of feeding itself, purifying water for drinking, healing the sick or rebuilding itself. The 3rd March 1991 saw the end of the bombing and assaults by coalition ground troops, but this was far from the end of the war against Iraq. The war continued through the imposition of sanctions, no-fly zones, and bombing within the no-fly zones, by Britain and the United States. It was an invisible war which did not appear in the bankster-media, maybe because more than 3,000 children were dying every month, through both the sanctions and depleted-uranium shrapnel.

The ‘Highway of Death’

As part of the war strategy, the United Nations, under pressure from the United States, passed Resolution 661, which imposed a mandatory and complete embargo on all trade with Iraq. It prohibited nations from buying or selling any Iraqi products, medicine being the only exception. Food was permitted ‘in humanitarian circumstances.’

Although in theory, food was exempted from the sanctions, in practice the sanctions were little more than an attempt to influence Iraqi policy by starving its people. The number of children who died or became malnourished was unconscionable and reflected a western-desired dehumanisation of the Iraqi people. One of the studies undertaken by the Harvard International Study Group concluded that one million Iraqi children were malnourished and 120,000 were suffering from acute malnutrition.

But does condemning so many children to a slow, lingering death through starvation make the world a safer place? Well it is certainly a safer place for the bankster mega-corporations to continue their insidious ‘profit before all else’ policies, but paradoxically, at least one American Zionist, politician, Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the UN, believed it made sense, as demonstrated by her response to a question in May 1996 when she openly, brazenly declared that she believed that half a million dead children was ‘worth’ their ‘cause.’ Which just about tells us all we need to know about these people, their lack of morals and empathy and their absolute unflinching dedication to the banksters’ goals and their own pathetic, self-preservation-at-all-costs attitudes. Further words on this topic really do fail me.

‘Bloody Bill’

There are some very dirty secrets that may explain the otherwise inexplicable rise to power of those who would otherwise remain obscure. A case in point, is William Jefferson Clinton.

Seldom mentioned, yet an indisputable fact is that the Rockefellers virtually ‘own’ and operate Arkansas, a very poor and backward, yet, geographically large state with a relatively small population. Several terms before Bill Clinton held that position, Winthrop Rockefeller was Governor of Arkansas. Winthrop was the grandson of John Davison Rockefeller, founder of what some refer to as the evil-empire of Standard Oil and a major elite / bankster player.

It is only possible therefore, to become Governor of Arkansas with the blessings and approval of the Rockefellers but because of his ‘close ties,’ it was a virtual certainty that Clinton would at some stage accede to that particular role. Bill Clinton’s maternal grandmother, believed to be quite a beauty, and reportedly having links to British royalty, allegedly had a great love affair with Winthrop Rockefeller and hence, Clinton is thought to be the illegitimate great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller.

“President Clinton has ‘full-blown’ multiple personality disorder and is an active sorcerer in the Satanic mystery religions. This is also true of Al Gore, as well; I have known Clinton and Gore from our childhoods as active and effective Satanists.” Phillip Eugene de Rothschild

As well as Clinton being a serial philanderer and even a rapist, as many have alleged, he and his wife, the very lovely Hillary Rodham Clinton, have been accused many times of the murder of political opponents or of those that have stood in the way of their joint, ‘vaulting ambitions.’ And whether it was being involved up to his fat neck in large-scale drug-smuggling and dealing, sex with secretaries, political aides, hookers or porn stars, either rape or consensual, Bill Clinton was always free to do whatever he wanted, with impunity, confident in the knowledge that he would be protected by his masters.

Along with the drug deals and sex scandals, there is no end to the depravity and utter evil of Clinton. The selling of HIV and Hepatitis C-laced blood of Arkansas prison inmates to Canadians, is just one more example of his many crimes. Over 20,000 Canadians were infected with Hepatitis C and a thousand more were infected with HIV, thanks to deadly, tainted Arkansas prison blood. Prisoners sold their blood for $7 in scrip, per pint of blood and the state of Arkansas and Bill’s political friends in turn sold it for $50 per pint to blood brokers. That is real ‘blood money.’

It had become a living hell for the Canadian people infected with Hepatitis C and HIV from Arkansas jails and the journalist Suzi Parker, blamed this tragedy on a combination of Clinton’s incompetence and greed. After she had written her exposé on this tragedy and detailed the involvement of Bill and his profiting political friends in this disaster, Suzi soon began receiving threatening phone calls in the middle of the night which had upon it all the fingerprints of the Clinton intimidation machine. She also said that she was being watched and followed at a press conference by infected haemophiliacs. In May, 1999, the clinic owned by Arkansas whistle-blower Mike Galster was burned to the ground and the same night the haemophiliac group’s office in Canada was burgled. After the arson, the burglary, being watched and followed, and many threatening ‘early hours’ phone calls, Suzi Parker understandably stopped covering the Arkansas blood scandal . . . out of fear for her life.

The day Clinton announced his presidential candidacy, Meredith Oakley wrote a brief but derogatory assessment of the man, in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette . . .

“His word is dirt. Not a statesman is he, but a common, run-of-the-mill, dime-a-dozen politician, a mere opportunist. A man, whose word is fallow ground not because it is unwanted but because it is barren, bereft of the clean-smelling goodness that nurtures wholesome things. Those of us who cling to the precepts of another age, a time in which a man’s word was his bond, and, morally, bailing-out was not an option, cannot join the madding crowd in celebrating what is for some, Bill Clinton’s finest hour. We cannot rejoice in treachery. The bleaters who care more for celebrity than veracity are basking in a false and empty light. They trumpet the basest form of political expediency, for they revel amid the debris of a broken promise.”

An extensive ‘bimbo patrol’ was established to threaten, buy, or otherwise disarm, those hundreds of women who had had illicit sexual encounters with Clinton. The campaign used private investigators in an extensive operation that was treated with mild amusement at the time, but later would be regarded as a form of blackmail as well as psychological and physical intimidation.

A former ‘Miss Arkansas,’ Sally Perdue told the UK’s Sunday Telegraph that state troopers often ‘dropped Clinton off at her place in his jogging gear’ and said later that she was visited by a man who described himself as a ‘Democratic Party operative’ and who warned her not to reveal specifics of the affair. She also said . . .

“He said that there were people in high places, who; were anxious about me, and they wanted me to know that keeping my mouth shut would be worthwhile . . . If I was a good little girl, and didn’t kill the messenger; I’d be set for life: a federal job, nothing fancy but a regular pay check . . . I’d never have to worry again. But if I didn’t take the offer, then they knew that I went jogging by myself and he couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my ‘pretty little legs.’”

As the Clinton’s ‘oldest and most trusted friend,’ Vince Foster was certainly the most prominent name on what has become known as the ‘Clinton Death list,’ or to be fair, the highly- suspect / monumental-coincidence-death-list. In addition to those mentioned, there were many others, below is just a sample . . .

Suzanne Coleman — Rumours were circulating in Arkansas of an affair with Bill Clinton, when he was the state’s Attorney General. She was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head at 7½ months pregnant. Death was ruled as ‘suicide,’ but no autopsy was performed.

James Bunch — Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a ‘black book’ of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

Larry Guerrin — Was killed in February 1987, while investigating the INSLAW case.

Kevin Ives and Don Henry — Were two teenagers who somehow became caught up in the Mena Airfield drug conspiracy. In a rural community just south of Little Rock, in August 1987, police officers allegedly murdered them because they witnessed a police-protected drugs drop. The drop was part of a drug smuggling operation based at a small airport in Mena, Arkansas. The Mena operation was set-up in the early 1980’s by the notorious drug smuggler, Barry Seal who was linked strongly to the Clintons.

Keith Coney — Keith had important information on the Ives/Henry deaths. He died in a motorcycle accident in July 1988, with unconfirmed reports of a high speed car chase.

Keith McKaskle — Keith had information on the Ives/Henry deaths. He was stabbed to death in November 1988.

Gregory CollinsGreg also had information on the Ives/Henry deaths. He died from a gunshot wound to the face in January 1989.

Jeff Rhodes — He had information on the deaths of Ives, Henry and McKaskle. His burned body was found in a dump in April 1989. He died of a gunshot wound to the head and there was some body mutilation, leading to the speculation that he was tortured prior to being killed.

James Milam — Milam had information on the Ives and Henry deaths. He was decapitated. The state Medical examiner, Fahmy Malak, initially ruled death due to natural causes.

Richard Winters — Winters was a suspect in the deaths of Ives and Henry. He was killed in a ‘robbery’ in July 1989 which was subsequently proven to be a setup.

Jordan Kettleson — Kettleson had information on the Ives and Henry deaths. He was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup in June 1990.

Alan Standorf — An employee of the National Security Agency in electronic intelligence. Standorf was a source of information for Danny Casalaro, who was investigating INSLAW, BCCI, etc. Standorf’s body was found in the back seat of a car at Washington National Airport.

Dennis Eisman — An attorney with information on INSLAW. Eisman was found shot to death.

Victor Raiser II — Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund-raising organisation died in a private plane crash.

Montgomery Raiser — Also involved in the Clinton presidential campaign. He died in the same plane crash as Victor.

Paul Tulley — Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock. Described by Clinton, as a ‘dear friend and trusted advisor.’

Ian Spiro — Spiro had supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings on the INSLAW case. His wife and 3 children were found murdered in November 1992, in their home. They all died of gunshot wounds to the head. Ian’s body was found several days later in a parked car in the Borego Desert. Cause of death was reported as the ingestion of cyanide. FBI reports claimed that Ian had murdered his family and then committed suicide.

Paula Grober — Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death in December 1992. She died in an unwitnessed single-car accident.

Jim Wilhite — Wilhite was an associate of Mack McClarty’s former firm. Wilhite died in a skiing accident in December 1992. He also had extensive ties to Clinton with whom he spoke by telephone just hours before his death.

Sergeant Brian Haney, Sergeant Tim Sabel, Major William Barkley, Captain Scott Reynolds all died 19th May 1993 when their helicopter crashed in woods. Reporters were barred from the site, and the head of the fire department responding to the crash described it by saying, “Security was tight, with lots of Marines with guns.” A videotape made by a firefighter was seized by the Marines. All four men had escorted Clinton on his flight to the carrier Roosevelt shortly before their deaths.

James Wilson — Wilson was found dead in May 1993, from an apparent hanging suicide. A former Washington DC council member, he was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

Jon Parnell Walker — Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corporation. He allegedly ‘jumped to his death’ from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony in 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

Stanley Heard and Steven Dickson — Members of the Clinton health care advisory committee. They died in a small plane crash in September 1993. Heard was Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, Steve Dickson was his attorney. Dr. Heard personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.

Jerry Luther Parks — Parks was the Chief of Security for Clinton’s national campaign headquarters in Little Rock. He was gunned down in his car in September 1993. Parks was shot through the rear window of his car. The assailant pulled around to the driver’s side of Park’s car and shot him three more times with a 9mm pistol. His family reported that shortly before his death, they were being followed by unknown persons, and their home had been broken into (despite a top quality alarm system.) Parks had been compiling a dossier on Clinton’s illicit activities. The dossier was never found.

Ed Willey — Willey was a Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993, deep in the woods of a gunshot wound to the head. Death was ruled as ‘suicide.’ Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed that Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House.

Gandy Baugh — Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by ‘jumping’ out of a window of a tall building in January 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

Hershell Friday — Attorney and Clinton fund raiser, died March 1994, when his plane exploded.

Ronald Rogers — Rogers died on 3rd March 1994, just after releasing sensitive information on Clinton to a London newspaper. Cause of death undetermined.

Florence Martin — Martin was an accountant subcontracting to CIA, and related to the Barry Seal case. Died of three gunshot wounds to the head in 1994. Martin had the documents and paperwork, including the PIN number for an account that had been set up in the name of Barry Seal for $1.5m at the Fuji Bank in the Cayman Islands.

Kathy Ferguson — Ex-wife of Arkansas State-trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases beside her, as though she was planning to leave in a hurry. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

Bill Shelton — Arkansas State Trooper and fiancé of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June 1994, of a gunshot wound at the grave site of his fiancée. His death was also ruled a suicide.

Alan G. Whicher — Oversaw Clinton’s Secret Service detail. In October 1994, Whicher was transferred to the Secret Service field office in the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The warning that was given to the other BATF agents in that building somehow did not reach Alan Whicher, who died in the bomb blast.

Neil Moody — Died 25th August 1996, following Vincent Foster’s murder. There were other reports that Neil Moody had discovered something very unsettling among his stepmother’s private papers and was threatening to go public with it just prior to the beginning of the Democratic National Convention.

Doug Adams — Died 7th January 1997. Adams was a lawyer in Arkansas who got involved trying to help the people who were being swindled out of their life savings. Adams was found in his vehicle with a gunshot wound to his head.

Mary Caitrin Mahoney — A US Secret Service Agent assigned to checking doors at the White House, opened a door one night and found Hillary Clinton in a compromising sexual position with 25 year-old Mahoney, a known lesbian since her high school days. Hillary was furious and hit her in the head with a metal ashtray. Mahoney was shot to death at a Starbucks Coffee Shop, in the heart of Washington DC, a short time later. She was hit five times at point blank range, including at least once in the face. The final bullet was delivered to the back of her head after she’d already fallen. The murder happened just before she was about to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

Johnny Lawhon Jr — Lawhon aged 29, died in March 1998. The Arkansas transmission specialist who discovered a pile of Whitewater documents in the trunk of an abandoned car on his property and turned them over to Kenneth Starr, was killed when his car supposedly hit a utility pole.

Daniel A. Dutko — Dutko aged 54, was the co-chairman of Leadership 2000, the Democratic National Committee’s main fund-raising effort. He held many other high-level political positions, including vice chairman of finance for Clinton-Gore in 1995. His death on 26th July 1999, was attributed to a bicycle accident in which it was claimed he struck his head on the concrete twice.

Tony Moser — Moser aged 41, was killed as he crossed a street in Pine Bluff, Arkansas on 10th June 2000 ten days after being named a columnist for the Democrat-Gazette newspaper; and two days after penning a stinging indictment of political corruption in Little Rock. Police filed no charges against the unnamed driver of the 1995 Chevrolet pickup which hit Moser.

Barbara Olson — Olson had just recently finished writing a tell-all book The Final Days, about Clinton’s last days in office. She was the wife of Ted Olson who was US Solicitor General on 9/11, and represented George W. Bush in the US Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore to assure Bush would be installed as President. Olson was, more than coincidentally, on the American Airlines Flight 77 plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon on 11th September 2001. She also supposedly made the famously convenient (for the official story) ‘box-cutters’ phone call to her husband from the alleged American Airlines Flight 77 originating from Dulles, Virginia.

Coincidences all? As always I will allow you, dear reader to decide. But regardless of all that, it was only after his invitation to attend the 1991 Bilderberg conference in Baden-Baden Germany, that the hitherto unknown Governor of Arkansas was suddenly catapulted into prominence, as so often seems to be the case. But if we are to believe the bankster-controlled media, the Bilderberger group has no authority or political standing whatsoever. Yeah, right.

Clinton’s most significant contribution to Globalism was to embroil the US in The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA.) NAFTA, whose true purpose was to subsume the US into an economic bloc with Canada and Mexico, in exactly the same way as European ‘free trade’ deals, led to the formation of the European Union.

On 8th December 1993, this death blow, struck at the industrial heart of America. Think of it as Clinton’s early quid pro quo Christmas present to the banksters who bankrolled his run for the White House. NAFTA was enacted by both Houses of Congress as ‘law’ in the United States because there were not enough votes to ratify it as a treaty. This effectively means that NAFTA does not exist constitutionally, since it is a treaty that had to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. Since Congress could not get the votes they needed to ratify NAFTA, they bound the people of the United States to a treaty that was enacted as a simple law by a 51% majority. NAFTA is a ‘treaty’ in Mexico and Canada. The economic demise of the United States had now officially begun, but sadly, no one noticed.

The European Union (EU,) came into being a month before NAFTA, as a political and economic union of the formerly sovereign nations of Europe. Trilateralists and Bilderbergers dominate the EU which had originally taken the form of seemingly harmless ‘free-trade’ agreements in the years following World War II. The EU eventually emerged as a region of the New World Order, whose collective power surpassed that of its individual member nations. By 2011, the EU had 27 members (including former Communist states from Eastern Europe,) a common currency (the Euro,) a European Bank, and an un-elected, Marxist-socialist bureaucracy answerable to no-one. In a blatant attempt to transform Europe into a ‘multi-cultural’ society, EU officials continually flood the continent with foreign, third-world immigrants, thereby greatly diluting the power of the previously white majority and thus depleting its abilities to stand against the Globalists. This is also not coincidentally, exactly what is now happening in the US, also.

In May 1994, South Africa’s system of political separation between its white Afrikaaner population and the African blacks (Apartheid,) served as a convenient pretext for the Globalists to subvert the anti-Communist, nationalist, and mineral-rich nation. After many years of pressure and isolation from the ‘international community,’ South Africa eventually succumbed to relentless bankster pressure over its ‘racism.’ In its first mixed race election, the Communist and terrorist leader of the ANC, Nelson Mandela was elected as President, in a landslide by the majority black population. The white South Africans were thereby permanently dispossessed of the nation that they had built and socialism was established as the prevailing philosophy. However, the anti-Communist blacks who opposed Mandela were often tortured and killed.

Now, thanks to its overtly Marxist politics, this once prosperous nation is marred by unemployment, inflation, an AIDS epidemic, a staggeringly high crime rate and vicious anti-white atrocities and it was for these achievements that Mandela won a ‘Nobel Peace Prize,’ the ultimate in Orwellian descriptions of awards for mass-murder. The African National Congress (ANC) had waged a brutal terrorist war, described as the ‘people’s struggle’ in the bankster-Zionist controlled mass media, against South Africa’s Apartheid regime for 30 years. But the plight of Black South Africans under ANC rule was now even worse. Queen Elizabeth, in her 1996 Christmas message hailed the previously-convicted terrorist, Mandela as a great statesman and yet again, the masses were completely fooled into believing this to be true.

We live in a society whose hypocrisy is truly breath-taking. But over time, to pretend to be or do one thing, whilst being or doing the exact opposite, such as turning the truth upside down, or mass-murderers winning Nobel Peace Prizes, has been found to be a very successful strategy.

“The ANC in South Africa was guided by two Communist Jews, Albie Sachs, one of its foremost intellectuals and Yossel Mashel Slovo (aka Joe Slovo.)” UK Sunday Times, 29th August 1993

Slovo was born in Lithuania and grew up speaking Yiddish and studying the Talmud. He joined the ANC’s terrorist wing, the ‘Umkhonto we Sizwe,’ in 1961 and eventually became its commander. He was named Secretary General of the South African Communist Party in 1986 and was the planner of many ANC terrorist attacks, including the 1983 car bomb that killed 19 people and injured many others. He had visited the Soviet Union many times, was awarded a Soviet medal on his 60th birthday and was a dedicated Communist, a Marxist-Leninist, totally devoid of morality of any kind. He never disputed his image as the ‘Communist mastermind’ behind the ANC’s armed struggle.

Wrapped in bogus idealism, Jewish social and political activism largely serves the banksters’ secret satanic agenda. The ANC, like Communism in general, deceived the masses into overthrowing the government, and installing bankster puppets such as Nelson Mandela. In fact, the plight of Blacks in South Africa today is far worse under the ANC. The number of people living on $1 a day has doubled from two to four million and the black unemployment rate doubled to 48% from 1991-2002. In 2006, one quarter of the entire population lived in shacks without running water or electricity and the HIV/AIDS/TB infection rate is 20%. Life expectancy dropped by 13 years and 40% of schools had no electricity.

And today, under ANC rule, South Africa’s infrastructure is crumbling. The crime rate, especially black on white is soaring and the most terrible crimes are being committed on a daily basis, whereas crime was negligible, pre-Apartheid. Towns and streets names are being constantly changed, not because the black population wishes to remove the ‘white’ names, the majority of people just want to be free to conduct their lives in peace and reasonable prosperity. But, there is nevertheless, a systematic and on-going erasure of white history which is nothing more than an attempt by the ANC-Zionists to create more racial division between black and white, which is of course, classic bankster ‘divide and rule.’

Once upon a time, that is in ancient times, pre-bankster times, leaders such as Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, and Genghis Khan led their own armies into battle, and did their own ‘dirty work.’ They fought openly, and made no pretence of trying to win hearts and minds, or spread freedom and democracy. They were fierce, brave warriors who did their killing, their slaughtering, often more out for reasons of survival, than simply for the purposes of expanding their empires.

However, today’s ‘leaders’ are merely treacherous cowards, actors and puppets for their bankster masters. Their fighting is done by entities other than themselves, dupes who have been convinced that their ‘cause’ is justified, and mostly in the shadows. And this warfare is far more deadly and much more brutal, yet subtle, than all the ancients combined.

“None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.” Johann von Goethe

“We do not live in a world of reality; we live in a world of perceptions.” Gerald J. Simmons

Now we live in a time, where people enslave themselves; enslaved by debt and by brainwashing. Enslaved to believe without question and without thinking.

Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades were no less prominent than those of JFK or indeed, most senior politicians for that matter. What was more unusual however was that Clinton’s infamous brush with impeachment, otherwise known as the ‘Monica Lewinsky affair,’ represented one of the Mossad’s most successful operations leading to Clinton’s impeachment yet subsequent acquittal by the Senate. Israel had welcomed into their fold, a number of former Eastern bloc intelligence agents during and after the Cold War, which led to the use of both female and male sex agents, known as ‘ravens’ and ‘swallows.’ Successful intelligence ploys used by the former KGB and East German Stasi had thereby mutated into a potent form of ‘sexpionage,’ through the use of sexual favours by foreign spies to obtain information or concessions from governments.

Israel’s Mossad keeps thousands of dossiers on all western politicians, any of whom may become targets for blackmail, should they prove ‘troublesome’ or uncooperative to Israel’s cause. This means that extensive profiling always takes place in order that the prospective patsy can be comprehensively silenced in the event of their stepping-out-of-line which of course then involves learning his / her sexual preferences and character traits, as a pre-requisite.

In Clinton’s case, there are conflicting reports as to the reasons why such an operation was undertaken. One suggestion was that Lewinsky’s primary mission was to blackmail Clinton in order that he release the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard whilst another propounds the belief that the Mossad were bugging the Watergate apartment telephone of their agent Lewinsky who had fostered the affair with Clinton as ordered. They were then able to obtain material which was used to blackmail the Clinton administration into shutting down a probe of widespread Israeli espionage in Washington.

The investigative journalist, Kevin Dowling reported that his sources in Tel Aviv told him that . . . “ . . . full transcripts of more than 30 sexually explicit conversations between Clinton and Lewinsky are held by the Israeli foreign intelligence service, the Mossad. By coincidence, [maybe!] the Likud Prime Minister and ardent Zionist, Benjamin Netanyahu had met with Clinton at the White House whilst the scandal was in ‘full swing.’ And as a backdrop to Clinton’s entrapment we had . . . the assassination of President Clinton’s partner in the Middle East peace process, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, on November 4, 1995, which opened the path for Netanyahu becoming Prime Minister in May 1996; and Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in mid-January 1998 — just as the Lewinsky affair was breaking in the US news media. On this visit, Netanyahu publicly insulted the President by meeting with Bill Clinton’s worst enemies, the ‘televangelists’ Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.”

The telecommunications network in the United States had already been subverted by Israeli agents for some years and this, during the early Clinton era, was extended into the White House itself. The outside contractor involved in the modernising of the administration communications systems was (surprise, surprise) the Israeli company Amdocs which had “ . . . unfettered access to White House telephone lines and other super-sensitive communications equipment.”

The Mega Group was made up of 20 top level banking and corporate CEOs, and directors worth billions of dollars who ostensibly wished to create a Jewish ‘philanthropic enterprise.’ Hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt Edgar Bronfman, then chairman of the World Jewish Congress; Charles Bronfman, Edgar’s brother and a top executive of the family’s flagship Seagrams Corporation; Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corporation; Leslie Wexler of Limited, Inc.; Leonard Abramson, the founder of US Healthcare; bagel magnate Max Lender; Charles Schusterman, chairman of Samson Investment Co; Harvey Meyerhoff, real estate magnate and Max Fisher, the Detroit oil magnate and Republican Party donor.

It was said that the Mega operation ran a number of Israeli agents, including US Navy spy Jonathan Pollard. ‘Mega’ also refers in FBI terminology to shared information between the Mossad and the CIA. Some researchers also claim that Rahm Emanuel was the notorious ‘Mega’ spy deep inside the Clinton administration who passed top-secret documents about Iran, to the Israeli government, causing a great deal of chaos among the various intelligence agencies.

Rahm Emanuel, nicknamed ‘Rahmbo,’ is an American, ‘Israel-first’ orthodox Jew who was educated in a Talmudic yeshiva and served as a volunteer in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF.) He is a dual citizen of Israel which is perhaps unsurprisingly the only nation that Americans can apply for and obtain citizenship thereof, without automatically renouncing their US citizenship. Emanuel has been described as a ‘dangerous, psychopathic pit-bull,’ totally ruthless and without conscience.

It was Emanuel’s father who directly plotted the assassination of Count Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat and United Nations envoy who tried to broker peace in Palestine. But of course, Irgun did not seek peace treaties, it instead sought racial cleansing and genocide.

Rahm Emanuel recently shot to even greater prominence as the ‘mentor’ of Barack Obama. When Obama scraped and grovelled at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention in June 2008, it was Emanuel who escorted him to meet the executive board afterwards. But perhaps worst of all, Emanuel is a rampant warmonger. In his book ‘The Plan: Big Ideas for America,’ he wrote . . . “We need to expand the US Army by 100,000 more troops.” No doubt to better serve Israel’s predatory policies in the Middle East.

Emanuel was eventually identified as a Mossad agent, by the late FBI counter-terrorism Assistant Director FBI agent John O’Neill but later, O’Neill was forced to retire after being set-up in a smear operation. O’Neill and another FBI agent discovered that Emanuel, a ‘special adviser’ to Clinton, had acted as the liaison to former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in operating an espionage and blackmail operation against the Clinton presidency. They also discovered that Emanuel had recruited the Israeli Mossad agent, Monica Lewinsky, to the Clinton White House as an intern in order to seduce President Clinton, for the sole purpose of espionage and blackmail, in order to sabotage Clinton’s proposed Middle East peace deal.

John O’Neill had become a major problem for the Zionists. He was fast connecting the dots of their treacherous acts and false-flag terrorism and was clearly a man who knew too much — and where the ‘bodies were buried.’ More of him shortly.

In her sworn testimony before the Office of Independent Counsel, Monica Lewinsky state that . . . “President Clinton suspected that a foreign embassy was tapping his telephones and proposed a cover. He told me that if I was ever questioned, I should say that we knew our calls were being monitored and that the phone sex was just a ‘put-on.’”

Lewinsky was reportedly groomed from an early age to become a latter-day ‘Mata Hari’ and to use sex to infiltrate the White House. From all known facts, I am convinced that she was an asset of Israeli intelligence, the Mossad. In addition, the acting deputy chief for North America for the Mossad was Rahm Emanuel, on and off for six years, Clinton’s Senior Advisor. Lewinsky’s father was originally from Central America. He was ostensibly a ‘sleeper’ agent for the Mossad. That is, an intelligence asset pressed into service as and when needed.

Of course, there was absolutely no mention of Rahm Emanuel, Mossad spying, or Israel, in the whole Lewinsky-Clinton scandal. And no mention whatsoever of it being a planned Zionist, honey-trap. As far as the world was concerned, it was all about the over-sexed Bill Clinton taking advantage of the young and innocent, Lewinsky.

After Clinton’s public denial of the affair, Hillary stood by her husband during an appearance on the Today Show when she also famously claimed that the accusations were the product of a “vast, right — wing conspiracy” that had been going after her husband since he was elected. Charged with perjury, the House of Representatives deemed Clinton to have committed an impeachable offence and articles of Impeachment were duly brought against him in 1998. Following a 21-day trial, Clinton was acquitted of all charges and remained in office to finish his second term.

However, the ‘televangelist’ Jerry Falwell could not resist finally admitting the truth, which was that he and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did conspire, at a critical time, to specifically use the pressure of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to force Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank. Of course, Falwell’s confession did not appear in the national news. Instead, the confession finally came to light, buried away in a lengthy story in the December 2005 issue of Vanity Fair. Entitled ‘American Rapture,’ the article by Craig Unger, described the long-standing and still-flourishing love affair between American dispensationalist evangelicals such as Falwell and the hard-line Jewish extremist forces in Israel then (and again now) under the leadership of Netanyahu.

The admission by Falwell confirmed precisely what the author Michael Collins Piper first revealed in a story published in The Spotlight on 9th February 1998, and later recounted in a lecture before the Arab League’s official think tank, the Zayed Centre, in Abu Dhabi, in March of 2003. Although, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL,) the blindly pro-Israel lobby group, denounced the assertion by Falwell that the public unveiling of the Lewinsky affair forced Clinton to pull back on pressuring Israel, as a ‘bizarre conspiracy theory,’ this confirmed exactly what was reported in documented detail in The Spotlight in an international exclusive.

In addition, Piper pointed-out that at least six days before the first news of the Lewinsky scandal began breaking in the media at midnight on Tuesday, 20th January 1998, an advertisement appeared in the Washington Jewish Week newspaper accusing President Clinton of having ‘turned his back on Israel.’ What made the advertisement so striking was that it used a rear view of President Clinton (first captured on video in 1996) that had never been published previously, but which, in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal, became very familiar. It was a view of the president, his back to the camera, clearly taken from the video in which he was seen hugging the soon-to-be infamous Miss Lewinsky, when she was in a ‘receiving line’ at the White House some two years previously. This was an image that Miss Lewinsky had boasted about to her associates prior to the time that the scandal broke. So clearly, Clinton’s critics among the hard-line pro-Netanyahu forces in the United States-who sponsored the advertisement in question, were already aware the fact of the Lewinsky-Clinton liaison, and of the fact that it was soon to be unleashed against the president in order to undermine him.

Piper revealed for the first time, that two figures at the very highest level of the Clinton White House were personally given copies of The Spotlight’s articles regarding these matters and that, at the time, they quietly acknowledged that the articles were “probably right.”

As recounted throughout this book, the banksters back both sides, creating a ‘controlled opposition.’ Whether the enemy are labelled ‘Nazis,’ ‘Communists’ or ‘Islamic terrorists,’ the banksters need to create a bogeyman for all of us to hate. This is maybe the most difficult fact of life for most people to understand. Like illegal money, taxation, the fake debt crises, and all the generated wars and conflicts, they are all artificial creations of our very own bankster-controlled governments. They are designed to keep us in fear and in debt, simply because people in fear and debt are far easier to control.

In 1980, Osama bin Laden, one of twenty sons of a billionaire construction magnate, arrived in Afghanistan to join the jihad. An austere, religious fanatic and business tycoon, bin Laden specialised in recruiting, financing and training the estimated 35,000 non-Afghan mercenaries who joined the Mujahedeen. The bin Laden family was and still is, a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country’s pro-US royal family.

Bin Laden senior was appointed Saudi Arabia’s minister of public works as a favour by King Faisal and he immediately awarded his own construction companies lucrative contracts to rebuild Islam’s holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina. In the process, the bin Laden family company in 1966 became the world’s largest private construction company.

Osama’s military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime and the CIA was fully aware of his activities. Milt Bearden, the CIA’s station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the New Yorker that whilst he never personally met bin Laden, “ . . . did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did . . . Guys like bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It’s an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he had a degree in civil engineering,) he built ‘training camps,’ some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them. These camps, now dubbed ‘terrorist universities’ were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided the military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the Mujahedeen told the British Observer newspaper that . . . “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism, car bombing and so on, so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns . . . Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

“The truth is that there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called al-Qaeda and any informed intelligence officer knows this, but there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity, representing ‘the devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this is the US . . . ” Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook who later died in suspicious circumstances, while hiking in the Scottish Highlands.

Al-Qaeda (the Base,) bin Laden’s organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps, and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company, albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with ‘legitimate’ business operations. Bin Laden simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s, fund, feed and train mercenaries and all that changed was his primary customer. Originally it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA and then subsequently his services were utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

Bin Laden only became a ‘terrorist’ in US eyes when he had a disagreement with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. And when thousands of US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf War, bin Laden’s anger turned to outright opposition. He declared that Saudi Arabia and other regimes, such as Egypt, in the Middle East were puppets of the US, just as the PDPA government of Afghanistan had been a puppet of the Soviet Union. He was of course, correct.

He called for the overthrow of these puppet regimes and declared it the duty of all Muslims to drive the US out of the Gulf States. In 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship, forced to leave the country and his assets there were frozen. After a period in Sudan, he returned to Afghanistan in May 1996. He refurbished the camps he had helped build during the Afghan war and offered the facilities and services, and thousands of his mercenaries, to the Taliban, which assumed power that September.

John O’Neill foolishly began speaking openly about Abu Nidal, leader of the Islamist Black September, as probably being a Mossad operative. Nidal began his long and bloody career in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO,) only to become a bitter rival of Yasser Arafat. This was a situation that the Israeli Mossad, in a manner similar to their CIA cousins, sought to exploit.

One French terrorism expert stated that . . . “If Abu Nidal himself is not an Israeli agent, then two or three of his senior people most certainly are. Nothing else can explain some of his operations.” Whilst a former senior Jordanian intelligence officer said . . . “Scratch around inside Abu Nidal’s organisation and you will find Mossad.”

Backing up these reports was a former member of Abu Nidal’s own Justice Committee, who said that Mossad agents captured by Abu Nidal were usually killed very quickly to prevent them from confessing their true motives. Abu Iyad, former chief of PLO Intelligence, added . . . “Every Palestinian who works in intelligence is convinced that Israel has a big hand in Abu Nidal’s affairs.”

Nidal’s organisation has been responsible for some of the most brutal acts of terrorism in the world. According to the US State Department, Abu Nidal has carried out more than a hundred acts of terrorism, that have, resulted in the deaths of over 250 people. Some of these attacks include the 1986 grenade and machine-gun assaults on El Al counters at Rome and Vienna airports, attacks on synagogues, and assassinations of Palestinian moderates. Abu Nidal’s most well-known attack was on a Greek cruise ship in 1988 that left nine people dead and 80 wounded. As was pointed-out regarding the attack on the vessel, ‘City of Poros,’ “ . . . no conceivable Palestinian or Arab interest was served by such random savagery.”

What is curious is that Israel has never attempted reprisals upon Nidal’s organisation. Israel has a long-standing policy of launching immediate and massive retaliation against any terrorist attack. Whilst Israeli forces have bombed, shelled and raided Palestinian and Shi’ite positions in Lebanon, and have sent ‘hit teams’ to kill Palestinian guerrilla leaders in other countries, they have never attacked Abu Nidal. Given Israel’s harsh and unrelenting policy of retribution against terrorist attacks, this seems more than a little ‘out of character.’

Another curious feature of Abu Nidal’s terrorism is that more than 50 percent of it has been directed against Arab and Palestinian rivals. The ANO’s vicious war against the PLO has led to Arab claims that it was secretly manipulated by the Mossad and according to this on the surface, far-fetched hypothesis, the Mossad penetrated Abu Nidal’s organisation and has manipulated it to carry out atrocities that would discredit the Palestinian cause.

In an attempt to sway world opinion in favour of Zionist Jews or to provoke an armed reaction, the Mossad constantly stages false-flag events and blames Arabs. In 1985, the Zionists used Mossad-operative Arabs to hijack a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro.

In the Zionist version of events, four heavily-armed Palestinian terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship, carrying more than 400 passengers and crew, off the coast of Egypt. The hijackers demanded that Israel free 50 Palestinian prisoners and to show that they meant business, the ‘terrorists’ killed a disabled Jewish-American tourist, 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, and threw his body overboard with his wheelchair.

After a two-day drama, amidst a Zionist-bankster-induced media feeding-frenzy, the hijackers eventually surrendered in exchange for a pledge of safe passage. But when an Egyptian jet tried to fly the hijackers to freedom, US Navy F-14 fighters intercept it and forced it to land in Sicily. The terrorists were taken into custody by Italian authorities and counter-terrorist units from the US responded, including elements of Delta Force and SEAL Team Six. However the situation was resolved before an assault became necessary. The terrorist group who hijacked the Achille Lauro was soon named as the Palestine Liberation Front.

However, what really happened was that, as reliably reported by former IDF arms dealer Ari Ben-Menashe in his 1992 book, ‘Profits of War: Inside the Secret US-Israeli Arms Network,’ the attack had been ordered and funded by Mossad. Ben-Menashe revealed that Israeli intelligence organisations regularly engage in ‘black operations,’ espionage activity designed to portray Palestinians and others in the worst possible light and an example of this was the case of the alleged ‘Palestinian’ attack on the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985.

It was, in fact, an Israeli ‘black’ propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cut-throat bunch the Palestinians are and to elicit sympathy for Israeli’s unequal struggle against their Palestinian enemies. According to Ben-Menashe, Israeli spymasters arranged the attack through “ . . . Abu Abbas, who, to follow such orders was receiving millions from Israeli intelligence officers posing as Sicilian dons. Abbas . . . gathered a team to attack the cruise ship. The team was told to make it bad, to show the world what lay in store for other unsuspecting citizens if Palestinian demands were not met. As the world knows, the group picked on an elderly American Jewish man in a wheelchair, killed him, and threw his body overboard. They made their point. But for Israel, it was the best kind of anti-Palestinian propaganda.”

It should be noted that in April 1996, Abbas returned to Gaza and in a show of support for Yasser Arafat apologised for the hi-jacking and the killing of the American Jewish passenger, Leon Klinghoffer without mentioning him by name, saying, “The hi-jacking was a mistake, and there were no orders to kill civilians.” But Abbas made no mention of Mossad involvement in the hi-jacking.

The Munich Massacre of September 1972, watched by 900 million people on TV, was also nothing more than Zionist false-flag propaganda. On 5th September 1972, eight Palestinians from Abu Nidal’s ‘Black September’ organisation, seized eleven Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, Germany during the Olympic Games. Two were killed at the beginning, and the other nine were killed in a botched helicopter rescue whilst the Israelis and Germans killed six terrorists.

Strangely enough, Moshe Dyan allowed the three surviving Black September operatives to surrender and Germany freed them, nearly two months later, in return for the release of passengers on a hijacked Lufthansa jet.

As mentioned earlier, Michael Harari was an Israeli intelligence officer in the Mossad. Harari was involved in several notable operations, including the failed Lillehammer affair and the rescue of hostages at Entebbe. Harari began his intelligence career facilitating illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine after World War II. He then spent time in the army and Shin Bet before being recruited by the Mossad in the 1960s. During his time in the Mossad he ran agents in Europe, eventually advancing to the head of the Operations Branch and it was during this time that he helped build and lead teams in Operation Wrath of God, the Israeli response to the Munich Massacre in 1972. This was a covert operation directed by Israel through the Mossad, to assassinate individuals alleged to have been directly or indirectly involved. If we assume that Munich was a false flag event, as indeed it was, this means that none of those assassinated had anything to do with it and was simply an excuse for Israel to kill Palestinians which of course they do, at every opportunity.

Harari was played by the actor Moshe Igvy in Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film, Munich, which is a controversial account of Operation Wrath of God. It was of course a slick piece of pro-Israel propaganda, by the master of pro-Zionist propaganda himself, Spielberg.

Since 1972, there have been many, many other Israeli false-flag attacks, the usual object of which is to demonise some aspect or other, of the Arab world . . .

September 1973 . . . Paris, France — Attacked Saudi Arabian Embassy.
October 1974 . . . Damascus, Syria — Assassination attempt on Arafat.
September 1976 . . . Damascus, Syria — Attacked Semiramis Hotel.
October 1976 . . . Rome, Italy — Attacked Syrian Embassy.
October 1976 . . . Islamabad, Pakistan — Attacked Syrian Embassy.
November 1976 . . . Amman, Jordan — Occupied International Hotel.
December 1976 . . . Syria — Assassination attempt on Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs.
October 1977 . . . Abu Dhabi Killed UAE Secretary of State, Foreign Affairs.
January 1978 . . . London, England — Assassination of PLO representative.
February 1978 . . . Cyprus — Assassination of the chairman of the Egyptian Press Trade Union.
June 1978 . . . Kuwait — Assassination of PLO representatives.
March 1980 . . . Madrid, Spain — Assassination of Spanish lawyer, Max Mazini.
July 1980 . . . Brussels, Belgium — Claimed responsibility for killing the Israeli Commerce Attaché.
May 1981 . . . Vienna, Austria — Murdered City Councilman and threatened to kill Austrian Chancellor.
August 1981 . . . Vienna, Austria — Machine-gunned a synagogue, killing two and injuring 17.
June 1982 . . . London, England — Attempted assassination of Israeli Ambassador.
June 1982 . . . Rome, Italy Killed PLO official Husayn Kamal with a car bomb.
August 1982 . . . Paris, France — Killed six and injured 22 in a grenade and machinegun attack on a
restaurant frequented by French Jews.
August 1982 . . . Bombay, India — Attempted murder of UAE Consul.
August 1982 . . . Kuwait — Shot and wounded UAE diplomat.
September 1982 . . . Madrid, Spain — Assassinated Kuwaiti diplomat.
October 1982 . . . Rome, Italy — Killed a child and injured ten in an attack on a Synagogue.
April 1983 . . . Lisbon, Portugal — Murdered PLO official Issam Sartawi at a conference.
October 1983 . . . Rome, Italy — Attempted to kill the Jordanian Ambassador to Italy.
October 1983 . . . New Delhi, India — Severely wounded the Jordanian Ambassador to India.
November 1983 . . . Athens, Greece — Attacked the Jordanian Embassy, killing and injuring two.
December 1983 . . . Izmir, Turkey — Bombing of the French Cultural Centre.
February 1984 . . . Paris, France — Murdered the UAE Ambassador to France.
March 1984 . . . Athens, Greece — Assassinated a British diplomat.
November 1984 . . . Bombay, India — Assassinated British High Commissioner.
December 1984 . . . Rome, Italy — Killed Arafat-supporter Ismail Darwish.
December 1984 . . . Bucharest, Romania — Assassinated Jordanian diplomat.
March 1985 . . . Beirut, Lebanon — Kidnapped and suspected murder of British journalist.
March 1985 . . . Rome, Italy — Attacked Alia, the Royal Jordanian Airlines office injuring three.
April 1985 . . . Athens, Greece — Fired a rocket at an Alia airliner damaging fuselage.
July 1985 . . . Madrid, Spain — Bombed a British Airways office killing one and injuring 27.
July 1985 . . . Madrid, Spain — Attacked Alia offices injuring two.
July 1985 . . . Ankara, Turkey — Assassinated the first secretary of the Jordanian Embassy.
September 1985 . . . Rome, Italy — Grenade attack on a cafe wounding 38.
September 1985 . . . Malta — Hijacked an Egyptian airliner. 60 people were killed in the rescue. December 1985 . . . Rome and Vienna — Attacked airports with killing 16 and injuring 60.
September 1986 . . . Karachi, Pakistan — Hijacked Pan Am flight 73, killing 17 and wounding over 150. September 1986 . . . Istanbul, Turkey — Attacked Neve Shalom synagogue killing 22.

But in April 1986, perhaps the most significant attack occurred in Berlin, Germany, with an attack on the LaBelle disco, killing three. The Mossad, and its pro-Zionist allies in the CIA, orchestrated a deadly bomb attack at the entertainment venue that was commonly frequented by US soldiers stationed in the area. A bomb placed under a table exploded at 1.45 am.

In addition to the deaths, it also injured around 230 others, including 79 American servicemen. The US President Ronald Reagan immediately blamed Libya for the terrorist bombing and ten days later dispatched US war planes that dropped over sixty tons of bombs on the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. They destroyed the home of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and killed at least 30 civilians, including many children, including one of Gaddafi’s. Gaddafi himself however, the main target of the air strike, was unhurt.

Just prior to the bombing in Germany, the Mossad had planted a ‘Trojan’ device in a Libyan apartment building in Tripoli. Victor Ostrovsky explained in his book ‘The Other Side of Deception,’ that a Trojan is a special communication device that could be planted deep inside enemy territory. The device would act as a relay-station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad called LAP which was intended to be received by American and British listening stations. Using this device, the Mossad made it appear that the Libyan leadership was transmitting terrorist directives from Tripoli to their embassies worldwide. This treacherous Zionist ploy successfully induced the Americans to bomb Libya after the Mossad’s false-flag attack at the West Berlin disco in 1986.

September 1987 . . . West Bank, Lebanon — Bombing of restaurant wounding 15 people.

November 1987 . . . Israel — Hijacked a yacht off the coast taking eight hostages.

March 1988 . . . Bombay, India — Attacked Alitalia airlines crew seriously wounding the captain.

May 1988 . . . Nicosia, Cyprus — A car bomb near the Israeli Embassy, killed three and injured 17.

May 1988 . . . Khartoum, Sudan — Gunmen attacked hotel killing eight and injuring 21.

David Shipler, a former New York Times reporter, was told by the Israeli military governor of the Gaza Strip, Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, that the Israeli government had financed the Islamic movement to counteract the ‘PLO and the communists’ and according to Martha Kessler, a senior CIA analyst, “ . . . we saw Israel cultivate Islam as a counterweight to Palestinian nationalism.”

Hamas first emerged in 1987. It was formed from various charities based in the Palestinian territories with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement born in Egypt in the 1920s from which many of today’s radical Islamic sects, including al-Qaeda, have sprung. Israel allowed these Islamic charities to gain strength and influence in Palestinian areas, hoping that they would counter the influence of secular Palestinian resistance movements. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas until his death by Israeli air strike in 2004, formed Hamas as the military wing of his group the Islamic Association, which was licenced by Israel 10 years earlier.

During that period, when there was open conflict between Israeli forces and Palestinian nationalists, Israeli officials even indirectly funded the establishment of Islamic societies in the West Bank and Gaza that might weaken the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The same Islamic groups ‘cultivated’ by Israel in the 1970s became Hamas in the 1980s, which went on to become Israel’s greatest nemesis in the 1990s.

One of the first actions taken by Israel after its victory in the 1967 war was to release from prison various Muslim Brotherhood activists, including Ahmed Yassin, future founder of Hamas. Yassin and others had been jailed by the Egyptian authorities after the Muslim Brotherhood tried to assassinate Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, the anti-colonialist and pan-Arabist who considered political Islam a threat and an anachronism and was fairly unforgiving in his treatment of its practitioners. Israel by contrast, sensing that such radical Islamists might be helpful in undermining Arab nationalists in the Palestinian territories, released the Islamists from their cells and encouraged them to integrate into Palestinian society.

“There’s plenty of evidence that the Israeli intelligence services, especially Shin Bet and the military occupation authorities, encouraged the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood and the founding of Hamas in Palestinian territories.” Robert Dreyfuss

According to former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman, Shin Bet, the Israeli counter-intelligence and internal security service, knowingly created Hamas . . . “Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet, which had a feeling that they could use it to hem-in the PLO.”

By encouraging and promoting the emergence of radical Islamism, Israel was following in the footsteps of successive British and American governments and their policy of ‘the enemy of my enemy, is my friend.’ Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood itself, was a creation of British colonialism. In the 1920s, the British, then the colonial rulers of Egypt, helped set up the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of keeping Egyptian nationalism and anti-colonialism at bay. Dreyfuss described the original Muslim Brotherhood as an “unabashed British intelligence front.” The mosque that served as the first headquarters of the Brotherhood, in Ismailia, Egypt, was built by the British Suez Canal Company. Then in the 1930s and 1950s, with Britain’s knowledge and tacit approval, the Brotherhood both challenged anti-colonial parties within Egypt and spread to other parts of the Near and Middle East, setting up branches in Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, where under the ‘approving eyes’ of Israel from the late 1960s to the 1980s, it eventually mutated into Hamas.

Al-Qaeda itself, evolved from the MI-6/CIA created, Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden was heavily influenced by the thinking of Sayyid Qutb, a radical member of the Brotherhood. Indeed, al-Qaeda has benefited from western intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. It takes its inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood, that group supported by both American and British intelligence in the early and middle 20th century, and it was consolidated during the Afghan-Soviet War, a conflict largely facilitated by American, British, and Saudi support for the Mujahedeen.

Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon played a crucial role in the founding of Hamas in 1988, when his Likud Party approved 800 licenses to Islamists in the occupied Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank. The right-wing Israeli Likud used Hamas to generate conflict among the Palestinians. Hamas suicide bombers are modern-day ‘Assassins,’ whose actions serve as a pretext for further Israeli aggression against Palestinians. In 2005 Hamas won the elections in Palestine, giving the Israelis another excuse to harden their stand against the Palestinians.

Great regional leaders including the Egyptian Nasser, the Iranian, Mossadegh, the Algerian, Boumedienne, the Libyan, Gaddafi and the Iraqi, al-Bakr all advocated secular socialism, which poses a very real threat to the banksters and in itself goes some way towards explaining the threat to their interests posed by these people, and more importantly, why they had to be eliminated. Of course we are told by the compliant media, that it is their ‘inhuman dictatorships,’ and their ‘crimes against humanity,’ amongst other similar phrases, that are the reasons for their having to be ‘stopped at all costs.’ But it takes only a cursory glance at the real facts and a minimal amount of research before the lies and propaganda are exposed.

In a more recent example, in 1998, Bill Clinton said that Iraq had failed to cooperate with the nuclear inspectors and placed new restrictions on them. He claimed that Iraqi officials had destroyed records and moved everything. “Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors,” Clinton said.

Clinton also said that Hussein was a “ . . . threat to his people and to the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbours, a government that respects the rights of its people.” The irony however, was completely lost on the masses.

Also in 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted in an interview that the Taliban had been funded by the Carter administration not because they were ‘freedom fighters,’ but to invoke support against a more formidable enemy, Russia. This same tactic was and still is being used against practicing Muslims in the world, who are the only real threat remaining to the Zionist, bankster-controlled New World Order. By financing such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, not only does the drug trade prosper, but ordinary Muslim people come under attack from those who eventually equate the abused name of Islam with terrorism. Many of these plots and double-plots are funded through shadow entities operating out of the Cayman Islands, formerly by the BCCI, and now by unknown financial groups with similar interests.

For 50 years, Zbigniew Brzezinksi (CFR, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg member) has served as a geo-political strategist for the Rockefellers. His 1998 book, ‘The Grand Chessboard,’ laid-out the strategy for the US to control Central Asia, and set up military bases ringing China and Russia. He wrote that . . . “America may find it difficult to fashion consensus on foreign policy, except in the circumstance of a truly massive external threat. The attitude of the American public towards this projection of power has been ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

However Brzezinski’s book was written for ‘intellectuals’ and elite policymakers, not for the general public. The Grand Chessboard in fact was designed to notify others in the ‘inner circles’ that a false flag terror event will be used to instigate Middle-eastern military campaigns in the coming years.

On 7th August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed simultaneously. Of the 223 killed, only 12 were Americans, and the rest were Africans, but a new ‘super-villain’ was introduced to the world, and falsely blamed for the attacks. The public was told that a Saudi Arabian billionaire named Osama Bin Laden and his ‘al-Qaeda’ terrorist network was responsible for the attacks. In response, Clinton predictably ordered missile strikes on Sudan and Osama’s hideout in Afghanistan. The “truly massive external threat,” that Brzezinski had recently ‘foretold,’ had now been unleashed upon the world.

Just as in a Hollywood film, the introduction of the Bin Laden ‘threat’ set-up the perfect scapegoat for the much larger-scale ‘Islamic terrorism’ yet to come, later-on ‘in the movie.’ This triggered the invasion and occupation of Central Asia that the Globalist banksters so badly wanted and needed.

The US government officially accused Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda of having directed and facilitated the truck-bomb explosions at the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya but no solid proof was ever proffered to support the allegations. On the contrary, several interesting facts strongly point to Israeli involvement in these vicious atrocities.

The Spotlight newspaper reported that several weeks before the bombings, the Israeli secret service had persuaded US authorities to ignore intelligence reports that warned of an imminent attack against the embassies. As a result, there had been no follow-up precautions taken to protect the embassies from an attack. Thanks to the Mossad’s ‘advice’ to ignore clear evidence of impending danger, hundreds of innocent people were murdered in the two terrorist bombings.

Here is an excerpt from The Spotlight’s interesting report on the matter . . . “We don’t know yet who was at the wheel of those car bombs; but we do know that the long fuse leading to these terrorist flare-ups was lit in Israel.”

The FBI had asked the Israelis for a definite evaluation of these early warnings. “Ignore them, it’s just another false alarm.” the Mossad had reassured the US government. This information, delivered to Washington just weeks before the monstrous explosion, was the key factor in persuading the US to relax its guard, resulting in the loss of life of at least 250 people.

“At this point in time, Israel is the only country that can expect to benefit from such an atrocious act of political warfare, commented a senior national security official from a leading Gulf nation, who asked not to be identified by name. For the first time in history, the [Israeli] government finds itself embroiled in simultaneous hostilities with the White House, the CIA, the entire European community of nations and the Arab League as well as the Vatican — even with NASA, (the American space agency). It is desperately trying to get out of this quandary by staging a new regional crisis.” The Spotlight

More than eleven million flights depart and/or land safely from the United States each year and statistically, for even a single plane to suddenly fall out of the sky, is a very unusual event. Nevertheless, between 1996 and 2001, there were no less than four instances of this, and in all four cases, the doomed airliners had just departed from the same airport in New York, JFK International. The most ridiculous explanations imaginable were offered for the four tragedies, each of which appears to be connected to the usual suspects . . .

On 17th July 1996, flight TWA 800, aboard a Boeing 747 headed for Paris, 230 were killed by a ‘spontaneous explosion caused by a mechanical failure,’ according to the official story. However, more than one hundred eyewitnesses provided sworn statements stating that they saw a missile streaking through the air and striking the plane. Of course this evidence was ignored and conveniently hidden.

The independent documentary TWA Flight 800 related the story of how politics intervened to prevent an honest federal assessment of the causes of the disaster. The FBI and the CIA immediately assumed control of the investigation, pre-empting the role of a number of career professionals working under the auspices of the National Transportation Safety Board. Clinton appointed a ‘Commission,’ to cover-up the missile attack and blame it on ‘mechanical failure,’ whilst the ‘conspiracy community’ was also kept busy by dis-info regarding an ‘accidental’ US Navy missile launch during a nearby training exercise. Well, why not? It works every time.

The authors of the NTSB’s final report followed the lead of the FBI and the CIA in treating the large body of eyewitness accounts as ‘irrelevant’ to their final conclusions. Yet some of the eyewitnesses spoke on camera of a second and third missile-like object ascending towards Flight 800 and exploding near the aircraft. The commentaries of the aviation experts featured in the documentary corroborated the eyewitness accounts pointing to the core conclusion that it was ‘explosions outside the aircraft that brought Flight 800 down.’

Swissair flight 111, 229 were killed when “ . . . the plane just caught fire and then the pilots lost control of it,” again according to the official story. Not long after departing from JFK Airport, the plane simply lost radio contact for 13 minutes before crashing into the ocean.

Interestingly, at this precise moment in time, Switzerland was embroiled in a bitter controversy with the World Jewish Congress, headed by Edgar Bronfman. The WJC claimed that Swiss banks were withholding ‘stolen Jewish gold’ from the Holocaust.™ The Swiss, who were neutral during World War II, were strongly resisting the unfounded allegations, so it was perhaps inevitable that the Swiss would be punished and have a message sent, warning them to ‘pay up, or else!’

Then on 2nd September 1998, on

However, shortly after the Swissair incident, Switzerland suddenly became ‘convinced’ by the Zionist’s persuasive arguments and paid-out more than $1.8bn to ‘Holocaust™ survivors.’ Paul Volcker, the Zionist, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, headed the Commission which carried out the Swiss coup.

On 31st October 1999, aboard Egypt Air flight 990, 217 were killed when the co-pilot decided to commit suicide and take a plane full of passengers down with him.

Egyptian protestors in Egypt rejected the ‘pilot suicide’ claim and accused Israel and the US of deliberately bringing down Flight 990. Israel certainly had a motive. Egypt Air 990 was carrying 33 officers of the Egyptian military; among them were 2 Brigadier-Generals, a Colonel, a Major, and four other senior Air Force officers. This would then eliminate senior officers who could maybe one day stage a coup against Egypt’s US-Israel puppet president, Mubarak.

Without a shred of evidence, ‘pilot suicide’ became the official version of events, blaming one ‘deranged’ individual for the plane’s sudden plunge into the Atlantic. The Egyptian government ordered the censorship of all news stories publicising the presence of so many senior military officers on the plane, but nonetheless, ‘conspiracy theories’ still continue unabated.

On 12th November 2001, on American Airlines flight 587, 260 were killed just two months after the 9/11 attacks, when yet another departing flight from JFK, destination, the Dominican Republic, suddenly fell from the sky. According to the official fairy-tale, sorry, explanation of events, flight 587 was ‘broken-up by wake air turbulence,’ created by another plane that had just departed.

This was despite the fact numerous eye-witnesses saw the plane catch fire and explode in a fire-ball, before it crashed into a Long Island residential neighbourhood.

Please note that at this point in time, five Israeli Mossad Agents were still being held in custody over their extremely suspicious behaviour and possession of a truck full of explosives on 9/11. This group was the infamous, ‘dancing Israelis.’ How better to secure the release of the Israelis, than with the threat of even more ‘falling’ airliners and the destruction of the reputation of America’s air travel industry.

With not even a shred of evidence, ‘wake turbulence’ (caused by a plane miles away) was immediately blamed for the sudden crash. The higher echelons of the US government intervened and the five Israelis were released less than one week after the mysterious crash. This was the fourth plane in just five years to fall out of the sky shortly after leaving the very same airport; an astonishing ‘coincidence,’ with each succeeding explanation’ growing even more ridiculous than the previous one.

Totally unconnected with the previous four incidents, on 8th March 2014, Malaysia Airlines flight 370 from Malaysia to China literally disappeared after its transponders were firstly shut-off, suggesting that the plane did not crash at all, but was hijacked and landed at an unknown destination.

In December 2013, a Malaysian Tribunal had declared Israel guilty of war crimes in association with Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in 2008-9. Could their motive possibly have been to punish Malaysia for its unsympathetic stance on Israel’s crimes whilst also punishing China, (the majority of passengers were Chinese) for its support of Syria, Iran, and Russia, and pin the blame on its enemies?

Indeed, Israel and its Mossad have been behind so many terrorist acts, usually in association with MI-6, CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world; but very often for its own goals. They are certainly masters of false-flag events, and blaming their perceived enemies.

US Election Day 2000

Almost all pundits predicted a tight race between the Texas governor, George W. Bush and Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore, but few expected one of the closest elections in US history. However, the outcome of the 2000 US election was never in doubt, despite all the drama underlying it.

The Bush family ‘fixed’ the vote in Florida, of this there is little doubt. In all it is believed that 90,000 eligible black and Hispanic voters (usually Democrat voters) were denied the right to vote because Database Technologies who ran the voting process, incorrectly classified these eligible voters as felons. The US Civil Rights Commission also found clear evidence of illegal voter disenfranchisement. Any eligible black voter with no felonies on his record, yet who shared the same surname as another felon, was automatically denied the right to vote.

Al Gore, Bush’s opponent had lost Florida by 537 votes when the US Supreme Court stopped the Florida vote recount. 179,855 ballots were never counted and furthermore, 4,917 eligible black voters were disqualified from voting for felonies they never committed and for which Database Technologies had recorded blank conviction dates. And most people still firmly believe that we live in a ‘democratic society’ and that there is such a thing as ‘law and order.’ They never seem to comprehend that we all live in a crime-ocracy run by the banksters using their laws, from which they are of course, exempt, and their idea of what constitutes ‘order.’

On 13th December 2000, George Bush Jr., Bush the lesser, became the 43rd President of the United States. Bush openly admitted to being a member of Skull and Bones and was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. A confirmed Freemason also, Bush is closely blood-related to every European monarch and is a cousin of every member of Britain’s Royal family, the House of Windsor. He is a 13th cousin of Queen Elizabeth and is a 13th cousin, once removed of the heir to the throne, Prince Charles.

George W. Bush is a far cry from the man he has been engineered to represent. George W. Bush was born into the Elite, a family of great wealth, power and political power. He had every advantage imaginable, attended the top prep schools and Universities and some say was already a millionaire in elementary school due to stock in his daddy’s oil companies. Most American 10 year-olds do not own a million shares of daddy’s oil companies.

So how did this very rich kid, who never had to work a day in his life and was able to evade the Vietnam draft because of his family’s political power become a ‘typical middle-class boy from Texas?’ This takes a serious image makeover, considering that he was not even born in Texas. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut and moved to Texas due to his family’s oil interests.

As a teen and young adult, Bush attended both Yale and Harvard and his time there seems to have been spent partying. A Newsweek profile by Evan Thomas, describing his college years, said that he “ . . . seems to have majored in beer drinking . . . ” After he formed his first company, which failed, Thomas wrote that, “ . . . by his own account, Bush spent a lot of time in bars, trying to sort out who he was. He had a kind of ragged, nervous energy in that period, and he could also be a bully.”

In May 1968, George Bush Jr., was twelve days away from the Vietnam draft, at a time when 350 Americans a week were dying in combat. The National Guard, seen by many as the most respectable way to avoid Vietnam, had a huge waiting list, a year and a half in Texas, and over 100,000 men nationwide. Yet the Bush family used their many friends in high places to ‘pull strings,’ and Bush was admitted the same day he had applied, regardless of any waiting list. Bush’s unit, the 147th, was infamous as a haven for politically connected and celebrity draft avoiders.

Upon the completion of his service, Bush attempted several times to start his own oil company. His companies always failed but each time, he was bailed out by friends or family in the way of buyouts and mergers. Throughout his business career, good fortune as well as controversy seemed to follow him around but largely due to the overwhelming influence of his family and their many ‘friends in high places,’ over many years, he eventually acquired a massive personal fortune, despite his apparent lack of credentials to achieve this in a conventional way.

Then, in the late 1970s Bush decided to run for political office, maybe because he was bored or even through family pressure, but until that time he had never seemed to care about politics. Either way, he made many mistakes and learned from them. He often made references to complicated economic policies and difficult as it may be to believe now, many voters in his 1978 campaign were turned-off by George W. Bush’s apparent ‘high intelligence.’ That sounds totally unfeasible now, that George W. Bush, was seen as a ‘genius’ who was so out of touch with constituents due to his great intellect.

During his presidential campaign he did not make the same mistakes as he did in the 1970s. He actually convinced most Americans that he was that a middle-class Texan ‘farm boy.’ This illusion was so convincing, that even knowing the facts of the Bush family, most people still see him as ‘middle-class.’ The stupid, ‘I can’t remember’ look works completely to his advantage. His opponents completely underestimate him for it and it is endearing to his followers.

John O’Neill, who was briefly mentioned earlier, lost his position soon after George W. Bush took power. O’Neill told two respected French investigators . . . “All of the answers, all of the clues allowing us to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organisation, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” O’Neill was extremely frustrated by the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism, claiming that the administration had also made it more difficult to investigate Saudis. It was O’Neill’s pressure on the UAE and Saudis that led to Bush firing him as Treasury Secretary in December 2002. However it is also possible that O’Neill may have stumbled upon the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ Mossad operatives operating in the UAE who were directing funds to ‘al-Qaeda.’

It is an undeniable truth that Mossad uses Jews born in Arab countries to masquerade as Arabs, for ‘false flag’ purposes. They often carry forged or stolen passports from Arab countries or nations in Europe that have large Arab immigrant populations, particularly Germany, France, Britain, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the ‘Arab hijacker’ cells that were later blamed by the US government’s 9/11 Commission for carrying out the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Wayne Madsen Reports had received details of the British intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The contents of this report were as follows . . .

A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian and Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated ‘al-Qaeda’ cells in Hamburg, Germany, south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but controlled them and gave them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11. This Mossad infiltration team was comprised of six Israelis (two teams of three agents each) who all received special training at a Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of ‘al-Qaeda’ cells.

One Mossad team travelled to Amsterdam under orders from Mossad’s Europe Station, which operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport in Amsterdam. This three-man Mossad unit then travelled to Hamburg where it made contact with Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama Bin Laden. In fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.

The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York and then to southern Florida where they began to direct the ‘al-Qaeda’ cells operating in Florida from Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach. Israeli ‘art students,’ already under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for casing the offices and homes of federal law enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting surveillance of the activities, including flight school training, of the future ‘Arab’ hijacker cells, specifically in Hollywood and Vero Beach.

Then in August 2001, the first Mossad team flew with Atta and other Hamburg ‘al-Qaeda’ members to Boston. Logan International Airport’s security was contracted to Huntleigh USA, a firm owned by an Israeli airport security firm closely connected to Mossad; International Consultants on Targeted Security or ICTS. ICTS’s owners were politically connected to the Likud Party, particularly the Netanyahu faction and the then-Jerusalem mayor and future Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was Olmert who personally interceded with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to secure the released from prison of the five Urban Moving Systems employees, (the dancing Israelis) identified by the CIA and FBI agents as Mossad agents, following the downing of the American Airlines 747 a week previously. In May 2014, Olmert was sentenced to six years in prison for political corruption and bribery.

The 49 year-old John O’Neill was forcibly retired from the FBI, betrayed by the very same powerful Zionist forces that he was uncovering, on 22nd August 2001, after twenty-five years of service. But he was not unemployed for too long . . . He had a ‘friend’ by the name of Jerome Hauer, a well-connected friend, who luckily managed to procure a $350,000 a year job for O’Neill, in his beloved New York City, as security chief for a very prominent office complex . . .

11th September 2001

If you have carefully considered all you have been shown so far, then the following, will not be so difficult to comprehend. The world was meant to remember the American emergency services number of ‘911,’ when applied to the date of the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, on 11th September 2001. It is not my intention here to provide an in-depth analysis of all the multifarious events and anomalies surrounding that bleak day in history as such analyses may be found elsewhere, in abundance. However, a brief overview of the event, is perhaps in order.

This was a horrific and tragic day. Nearly three thousand people perished in the terrorist attacks that drove a knife straight into the heart of America. Apart from being a brutal blow to the pride and stature of the most powerful nation on earth, the events of 9/11 were also a major wake-up call for many Americans and others around the world. However, an unintended side-effect was that for many different reasons, the attacks of 9/11 inspired a great number of people to begin investigating major world events, attempting to ascertain what sinister forces lay behind such atrocities, in conjunction with the still ‘new’ and powerful tool, the Internet. By looking at historical and current events more deeply and with a more critical eye, many millions of people across the globe have now realised the truth.

It is often said that the engine driving the madness that has engulfed our planet since 9/11 is the ‘New World Order,’ a coalition of rich and powerful ‘globalists’ hell-bent on transforming the world into a tyrannical, prison society. This popular idea represents only a small portion of the truth. The New World Order that is so often referred-to, is in reality a ‘bankster World Order’ spearheaded by a contingent of psychopathic, Zionist supremacists who aim to establish world dominion, with total control over mankind itself.

As already stated, the banksters, care nothing for the sanctity of human life, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist or any other group. Neither do they care who nor how many they sacrifice to achieve their evil goals. The shocking images of the unbelievable violence that took place on 9/11 have been seared into the memories of every one of us and the remarkable precision and coordination of the heinous aerial assaults on the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon was a surreal sight for many. However, the unthinkable collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 at nearly free-fall speed raised some immediate questions. Many critical thinkers were already asking serious questions as to what really happened and who was really behind the attacks.

The official explanation of the George W. Bush administration, which naturally was fully endorsed and promoted by the bankster’s mass media . . . That nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, yet ‘devout Muslims,’ who enjoyed lap-dances the night before their mission to meet Allah . . . Got up very early, divided into four groups, were not armed with guns or explosives, but with mere box-cutters, were able to bypass security at three major airports, overwhelm the crew and passengers of four planes despite being greatly outnumbered, fly the planes with little or no piloting skills, easily defeating all the hundreds of billions of dollars of US air defence systems, that just by chance, were busy being distracted by numerous drills and war games, that also by chance, mirrored the real-life events of terrorist hijackers and planes being flown into buildings. Then, skilfully steering three of the mammoth jetliners unopposed into their designated targets, managing to defy several laws of physics . . . And the world watched-on in awe as steel-framed buildings fell symmetrically, through their own mass, at free-fall speed and as a result of fire, for the first (and only) time in history.

We are also meant to believe that these ‘Arab’ hijackers were Intelligent enough to somehow fool the entire US security and military authorities, cause the twin towers to fall into their own footprints in ten seconds or less, yet were stupid enough to leave their handy ‘How to Fly a Commercial Passenger Jet’ guide in their car at the airport, not to mention leave enough Korans lying around to supply an entire mosque. And despite all their dastardly cunning, they were also stupid enough to handily provide their identities to the ‘investigating’ authorities by using fire and explosion-proof passports, which survived the fireball undamaged and fell to the ground . . . only to be discovered by the incredible latter-day Sherlock Holmes’ of the FBI.

Hani Hanjour, having previously failed two-man Cessna flying school, was so inspired by the successes of the day, that he suddenly discovered previously-unknown abilities to pilot his hijacked Boeing 767 and so instead of flying straight down into the large, roofed area of the Pentagon, he decided to show-off a little. Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, which many experienced 767 pilots said later was impossible and well-beyond their own capabilities, he levelled-off just in time to skim the ground for several hundred yards, before striking the facade of the world’s most heavily defended building, within the most guarded airspace in the entire world, which was somehow left undefended, even after declaring that America was already under attack over half an hour, before it was hit by a plane that had had its transponder switched-off for 41 minutes!

There was no intercept of that obvious hijack, nor either of the New York flights which had transponders off for 26 and 17 minutes respectively. The military ‘tried’ to muster an air defence, but just could not get there in time, despite its planes having a top speed of three times that of the airliners. And all this without a single shot being fired . . . or ruining the nicely mowed lawn at the Pentagon . . . and all at a speed unfortunately just too fast to be captured on security video.

So, desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers used sheer willpower to connect mobile (cell) calls that otherwise would not be possible from that altitude until several years later. And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashed into a Shanksville, Pennsylvania field, leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants or anything else that would have identified it as a hijacked plane, except for the standard-issue Muslim terrorists’ bandana, of course.

Whilst Commander-in-Chief Bush continued to read ‘My Pet Goat,’ to a class of primary school children, bravely continuing despite the obvious possibility that his own life could be in imminent danger due to it being common knowledge where he was, World Trade Center leaseholder, the Zionist Larry Silverstein blessed his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack for more than four times their actual worth only six weeks previously. And back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz congratulated themselves at their own remarkable good fortune in obtaining the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalysing event they so desired, in order to provide a mandate to pursue their agenda.

And this is all without mentioning the world’s biggest gold heist, the WTC-6 craters, the 9/11 actors, the WTC-7 building collapse, material witnesses subsequently highly prone to fatal ‘accidents,’ or the fact that these devout Muslims hated Pentagon accountants most of all; especially, those currently working on the greatest fraud in history.

And finally, disturbed by the premature reports of their own deaths, at least seven of the nineteen suicide hijackers turned-up very much alive, questioning why they were now being referred-to by the world’s media as ‘dead terrorists.’ And do not forget that all this had been directed by a bearded CIA asset from his cave hideaway in stone-age Afghanistan.

Of course these are all outrageous, ridiculous, and preposterous contentions, an insult to our intelligence. But then, the banksters have been insulting our intelligence with everything else reported as truth in the newspapers, history books, movies, TV, radio and our Yahoo/Google-driven internet pages, for many, many years. For example, it took over forty years before the truth became known about America’s first so-called ‘sneak attack’ at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December 1941. That ‘day of infamy,’ as a ‘shocked’ President Roosevelt addressed the world, was every bit as much of a lie as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The banksters, through Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, needed a BIG excuse to involve America in World War II and needed some ‘shock and awe’ to stir-up America’s young men enough, whereby they would just flock to the recruitment centres in great numbers for the chance to get their revenge against the ‘dirty Japs’ who invaded them without warning. Of course, Roosevelt conveniently ignored the fact, that he and his bankster-owned administration, did everything possible to provoke the Japanese into an attack. And everything possible to make sure that Pearl Harbor was unprepared and un-warned, so that the attack could succeed. With over 2,400 dead, and some 1,200 injured, moulding public opinion towards war, was from then on, very easy.

The official story of 9/11 is believed by fewer and fewer people every year. Reliable and honest polls are beginning to show that there are many more people who are sceptical of the US government’s story, than those who blindly accept it. The objective of this section is not to explain or uncover exactly how 9/11 was done in the physical sense, since there is already a plethora of literature and video documentaries highlighting the physical/scientific impossibilities of the official story. Rather, this is an attempt to elucidate who did it and why. I am confident in my contention that the official explanation of what happened on 9/11 has been dismantled, disproved and debunked on every level. The official story of the attacks, as the governments and mass media of the Western world would have us all believe, is riddled with holes and blatant lies and contradictions. The seemingly endless flaws, contradictions and absurdities of the US government’s official ‘conspiracy theory’ are painstakingly detailed in such films as Missing Links, Zero — An Investigation Into 9/11, 9/11 Mysteries, and Painful Deceptions. Like a sinking ship, indeed like the Titanic story itself, the official version of 9/11 has rapidly descended into the realms of fantasy.

There is little doubt that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were demolished with high-tech, military-grade explosives and the theory that the collapse of the towers and WTC-7 was scientifically impossible, without the use of explosives, has been established as a fact. This assertion is not argued merely by ‘conspiracy theorists’ sitting alone with their tin-foil hats in their basements watching endless re-runs of the X-Files, but by thousands of professionals, scientists, pilots, architects and engineers who have put their careers and reputations on the line in order to bring the truth about the controlled demolition of the three gigantic structures that fell to tiny pieces before our eyes, in New York City on 9/11, into the public domain.

If the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were brought down with explosives, which all of the evidence seems to indicate; then the tall-tale of nineteen suicidal Muslim hijackers must be a fabrication, indeed an invention, of the true authors of this terrorist conspiracy. I would contend that the wrong people are still to this day, being falsely blamed for an atrocity that they did not commit. Since 9/11, Muslims have been vilified in much the same way that the Germans were brutalised and abused in the press and Hollywood entertainment media following the events of World War II — and indeed are still. The very same bankster families behind the demonisation of the German people are behind the propaganda campaign to make us all believe that Islam and the Muslims are attacking our ‘civilisation’ and values and are dangerous enemies that we need to attack in order to defend ourselves.

The overwhelming historical guilt of this group of people, or this criminal cult, I should say, is being systematically dissected in fine detail within these pages.

The questions now remaining re. 9/11 however, are . . .

Who committed the 9/11 atrocities and for what purpose? Who had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out these acts and blame it on others? Which group or organisation had enough control over the American government and news media to have been able to successfully orchestrate this colossal hoax and to initiate a massive cover-up of their foul deeds? Who had the money to finance this tremendously sophisticated operation? Who had the ability to infiltrate the Pentagon and disable US air defences to provide four hijacked passenger planes a clear route to their designated targets without being shot down? Who had the capability to operate planes by remote control? Who had control of the US justice system to make sure that the perpetrators of this act were not prosecuted?

Who had the power to control the NYPD and the FBI to ensure that the true organisers of this attack were not investigated or prosecuted? Who had the power to allow hundreds of suspects to immediately escape from the country, despite the subsequent three day moratorium on flying? Who had the expertise in explosives to be able to demolish high-rise buildings that were specifically designed and constructed to withstand fires and plane impacts? Who had the advanced computer knowledge to coordinate the attacks?

Who was most familiar with and had political control over the city of New York where the attacks took place? Who had a network of spies operating in the United States that could facilitate the attacks? Who has a history of unprovoked attacks and false-flag provocations, some of which have been directed against the United States? And as any competent detective would ask, who stood to gain from the attacks, ‘cui bono’ — who benefitted? Did Islamic religious fanatics really carry out the attacks of 9/11 as our media and governments tell us or could some other form of religious and/or political fanaticism be behind these events?

In the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, literally before the mountain of toxic dust had even settled, the official finger of guilt was directed towards the only plausible author for such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terror, the CIA asset — Osama bin Laden.

Like Lee Harvey Oswald, Osama Bin Laden was the ultimate patsy. Of course he totally denied all allegations of his guilt, but who was going to believe him? Especially when all the resources of the bankster-controlled media throughout the world, were terrifying the masses with his very name.

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.” Osama bin Laden

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that had the likes of al-Qaeda managed to commit such a sophisticated, highly planned assault, that they would actually have been ‘crowing’ about it and not denying it? In fact, the ‘official story’ is so ludicrous, so totally impossible for outsiders to even stand a remote chance of carrying it out, that it could ONLY be an ‘inside-job,’ planned and executed by the Mossad, in complicity with the US government.

ex-italian_president_francesco-cossiga_911_mossad_cia

NSA_Israel_spying__sott_net

In answer to all the above questions, the perpetrators of 9/11 had multiple goals which just so happened to coincide with those of the Zionists, and also closely fitted the profiles defined by those questions . . . If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then the overwhelming chances are, that it is a duck. Those goals were . . .

To create the war on terror.
To vilify and blame Muslims in order to create a pretext to illegally invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
To re-establish the Middle East drug trade, to secure the oil.
To commit he world’s biggest theft of gold and silver plus massive Insurance, securities and stock fraud, Wall Street/Pentagon embezzlement and the destruction of files of evidence against Israel, Enron, WorldCom and others . . .
To greatly profit from endless wars and needless, oppressive security measures.
To destroy civil liberties and free speech.To promote their ‘New World Order.’

It is a fact that the World Trade Center in general, and the Twin Towers in particular, lost spectacular and ever-larger sums of money throughout their lifetimes, just as everyone knew they would. By 2001, the Twin Towers were largely empty due to their antiquated communications infrastructure, were loathed by New Yorkers as twin eyesores, and condemned due to asbestos since the mid-1990s. To remove that asbestos would have cost over $1bn and so the Port Authority had been seeking a convenient, cost-effective way to demolish the Towers for many years.

Everything presented here is already known to millions of people throughout the world, people just like you who have taken, or are now taking the time to research the facts for themselves. These millions are from all walks of life, political and religious beliefs, people who are tired of the lies and deceit and simply wish to know the truth. Yet still the majority, either refuse to challenge the official fairy tale, or could not care less either way and deliberately choose to remain ignorant, many maybe, unable to bear the implications of the discovery of it all being one large fabrication.

A simple Google search for the phrase ‘9/11 truth,’ demonstrates just how many groups are working to counter the deceptions and injustices . . . scientists, architects, engineers, scholars, pilots, fire-fighters, medical professionals, etc. More than 1,500 verified architectural and engineering professionals have called for a new investigation and cited evidence of controlled demolitions at all three collapsed WTC steel-framed buildings, the Twin Towers and WTC-7. Dozens of experts, from structural engineers to architects, physicists, mechanical engineers, metallurgical engineers, PhD scientists, fire protection engineers, fire-fighters, electrical design engineers, explosives technicians, etc., may be seen on the ae911truth channel on YouTube™, explaining why they know the 9/11 official conspiracy theory is a tissue of lies. Could anyone really, seriously accuse all these experts and professionals of being ‘conspiracy nuts?’

So, the stark truth is that . . . 9/11 was a master plan, many years and billions of dollars in the making, concocted by the Zionist Israelis and dual-passport Americans, and other traitors, and carried out by the resources of the Mossad, the CIA and MI-6, as well as the Saudis, with the full complicity of the US government, the banksters’ mass-media, law enforcement authorities and the judicial system.

But as with everything else, the absolute truth of 9/11 has been greatly contaminated with lies and disinformation, from the very same powerful dark forces responsible for the horrific crime itself. The Zionists are perfectly happy to have people believe that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were behind it, just as they were, having the ‘military-industrial complex’ blamed for the JFK assassination. Anything, just so long as no one implicates the Mossad or Israel itself. As already demonstrated, Israel has a long, sordid history of false-flag terrorism, of pretending to be Arabs and blaming them. But as of the publishing date of this book, 9/11 is their supreme triumph, the most photographed, most vivid act of terror, most of which was broadcast live throughout the world in order to reinforce their message.

To demonstrate just how deeply the roots of 9/11 penetrate into the past, consider that in 1979, Israel’s pre-eminent spymaster and founder of the infamous Mossad, Isser Harel, predicted with uncanny accuracy the events of 9/11. Michael Evans, an American Zionist, visited Harel at his home in Israel and had dinner with Harel and Dr. Reuven Hecht, a senior adviser to then Prime Minister, Menachem Begin. Evans asked Harel if Islamic terrorism would eventually come to America. Harel confirmed this as a fact and further stated that the attack will take place in New York City and it will be on its tallest building. “New York City is the symbol of freedom and capitalism. It’s likely they will strike . . . your tallest building, because it is a ‘phallic’ symbol,” he said.

Israeli+Mossad+Motto

When we consider that the bankster-Zionist network behind 9/11, effectively controls everything, we can conclude that the masterminds of 9/11 are from the highest levels of the Zionist enterprise. They would likely be those at the Rothschild financial level of the Mossad who have been involved with all their major criminal activities such as huge drug and weapons smuggling operations and immense financial crimes.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, which was the ‘child’ of the infamous 1940s Zionist terror-gang known as the Irgun, was the first to employ the Orwellian phrase ‘War on Terror.’ In 1987, Netanyahu published a book entitled ‘Terrorism: How the West Can Win,’ containing a number of essays and transcribed speeches from other like-minded Jewish-Zionist gangsters which outlined a political blueprint for a global campaign, led by the ‘Western democracies,’ of relentless pre-emptive warfare against anyone that the Zionists care to label as ‘terrorists.’ A ‘terrorist,’ in reality is Zionist code-speak for all those who resist Zionist terrorism, Zionist supremacy and the ‘Greater Israel’ project. If you resist the Zionist theft of Palestinian land, you are a ‘terrorist.’ If you resist the Zionist slaughter, you are a ‘terrorist.’ If you resist the Zionist takeover of your own country, you are a ‘terrorist.’ If you resist the Zionist control of your media, government and banking system, you are a ‘terrorist.’ If you resist total Zionist supremacy or even dare to speak out against them, you are a ‘terrorist,’ and it therefore follows that if you write a book exposing their insidious crimes, then you are a ‘terrorist.’ In that case I must be a terrorist, myself.

This is the result of allowing them to define terms for us. The sadistic Zionist policy of physically exterminating their enemies in the Middle East, under the thin veneer of ‘fighting terrorism,’ became the USA’s official foreign policy after 9/11, which is exactly what the attacks were intended to achieve.

Netanyahu is an ultra-radical Zionist and the current Prime Minister of Israel (as of early 2016.) He launched the ‘War on Terror,’ at the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism, which he personally organised on behalf of the Jonathan Institute, named for his brother who was killed during an IDF raid on the Occupied Territories.

“The 1979 JCIT established the ideological foundations for the ‘war on terror.’” Nafeez Ahmed

Participants at the conference included George H. W. Bush, Richard Pipes, Henry M. Jackson, Benzion Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, and many other high-level Israeli and US military and intelligence personalities. The JCIT proposed to deceive the world, by wildly exaggerating the dangers of ‘international terrorism’ and even manufacturing a non-existent ‘terrorist threat’ to mobilise Western populations behind aggressive Zionist policies. Also during the summer of 1979, Brzezinski and the CIA-created al-Qaeda, as a CIA asset.

In 1997, two neo-conservative Zionist commentators, William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded an ultra-aggressive, militaristic think-tank which developed ideas that would expand America’s hegemonic dominion over the entire globe, in association with emphasising the necessity of strong relations with the Zionist regime. Named ‘Project for the New American Century,’ or PNAC, it was the single most influential entity in the policy-making decisions of the murderous Bush administration, with many of its members actually serving in the administration.

PNAC released a document three years later, entitled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century’ which openly advocated the removal of Saddam Hussein and the total destruction of Iraq as a nation, due to its threat to Israel, and suggested America would need to “ . . . fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars,” to further establish its dominance in the Middle East.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the document however, was its call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’

“The process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic, catalyzing event — like a New Pearl Harbor.” No-one can possible deny that 9/11 served that exact purpose, galvanising the masses behind the illegal wars and genocides against Afghanistan and Iraq, all in the name of revenge.

like-new-Pearl-Harbour911b

More proof of Israeli and Jewish foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks was revealed by a Jewish resident of New Jersey who was a former Israeli soldier and veteran of the ‘Yom Kippur’ War of 1973. In October 2000, eleven months prior to September 2001, this man was collecting ivy cuttings at the Gomel Chesed Jewish Cemetery in New Jersey, when he overheard a conversation in Hebrew in which two people were talking about an imminent terrorist attack upon New York City’s World Trade Center Towers that would involve airplanes. The witness reported seeing two men leaning against a wall and a third person arrive by car. He overheard one of the men say . . . “The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.” Later, one of the men expressed a certain amount of concern regarding the upcoming presidential election between Bush/Cheney and Gore/Lieberman, which he believed might interfere with the plans. The person who arrived by car quelled the doubts by stating . . . “Don’t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.”

The witness to this incident informed US Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI of what he had overheard, but of course absolutely nothing was done with the information. John Ashcroft and the FBI completely ignored it for the obvious reason that Jews were implicated and not Arabs. As dedicated servants of Zionism, Ashcroft and the FBI took their orders from the Jewish Lobby, not the American people.

Shortly before 9/11, more than 140 Israelis had been arrested in the US, for suspected espionage. Some of them were posing as art students and most of the suspects were Israeli military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units. And dozens more Israelis were arrested in American malls selling toys, whilst acting as a front for spying operations. Sixty detained suspects worked for the Israeli company AMDOCS which provides most directory assistance calls and almost all call records and billings services for the US by virtue of its contracts with the 25 largest telephone companies.

The FBI then discovered that AMDOCS was sharing information with Mossad about the nature and content of 411 information calls, originating at various law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the US.

On 6th September 2001, In the US stock options market, an extraordinary proportion of trades were placed on the premise that the United Airlines stock price would fall. The put / call ratio was roughly 96:4, as opposed to a typical 50:50 ratio. Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream media, there was abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

So, on that clear, warm and sunny Tuesday morning in New York City, the world was about to change forever. As the greatest public display of the banksters evil, was about to unfold on live-TV, in one single terrifying, horrific day . . .

The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people from 93 nations. 2,753 people were killed in New York, 184 people were killed at the Pentagon and 40 people were killed on Flight 93.

Around two days following 9/11, the names of 18 hijackers were released, and a 19th hijacker was added to the list shortly afterwards, yet within months, at least 7 of these hijackers came forward and declared themselves to be very much still alive. Where is the proof that the 19 named Arabs were the hijackers? No CCTV video footage placing them at the airports from where the hijacked planes left, including those of other passengers on these planes, has ever been released, probably because such footage does not even exist.

Two images showing two alleged hijackers at an airport were shown, but this was from Portland but the hijacked flights took off from Boston’s Logan, Newark’s Liberty and Washington’s Dulles international airports. Another clip, allegedly from Dulles international Airport, shows an alleged 9/11 suspect, but this provably, was not from Dulles.

Flights are regularly cancelled when bookings are too low to justify the expense involved in making the trip, and if a US domestic flight is still shown in computer reservation systems within seven calendar days of the scheduled departure, the law and regulations direct that it must be reported and listed as ‘cancelled’ in the BTS database. Sometimes a dearth of passengers results in cancellation more than seven calendar days prior to the scheduled departure, in which case the non-existent flight does not need to be reported and is not listed in the records for that day.

Indeed, this was the situation for two of the four ‘hijacked flights’ on 11th September 2001, AA flights 11 and 77. Their non-appearance in the official BTS website is evidence that both flights had been cancelled more than a week prior to 9/11. The BTS records continued to report this for more than two years, until several months after independent 9/11 researchers had discovered the anomaly in late 2003. In 2004 the website’s on-time delivery flight records section was shut down and by April 2005, a doctored version of the records had reappeared, with Flights 11 and 77 now included for 9/11/2001.

So, two of the flights that we were told had crashed on ‘9/11’ were not even scheduled but were acknowledged as flying in the weeks after 9/11. Think about that for a moment. American Airlines agree that their flights numbered 77 (Pentagon) and 11 (1st tower, North) did not fly on 9/11. I repeat, did not fly on 9/11!

This revelation aside, there is no physical evidence whatsoever to prove that these planes crashed, in fact not a single part that can be positively identified as belonging to any named plane from any of the four sites. All parts carry a serial number and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) hold electronic data on all flights leaving US soil and their records correspond perfectly with this revealing detail.

American Airlines Flight 11 (WTC-1) was scheduled to do so but never left Boston’s Logan International Airport (BOS) on 9/11.

United Airlines 175 (WTC-2) took off from Boston’s Logan International at 8.23 am.

AA Flight 77 (Pentagon) never left Washington Dulles International.

UA Flight 93 (Shanksville) left the runway at Newark Liberty International (EWR) at exactly 8.28 am.

Very early on 9/11, the Mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown was warned not to fly on this day. The source of the warning, and why it was personally issued to Brown, remains unknown. What is known for sure however, is that Brown had many Zionist friends. Several other ‘important’ people received similar warnings and cancelled their travel plans too.

Then at 6.00 am, four thousand Israelis were warned more than two hours beforehand via text message, of the impending attacks in the New York area, by the Zionist company Odigo, founded by Israeli brothers, Avner and Maskit Ronen. Odigo’s US headquarters were two blocks from the WTC and as are many Israeli software companies, are based in Herzliya, a small town north of Tel Aviv, which also happens to be the location of the headquarters of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service.

What distracts many 9/11 truth-seekers, and what serves the Zionists in their dis-information campaigns, is the question of whether the WTC was hit by ‘fake photographic’ planes, or by remote-controlled planes or drones. This is similar to arguing over who the ‘shooters’ were in the JFK assassination. Maybe, it was a combination of both. Look on the internet, and you will see countless frame-by-frame analyses, and credible sounding theories offered-up. But that is for you to research, and decide for yourself. Whichever way, the outcome was still the same.

There is also overwhelming physical evidence that Flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9/11. Both circumstantial and documentary evidence, and the numerous government cover-ups and conflicting stories, all lend credence to this allegation, especially when the FBI warned witnesses not to talk. It is crystal clear that the official story concerning Flight 93 is blatant deception.

The key piece of evidence that the official story of Flight 93 is a complete lie, is the missing Boeing 757 at the ‘crash site,’ in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. A Boeing 757-200 weighs 120,000lbs un-laden, has a length of 155ft, a wingspan of 125ft, a tail height of 44ft, and a fuel capacity of 11,489 gallons.

All of the eyewitnesses to the crash scene, which included firemen, were amazed that there was no evidence of a plane. There was a lot of small debris and paper, but 120,000lbs of metal aircraft apparently just disappeared. According to the official story, the one-time open-cast mine had been filled with soft dirt which ‘liquefied’ when the plane hit and the entire plane buried itself deeply in the ground.

To summarise, the crash imprint could only be caused by a vertical, or near vertical crash, which was not possible; the circular crater was indicative of a below-ground explosion and grass and other weeds were growing in the crater which clearly indicates that it was created before 9/11.Of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6 were listed in the SSDI Social Security register and of these 45 people, none were on the 9/11 Compensation Fund list. Not one.

However, what was found at the ‘crash site,’ very conveniently, were paper items which played a role in supporting the official account of the 9/11 attacks and who was responsible for them. For example, according to FBI agents who were involved in the recovery effort, items made of paper and other fragile materials that belonged to the alleged hijackers were found. These included “ . . . driver’s licences, identification cards, passports, a credit card, receipts, tickets, a red bandana, pages from the Koran, and ‘a checklist reminding the terrorists to blend-in when boarding planes and instructing them to ‘shave their beards.’”

There is some evidence, presented by other 9/11 researchers, that Flight 93 actually landed at Cleveland-Hopkins airport. There are numerous other oddities and coincidences concerning Flight 93, ranging from terror drills at nearby airports to debris found miles away at two separate locations. Another oddity and an even greater coincidence . . . American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were the two supposed aircraft that hit the World Trade Center Towers and the 9/11 Commission Report published the flight paths of both airplanes. The flight paths originate from Boston, and cross paths once, before their paths meet again in New York City.

The exact point where the two flights crossed was in New Windsor, New York. This also happens to be the location of the Stewart Air National Guard Base (aka Stewart Air Force Base, aka Stewart International Airport,) in the southern Hudson Valley, west of Newburgh, New York and 60 miles north of Manhattan, New York City. Not only did AA 11 and UA 175 both fly over New Windsor, but they both flew over it at the same time, supposedly almost crashing into each other. This is an unlikely coincidence, since it would be far more likely that if the paths taken from Boston to New York crossed, that the planes would not cross paths at the same time. This occurred at approximately 8:36 am.

“The two hijacked jets that demolished the World Trade Center nearly crashed into each other while heading to their target, according to a Federal Aviation Administration employee at a regional control center. ‘The two aircraft got too close to each other down by Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, N.Y., about 55 miles north of New York City,’ the employee told The Telegraph of Nashua.” USA Today

With the Stewart Airport by this time, in private, Zionist hands, it was easily available and adaptable for whatever the 9/11 plotters had in mind. One can only speculate what happened to the 9/11 flights here, whether passengers were unloaded and disposed of, and the planes swapped. But it was certainly the ideal place for any covert activity.

‘What happened to the passengers?’ is an obvious question. Since Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day, it seems not too great a stretch of the imagination to infer that the identities of the passengers on non-existent flights were just as fake as were the flights themselves. No planes, no passengers — QED. But we do know that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air that day, even though, astonishingly enough, the planes involved were not de-registered by the FAA until the 28th September 2005, all of which raises two questions. How planes that were not even in the air could have crashed and how planes that did crash could still have been in service up to four years later?

With all the dis-information that has been spread by those that have infected the 9/11 Truth movement, with all the confusing distractions and wild theories, the only conclusion as to what really happened to the planes and all the passengers, whether they were killed, or even if they existed at all, is that the plotters took all this into account and knew, just as they did with the JFK assassination, that we would all be debating it for decades to come. Even if we did figure it all out, they well knew that the masses would not believe it, especially as they also control the media . . . and the law!

Knowing how Americans are so patriotic, and love their heroes, the Zionist plotters made sure that as part of the 9/11 mythology, they would incorporate some memorable patriotic drama into their evil scheme, creating some ‘all-American heroes’ along the way. And Flight 93 with all its cell-phone-calling, gutsy passengers was perfect for the role, even though none of it ever happened.

Mark Bingham was scripted as being one of those heroes on 9/11. For whatever reason, Mark Bingham is the ‘person’ who allegedly made a cell-phone call to his mother from Flight 93 and told her, “This is Mark Bingham, mom, your son. You believe me, right . . . ?” We were also told that he, Todd ‘let’s roll’ Beamer and a few others then ‘rushed’ the hijackers and caused the plane to crash.

All very laudable and heroic of course, but for one small point. Mark Bingham never showed at the airport, nor did any of the other 246 passengers and crew. We were also informed quietly via the FBI in the trial of one of the alleged hijackers that the Flight 93 drama never occurred. Bingham was sold to us as one of the heroes of 9/11, his and the actions of his brothers-in-arms allegedly saving what we were told was the intended target, the US Capitol Building in Washington DC. They successfully foiled the hijackers’ plans, but in doing so, sacrificed their own lives in the process. They died unbeaten, unbroken, as all-American heroes, true blue to the core.

Shame it was all a gross lie, really. Mark Bingham’s obituary on the CNN Memorial internet page, was provably prepared 13 days before 9/11, as was discovered by expert forensic analysis by a fellow-truth-seeker at the time.

Also, considering the fact that Todd and Lisa Beamer purchased their home in Cranbury, New Jersey, for $699,900 on 20th July 2000, it was interesting to note that they paid-off their mortgage just over two weeks before 9/11, on 27th August 2001.

Indeed, ‘the flight that never was,’ certainly became legend very quickly. Firstly with two documentaries in 2002, ‘Inside Flight 93’ from CBS-TV, and ‘Let’s Roll: The Story of Flight 93’ from Granada TV in Britain. Then in 2006, the big screen treatment, ‘United 93’ from Universal/Studio Canal and for TV there was Rupert Murdoch’s Fox version, ‘Flight 93,’ and ‘The Heroes of Flight 93’ documentary and then in 2011 we had the ‘Honoring Flight 93’ documentary.

At 3.56 pm, the five ‘dancing Israeli’s’ were arrested for ‘puzzling behaviour’ relating to the WTC attacks. Shortly afterwards an FBI lookout bulletin was issued for a van with the words ‘Urban Moving Systems’ on the side, and indeed police officers in New Jersey soon stopped the van after matching the licence plate number with the one given in the earlier bulletin. According to the police report, two officers approached the van and asked the driver to step-out. The driver, Sivan Kurzberg, refused to obey after being asked several more times, so the police physically removed Kurzberg and four other men from the van and handcuffed them. They had not been told the reasons for their arrest at this point, but Kurzberg nevertheless told them, with breath-taking arrogance . . .

“We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

Again, before the police had made any mention of the 9/11 attacks, another one of the arrested men said . . . “We were on the West Side Highway in New York City during the incident.” In fact, it was later determined that they were on the roof of a building at Liberty State Park, watching and videotaping the first crash into the WTC. One of them was found to have $4,700 in cash, hidden in his sock, another had two foreign passports, and a box-cutter was found in the van. Another of them was in possession of photographs of them standing with the burning wreckage of the WTC in the background, whilst gleefully flicking cigarette lighters.

All five identified themselves as Israeli citizens and claimed to be working for the New Jersey-based Urban Moving Systems Company. In addition to the driver Sivan Kurzberg, the others were identified as Paul Kurzberg (Sivan’s brother,) Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari, and Yaron Shmuel. The men were detained but not charged. The next day it was reported that “bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives,” in their van.

As the researcher Christopher Bollyn stated so well, the crimes of 9/11 are like a Russian matryoshka doll in which one crime is nested inside another, crimes within crimes. The planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, for example, were meant to hide the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers. The destruction of the Twin Towers, in turn, was meant to hide the plundering of WTC-6, the US Customs House, which had a gold vault that had evidently been emptied the night prior to 9/11. WTC-5 and WTC-4 also had gold vaults in their sub-basement levels, which were also plundered before the attacks.

Kurt Sonnenfeld, the FEMA videographer, went to the basement of WTC-6 in the aftermath of 9/11 and saw for himself that the giant vault, which held crucial evidence, protected information, and the gold of the Bank of Canada, had been emptied. It would have required large trucks and many hours to empty the vault, he said. The only explanation was that the vault had been emptied before the attacks, Sonnenfeld concluded. So, what did the Bank of Canada say about their missing gold? Who emptied the vault and where did they take it in the middle of the night? Who stole the gold and absconded with it?

As you would naturally expect, gold/silver traders, and foreign governments, were not going to declare exactly how much went missing from these underground WTC vaults, but published articles about precious metals recovered from the World Trade Center ruins in the aftermath of the attack mentioned less than $300 million worth of gold. All reports appeared to refer to a removal operation conducted in late October of 2001. On 1st November, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that “more than $230 million” worth of gold and silver bars that had been stored in a bomb-proof vault had been recovered. A New York Times article contended . . . “Two Brinks trucks were at ground zero on Wednesday to start hauling away the $200 million in gold and silver that the Bank of Nova Scotia had stored in a vault under the trade center . . . A team of 30 firefighters and police officers are helping to move the metals, a task that can be measured practically down to the flake but that has been rounded off at 379,036 ounces of gold and 29,942,619 ounces of silver . . . ”

Reports describing the contents of the vaults before the attack suggested that at least $1bn in precious metals was stored in the vaults, probably much more. A figure of $650 million in a National Real Estate Investor article published after the attack was apparently based on pre-attack reports. Unknown to most people at the time, $650 million in gold and silver was being kept in a special vault four floors beneath WTC4.

Remember that the Zionists had full control and security of the entire World Trade Center complex, whilst the gold and silver was being removed. The Mayor of New York, key people in the New York fire and police departments, the FBI, the Port Authority, and other agencies, were also Zionist directed. An article in The Sierra Times suggested that gold was recovered from two trucks in a tunnel under WTC-5, giving rise to suspicions that the trucks were being used to remove the gold from the vaults before the South Tower fell. But why the huge discrepancy between the value of gold and silver reported recovered, and the value reported to have been stored in the vaults? There are a number of possible explanations, from outright theft using the attack as cover, to insurance fraud. Until there is a genuine investigation that probes all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the attack, we can only speculate.

The FDNY firemen say that Mayor Giuliani reneged on his promise to recover all the bodies of more than 300 FDNY workers who died in the disaster. Some of the protestors complained that the Mayor ordered the withdrawal of all but 25 of the thousand or so firemen on the site once 200 million dollars in gold, buried beneath the rubble was recovered. The recovery of the gold was undertaken by the NYPD and FDNY. However, $1.08 trillion worth of gold and $4 billion worth of silver stored under the World Trade Center was never recovered!

In other words, approximately 65 tons of gold were stolen from the WTC, but perhaps even more interestingly, the official statistics indicate that 102 million ounces of silver were lost/stolen in the WTC. Out of $167 billion (2001 value) worth of gold stored under WTC-4, only $200 million was recovered so that leaves $166.8 billion worth of lost/stolen gold . . .

The value of an ounce of gold on 11th September 2001 was $287 and the value of a gold bar on 11th September 2001 was $214,392.24. Now fast forward one decade to the 11th September 2011 . . . the value of a gold bar had increased seven-fold to $1,498,859.48 and the value of the WTC stolen gold has risen to $1,080.77bn, or $1.08 trillion!

As Christopher Bollyn continued to speculate on yet another Mossad moving company that was part of the 9/11 Zionist plot . . . The vault below WTC-6 that Kurt Sonnenfeld saw had been emptied was about 15 by 15 meters (2,420 square feet) and would have required several large trucks and many hours to empty, which raises the following questions . . .

“Did Israeli military intelligence have the wherewithal to bring in a convoy of trucks with enough men to clean out the vault and remove it to a secure location within a short window of opportunity in the early morning hours of 9/11? Did the Israelis have a secure location near the World Trade Center where they could stash and process the loot?

What was needed to pull off such a heist was a secure moving company, in or near New York City and operated and manned by elite Israeli soldiers who would have been hand-picked for such an operation based on their loyalty to the state of Israel. There is at least one such company, Moishe’s Moving Systems, which has its headquarters less than 4 miles from the World Trade Center, near the entrance to the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City. Moishe’s also has a large storage building in Brooklyn, about the same distance from the WTC. When I went to check out Moishe’s shortly after 9/11, I spoke with several of the young Israeli men who worked there. They told me they had been chosen and hired in Israel to work at Moishe’s. None of them had ‘green card’ status that allowed them to work in the United States.

Although I do not have evidence that Moishe’s Moving Systems was involved in the 9/11 heist, an Israeli-run company like Moishe’s, with its men, equipment, and capabilities, must have been involved in moving the loot during the 9/11 heist. If Moishe’s was not involved in the 9/11 heist another Israeli-run company with all the features and characteristics of Moishe’s would have to have been created to carry out this massive robbery. With this in mind let’s look at what Moishe’s is all about and its connections to the Mossad.

Moishe’s is based in a ‘fortress’ with covered windows and concertina wire surrounding the premises near the entrance to the Holland Tunnel. I reported on this suspicious Israeli military logistics base in one of my first articles about 9/11, ‘Israeli Terror Suspects Captured by FBI’ on September 18, 2001.

I notified the FBI that Moishe’s should be investigated for possible involvement in 9/11. Although this massive building is the headquarters of Moishe’s Moving Systems and sits beside a major highway leading into New York City, it has no signage whatsoever advertising Moishe’s Moving Systems or any of the other companies based in this fortress and headed by Moishe Mana, the Israeli immigrant who runs the companies. How much sense does that make?

Moishe Mana is an Israeli immigrant who became rich as a mover in New Jersey, if one believes his on-line biography. How much of his money comes from Israeli intelligence? Despite numerous calls to the Israeli bosses at Moishe’s, nobody wants to talk about their ties to Israel or the crimes of 9/11. They refuse to answer any questions about their Mossad-run operation.” Christopher Bollyn

At 4.54 pm, Jane Standley of the BBC reported that WTC-7 had collapsed, but there was just one tiny problem with her report. Building 7 was visible throughout the entire on-camera report as the most prominent building in the background, twenty three minutes PRIOR to its sudden, 6.5 second free-fall into its own footprint.

Being generous, once may be a mistake, but in fact, the BBC reported several times that WTC-7 had collapsed, when it was in fact, still standing. At 4.54 pm, BBC News 24, reported, “We’re now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed . . . it is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [i.e. WTC-7.]” Three minutes later, its international channel, BBC World, reported, “We’ve got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in New York right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed.” Then, at about 5.10 pm, BBC World repeated the claim: “I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has . . . it seems this wasn’t the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attack.” Yet WTC-7 did not collapse until 5.20 pm, more than 25 minutes after the BBC first reported it.

wtc7-is-still-here-500w

wtc7_tall2

Although it received little media attention at the time, the third-worst structural building failure in modern history occurred on 11th September 2001. WTC-7 was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-protected, high-rise office building located about one hundred metres from the WTC North Tower. Unlike its two taller cousins, WTC-7 was never hit by an aircraft, yet it fell to the ground suddenly, displaying the classic signatures of explosive, controlled-demolition techniques.

Building 7 had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, yet it suddenly imploded — falling neatly, symmetrically, and completely, into its own ‘footprint.’ The official story, was that WTC-7 collapsed due to ‘normal office fires’ which created a ‘new phenomenon’ in high-rise fires, destruction due to thermal expansion of steel beams, leading to the progressive collapse of nine floors. This ultimately caused the failure of column 79 — which was followed within seconds by all the rest.

Could WTC-7 been the command centre for the 9/11 attacks? It is interesting to note that the two aircraft that impacted the World Trade Center were directly aligned with WTC-7, and actually banked towards WTC-7, as if they were being guided in from that building. The ‘bunker’ within WTC-7 was designed to protect against most possible hazards, with bulletproof windows and airtight circulation. Mysteriously on 9/11, this bunker disappeared along with the rest of the building in the obvious controlled demolition.

WTC-7 also contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defence, the IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s,) the US Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records,) and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions.

The SEC has never quantified the number of active cases of which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC-7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000 and they included the agency’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divided-up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom.

“Ongoing investigations at the New York S&EC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive. This is a disaster for these cases.” Max Berger of New York’s Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.

What happened inside the buildings of the World Trade Center on 11th September 2001 is difficult, but not impossible to discern. The government sealed the testimony gathered by the investigating 911 Commission, and instructed government employees to not speak on the matter or suffer severe penalties, but there are a number of personal testimonies posted on the Internet as to what happened in those buildings that day.

Careful reconstruction from those testimonies indicates the deliberate destruction of evidence not only by a targeted assault on the buildings, but also by targeted fires and explosions. In the event that either the hijacking failed, or the buildings were not brought down, the evidence would be destroyed by fires. In addition to the investigative evidence being destroyed, the Federal Register reported that the physical securities held by the brokers in their vaults had been destroyed. What would be even more revealing would be the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission on that day, and in the immediate aftermath.

A much easier financial scam to follow however, is the massive insurance fraud orchestrated by WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein and his friends . . .

The mysterious destruction of Building 7 has become the ‘Rosetta Stone’ of 9/11. Virtually all independent experts who have studied the case, including thousands of architects and engineers, agree that the government’s explanation — that a few small office fires somehow destroyed WTC-7, is utter nonsense. Building 7, these experts say, was obviously taken-down in a controlled demolition, as Silverstein himself admitted on camera.

Despite his confession to demolishing his own building, Silverstein has already received $861 million from insurers for Building 7 alone, as well as over $4 billion for the rest of the Trade Center complex. That $861 million for WTC-7, was paid on the basis of Silverstein’s claim that planes were somehow responsible for making Building 7, which was not hit by any plane, collapse at free-fall speed. The insurance companies did not openly accuse Silverstein of insurance fraud, presumably because doing so would threaten to demolish the 9/11 cover-up and bring down the US and Israeli governments, also at free-fall speed. But they have gone so far as to call Silverstein’s demand for even more money, ‘absurd.’ A considerable understatement.

The insurance companies claimed that Silverstein’s demands amounted to ‘double recovery.’ They said that Silverstein had already been paid $4.9 billion, vastly more than the paltry $115 million or so that he and his backers paid for the complex just weeks before it was demolished, so why did he ask for another $3.5bn?

Silverstein had claimed, that the way his insurance policies were written, two planes crashing into the two towers had been two different occurrences, not part of the same event. To clarify this situation, in 2001 the WTC complex was viewed by real estate agents as a ‘white elephant.’ With a low occupancy rate, toxic asbestos that would cost $200m to remove, substandard elevator systems and an outdated technological network, no-one could understand why Silverstein would purchase this liability of a complex for a $124m down-payment, which, in hindsight, now looks like the deal of the century.

Companies that insured the building, including Chubb Corporation, Swiss Reinsurance Co., Allianz AG, Ace Ltd. and XL Capital Ltd., said that because the attack was coordinated it counted as only a single occurrence. But six weeks later, Silverstein began angling for a $7bn double-indemnity pay-out on his $3.55bn insurance policies. He waged a lengthy courtroom battle that lasted six years, and eventually collected $4.56bn from his investment in the WTC leases.

Seven insurance companies out of 24 agreed to settle with Silverstein but, a glaring oddity still remained. Insurance companies are notorious for investigating every aspect of every claim made against a policy, regardless of how seemingly insignificant. The reason is that the ‘legwork’ cost of such investigations usually pales in comparison to the money saved from a pay-out. But here is where this situation gets interesting. Silverstein did not have one single company insuring his properties, he had 24. From a business perspective, it is reasonable to conclude that 24 separate insurance policies were taken out to spread the financial burden, in order that all of the companies would be able to pay a portion without going bankrupt. Having multiple insurance companies also minimised public scrutiny enough so that stockholders would not ask why CEOs were agreeing to pay out such enormous sums based solely on the government’s questionable version of events.

Nonetheless, the question remains . . . Why would any of these companies agree to compensate Silverstein when there were countless reasons for denying his insurance claims?

Based on the facts of this story, it appears that the pay-outs were agreed upon in order to lend credence to the government’s official account of what took place on 9/11. If all of these 24 companies had seriously challenged the official version of events, the entire house of cards would have collapsed like the World Trade Center towers.

The Aftermath

Following the events of 9/11, numerous scientific studies took years to state the obvious fact, that as many as 400,000 emergency first responders and ordinary New Yorkers living and working near the World Trade Center, were exposed to high levels of toxic dust particles released from the fallen towers that, to this day, are still inflicting harm in the form of several chronic illnesses.

But for the first time, even more wasted years later, in 2012 the US government finally confessed to the fact that this poisonous dust can cause cancer, which means that cancer victims who were exposed to the dust can at last now receive financial compensation and assistance for the harm they endured.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced in July 2012, that 50 types of cancer were being added to the list of health conditions covered by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009, a bill passed in 2010 to provide financial compensation specifically for injured first responders. Since many of those who risked their lives to provide emergency relief on that fateful day back in 2001 are now gravely ill, the inclusion of cancer into the list of covered conditions is timely.

On the 9th September 2001, a plan to ‘remove al-Qaeda from the face of the Earth’ had been placed on Bush’s desk for his signature. The plan dealt with all aspects of a future war against al-Qaeda, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to a military invasion in Afghanistan. Somewhat pointless really, as we well-know that ‘al-Qaeda’ is a creation of the western intelligence agencies, but then, we must bear in mind that this is all bankster political theatre.

According to NBC News, this “ . . . directive outlines essentially the same war plan . . . put into action after the 9/11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans off the shelf.”

Bush was expected to sign it, but still had not done so by 9/11. Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, stated, “You show me one reporter, one commentator, one member of Congress who thought we should invade Afghanistan before September 11 and I’ll buy you dinner in the best restaurant in New York City.”

As the world’s greatest single-day loss of firefighters ever, the 343 NYFD firefighters who died on 9/11 at the WTC did not lose their lives in fighting fires. Instead, as was the case with all the victims of that day, they were murder victims, used as ‘props’ in the bankster-Zionist-US/Israeli manufactured terror.

According to official statistics, the total number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks was 2,996. However, if we believe that no-one was killed in those supposedly hi-jacked planes, then we must subtract 246 from that figure, 87 on American Airlines Flight 11 (North Tower,) 60 on United Airlines Flight 175 (South Tower,) 59 on American Airlines Flight 77 (Pentagon,) and 40 on United Flight 93 (Shanksville). And therefore we must also subtract the 19 supposed hijackers, bringing the actual total to 2,731 — which of course is still just as horrific.

As in the farcical Warren Commission ‘investigation’ of John Kennedy’s assassination, the Zionist 9/11 Commission had already decided upon the ‘facts’ before it even began. Of course they had to lie about everything, because the truth would have automatically given the game away. And the 911 Commission report was no different; it was the banksters manufacturing ‘history’ yet again, with the very same forces who committed the crime, investigating it, passing judgement upon it, and finally documenting it as fact, for future generations.

But whereas the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disaster, all were started within 7 days or so of the event, the investigation of 9/11 was totally resisted by the Bush administration, the CIA and other agencies, for an astounding 441 days, making it completely obvious that they did not want their ludicrously impossible fairy-tale to be scrutinised in minute detail.

Originally, Bush appointed Henry Kissinger, famous for his role in cover-ups and widely considered a war criminal, as chairman of the Commission. However, Kissinger soon stepped down, thanks to public pressure and questions about potential conflicts of interest. Kissinger was therefore replaced by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, and Lee H. Hamilton was selected as the vice chair. Thereafter the body became commonly known as the ‘9/11 Commission.’

By any standards, the 9/11 Commission Report was even more of a whitewash, more of a crime in many ways, than the actual event itself. The Zionist 9/11 criminals had their own man, duel-Israeli citizen, Philip Zelikow appointed the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, the most powerful position on the committee. And it was Zelikow who was ultimately responsible for concocting the contrived fiction that was presented to us as the 9/11 Commission Report (ie. the official story.) This work of fiction, a fairy-tale to rival those of such greats in the field as Hans Christian Anderson and A. E. Hoffman, tells of magical, explosion-proof paper passports, building collapses violating the laws of physics and cave-dwelling, box-cutter wielding Arabs with super-human piloting skills on their first time in an airliner cockpit, whilst completely omitting several blatantly anomalous events such as the self-destruction of WTC-7.

As with the Warren Commission, the members of the 9/11 Commission did not actually investigate anything. They just held hearings, and listened only to witnesses and so-called experts that were prepared to back-up the official fiction. Perhaps also significantly, the Commission, in addition to a severely limiting deadline for something that was so monumentally important, so vitally important, had only one quarter of the budget of the Clinton/Lewinsky sex scandal investigation.

Much eyewitness testimony, even that of scores of firefighters and police, was totally ignored, as indeed were the laws of physics, in concluding that the building’s support beams melted, subsequently causing each structure to ‘pancake,’ due to the excessive heat created by airliners crashing into each tower. Why does this contravene the known laws of physics, I hear you ask? Well firstly, steel melts only once a temperature of 2795° Fahrenheit is reached. That is not debatable, it is a proven, invariable, verifiable scientific fact. But, according to a BBC commissioned-report entitled ‘How the World Trade Center Fell,’ the WTC steel cores reached a maximum temperature of 1472° Fahrenheit, which, coincidentally, is the maximum temperature which can be achieved by the burning of jet fuel, but only slightly over half the 2795° needed in order to melt or even weaken solid steel girders.

In fact, consider this . . . if burning jet fuel was able to melt or weaken steel, how would jet engines function? Last time I checked, jet engines are all made from, err let’s see . . . yes, steel. So, if burning jet fuel can indeed melt steel under certain conditions, then I for one, have taken my last ever plane flight.

$C:\Users\JohnH\Desktop\Slogans\jetfuelthatsagoodone.png$

Even FEMA, the US Federal Emergency Management Authority itself, said that temperatures inside the WTC towers reached around 1700-2000° Fahrenheit, which is somewhat higher than the BBC’s estimates, but even this is still not nearly hot enough to melt steel.

And if the common laws of physics are not enough to convince you that something is awry, consider this . . .

Fire has never, ever caused a steel building to collapse in the history of the world, to-date, yet on the morning of 9/11, TWO of them did so! Even Philadelphia’s raging 1991 Meridian Plaza fire (often referred-to as the most significant high-rise fire of the 20th century,) which blazed on eight floors for nineteen straight hours and was countless times more extreme than that which affected the WTC towers, still did not cause that building to collapse. But we are expected to believe that the two relatively, much-smaller fires on 9/11, reduced the world’s two tallest structures to little more than dust?

Further, in the mid-1990s, the British Steel and Building Research Establishment conducted an experiment on the effects of fire on steel buildings. During these tests they raised the temperatures well above those produced by jet fuels, yet not one of their buildings collapsed in any of their six experiments.

Furthermore, let us briefly re-visit the laws of physics once again. After each alleged airliner crashed into the WTC towers, the original, great explosions consumed most of the jet fuel within seconds. Of course, other items were also burning, including the carpets, walls, paper, and furniture inside the WTC towers, but even so, if all of these items burned with perfect efficiency, the temperature could still not reach that needed to melt steel. Plus, after the initial blaze, we could clearly see from TV pictures that by 9.03 am, only eighteen minutes after the first tower was struck, most of the fire was reduced to black smoke, thus signifying that it was starved of oxygen and was by this time, just a smouldering, low-temperature fire and not a raging inferno. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long, and it evaporates or boils as it burns.

So, two huge questions remain . . . What actually made the construction-grade steel melt when it obviously was not jet fuel, and . . . how could the South Tower collapse in just 47 minutes — half the time it took for the North Tower to come down — when it had much smaller fires?

On the morning of 11th September 2001, New York City firefighters seemed to have the World Trade Center fires under control. Take for instance, this excerpt from one of their radio transmissions after they had reached the uppermost floors at the point of impact . . . “Battalion seven . . . Ladder fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.” Two of the men’s voices on these tapes, Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, had already reached the South Tower’s 78th floor. By all accounts, those who had heard these New York Fire Department tapes said that the firefighters judged the blazes to be manageable.

Now hopefully the preceding has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a staged false-flag act of terrorism, carried out by Zionist elements within the governments of Israel, the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia and perhaps a few other countries. If not, you hopefully at least have reasonable doubt of the veracity of the official story.

But this salutary tale is not yet complete.

Please understand that the perpetrators of this heinous crime, anticipated in advance all of the intense scrutiny of their actions, knowing full-well that not everyone is dumb enough to simply blindly, accept without question their version of events. Indeed, this is where their damage limitation abilities now come to the forefront; they are nothing if not past-masters of the art of deception and disinformation.

The controlled-media generally ignored the 9/11 ‘truth movement,’ until a few months before the 2004 election, when the movement began to gain traction. But now these forces of evil love to focus on that same ‘truth movement,’ just so long as they are able to denounce and ridicule it, in much the same way as with all those that question all their other false-flag atrocities.

By 2009, the ‘9/11 truth movement’ was so inundated with disinformation that it had become almost a laughing stock. Their easily-discredited claims contaminated the greater issue and tarnished dissenters, across the board. The Zionist media, whether corporate or foundation-funded, to further their own agenda, could easily find ‘shills,’ (paid agents of deliberate dis-information) ranting about ‘the Jews” or ‘the Illuminati,’ the ‘lizard people,’ the missiles, holograms, mini-nukes or space-beam weapons vapourising the Twin Towers, in order to discredit the entire truth movement. Many shills and even public personalities, played the roles of professional disinformation artists, hard at work concocting and posting far-fetched garbage online, which gullible others repeated to their own detriment and that of the movement as a whole. It is far from easy to prove that any individual is a paid shill, a disinformation agent or a cyber-agent provocateur, but be assured, they are out there in Internet-land, in huge numbers. I have indeed personally met two of these cynical individuals, on separate occasions and who both openly boasted of the fact.

The author Thomas Pynchon wrote, “ . . . If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.” And if they can get you asking stupid questions, then their lapdog media can easily dismiss you as a ‘conspiracy nut.’ But please think for yourself. It is sometimes far from easy to discern or identify what is real information and what is not, but please do your own research to reach the truth, as 9/11 is surrounded by more deception and dis-information than almost any other topic.

The 9/11 truth movement is a prime target for dis-information, infiltration, and other forms of sabotage by forces who do not want the public asking difficult questions about 9/11. Believers of the official story may see the discussion of dis-information as further evidence of paranoia, but objective researchers will recognise the clear evidence of dis-information. Dis-information and counter-intelligence sabotage have long been used by government authorities in subverting progressive groups and causes.

Much dis-information is carefully crafted to appear legitimate and misleading evidence is often delivered alongside accurate information. Dis-information requires an intention to deceive whilst mis-information does not. In the 9/11 truth movement, both are apparent through evidence of materials, researchers, and groups that either consciously or unconsciously promote false or misleading information. Much incorrect information within the 9/11 truth community likely began as dis-information that has often been perpetuated as unintentional mis-information.

The objectives and methods of dis-information are very sophisticated. Here are some of the main strategies . . .

The Straw Man Argument/Sensationalism. By promoting speculative, sensational, and false evidence, opponents can set-up easily debunk-able or dismiss-able points that can be used to lend credence to their position. The opposition prefers dealing with topics that can be easily countered, or that simply make 9/11 sceptics look like idiots.

Muddying the Waters. Making it harder to discern the real evidence/researchers/websites from the fake ones. This approach both frustrates efforts at understanding the subject and makes the project less focused and more frustrating to be a part of. For example, when a newcomer visits the ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ site, and sees that there are two mutually-exclusive, competing groups (that are each essentially calling the other ‘dis-info,’) then they may become frustrated or dismissive of the entire movement. Even if an individual is interested in researching the facts of 9/11, distinguishing between honest information and dis-information, between trustworthy and suspect sources, becomes another time-consuming occupation, thereby distracting real investigation.

Bad Jacketing / Death by Association / Smear Campaign. By associating the target idea / individual / movement along with another topic that is already discredited (UFOs, anti-Semitism, Nazis, etc.,) the original subject can be smeared and dismissed. These smear campaigns can be extremely effective, as most people are very concerned with the image of a group or subject with which they may become involved. This dynamic may be seen in action in the generalised image of ‘conspiracy theories.’ Many diverse topics, UFOs, 9/11, JFK, Illuminati, Satanism, New World Order, are commonly conflated with each other in people’s minds.

Paranoia / Divide and Conquer. One of the most effective ways to destroy a group is to sow distrust among members by knowingly providing them with false information in order to create suspicion between authentic activists. Seemingly paradoxically, dis-information agents may actually promote discussion of dis-information / infiltration in order to increase paranoia.

Now it is widely acknowledged, that anything photographic can be faked, even YouTube™ amateur videos that either attempt to show us the truth, or to distort it. But it is video evidence that is the most compelling, especially that of dedicated amateurs.

Oddly enough, some of the most legitimate facts and discoveries of 9/11 come from dis-info agents, such as Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, Dave von Kleist and other prominent names. They take us maybe 80% of the way to the truth, then sharply veer away from it in order to mis-direct.

tumblr_mc0pxx45dO1rafzc5o1_1280%5B1%5D

The real benefit of this whole 9/11 psy-op, dis-info tactic, to those who would deceive us, is that it overloads our senses, plays with our minds, and finally we trust nothing at all that we may read or hear.

As has been demonstrated, the Zionists had total control over the crime scenes, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and even the Shanksville site. They also had control of US telecommunications, the computer spyware of the US military and NORAD defence systems, the CIA, NSA, and the FBI. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff, President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the State Department, the Pentagon, were all in their thrall, too. In addition, this was coupled with total control of the mass-media, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, the internet, including numerous ‘9/11 truth’ sites.

They also had total control of the 9/11 ‘investigations,’ and the 9/11 Commission and its report and total control of the evidence, both in destroying and manufacturing it.

And perhaps even more significantly, the Zionists had total control of 9/11 justice, from releasing the guilty Israeli ‘students,’ to framing innocent Arabs and the handling all litigation and legal procedures associated with 9/11. If Israeli agents were not prime suspects in the ‘false flag’ terror attacks on the World Trade Center, and if a passenger screening company owned by Israeli intelligence agents were not a defendant in the 9/11 litigation, the fact that the crucial 9/11 lawsuits were handled by two Zionist judges from the same synagogue, may be considered as a coincidence. But with so much evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 in plain view, the intimate connection with the State of Israel of these judges cannot be discarded as mere coincidence. It should rather be viewed as evidence of the on-going, high-level, and well-planned Zionist cover-up.

The federal judges, Alvin K. Hellerstein and Michael B. Mukasey, were both members of a Zionist congregation, the orthodox Kehilath Jeshrun synagogue of Manhattan, and were active supporters of its yeshiva, the Ramaz School. Hellerstein, who presided over the 9/11 litigation process, also had a connection to the Mossad through his son, Joseph. This is of crucial importance because one of the key defendants in the 9/11 wrongful death, tort litigation process was the Mossad-controlled airport security firm named ICTS which was in turn, the owner of Huntleigh USA, the passenger screening company that checked the passengers boarding the aircraft at the key airports on 9/11.

Whilst Michael Chertoff supervised the confiscation and destruction of the critical evidence, government appointed doctors ‘medicated’ the grieving relatives with mood-altering Prozac, and Kenneth Feinberg began his war of attrition on the families of the victims of 9/11. Eligibility for the Victim Compensation Fund required the victims’ ‘physical harm or death’ as a result of one of the crashes, before compensation would be considered, to one of the relatives of a deceased victim.

But the ‘catch’ was the waiver of a claimant’s right to independently file suit, if he or she applied for fund money. In other words, accepting a fund payment automatically disbarred the relative from pursuing a lawsuit against the airlines or the US government. If victims or survivors decided not to take the money, the new law stated that they could “ . . . bring in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, an exclusive cause of action for damages based upon the substantive law, including choice of law principles, of the State in which the crash occurred unless such law was inconsistent with or pre-empted by Federal law.”

All those who settled for fund pay-outs, those who took the ‘hush money,’ were thereby kept quiet with gag orders and non-disclosure clauses, and their ideas of the truth about 9/11 would never be revealed in a courtroom. Very clever, indeed. So this federally funded pay-off to the families effectively prevented the possibility for almost all relatives to obtain justice or truth through the legal process, which would no doubt have caused some uncomfortable or unpalatable truths of the events of 9/11, to be revealed.

The Kenneth Feinberg Group, one of his highly profitable enterprises, was listed as one of the top ten supporters of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies for 2004-2005. The Jerusalem Institute is an Israel-based Zionist organisation that supports the building of the illegal separation wall across Palestine, for example. The Feinberg Group also listed as its clients, major insurance and re-insurance companies such as Lloyds of London and these were the companies who stood to lose billions, had 9/11 victims’ lawsuits been forthcoming.

Feinberg was tasked with the prevention of the real facts of 9/11 from being disclosed in a court of law. He was a man whose job was to severely limit any compensation to the victims and victim’s families of this bloody crime spree, a man who was good friends with, and in league with, the mass-murdering masterminds of 9/11.

On 9/11, Barry Jennings reported that he and Michael Hess had been blown back by a big explosion inside WTC-7. He later said in an interview that he had heard explosions in Building 7 before either Tower had collapsed. And he also reported that he was stepping over bodies when he left the building, contradicting the official claim that no-one died in WTC-7. Jennings died mysteriously on 19th August 2008, two days before the release of the NIST Report’s first draft. The cause of death was undisclosed. A private investigator was hired by his family to investigate his strange death, but he quickly returned the money he had been paid, referred the case back to law enforcement and that was that. But why does the death of Barry Jennings continue to be shrouded in mystery and what was it that scared-off a highly-paid private investigator?

As in the case of the JFK assassination, many people knew many secrets, and were unafraid to talk about them, but unfortunately this brought them to the attention of powerful forces, and were thus considered a threat. Human life is indeed cheap, to the banksters. Whether it is one single life, or that of billions of lives, it does not matter in the slightest to them. They are simply sacrificed for the banksters’ evil goals. It is just business, nothing personal.

Beverly Eckert was murdered by Zionist operatives who were threatened by her relentless pursuit for justice regarding the death of her husband, Sean Rooney, whom she had loved dearly. Rooney had died a terrible, heart-rending death as WTC-2 collapsed around him and it was a truly horrendous event. Beverly was actually speaking on the phone with Sean, who was trapped in the building, and while she was speaking to him, saying a tearful goodbye, he died in the collapse.

In her own words, she said . . . “I guess I wish I wasn’t here, because it was such a different life before September 11th. I never envisioned myself speaking to the public having to say anything other than about my own little life. I was just like everyone else, very complacent, very content. World events didn’t seem to affect me, that’s what I believed at the time. All that changed on September 11th, and I guess I just found that I couldn’t just sit back and be a victim. I hate that word. I guess we’re always called victims’ families and things like that. I hate that term, what it conveys is helplessness and no control. I think it’s just been part of my healing process to see if I can make something good happen out of all this.

beverly-eckert

Beverly Eckert

My husband Sean worked in the South Tower, his office was on the 98th floor with a couple of hundred other people and he didn’t really have a good understanding of evacuation and escape options and so they went up, only to find that the doors were locked. They had a window of opportunity to escape down Staircase A, there were three staircases in the South Tower. I think they thought that the rooftop was an option, and so they went up and they were trapped because the roof doors were locked. And I heard from him, he called me and was able to get through to me so I was one of the very lucky family members, I was able to say goodbye. I know what happened to him, I know what his last moments were like. He was very brave. He was a hero. So I have a legacy that I have, that I thought just to take his strength and try to do something positive with it. He was a really strong individual his whole life and I’m kind of feeling infused with that now. I’m trying to make a difference. I’m trying to find the truth in all this chaos.”

Beverly had also issued this statement . . .

“My Silence Cannot Be Bought

Beverly Eckert, Friday, 19th December 2003

I’ve chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four US passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11 fires still smouldered. And this liability cap protects not just the airlines, but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favour of those who need to be held accountable. With the financial consequences other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game.

By suing, I’ve forfeited the ‘$1.8 million average award’ for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, whose death I believe could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don’t get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?”

Eckert was one of the few surviving relatives who refused to accept the ‘hush money’ offered by Kenneth Feinberg and took her own action, ultimately leading to the White House and beyond. She sought only justice for her husband and in so-doing publicly referred to the Zionist-orchestrated Project for the New American Century, as the “most sinister” of all documents she had ever seen. Eckert had gathered evidence that former President Bush knew all about the attacks in advance and had even contributed to the planning of them. Because of her relentless activism she was ‘allowed’ to meet with Barack Obama, informing him that she would not rest until justice was served, and also demanded that George Bush be investigated for conspiracy and complicity in mass-murder.

Less than a week later, Beverly Eckert was dead.

She had met with Obama in 2009 at the White House asking him to open a new 9/11 investigation. Obama shook her hand on TV, then sent her on a ‘complimentary’ flight to Buffalo to celebrate her late husband’s 58th birthday anniversary. The plane crashed just 6 days after the meeting with Obama and Beverly Eckert was silenced forever.

The crash of Continental Express flight 3407 brought tragedy to the friends and family of all 50 victims, but for one family, grief struck for a second time. The plane was flying without cause for concern, but then it suddenly began pitching wildly and crashed. The slick media ‘experts’ claimed it was due to ice, yet the plane had powerful de-icing systems. Suspiciously, there was a strong FBI presence at the crash scene. The FBI only investigates cases where the NTSB has determined that ‘foul play’ is involved. They stated that criminal action was ruled out, yet their presence proved otherwise.

This suggests that they knew there was foul play and that their only purpose at the scene was to enact a cover-up operation. The forensics team was led by the same man who led the forensics recovery efforts for Flight 93 in Shanksville. This man was a FEMA operative who had also worked with the UN on the crash of Egyptian Airlines 990 (another black-op.) Was he considered a ‘safe pair of hands,’ for dealing with these incidents?

Marvin Bush’s house maid, Bertha Champagne, was killed on 29th September 2003 on Marvin’s property. As with many other bizarre stories relating to the Bush family, Bertha was crushed to death in Marvin’s driveway by her own vehicle which pinned her against the garage. The investigation concluded that it was an ‘accident.’ What did she know?

There were so many other ‘convenient’ deaths, too. Here is just a sample . . .

Kenneth Johannemann, an eyewitness to explosions inside WTC, saw “floors just blow up.” He suffered a gunshot wound to the head, ruled as a suicide.

Prasanna Kalahasthi, the wife of a 9/11 ‘Flight 11 passenger.’ Her death was ruled as a ‘suicide by hanging.’

David Graham, a dentist who saw three of the 9/11 hijackers (after the event) with a Pakistani businessman in Shreveport, Louisiana, was murdered by poisoning with anti-freeze.

Paul Smith, a helicopter pilot for WABC7 on 9/11, died in a ‘car accident.’

Michael H. Doran, a 9/11 victims lawyer, died in a plane crash.

Christopher Landis, the former Operations Manager for the Safety Service Patrol for the Virginia Department of Transportation, interviewed by makers of the documentary exposé ‘The Pentacon’ and who gave the filmmakers a photographic collection, containing evidence that the Pentagon attacks were not as officially described. Death ruled as a ‘suicide.’

An un-named ticket agent at Boston, Logan airport who allegedly checked-in Atta and Alomari. Death ruled as a ‘suicide.’

Perry Kucinich, the brother of the Congressman who advocated a new 9/11 investigation. Fell down some stairs.

Salvatore Princiotta, the firefighter from Ladder 9. Murdered.

Deborah Palfrey ran a ‘high-class’ prostitution ring in Washington DC, that had several of the 9/11 perpetrators among its clients.

She naively said in an interview with Alex Jones, that . . . “I have information that would be of great interest to the 9/11 Commission. There’s information that I have that would have been very important for the 9/11 Commission to know, having to do with intelligence picked up about 9/11 before it happened.”

Alex Jones: “The fact that you’re so visible, really protects you, going on Larry King and other big shows. Do you want to put it on record that you’re not planning to commit suicide?”

Deborah Palfrey: “No, I’m not planning to commit suicide. I’m planning to go into court on April 17th if indeed we do have the trial, and I plan on defending myself vigorously and I plan on exposing the government in ways that I do not think they want me to expose them on.”

On 15th April 2008, a police spokesman said that when Deborah’s mother, Blanche went outside, she noticed that the bicycle that was normally kept in the shed, had been moved. Then upon entering the shed located on the west side of the residence, Blanche Palfrey discovered her daughter Deborah had apparently hung herself from a metal beam on the ceiling of the shed, using a nylon rope. She then called 911. At approximately 11.01 am, the Fire Rescue department pronounced Deborah Palfrey dead from suicide.

So in conclusion, there is monumental corroborating evidence that Israel played a central role in the 9/11 attacks, aided and abetted by corrupt elements of the Bush administration. This is reinforced by Zionists’ many roles in the cover-up.

Those who are relatively new to the issues of false-flag terrorism, Zionism and the New World Order may be asking themselves if suggestions that ‘Israel did 9/11’ is just another ‘conspiracy theory’ or is ‘anti-Semitic.’ That particular dis-information has been disseminated by the 9/11 perpetrators themselves, who love to exploit it as a means of deflecting attention from themselves, their crimes and deceptions.

We also have Israelis with proven foreknowledge, a highly-placed Zionist with access to the best Flight Termination System for electronically hijacking aircraft via a Command Transmitter System, an Israeli Instant Messaging service through which two hours’ advance knowledge of an attack on the World Trade Center was transmitted, and Zionists who were friends with four Israeli prime ministers and who took control of the WTC lease, and insured the buildings against terror attacks for billions of dollars, six weeks before the buildings were destroyed in terror attacks, not forgetting to insert a clause stating that in the event of a terrorist attack the partners could not only collect the insured value of the property, but would also be released from all of their obligations under the 99-year lease.

I would assert that the original plan was to have both Twin Towers collapse at around 10.00 am, which would allow the perpetrators’ lackeys sufficient time to exit WTC-7, and then have Flight 93 strike WTC-7 at around 10.30 am. This third strike would provide the pretext for the planned WTC-7 collapse, which was necessary in order to eliminate evidence of the remote-control transmitters for controlling Flights 11, 175, and 93, that is, if remote-controlled planes or drones were used, and radio controls for the detonating of charges in each of the Twin Towers. However, Flight 93, scheduled to depart at 8.00 am, was delayed because of congestion and did not depart until 8.42. At 9.36 am, Flight 93 filed a new flight-plan to arrive in Washington at 10.28. Unfortunately for the perpetrators, the US air defences could not be delayed indefinitely, and so United Airlines 93, was shot down near Shanksville at 10.06 am. The Zionist plotters still had to demolish WTC-7, but were now without a convenient ‘suicide-piloted’ passenger plane to hand. Hence, the official story was compelled to ridiculously assert that the collapse of WTC-7 was solely as a result of ‘fires.’

And after the event, the Zionist ‘mafia’ and the Bush Administration had a false pretext for the attacking and looting of nations that were now deemed ‘fair game’ as states who ‘sponsored terrorism.’ The CIA was anxious to invade Afghanistan in order to get back into the opium trade, which had proven highly lucrative for them until the intervention of the Taliban. The Bushes and their partners-in-crime hoped to profit from Iraq’s oil wealth, from looting its Oil-for-Food fund, and from extensive reconstruction contracts, all of which were conveniently offered to their cronies. Israel wished to see its Arab neighbours neutered, and maybe even turned into its ‘satellite colonies’ as the US, UK and Germany already were. But their immediate interest was Iraq, not Afghanistan. The Bush family had business links with the bin Ladens, and Osama was selected as the arch-villain since his health was rapidly failing and he was not expected to survive long. But it was much easier to link Osama with Afghanistan than Iraq.

two+faced+bush+business+partner+osama+bin+laden+2007+news+white+house+com

And so, the world was redefined after 11th September 2001, just as it had been so many times before, with previous earth shattering and cataclysmic, false flag events. But it was now the new age of the ‘War on Terror,’ however the only terrorism in existence was being instigated by the very same people allegedly fighting against it.

Osama bin Laden was a convenient, ‘off-the-shelf,’ bogeyman. It is believed by many researchers, especially in the intelligence community, that sometime during July 2001, Bin Laden flew to the American hospital in Dubai for kidney dialysis treatment and was met by the CIA. This information emanated from French intelligence sources and was confirmed in April 2002, by Dr. Steve Poeczenik who held numerous influential positions under three different Presidents and indeed is still employed by the US Defence Department — so obviously no ‘conspiracy nut.’ And on the eve of 9/11 it is believed that bin Laden was in a Pakistan military hospital, under the scrutiny of the Pakistani ISI, which has close ties to the CIA.

Bin Laden actually denied any involvement in 9/11 and indeed vigorously condemned those individuals involved in the attacks. This is a matter of public record in every country apart from the UK and USA. To re-iterate, on 28th September 2001, during an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, bin Laden reportedly said . . .

There are many theories and even documents that suggest bin Laden worked for the CIA, and it is also thought that he toured US military bases in search of support for armaments and for political support. It has also been suggested that he even visited the White House.

On 26th December 2001, Pakistan reported bin Laden dead and that he was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan and Bush also re-iterated this statement. Fox News even covered the story and a Taliban leader who attended the funeral was quoted as saying that bin Laden died a peaceful death, due to an untreatable lung problem.

In October 2002, even Israeli intelligence said that Israel and the US had ascertained that Osama bin Laden had died in December 2001 in Afghanistan, probably of Marfan syndrome, that had troubled him for years. Marfan syndrome is a degenerative, genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer and can cause instant death from the sudden rupture of the aorta.

It was also widely acknowledged at the time that Bin Laden needed constant kidney dialysis because of renal health problems. Indeed, CBS News even reported that bin Laden was having kidney dialysis treatment the night before 9/11.

The terminally ill Osama bin Laden was far more likely to have died in an American hospital bed in Dubai in December 2001, than to manage to live ‘on the run,’ until May, 2011. Steve Pieczenik, a State Department official in three different administrations and an award-winning Harvard Medical School luminary, originally appeared on the Alex Jones Show in April 2002 when he asserted that bin Laden had been “dead for months,” and that the government was awaiting the most politically expedient time to announce it.

Pieczenik’s assertion that bin Laden died in 2001, is also backed-up by a myriad of other intelligence professionals and heads of state, including the former CIA officer and hugely respected intelligence and foreign policy expert, Robert Baer, as well as former FBI counter-terror head, Dale Watson, who have both publicly stated that Osama was dead long before the alleged raid on his so-called compound in Pakistan in 2011.

The CIA admitted in 2010 that they created fake bin Laden videos. This was quoted in the Washington Post and they also admitted that they used ‘darker-skinned employees’ in order to create the fake tapes. And so in 2011, when Barack Obama was losing popularity in the US opinion polls, the dollar was falling dramatically as was public support for wars, and not forgetting the Obama forged birth certificate controversy, the banksters finally decided that Osama bin Laden, or some poor, unfortunate substitute, should finally be allowed to expire in a blaze of glory. But more of that later.

And unfortunately, the ‘shock and awe’ did not end with 9/11 . . . It was in fact only just getting started . . .

Chapter 21

The War OF Terror

At the time of 9/11 there were only SEVEN countries in the world, that were not owned and controlled by a Zionist central bank – Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Iran, North Korea and Cuba but this was about to be rectified somewhat under the guise of fighting the so-called ‘War on Terror.’ But as with the ‘War on Drugs,’ the ‘War on Crime,’ and Poverty, this is a war that is meant to be promulgated and sustained, not won.

The Zionists had been creating terror as part of their long-term plan long before 9/11, but now the campaign was about to be really intensified. 9/11 was just the catalyst, the new ‘Pearl Harbor’ needed, to bring the masses ‘on-side,’ for the next phase of the agenda.

Whether you believe that launching the ‘Global War on Terror’ was George W. Bush’s, Dick Cheney’s, Don Rumsfeld’s, the PNAC mafia or Zionist Israel’s idea, it doesn’t really matter as they are all servants of the banksters and it was always the banksters’ plan and the banksters’ ultimate goal to totally dominate and own the money supply, and indeed the entire world.

The dumbed-down, brainwashed masses now really believed that if they ‘removed the Muslim terrorists,’ that the world would be a safer place, democracy would flourish in the Middle East and Asia, and we would all be able to live in peace and prosperity, at last.

“It was early October, 2001. I was driving through the Shorewood neighborhood of Madison, Wisconsin, listening to BBC News on WORT listener-sponsored community radio. The BBC announcer reported on an Israeli cabinet meeting that Shimon Peres had been pressuring Ariel Sharon to respect American calls for a ceasefire, lest the Americans turn against Israel. According to the BBC, a furious Sharon turned toward Peres, saying...

‘I want to tell you something very clear. Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.’

I was stunned. Such colossal arrogance! After a moment’s thought, it wasn’t so much the arrogance that was so stunning – it was that the BBC had reported Sharon’s indiscretion. Now it was on the record – undeniable – an ineradicable part of the national dialogue and the historical record. Surely the American mainstream media would plaster this story all over its front pages! This could start a long-overdue national dialogue about the power of the Israel lobby. It could even be a turning point – the end of America’s slavish subservience to Israel. At the very least, it would start a national debate: Was Sharon right? Or was he exaggerating?

During the next several days I scanned the media in vain for any reference to Sharon’s boast. There were none. The story had been buried. It was as if it had never happened. Sharon’s ‘we Jews control America’ quote was outrageous, scandalous, and attention-getting. Translated into screaming front-page headlines, it could have sold newspapers. Surely the commercial media, always in it for a buck, would milk the outrage factor for every penny it could squeeze out of it. Right…? Wrong! For some strange reason, the BBC report vanished into the ether.

In 2005, when Sharon resigned as Prime Minister, I called in to a WORT talk show hosted by an Israeli woman who was showering Sharon with respect – a strange way for an avowedly leftist, peacenik station to treat one of history’s worst war criminals. I asked her why the media had buried Sharon’s ‘we Jews control America,’ rant. She flew into a rage, called me an anti-Semite, and hung up on me.” Veterans Today editor, Kevin Barrett

So why did the US media bury Sharon’s quote? Former New York Times journalist Phillip Weiss offered the most plausible explanation. He said that the majority of decision-makers in American mainstream journalism are Jewish, and that they feel like they are Israel’s last line of defence. It would seem that Sharon won his argument with Peres. Jewish Zionists control America so completely that when the Israeli Prime Minister screams it from the rooftops, Americans are not allowed to hear it.

“Jewish power is the ability to get us to stop talking about Jewish power.” Gilad Atzmon

If the ordinary, good, decent Jewish people only knew, if they could only wake-up to the Zionist evil that has brainwashed them into thinking that everyone is out to get them… if only they could recognise that the hate and distrust they have been taught from childhood is false... if only they could realise that the Zionist banksters have used them more than any other group on the planet, then, and only then, will that Zionist power over all mankind be broken.

With the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan having been conveniently, and secretly worked-out many months prior to 9/11, the banksters now had to crank up their mass-media propaganda machine, and keep spewing out the big lie, that it was the evil Taliban who were giving shelter to the ‘9/11 mastermind,’ Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and we want him – or else!

Of course, he was not the 9/11 mastermind, as the US and world’s intelligence community already well knew and the fact that he was already dead and buried anyway, really made him the perfect patsy, the perfect excuse for invasion. Regardless of those facts, the show must go on… and knowing that the dumbed-down masses would act exactly the same way as they did after the so-called ‘sneak attack’ on Pearl Harbor in WWII, desperately baying for revenge, the banksters simply gave the blood-thirsty, lynch-mob mentality public, exactly that for which they clamoured.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in the Middle East in the last decade and many of these deaths have been excused as unavoidable, ‘collateral damage,’ by American political and military leaders. If western intelligence believes that a so-called terrorist is hiding in a residential area, they have no problem at all with launching a missile strike that also kills a few dozen – or even a few hundred civilians, in order to get one ‘bad guy.’ The majority of American and European citizens, if they ever even hear about the deaths at all, do not care how many Arab civilians become ‘collateral damage’ and this attitude is the inevitable result of the long history of dehumanising stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in general, in the Zionist-owned and controlled media.

It was obvious in the public’s mind, thanks to the constant, repetitive brainwashing of the 9/11-towers-collapsing media blitz, and talking-heads constantly quoting bin Laden’s name and referring to al-Qaeda 24/7, that Muslims were to blame, so ergo, any Muslim country was now ‘fair game.’ And shortly after 9/11, when CNN reported that Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers strongly condemned the attacks against the United States, for a second time, and urged the US not to attack them in retaliation, well, who was going to believe a bunch of ‘evil, towel-headed sand niggers?’

But of course, the immediate, pre-determined response of the US and its allies to the 9/11 attacks, was to declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting the ‘terror mastermind,’ Osama bin Laden. And by allegedly harbouring bin Laden, the Taliban were complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an ‘act of war’ against the United States.

Meanwhile, on two occasions, during the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels – offered to hand over bin Laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by President Bush, on the grounds that America ‘does not negotiate with terrorists.’ Very convenient, I am sure you agree. And what Joe and Josie Public does not even begin to comprehend, is that their whole idea of terrorism, a foreign cowardly enemy that is trying to ‘get them,’ by whatever foul means it can, is really just a creation of their own country’s intelligence services, America’s CIA, Britain’s MI-6, and Israel’s Mossad.

Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO. It is all a topsy-turvy Orwellian fraud, a cruel ultra-expensive hoax, as the US and its allies claim to be waging a ‘war on terrorism’ against the alleged architects of 9/11, whilst also using al-Qaeda operatives as their mercenary foot-soldiers. However, George Bush and his Cheney/Rumsfeld administration were not exactly blessed with the greatest PR skills, or reputations for speaking the truth, so the task of providing credibility and the justification for hunting-down Osama bin-Laden and his friends, was taken-on by Bush’s chief ally in his dirty ‘war on terror,’ the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

On the 4th October 2001, Blair made public a document entitled, ‘Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States.’ Listing ‘clear conclusions reached by the government,’ it stated among many other lies that, “Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on September 11, 2001.” Blair’s report, however, began by saying, “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.” However, although the case was perhaps not good enough to go to court, Blair obviously felt that it was good enough to justify millions of deaths in the coming years.

Yet another Zionist puppet, Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh, Scotland on 6th May 1953.

In 1983 at Bow Street Magistrates Court in London, a certain ‘Charles Lynton’ was fined £50 for ‘soliciting’ in public toilets, an activity in which he had been constantly involved to that point in his life. However, the police notes on the case, mysteriously disappeared later, along with the record of several prior, verbal warnings as to his conduct. But who was the shadowy figure, ‘Charles Lynton?’ …None other in fact, than Anthony Charles Lynton Blair himself, who was infamous at University as ‘Miranda,’ a promiscuous, predatory, homosexual and transvestite.

Michael Abraham Levy, ‘Lord Levy,’ was the leading fundraiser for the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. Described as ‘a long-standing friend of Tony Blair,’ Levy served as Blair’s ‘special envoy to the Middle East,’ from 1998 until 2007. Levy’s son, Daniel, is an Israeli citizen who has held high-level positions in Israeli governments since 1995. Whilst his father was bankrolling and managing Tony Blair, the younger Levy was a member of the Israeli delegation to the Palestinian summit at Taba in January 2001. Daniel also served as a senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin, from March 2000 to March 2001 and under Ehud Barak, Levy served as the prime minister’s special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit. This ‘Levy connection,’ was obviously the link that gave Israeli intelligence control over the head of the British government, Tony Blair.

Blair was voted as the worst Prime Minister in living memory. Worse than Margaret Thatcher who destroyed British Industry, worse than the gay paedophile Edward Heath, who took Britain into the EU after it had suffered so badly in WWII, partly in order to fight a ‘united Europe,’ worse than ‘gay-Gordon’ Brown who sold Britain’s gold reserves to the Rothschilds on the same day that the gold price was at its lowest ever, and even worse than Winston Churchill of whom his ‘pal,’ Aleister Crowley once said, was a ‘criminal lunatic.’

The war in Afghanistan was never authorised by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at any time since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. The US government’s claim to the contrary, is completely false. This war was illegal moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”

But then, when has illegality ever stood in the way of a bankster-created war?

“Some of the most savage weapons of modern warfare.” was how one BBC journalist described cluster bombs, the US military’s latest weapon of choice in Afghanistan. They are also deadly to human life and relatively inexpensive. So, on 10th October 2001, US B-52s and B-1s began dropping deadly 1,000 lb. cluster (fragmentation) bombs upon ‘soft targets’ i.e., people, in Afghanistan.

Eleven weeks later, US planes had dropped 1,210 cluster bombs, each containing 202 ‘bomblets.’ The British Halo Trust now estimates on the basis of groundwork in Afghanistan, that 20% of the bomblets failed to explode, meaning that 48,884 deadly weapons now litter the villages, paths and fields of Afghanistan. This was a brutal attack on a country that had already been almost destroyed by more than 20 years of foreign invasion and civil war. The Soviet occupation, which lasted from 1979 to 1989, left more than a million people dead and millions more still lived in refugee camps. In addition to the remaining cluster-bombs, ten million land mines still littered the country, killing an average of 90 people per month. At 43 years, life expectancy in Afghanistan was on average 17 years lower than that of people in other ‘developing’ countries. The wider countryside was completely devastated and experienced a severe drought, with 7.5 million people threatened with starvation.

Afghanistan survived for many years as a ‘medieval island,’ in the modern world, characterised by lack of modern facilities and extreme poverty. In the post-war period, some changes began to occur as a result of foreign aid from the USSR and, to a lesser extent, the US, which were both vying for influence during the Cold War. Power shifted toward the state, and an educated middle class began to emerge, but industry still barely existed.

“The opium industry of Afghanistan is solely designed by the United States. The drug business started long before, in the 1980s during the Cold War, and the CIA worked hard to promote it in the areas under the control of the Mujahedeen. It is a joke when they are talking about counter-narcotics efforts while everyone knows that the production level goes up every year. If they had been serious about fighting the drug business, they would not have installed the biggest drug-traffickers like Ahmad Wali Karzai, Qasim Fahim, Rashid Dostum, Atta Muhammad, Mohammed Daud Daud, Burhanuddin Rabbani, and many others in the key positions of the puppet government.” Malalai Joya, a highly influential Afghan activist

Prior to the invasion, the Taliban had banned opium production, and were successful in reducing the production to only 185 metric tons per year. But under the United States and its allies, Afghanistan now produces over 8,500 tons of opium every year. How strange.

opium_s640x540

With the rise of opium cultivation and trafficking since the US-led invasion, there was no doubt that the US and the CIA was directly profiting from this war, by controlling over 90% of the world’s opium. Iranian’s Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar accused the CIA of pushing Iranian youths toward heroin and opium addiction, whilst at the same time using Afghanistan as a hub to sell to international drug traffickers in order to supply Europe via Iran.

The Bali bombing

In a popular tourist district on the island of Bali, on 12th October 2002, a suicide bomber and a planted car bomb, killed 202 people, 89 of whom were Australian tourists. Initial reports said that the bomb consisted of C4, a military-grade plastic explosive which is next to impossible to obtain – except for the military, but this story was soon changed and the bomb was then said to be of a more crude design. The sheer devastation the bomb wrought on surrounding buildings in the area suggested that it was a very powerful explosive that was used.

The ringleader of the Bali bombers claimed that the attack was much larger than he had expected and that the only explanation for so much carnage was that the bombers were aided by the CIA, KGB or Mossad. Imam Samudra, the alleged mastermind behind the attack, and who also chose the targets, told the Times of London, in an interview, that the second explosion was bigger than the bombers had expected and the attack killed far more people than originally intended. What happened at Paddy’s Bar and the Sari Club was unacceptable, he said.

He totally denied making the bomb and any knowledge of who made the bomb and when. The only explanation, he suggested, was that the CIA or KGB or Mossad had somehow tampered with the bomb. This was very possible, he claimed.

The second bomb, inside a Mitsubishi L300 van, was detonated as people fled into the streets as a result of the panic generated by the smaller, first bomb which was detonated inside the nightclub. Allegations of U.S. and British government prior knowledge and even involvement in the Bali bombing have repeatedly surfaced. And during an interview for an Australian documentary, former Indonesian President, Abdurrahman Wahid unequivocally fingered the Indonesian authorities as the true culprits behind the October 2002 bombing. Wahid said the authorities were acting at the behest of Western intelligence agencies.

Probably significantly, hours before the bombing took place, the US withdrew all its administrative staff and diplomats from Indonesia, citing an unspecific ‘security threat.’ The British government also received the same warning but this was not passed-on to any relevant authority or the hundreds of victims happily making their way to a beach party. Then immediately after the bombing, the FBI, the Australian Secret Service and British secret police ruthlessly took charge of the investigation, much to the chagrin of the Indonesian authorities and the Balinese police.

Widely believed to be yet another false-flag staged event, the researcher Wayne Madsen obtained an exclusive photograph of a suspected Israeli intelligence operative laughing ostentatiously with an Indonesian police officer, at the scene of the carnage, the morning after the deadly bombings. The attack was in fact the catalyst for the Australian Prime Minister John Howard to join the US-British war in Afghanistan and, later, in Iraq, which tells us all we need to know about its perpetrators.

The reaction of the celebrator of the Bali bombing was similar to the celebrations of the five ‘dancing Israeli,’ Mossad agents who were witnessed celebrating the ‘first impact of an aircraft’ into the World Trade Center on 9/11, from a location at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, immediately across the Hudson River from lower Manhattan.

“Our Indonesian and American sources report that there was a significant US and Israeli military-intelligence connection to the October 12, 2002 bombings of the Sari Club in Bali, Indonesia. A De Havilland Dash-7 aircraft registered in Queensland, Australia, landed at Denpasar Airport in Bali only hours before a massive explosion ripped through the Sari Club, killing over 200 people, many of them vaporized.

Our sources claim that an Israeli military team arrived at Denpasar Hospital after the explosion and claimed four bodies of white men in uniform and flew them out of Bali on the Dash 7. The plane took off an hour after the explosion. Our sources have revealed the plane was permitted to pass through Singapore for an unknown destination. After the bombing and the plane’s departure, the tower logs were altered at Denpasar Airport to indicate the Dash 7 had not landed there. However, in a major oversight, the apron logs were not tampered with. Our sources have revealed the Dash 7 was Israeli-owned.

Several victims of the Sari Club bombing at Kuta Beach had flash burns on their bodies, something common with people exposed to a nuclear blast. Our sources also have revealed that a CIA contract agent, an Indonesian national, was at Kuta Beach the day before the terrorist bombing. He is also known to have been involved in other terrorist attacks on behalf of the CIA since 1998.

Our sources also indicate that the then-US ambassador to Indonesia, Ralph Boyce, who is now posted as ambassador to Thailand, was fully aware of US intelligence pre-knowledge of the terrorist bombing in Bali. Boyce told the American managing editor of the Jakarta Post that it would be ‘unhelpful’ if the paper pursued the US angle in the Bali bombing.

WMR has also learned that the Australian government placed pressure on the Indonesian government to quickly remove the debris from the Bali bombing to barges brought in by Australia to Kuta port. The debris was then dumped in the ocean. Similarly, debris from the World Trade Center in New York was quickly transferred to Staten Island and eventually to India and China for smelting. In both the New York and Bali incidents, important forensics sites were compromised before a full investigation could be carried out. The decision to remove crime scene evidence came on orders from above.” Wayne Madsen Reports, 27th March 2007

Vice President Cheney said to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in October 2002… “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.” Which as it would later turn-out was not a simple error of communications or a result of poor intelligence, but a blatant lie, whose sole purpose was to deceive the people of the world into thinking that Saddam had to be stopped at all costs and giving the Americans a ‘free pass’ to invade Iraq.

Nevertheless opposition to yet another war in Iraq was still extremely strong and was organised into demonstrations in Europe, Latin America, Australia, Japan and the United States. In the US a common theme was that money spent on war should be better spent on social programmes.

Many people, including Paul Reynolds of the BBC were also expressing doubts about a serious link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They pointed to Hussein’s secular background and his hostilities toward the religious extremism of al-Qaeda. As Reynolds pointed-out, Saddam must have realised that being linked with al-Qaeda would have been fatal for him.

Then on 7th December 2002, Iraq submitted a 12,000 page declaration denying that it has or was developing weapons banned by the United Nations and an advisor to Hussein, Amir al-Saadi, announced to journalists from around the world that Hussein’s government was “…ready to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain, on its arms declaration, and would allow the CIA to come and identify suspicious sites for weapons inspectors.”

In his ‘State of the Union’ speech in early 2003, Bush spoke of ‘intelligence reports’ and declared that Saddam Hussein “…is not disarming, he is deceiving.” Another blatant lie. Then shortly afterwards, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressed the United Nations Security Council and accused Iraq of “…hiding weapons of mass destruction.” The evidence he said, whilst lying through his teeth, was “…irrefutable and undeniable.” He also asserted that the UN… “…places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.”

Very few journalists in the United States questioned Powell’s gross lies. However, one who did so was Katrina van den Heuvel. Published in USA Today, she wrote that Powell’s presentation contained… “…little new information or proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” and that Powell’s evidence was “largely circumstantial or speculative.” She also wrote that minor violations were being used to justify a major war. But there was no stopping the mighty US propaganda machine, which by this time was moving into top gear. As the banksters and their controlled media and politicians presented a united front with Bush, it was left to the anti-war movement to oppose the drive to war.

Many progressive forces had seen through Bush and Blair’s vile propaganda and protests began to build all around the world. On 15th February 2002, with the slogan ‘The World Says No to War’ between 12 and 14 million people, demonstrated, in 800 cities in 60 countries around the world. It was the largest day of coordinated protest in human history.

Over half a million marched in New York, as many as two million in London, and in the largest action of all, three million turned out in Rome. The New York Times went so far as to declare that “…the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet; the United States and world public opinion.”

Bush’s at best, semi-literate response to the protests was… “You know, size of protest, it’s like deciding, well, I’m going to decide policy based upon a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security, in this case, the security of the people. Evidently some don’t view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. I respectfully disagree.” All of which gibberish could be roughly translated as, ‘we do not care how many people do not want this war; I have my orders, so it is going ahead anyway.’

Those protests did play a role in pressuring several traditional US allies to threaten vetoes of any war resolution put forward in the UN Security Council. So Bush instead abandoned the UN and forged an alliance with Britain and 48 smaller countries that he referred-to as “a coalition of the willing,” but could be more accurately described as ‘a bunch of the bought and bullied.’ US imperialism thus bypassed the UN, its traditional ally France, most of world public opinion and mass demonstrations, to launch a totally illegal war in Iraq, solely for material gain and profit.

The Bush administration’s primary justification for launching the Iraq War was an alleged WMD programme that certainly did not exist. The group of psychopathic neo-conservatives surrounding Bush and Cheney contributed to a systematic process of cherry-picking dubious intelligence and outright manipulation of evidence in order to satisfy a political decision that had already been made, to subdue and conquer Iraq and take control of its considerable resources, through an illegal war of aggression. The historical record clearly demonstrates the distortions that the Zionist-controlled forces employed to suggest that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Inspectors who confirmed that they did not exist were ignored and marginalised, false stories about aluminium tubes were circulated and Iraqi defectors that were in reality, professional liars, were used as ‘anonymous sources,’ alleging Saddam’s WMD developments.

But as crucial as these false claims about Saddam’s WMDs, were to the propaganda machine, what should be most remembered was the equally false, fabricated claim of an operational connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Indeed, significant numbers of Americans still believe that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in league and had co-operated in the 9/11 attacks. The reason being, that the government and the media had told them that was the case.

An investigation by the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor, Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” And also according to the investigating committee, “…at least 61 separate statements misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.”

Other huge, blatant lies were told, not mistakes, not errors or miscarriages of information. Two months after the 9/11 attacks, on 9th December 2001, Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and when asked whether… “Iraq was involved in September 11,” he cited a “…report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”

In fact, the CIA had told Cheney that this ‘report’ was false the day before his TV appearance. In a briefing that was sent to the White House Situation Room, the CIA concluded that “…9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta did not travel to the Czech Republic on May 31, 2000.” But Cheney cited it anyway, whilst knowing it to be false.

By August 2003, after another year that included the most intensive ‘selling’ of the war, more than two-thirds of Americans believed that Saddam had been involved in 9/11. Some of this belief was due to ongoing innuendo such as the vice president’s repeated references to the phantom meeting in Prague between an Iraqi ‘official’ and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. But it was mostly due to the persistent rhetoric that repeatedly mentioned Iraq, 9/11, and the ‘war on terror,’ in the same sentence. The Saddam / al-Qaeda connection did not drive the decision to go to war with Iraq, but it did drive the administration’s propaganda campaign to generate public support for the war.

This was absolutely critical to the wholehearted support that the vast majority of Americans gave to Bush and Cheney to go to war. Alleged WMDs, although a factor too, alone, could never have achieved the level of popular support for the war crimes against Iraq. The extreme pain, indignation and even humiliation that Americans felt after being ‘attacked’ on 9/11 was fully exploited in order to gain general support. And it is absolutely apparent that the US government. And to a lesser-extent, the UK government also, persistently used and cited falsehoods to achieve their own egregious ends.

In March 2003 in Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair made a disgraceful speech comparing “…the majority of decent and well-meaning people” in the 1930s who wanted to live in peace with Hitler’s Germany, with those who now wanted peace with Iraq. Of course he knew that there was absolutely no comparison between the two situations, but this nevertheless did not prevent the miserable apology for a human being from making this deceptive comparison in order to put psychological pressure upon the war’s many opponents. One member of Tony Blair’s cabinet, Clare Short, described his position on Iraq as “deeply reckless” and threatened to resign.

By the time Blair had led Britain into the attack on Iraq, even he had stopped believing his own false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, according to an unpublished interview with the late Robin Cook, the former Leader of the House of Commons who resigned from the Cabinet just before the invasion in March 2003. In an interview with journalist David Rose, Cook described Blair’s actions as “a scandalous manipulation of the British constitution,” adding that if the then Prime Minister had revealed his doubts, they would have rendered the war illegal.

Cook, who was in almost daily contact with Blair in the months before his resignation, said that in September 2002, when the Government published its infamous dossier claiming that Saddam had tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons and could deploy WMDs within 45 minutes, Blair did believe these claims were true. But, he added, “By February or March, he knew it was wrong. As far as I know, at no point after the end of 2002 did he ever repeat those claims.” On 18th March, Blair had to face the Commons to ask it to vote for war but he knew, Cook added, “…that if he now publicly withdrew the dossier’s claims, that his position would be lost… Tony didn’t focus on WMDs only for political reasons, but for legal reasons. He knew he was not going to get the Attorney General on-side on any basis other than that Saddam had illegal weapons and could not be disarmed by any means other than war.”

But as we well know, Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or any politician for that matter, do not decide anything. Their CFR and Trilateral Commission, bankster masters are running the show, but of course, this is something that journalists and so-called ‘historians,’ dare not pursue or even mention.

If telling the truth despite massive pressure to be complicit in the lies of the establishment, is a yardstick by which to measure heroism, then Robin Cook was a hero. However, like many heroes before him, he paid for his outspoken bravery with his life.

Cook was the MP for Livingston, Scotland from 1983 until his death in 2005, and served in the Cabinet as Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001. He became known as a brilliant parliamentary debater, and rose through the party ranks, becoming a front-bench spokesman in 1980, and being appointed to the ‘Shadow’ Cabinet in 1987, as Shadow Social Services Secretary. With the election of a Labour government at the 1997 general election, Cook became Foreign Secretary.

In early 2003 he was reportedly one of the cabinet’s chief opponents of military action against Iraq, and on 17th March 2003 he resigned from the Cabinet. However, after his resignation from the Cabinet, Cook remained an active backbench Member of Parliament until his death. Shortly after he became Foreign Secretary, Cook ended his marriage with his wife of 17 years Margaret with whom he had two sons, revealing that he had an extra-marital affair with one of his staff, Gaynor Regan.

He wrote an article published in July 2005 one day after the 7/7 London tube bombings, entitled ‘The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means,’ wherein he spoke on Islamic terror in general and al- Qaeda in particular.

In this article, Cook committed the ultimate blasphemy, and implied, without actually stating definitively, that 9/11 and 7/7 were ‘false flag’ operations. Whilst this was all ‘common knowledge’ to truth-seekers, the vast majority of the general public were probably hearing it for the first time from an insider. MI-6, the CIA, Mossad and the Zionists controlling the UK, probably had no idea whether or not Cook was going to leave it there or go one small step further and say that bin-Laden was a manufactured bogeyman being used by lots of groups for different agendas. For all the powers of darkness knew, he could be about to blow the whole terrorism scam wide-open. In the eyes of his lords and masters, Robin Cook had overstepped the mark.

The ‘official story’ of Robin Cook’s sudden, untimely death was that in early August 2005, Cook and his wife, Gaynor, took a two-week walking holiday in the Highlands of Scotland. At around 2.20 pm, on 6th August 2005, whilst walking on the mountain, Ben Stack in Sutherland, Scotland, Cook suddenly suffered a severe heart attack, collapsed, lost consciousness and fell about 8ft. down a small gully.

A helicopter staffed by paramedics arrived 30 minutes after a 999 (911) call was made. Cook was immediately flown to Craigmore Hospital in Inverness. Gaynor did not enter the helicopter, and was left to walk down the mountain alone and despite efforts made by the medical team to revive Cook in the helicopter, he was already beyond recovery, and at 4.05 pm, minutes after arrival at the hospital, was pronounced dead. Two days later, a post mortem revealed that Cook died of ‘hypertensive heart disease.’

No mention was made of any injuries to the head and neck, yet most early press reports indicated that, after having had a heart attack, he had fallen down the gully and had broken his neck. So when did he die? There were conflicting accounts. Officially, he was pronounced dead at 4.05 pm, soon after arrival at the hospital, but all reports said that Gaynor and ‘fellow hill-walkers’ gave Cook artificial resuscitation for 30-40 minutes, as instructed via mobile phone, until the helicopter arrived.

But who were the never-identified group of walkers, whom we were told, came to Gaynor Cook’s aid? And if it is not an obvious question, what were they doing on Ben Stack? According to sources speaking from where the Cooks had spent Robin’s last night… “She was lucky another walker was in the area to be with her at such a time. You could be on Ben Stack a hundred times and not see another soul, so for someone to be within shouting distance and with a mobile phone was very fortunate.” Indeed so. Although most reports spoke of a ‘group of walkers,’ the London Times stated that there was only one.

One month before he died, Cook had subtly begun to divulge confidential information, despite having signed the ‘Official Secrets Act.’ His sudden and unexpected death was certainly convenient for the UK government, MI-5, MI-6 and other surreptitious groups who control the world by stealth on behalf of those who prefer to remain in the shadows. It had earlier been revealed that MI-5 agents were working undercover as diary secretaries for some senior Labour Party politicians and that fact puts Gaynor Cook under some suspicion. She had become Robin Cook’s diary secretary around 1994, the same year that he had become Shadow Foreign Secretary. Such diary secretaries would have had to be vetted and to have signed the Official Secrets Act too. Once we realise this fact it then brings into question whether Gaynor Regan (as was) really had been all that she had appeared to be, and then other questions about the circumstances of Cook’s death naturally follow.

Although Ben Stack is very remote and isolated, it is strangely linked back to London, back to Westminster even, through its ownership. The mountain is situated within the extensive, 95,000 acre Reay Forest Estate which belongs to the mega-rich Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster and which he and his wealthy cronies use for deer-hunting, shooting, and fishing. The duke owns vast tracts of British land, including the land upon which the US Embassy sits, and he is the UK’s wealthiest aristocrat by far. But he has also devoted much of his working-life to the armed forces, and in particular to the reservist, Territorial Army, in which he is a Major-General and it’s most senior officer. He has been to Basra, Iraq, five times since the invasion and served as Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Reserves) at the Ministry of Defence. The ultimate bankster military insider.

Then on 17th March 2003, the Bush administration sent an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein… that either both he and his sons leave Iraq or their refusal to do so “…will result in military conflict, to be commenced at a time of our choosing.” Of course, Hussein failed to comply as anticipated and hoped-for and so the brutal, illegal war against Iraq began with intensive air strikes.

The Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan famously remarked… “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows, that the Iraq War is largely about oil.” Which was somewhat of a remarkable statement for one in his position and even the Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, in one of the best Freudian slips of the verbally clumsy administration, referred to the Iraq War in a press conference as Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL.)

Many of the administration’s key players, like Vice President Cheney, had been members of the Project for the New American Century. This sadistic group of neo-conservatives strongly advocated pre-emptive military action to in order to install compliant regimes in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and thereby secure American global hegemony against potential international rivals, many of which depended on the region’s oil to fuel their economies. The Bush administration was also drawn disproportionately from the oil industry. Bush himself was a failed oil executive, but his wider family still held extensive interests in oil. The National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was so close to Chevron that the company named one of its oil tankers for her. Cheney had been CEO of the oil service company Halliburton and as head of the National Energy Policy Development Group, developed an energy strategy of maximum extraction to fend-off the impact of ‘peak oil’ on the US and global economy.

If the administration’s energy plan was to succeed, the United States would have to become the dominant power in the region, assuming responsibility for overseeing the politics, the security and the oil output of the producing countries. Thus, the Bush government, from the beginning planned a series of ‘regime changes’ in the region to install complicit governments and open-up nationalised oil industries to the large multinational oil companies, which would in turn increase oil production. They developed a new doctrine of ‘preventive war,’ to justify invading countries deemed as potential future ‘threats’ to US hegemony.

Cheney’s Halliburton Corporation and the rest of the wolf-pack were also gearing-up for their no-bid, multi-billion dollar, post-war rebuild of Iraq’s oil facilities and infrastructure, all at US taxpayer expense.

The Pentagon’s plans for the first 48 hours of air and missile strikes on Baghdad, were expected to incorporate the military doctrine of ‘shock and awe,’ in other words the ultimate in terror. An estimated 3,000 bombs and missiles, nearly one every minute, rained bloody death onto the Iraqi capital showering it with unprecedented and barely comprehensible levels of destruction. But after such horrific devastation, how could the Americans ever be regarded as liberators?

In a 1996 book, published by the National Defence University, the authors laid the groundwork for the current (2003) Pentagon view on Iraq. “The paralysis of the enemy’s will, would render him totally impotent and vulnerable through total mastery achieved at extraordinary speed and across tactical, strategic, and political levels, which would destroy the will to resist.”

All the concocted lies about WMDs and international terrorism were merely flimsy, insubstantial and easily repudiated alibis and oil and colossal profits for the banksters, were the real goals and motivation. But instead of investigating and exposing these motives, the world’s corporate-controlled media was as always, simply an apologist mouthpiece for the pro-war brigade. The New York Times, which claims to be America’s ‘newspaper of record,’ was one of the worst of offenders. Judith Miller, one of its senior Washington reporters, plumbed the lowest depths of yellow journalism when she along with Michael Gordon abandoned any semblance of ‘neutrality’ in their infamous article ‘Threats and Responses,’ in which they re-cycled every dubious claim from Ahmad Chalabi and the Bush administration about Iraq’s supposed development of WMDs.

“Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ may be a mushroom cloud.”

Truly pathetic, first-degree scare-mongering of the most egregious kind, as I am sure you agree, but the Bush administration had planted this disinformation with Miller and Gordon, and then, in an Orwellian turn of the screw, repeatedly referenced the article to make the case for war. Cheney constantly repeated in the media that the ‘liberal’ Times had ‘found evidence’ that Iraq possessed WMDs and was an imminent threat to the US. The even ‘less respectable’ bankster-controlled media engaged in ever more sleazy tactics. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post headlined one of its editions with the banner, ‘Doomsday Plot: Saddam Aims to Give Terrorists Briefcase Bio-Bombs.’

And of course all the worst excesses of the pro-war media were accompanied by massive, unprecedented Islamophobia. The neo-conservatives in and around the administration presented Islam as an ‘enemy of Western civilisation.’ “Like communism during the Cold War, Islam is a threat to the West.” Daniel Pipes

This demonisation of an entire religion and people pervaded not only the news media, but also popular culture, TV and movies. It had become a vital component in the justification of any military action in the Middle East.

Bush first attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein with a cruise missile attack on 19th March and then escalated the air war into a full-scale bombing campaign on the 21st. The US launched 1,700 sorties and fired over 500 cruise missiles in the following days, principally targeting Baghdad, a city of 7 million people. Journalist Robert Fisk captured the horror of the aerial assault, thus… “A pulsating, minute-long roar of sound brought President George W. Bush’s crusade against ‘terrorism’ to Baghdad. There was a thrashing of tracer on the horizon from the Baghdad air defenses and then a series of tremendous vibrations that had the ground shaking under us, the walls moving, the sound waves clapping against our ears. Tubes of fire tore into the sky around the Iraqi capital, dark red at the base, golden at the top. Looking out across the Tigris from the river bank, I could see pinpricks of fire reaching high into the sky as America’s bombs and missiles exploded on to Iraq’s military and communication centers and, no doubt, upon the innocent as well.”

The ground invasion began on the 20th March, with 145,000 ground troops, which led to the collapse of the Iraqi government in about three weeks and the beginning of the US-led occupation of Iraq. Three weeks into the invasion, coalition forces entered Baghdad with limited resistance, and Iraqi government officials either disappeared or surrendered.

The Pentagon soon fabricated some photo-ops to confirm the Bush administration ‘prediction’ that US forces would be welcomed as liberators. In the most famous one, the corporate media reported that Iraqi civilians welcomed US soldiers to help them topple the giant statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square on 9th April. The scene was broadcast around the world as a sign of triumphant unity between the US and the Iraqi people, further justifying the invasion in the eyes of the gullible masses.

In fact, as the Los Angeles Times reported a year later, the Army itself determined that “…it was a Marine colonel, not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the live worldwide TV images, who decided to topple the 16 foot bronze statue... and it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.”

Iraqi War advocates, then and now, still cite the event as symbolic and they are correct. The event was symbolic. It was emblematic of the whole Iraqi War… a massive lie perpetrated upon millions of wide-eyed innocents, throughout the world. But the Iraqi people were not going to be so easily tricked into support for the American invaders and their Iraqi accomplices. However, the nature of the mission was becoming clear in all its horror. The American forces were determined to impose so-called ‘disaster capitalism.’ They wanted to destroy every last vestige of Iraq’s regime and replace it with a neo-liberal system allied to the US that opened-up its oil industry to western multinationals.

The dramatic visual of the stooges kicking, beating with shoes and spitting on the statue of Saddam was shown on every western news channel, over and over and over again, but later it was revealed by long range photo still, that there were only a total of 184 people present in the HUGE square, of which many were so-called ‘embedded reporters.’ Embedded reporters are official military reporters who exist side-by-side with the fighting units and only report what they are told to report by the military hierarchy. In fact, most of the video reports of cheering and seemingly euphoric Iraqis had been shot in friendly Arab countries, by the US military using local Arabs dressed as Iraqis. This was witnessed and confirmed by expatriate workers.

“We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” John Swinton, Chief Editor, New York Times 1880

Nothing much changes.

‘Embedded journalism’ is all about selected and ‘trained to lie’ news reporters (in the loosest sense of the word) being attached to military units involved in armed conflicts. At the start of the war in March 2003, at least 700 reporters and photographers were travelling as embedded journalists and thus the scene was set to mislead and misinform the world during the war against Iraq all aided and abetted by these compliant, ‘embedded’ journalists. When asked why the military decided to ‘embed’ journalists with the troops, Lt. Col. Rick Long of the US Marine Corps replied… “Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare, so we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment.” In other words, the military needed to promulgate their own propaganda and to hell with the real truth.

As one US ‘embedded reporter’ said… “We were a propaganda arm of the US government. At the start, censors enforced that, but by the end we were our own censors. We were the cheerleaders of an immoral and brutal war.” Quite.

There are zero ethics in embedded journalism. It is just a blatant propaganda campaign and an attempt to keep ‘real’ reporters from informing the civilian populations of what is really happening. The banksters want only those who are sympathetic to the invading forces and who are prepared to lie to further the agenda. It is just drama, a circus. Indeed, most of the embedded reporters were simply terrified of losing their jobs, or worse still being ‘black-balled’ forever. They could ill afford to take-on the might of both the US military and the US government simultaneously. Being painted as a traitor, the fate that would have befallen them had they stepped out of line, is a difficult label to erase and so they prostrated themselves before Mammon, like the prostitutes that they truly were and are, and became ‘parrots of the party-line,’ instead of journalists.

I would suggest that journalists should be forced to take an oath such as a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath that compels him or her to practice medicine ethically and honestly, but realistically, that would never happen as it would remove a valuable weapon in the armoury of the dark powers’ propaganda efforts. Walter Rogers, of CNN, said that some of his colleagues had taken to wearing US military uniforms, which they are strictly NOT allowed to do whilst some ‘journalists’ even actively helped practically, in the military efforts.

Of course there would be no way that an embedded reporter could report the truth as he would have been in grave danger of his life, through ‘friendly fire.’ In fact ten journalists died in ‘friendly fire’ incidents, but whether these were all genuine accidents or not, who knows?

A US military spokesman, Jim Wilkinson was particularly blunt in his attitude to the ‘unilaterals,’ the alleged ‘independent’ reporters. “…They were a pain in our rear a lot of times. The real superstars of this war were those media journalists who were embeds. General Franks signs my cheque and I make ‘news’ based only on his terms.”

Michael Wolff, from New York magazine was told, when he asked Wilkinson some inconvenient questions during a press briefing… “This is war, you asshole. Don’t fuck around with things you don’t understand. No more questions for you, why don’t you just fuckin’ go home?”

In addition to this, the US military would sometimes simply write their own imaginary reports, or shoot and edit their own films, and distribute it to news channels. Or they would simply lie. Those who are capable of tyranny are more than capable of lying and fakery, to sustain it. Propaganda is as powerful as Class A drugs, as it surreptitiously removes the capacity to think lucidly.

So, eventually, on the 1st May 2003, Bush announced ostentatiously from the deck of an aircraft carrier whilst bedecked in his Sunday-best ‘Top Gun’ outfit… “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” This news of course, came a little prematurely for the families of the almost 3500 Americans who died in combat in Iraq over the course of the subsequent years of occupation.

By early 2006, the US had paid $1bn to the private security firm Blackwater. In total, there were 60,000 of these so-called private contractors in Iraq and about half of them were, in fact, mercenaries hired to repress Iraqis.

“The United States State Department’s Oil and Energy Working Group, meeting between December 2002 and April 2003, said that Iraq, ‘…should be opened to international oil corporations as quickly as possible after the war.’ Its preferred method of privatisation was a form of oil contract called a production-sharing agreement. Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq’s importance to its region, America and the world with this reminder… ‘Iraq has the world’s second-largest known oil reserves.’ The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq’s national industry will be commercialised and opened to foreign firms.” Peter Dale Scott

“Leaks from the state department’s ‘future of Iraq’ office show Washington plans to privatise the Iraqi economy and particularly the state-owned national oil company.” Jonathan Steele.

Of course the banksters and Zionists had not approved of the nationalisation of the Iraqi oil industry under Saddam Hussein.

“When we have economic problems, they are caused by disruptions in our oil supply.If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.” Robert Kagan, neo-con

Between 2003 and 2004 alone, American oil imports from Iraq increased by more than 86%. (In 2007, America consumed 20.7 million barrels of oil per day, the equivalent of the oil consumption of China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and India combined.) Plans for a new Iraqi oil law were made public at a news conference in Washington hosted by the executive branch of the federal government. The American-appointed interim Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi explained that the new law would be “…very promising to the American investors, to American enterprise and certainly to oil companies.”

A few weeks later, Adel Abdul Mehdi became one of Iraq’s two vice presidents and Iyad Allawi was elected to the National Assembly. Iraq’s new oil law, approved by the Iraqi cabinet in February 2007, allowed Iraq’s provinces freedom from central government control in executing exploration and production contracts known as, ‘production share agreements,’ which basically transferred control of Iraqi oil to Zionist-controlled multinationals.

More than 150 American companies were awarded contracts totalling more than $50bn and cronyism and corruption was rife. The Dick Cheney-owned, Halliburton’s contract was initially worth more than $11bn, while 13 other American company contracts were initially worth more than $1.5bn each. On a contract of $13.7bn, Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, agreed to return $9m to the US government in 2006 after auditors questioned $208m in overcharges in Iraq. Halliburton kept $199m in overcharges and returned less than 4%.

Another US government audit, of Iraq’s provisional coalition government in 2006, was unable to account for $97m of $120m in oil revenue from southern Iraq. Apparently millions were handed out to firms that never required competitive bids and many were paid for unfinished projects. In February 2007, the three top auditors overseeing work in Iraq told a house panel that their review of $57bn in Iraq contracts, found that State and Defence department officials condoned or allowed repeated delays, bloated expenses and payment for shoddy or non-existent work. (By 20th March 2008, 12 soldiers had died in Iraq due to accidental electrocution caused by shoddy construction.) At least 1 in every 6 dollars charged by American contractors was questionable and unaccountable to a total of about $10bn. This was all probably just the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg.’

“There is no accountability. Organisations charged with overseeing contracts are not held accountable. Contractors are not held accountable. The individuals responsible are not held accountable.” David M. Walker, Congressional head auditor

“Mismanaged private contracts have wasted $745.5bn over the last five years of the Bush administration. The no-bid contracts are a scandal, and Congress does nothing about it. It is so patently apparent that Congressional representatives have too many friends and lobbyists that have reaped huge profits from these private and ‘cost-plus’ contracts. The war in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for these sleazy deals. No wonder our Congressional representatives don’t want to withdraw too soon from Iraq – they have to make sure all of their ‘friends’ get theirs.” Patty Salinas

“I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed.” Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, former chief contracting officer of the United States Army Corps of Engineers

The banksters claimed to want democracy in Iraq but upon assuming control of Iraqi oil, then insisted that prices must be equivalent to prices in surrounding countries to prevent independent sales of gas by resellers. The profits from gas sales then went directly to those, in control of the oil, instead of small, Iraqi family businesses.

However, whilst all this rampant corruption was in full flow, the conquered Iraqi people did not meekly submit to their occupation or their brutal occupiers and by early 2004, some 10,000 Sunni guerillas had formed militias, commanded by ex-military officers in many cases and armed with weapons taken from unguarded storehouses. At first, the guerillas targeted Iraqi collaborators, especially the new police force. They also created the infamous, improvised explosive devices (IEDs,) planted on roads and elsewhere, to attack US patrols.

But the Sunni resistance was never able to galvanise a truly nationwide uprising. Their leadership was hostile to the Shia and especially their parties, ISCI and Dawa. The Shia resistance developed through completely different channels and vacillated between opposition to the occupation and collaboration with it. Faced with this growing, if divided resistance, the US-controlled Iraqi authorities then resorted to brutal repressions of the Arab population, which culminated in the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Falluja.

In his book ‘Fiasco,’ Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks, described how… “Senior US commanders tried to counter the insurgency with indiscriminate cordon-and-sweep operations that involved detaining thousands of Iraqis. This involved grabbing whole villages, because combat soldiers were unable to figure out who was of value and who was not. The US military put thousands of people in Saddam Hussein’s dreaded jail, Abu Ghraib, where they were subjected to torture to extract information about the resistance.”

The US brought in the head of its Guantánamo Bay prison camp, Major General Geoffrey Miller, to head-up the torture regime. Miller told his second in command, Brigadier General Janet Karpinksi, to “…treat the prisoners like dogs. If you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog; then you’ve lost control of them.”

The actual torture was far worse than the photos that began to appear in various publications. The New York Times reported that US interrogators poured phosphoric acid on their victims, sodomised them with batons, threatened them with venomous snakes, dragged them with ropes attached to their genitals, and shot them, not to kill, but to seriously wound them. One photograph encapsulated this sadistic, nightmarish abuse. It showed an Iraqi man standing on a box with a hood over his head and electrical wires attached to his hands and this image rightly replaced the concocted toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue as the true symbol of the US war in Iraq.

As his minions tortured prisoners for information, Bush ordered the military to simultaneously crush the Shia and Sunni resistances. In its first attack on Falluja in April 2004, the Americans killed 1,000 civilians and this deadly assault on the city became a focal point, not only for the Sunni, but also for the Shia resistance. The simultaneous assault on both resistance movements had the effect of driving them towards the unity that the US most feared. So, the US then attempted to create tensions between Sunnis and Shias. It lured Shia leaders by promising elections that they, representing the majority group in the Iraqi population, were confident they could win. This appeal enabled al-Qaeda and other Sunni jihadists to incriminate the Shia as collaborators with the occupation and at the same time, the jihadists escalated attacks on Shia civilians, breaking the fleeting unity that had emerged around the first siege of Falluja.

The US military then seized its opportunity to attack the now isolated Sunni resistance. It enticed the new Prime Minister, Allawi to order a second assault on Falluja and its 300,000 inhabitants. The occupying forces subsequently began a ‘shock and awe,’ aerial assault which lasted three weeks, and virtually reduced the city to rubble. More than 250,000 people fled the city in panic to become the first of untold numbers of internally displaced Iraqis. The New York Times wrote that the city had become “…a desolate world of skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power-lines and severed palm trees.” Then, 10,000 American soldiers and 2,000 Iraqi troops went in to ‘mop-up,’ dropping incendiary bombs and white phosphorous, a chemical weapon that burns the flesh from its victims. The invasion force killed almost 12,000 resistance fighters and captured another 1,000, who were unceremoniously thrown into the torture regime at Abu Ghraib.

The wilful destruction of Iraq and its culture and peoples was not executed in the interests of the ‘US Empire’ or even ‘western imperialism,’ as it is usually described by those apprehensive of criticising Zionism as an international force that is underpinned by Jewish financial and political power, for fear of retribution or at very least, accusations of ‘anti-Semitism.’ Iraq was destroyed for the protection of the Zionist entity and the only imperialism at work was Zionist imperialism and the only ‘empire’ whose interests were furthered was the Zionist empire, as always using its attack-dog-by-proxy, the US armed forces, to do its insidious, dirty work. Of course the American and other western-based corporations benefitted greatly from a financial point of view, but this was merely a by-product of the overall strategy – and of course it should be recognised that almost all multi-national corporations are Zionist-owned and run, in any event.

It is the most closely-guarded, yet widely-known secret, that America invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel. Several prominent individuals have suffered from a proverbial ‘slip of the tongue’ and revealed the truth that is all too obvious to those who are aware of the machinations of the Zionist entity. Even the former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, admitted this truth as also did the four-star US General, Anthony Zinni and also Senator Ernest Hollings.

“The retired general, Anthony Zinni, a past chief of the US Central Command and President Bush’s former Middle East special envoy, told ‘60 Minutes’ on Sunday that the neoconservatives’ role in pushing the war for Israel’s benefit was “…the worst-kept secret in Washington.” Three days earlier, Senator Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat, rose on the Senate floor to defend a newspaper essay he had written earlier in the month making the same charge. Both men complained that they had been unfairly labelled anti-Semitic for speaking out.” Forward.com 28th May 2004

Philip Zelikow, the hard-core neocon and one of the organisers and head of the 9/11 cover-up process arrogantly admitted as much too and was joined by the former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State, Colin Powell. And former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark even went so far as to say this…

“…They [the hawks] had been arguing for the attack long before September 11. There are some in the administration who have always felt that military power should be used to eliminate Saddam Hussein. And secondly, those who favour this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.” The Guardian, 20th August 2002.

The decimation of Iraq was a wholly Zionist endeavour. It was designed by about thirty neo-conservatives, nearly all of them Jewish, and every one of them an adherent of extreme Zionism. The Jewish-Zionist New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, described the neoconservative cabal in a shockingly candid manner… “I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.” This Jewish-Zionist cabal formulated, refined and perfected its genocidal ideas to destroy then re-map the Islamic world through the Project for a New American Century, centred around the idea of bringing about Zionist hegemony all over the globe. Iraq was the first target.

Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, two of the chief architects of Iraq’s elimination, openly admitted that the Holocaust™ and all of the exaggerations and fabrications of Jewish suffering and the insidious lies accompanying it, was the inspiration for their own world-view i.e., that they are now warmongering Zionist supremacists. Due to this fact, it should come as no shock that during the United States’ first ravaging of Iraq in ‘Operation Desert Storm,’ that Holocaust™ propaganda was rampant in the Jewish-Zionist media in order to prolong the war and mask the atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians and soldiers alike.

iraq1

This stunning headline of the 21st February 21, 1991 edition of the Jewish Press, an Orthodox Jewish newspaper that caters to the religious wing of the neo-conservative movement in the United States, read, “War News! Iraqis have gas chambers for all Jews! Iraq nearing total disaster.” The front page of the spring 1991 edition also went on to state … “The global fallout from Desert Storm: Germans produce Zyklon B in Iraq; Iraq’s German-made gas chamber.” While these stories attained the very pinnacle of absurdity, the highest peak of inanity, and gained no traction whatsoever outside of the immediate Jewish readership of these propaganda rag, scarily-similar stories of emotive sensationalism concocted by Zionist propagandists, were a part of the justifications for invasion.

All the while, both before and especially after the infamous (and deplorable) ‘incubator babies,’ scandal, neo-conservative-Zionist commentators unleashed a torrent of vile propaganda accusing Saddam Hussein of being the ‘new Adolf Hitler’ and Iraq being the new Nazi Germany. Indeed, since WWII, any head of state who has opposed the Zionist quest for global supremacy or who rejects Zionist-puppetry for sovereignty on any level, is labelled as a ‘Hitler,’ their nation is ‘Nazi Germany’ and their people are ‘Nazis.’ This is a twisted, Jewish-created, Zionist-fuelled libel against the German people.

At the height of Desert Storm, neoconservative stalwart and well-connected Orthodox Jewish lawyer, Bruce Fein invoking WWII, called upon the government to reduce Iraq to rubble so that the Iraqi people could be punished in the same way that the residents of Dresden, Berlin and Tokyo were mercilessly punished by the Allies’ indiscriminate bombing campaigns. The homicidal Zionist, Fein, would not have his wish completely granted until the 2003 invasion, but it is certain that it was partially granted on the night of 26th / 27th February when one of the bloodiest crimes against humanity in recent history was committed, against an Iraqi convoy of around 2,000 military and civilian vehicles retreating along the highway from Kuwait back to Iraq, in full co-operation with UN Resolution 660 and which subsequently became known as ‘The Highway of Death.’

As related previously, this was an act of nothing but pure unadulterated evil. American forces maliciously and murderously bombed and strafed the convoy, incinerating many tens of thousands of Iraqis and destroying thousands of cars, buses, trucks and tanks. The casualties were somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000. The exact numbers are unknown, as the Bush administration ordered the victims buried in mass, unmarked graves in order to hide the crime from the world

Many commentators have questioned the reasoning behind the ‘Highway of Death’ horror, expressing puzzlement as to why it should have been ordered when the Gulf War was, to all intents and purposes, over. To them it simply made no sense at all and their astonishment remains so because they have either chosen, out of fear of Jewish sensitivities, not to examine, or are genuinely unaware of the darkness of, the Jewish ‘revenge holiday’ known as ‘Purim,’ an event derived from the biblical Book of Esther, whereby the Jewish religion celebrates the massacring of Haman, the Chief Minister of the Persian King, Haman’s sons and 75,000 other Persian men, women and children. Haman was the descendant of a king of the Amalekites, the eternal enemy of the Jews according to Judaism, and this narrative is very dear to the hearts of the occupying, oppressing Jewish-Zionist invaders in Palestine. The ‘Highway of Death’ AND the 2003 invasion of Iraq were both launched during ‘Purim,’ the latter at the beginning of the holiday and the former, at the end of it, and this was absolutely by design.

In the February 1982 edition of Kivunim (issue No. 14, Winter, 5742,) ‘a Journal for Judaism and Zionism’ for the powerful World Zionist Organization, the Israeli foreign policy advisor Oded Yinon laid the foreign policy objectives of the Zionist entity in graphic detail, via an essay entitled ‘A Strategy for Israel In The 1980s.’

Regarding Iraq, Yinon wrote in no uncertain terms… “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short-run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short-run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations, as in Syria and in Lebanon.”

Due to this strong desire to see Iraq levelled and redefined along Zionist lines being ingrained in Israeli politics for almost as many years as Israel has been in existence, as well as the already-established facts of intimate Jewish involvement in the execution of the Gulf War, it is unsurprising that it was not just the Israeli government at the time, led by the war criminal, Ariel Sharon that enthusiastically supported the invasion of Iraq, but more than 77% of the Israeli public, too.

There was also ‘near unanimity’ amongst the American Jewish community in its support for the decimation of Iraq, with every major Jewish group trumpeting the same warmongering line, all in the name of the ‘security’ of Israel. Although to be fair, there were some anti-Zionist Jewish groups who bravely campaigned against the war.

Four months before the invasion of Iraq, Israel began ‘assisting’ the Zionist-controlled US government to prepare for the assault by training its soldiers in urban warfare, providing intelligence and conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the Western Iraqi desert. However ‘assisting’ is simply Zionist doublespeak for ‘directing.’ And Israel’s ‘direction’ extended even further back than this. In fact, it extended back to the very reason that America was waging unending war in the Islamic world under the guise of the ‘war on terror’ i.e., 9/11. Not only were the 9/11 attacks a Zionist false-flag from beginning to end, assisted by a wealthy and powerful network of American-Israeli dual citizens, but from the actual day of 9/11, the Zionists immediately began demonising the Palestinian people and calling for Iraq, Iran and Libya to be destroyed.

In conjunction with the destruction of Iraq’s political, social and cultural infrastructure and the ongoing, genocidal air strikes, Israel deployed Mossad agents across Iraq. They butchered Iraq’s intelligentsia, murdering 530 scientists and academics, initiated a campaign of extermination and ethnic-cleansing of the Iraqi Christian community and commissioned Ze’ev Belinsky, a Zionist criminal, to build a separation wall in Baghdad to divide Shi’a and Sunni communities and breed enmity between them.

After the brutally honest admissions from persons ‘in the know,’ coupled with the plethora of damning evidence that preceded them, how can it be doubted even for a moment that the destruction of Iraq was Jewish-Zionist inspired? Has anyone ever taken the time to ponder how deep the roots of Zionist destruction actually go and does anyone truly realise how much havoc and sheer, unadulterated evil that the Zionist murderers have wreaked upon Iraq?

[Greater+Israel.gif]

The Gulf War and the cruel, criminal sanctions that followed, severely damaged Iraq’s drinking-water infrastructure, its sewage system, its electrical power grid and its national healthcare infrastructure. Hundreds of hospitals and healthcare centres were left in ruins, its national education system, with more than 4,000 schools, institutes, colleges and universities was destroyed, and its textile, transportation, telecom, light and pharmaceutical sectors were virtually eliminated. Indeed, the entire social fabric of the country was left in a state of total desolation. More than two million Iraqis, including 700,000 children, were murdered by the Zionist-engineered sanctions in the aftermath of the Gulf War and 1.5 million more children were made orphans. Countless other Iraqis were rendered sick with radiation disease or critically wounded by the leftover depleted uranium and cluster bombs.

“I’m horrified. The people out there – the Iraqis, the media and the troops – risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It’s going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car.” Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on Radiation Risk

Busby was speaking about the best-kept secret of the war; the fact that, by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world. These weapons released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that, whipped up by sandstorms and carried on trade winds, there is no corner of the globe that they cannot penetrate. This radioactivity will persist for over 4,500,000,000 years and can cause cancer, leukaemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects, killing millions of every age for centuries to come and a crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of future historians, rank among the worst atrocities of all time.

Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998, said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of lymphoblastic leukaemia more than quadrupled, with many other cancers also increasing ‘at an alarming rate.’

On hearing that DU had been used in the Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy Authority sent the Ministry of Defence a special report on the potential damage to health and the environment. It stated that it could cause half a million additional cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the authorities only admitted to using 320 tons of DU, although the Dutch charity LAKA estimated the true figure as closer to 800 tons, but many times more than that may have been spread across Iraq by the second Gulf war. The devastating damage all this, DU will do, to the health and fertility of the people of Iraq (and the wider world) now, and for generations to come, is beyond imagining.

Since DU appeared in Iraq, the country has seen the manifestation of many terrible birth defects. Babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumours where their eyes should be, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Doctors reported that many women, having given birth, no longer ask ‘is it a girl or a boy?’ but simply, ‘is it normal?’ Moreover this terrible legacy will never end. The genes of their parents may have been damaged forever, and the damaging DU dust is ever-present.

What the governments of America, Israel and Britain have done to the people of Iraq they have also done to their own soldiers, in both wars. And they have done it knowingly as the battlefields were totally contaminated by DU. Moreover, their bodies have not only been devastated by DU but also by a vaccination regime which violated normal protocols, by using untested, experimental vaccines, nerve agent pills, and by being exposed to organophosphate pesticides. Yet, though the hazards of DU were known, British and American troops were not warned of its dangers and nor were they given thorough medical checks on their return home, even though identifying it quickly may have made it possible to remove some of it from their body. Then, when a growing number became seriously ill, and should have been sent to experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, many were sent instead to a psychiatrist.

American Gulf veterans’ associations say that, of the 40,000 or so men and women who saw active service, at least 572 have died prematurely since coming home and 5000 are very ill. An alarming number are thought to have taken their own lives, unable to bear the torment of the innumerable ailments which have combined to take away their career, their sexuality, their ability to have normal children, and even their ability to breathe or walk normally. As one veteran aptly stated, they are now “…on DU death row, waiting to die.”

That the evidence from Iraq and the research findings of radiation experts have been ignored, is no accident. A US report, leaked in late 1995, states that… “The potential for health effects from DU exposure is real; however it must be viewed in perspective... the financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive.” Says it all succinctly, really.

Clearly, with hundreds of thousands gravely ill in Iraq and many thousands more UK and US troops seriously ill, huge disability claims might be made not only against the governments of Britain and America were the harm done by DU, to be officially acknowledged. There may also be huge claims against companies manufacturing DU weapons and arms sales make a considerable contribution to British and American trade, so the massive ‘whitewashing’ of DU over the past 12 years, and the way that governments have failed to test returning troops and denied that their symptoms were physical is purely a money-saving scam of the most egregious kind.

The EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned yet far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington, was quoted as saying… “The US government’s Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body. Uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.”

This was obviously NOT what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked.

The banksters’ very own Royal Society has lamely suggested that the solution to the problem is massive decontamination in Iraq, but that would only scratch the surface of the problem because decontamination is hugely expensive and, though it may reduce the risks in some of the worst areas, it cannot fully remove them. The DU residue is too widespread on land and water and how is it possible to clean-up every tiny part of a city the size of Baghdad? How can they decontaminate a whole country in which microscopic particles, which cannot be detected with a normal Geiger counter, are spread from border to border? And how can they clean-up all the countries downwind of Iraq and indeed, the world?

The 2003 invasion, calculated and unleashed by the deceptive tactics of the Jewish-Zionist ‘cabal’ for the benefit of Israel, their object of worship, only brought more death and carnage. From 2003-2010 alone, the systematic air campaign and the chaotic violence on the ground being fomented, managed, and manipulated by Mossad, murdered 2.5 million Iraqis according to official statistics, publicised in outrage by the Iraqi Ministry of Women’s Affairs. More than one million women were left widowed, over four million children were left orphaned and at least 800,000 persons were ‘missing.’

anti-semitism+4

This has all been largely covered-up for one reason only… the fear of a label, and that label is ‘anti-Semitism.’ This is a ridiculously false paradigm that the Zionist criminals and the Jewish supremacists have used for far too long in order to shield themselves from criticism and investigation, no matter how insidious and despicable their acts may be. And there is nothing in the modern era that is quite as loathsome as what took place in Iraq. Millions of Iraqis died brutal and unnecessary deaths and millions of others’ lives will never be the same again after the destruction of their nation at the bloody hands of these brutal, psychopathic warmongers.

The ‘Death’ of Saddam Hussein

The man hanged in Baghdad on 30th December 2006 for crimes against humanity was not Saddam Hussein, as the former Iraqi President had died almost four years previously in March 2003. He was badly injured in an intelligence-led precision bombing attack by the Americans on Thursday 20th March 2003, and died later that day or very shortly afterwards. As was the case with bin Laden, his death was kept like a card up the sleeve of a magician, for use later at the optimum politically expedient time.

In fact the individual who was held by the Americans for three years under the name of Saddam Hussein, was a lookalike. He was a cousin of Saddam but his body language was recognisably different from that of Saddam himself. British and American intelligence organisations knew this and it was also common knowledge in the Tikrit locality of northern Iraq where the remains of the real Saddam were quietly buried. This lookalike was first seen on Iraqi television on 4th April 2003, filmed by an Iraqi dis-information team. The footage showed him picking up a child and laughing and waving to invited crowds in a safe area of Baghdad. Apart from his body language, the end of the lookalike’s nose was much broader than that of Saddam and he had moles on his temple and forehead, unlike Saddam.

This physiognomy was identical to that of the captured person whom the Americans were trying to pass off as Saddam. Indeed in April 2003, western media commentators had openly questioned the identity of this man as previously seen on the broadcast video. Benjamin Creme, the Editor-in-Chief of Share International magazine, had privileged access to this information from inside Iraq and he sent a press release about Saddam’s death to media and government authorities on Tuesday 8th April 2003.

In early 2004, the Russians applied skillful diplomatic pressure on America to allow Sajida Heiralla Tuffah access to the captured ‘Saddam Hussein.’ Sajida was Saddam’s wife and the mother of his children and the meeting took place in April 2004 at the American military base in Qatar. Sajida arrived from Syria with her official escort, Sheikh Hamad Al-Thani, and entered the detention area where the lookalike was being held. She emerged only moments later, pink with rage and shouting… “This is not my husband but his double! Where is my husband? Take me to my husband!”

American officials rushed forward to shield Sajida from perplexed Russian observers, whilst trying to insist that Saddam had ‘changed a lot’ while in custody and that she simply did not recognise him.

“You think I do not know my own husband?” Sajida shouted furiously, “I was married to the man for more than twenty-five years!”

This episode was witnessed by up to twenty individuals from at least five different countries and Pravda and four other eastern European newspapers reported the event in detail. The New York Times and other Western news outlets however, censored the story under pressure from western security agencies. In the ‘Question and Answers’ section of the December 2006 edition of Share International Magazine, Benjamin Creme was asked… “Why would the man who is posing as Saddam Hussein go on so long with the lie? He is putting himself through much grief, for what?” His answer was… “The outrageous and sinister truth is that the poor man who has just been sentenced to hanging no longer realises that he is not Saddam Hussein. During a year in the hands of the CIA he has been systematically brain-washed by chemicals and hypnosis to forget his own identity and assume that of Saddam Hussein.”

These methods have been used by many of the Intelligence agencies in the world for very many years, especially for transforming and using captured spies. It was for this process to be carried out that this stand-in for Saddam Hussein disappeared from public view, after his capture, for so long. As multiple lethal events in Iraq have shown ever since, the Iraqi people were not fooled by this pathetic Mossad psycho-babble. Saddam, charged of crimes against humanity, by the ‘peaceful’ US and Zionist-controlled Iraqi Criminal Tribunal. The irony would be highly amusing were it not so serious a matter.

To say that this 2006 propaganda initiative got off to a bad start would be a gross understatement. Initially, journalists who had personally viewed the prisoner stated that when an Iraqi judge asked whether or not he was Saddam Hussein, the response was affirmative. The journalists further described the prisoner as… “…in good health and shorn of the long hair and grey beard he had when he was arrested in December in a bunker near his hometown in Tikrit,” and who afterwards “…acknowledged that he was Saddam Hussein.”

But less than two hours later they were swiftly cast aside upon the arrival of one of the Mossad’s ‘favourites,’ Christiane Amanpour of CNN, a hard-nosed liar-in-chief, who never let the real facts get in the way of her fairy-tales during the first Gulf War. As an embedded Mossad mole, Amanpour had always been an agent of deception, continuously used to cover events in the Muslim world. Her role was merely to serve the Zionist agenda, including the creation of fear, war, strife, famine, and destruction.

Amanpour had in her possession several hundred feet of edited video footage direct from the ‘courtroom,’ although there was no proof of where the mock courtroom actually was, or when the video footage was shot. But Amanpour’s damning footage actually proved that the prisoner could not be Saddam. At almost exactly the same time that Amanpour started to spew her pathetic lies world-wide about fake-Saddam, a member of the Republican Guard triggered a culvert bomb in the northern city of Mosul, which destroyed a convoy taking fuel and food supplies to soldiers. Amanpour did not bother to mention this, because her whole raison d’étre that day revolved around psychologically ‘flooding’ us with information leading to us believing that the fake-Saddam was in fact, the real thing.

Psychological ‘flooding’ is not new, and has been around almost as long as Sigmund Freud. In this particularly crude example however, we were flashed more frames per second of fake-Saddam than had been flashed per month of the real one, when he had still been visibly present in Iraq. This sheer weight of numbers then overloads the brain into accepting the fake as real, even though there is strong reason to believe otherwise. Once we realise what has been done, unravelling the illusion becomes easier, because behavioural psychology in itself is merely a series of manufactured stage tricks.

But allowing fake-Saddam to speak in court was a serious error of judgement, because as with fingerprints and DNA used by law enforcement agencies, teeth and dental work are always absolutely unique, and in this case, proved without doubt that the imposter never was and never could have been Saddam Hussein.

saddamfake

If you look closely at the photo-composite above, you will see four small inset photographs of Saddam Hussein. In all of them you can clearly see his neat white even teeth, made possible in part by the fact that Iraq has (or had) more dental surgeons per head of population than any country in the world apart from Libya. Dental treatment was free to all Iraqis, and Saddam’s teeth were in pristine condition. Look again closely, and it is obvious that his upper teeth naturally close in front of his lower teeth, known in professional dental circles as ‘overbite.’

This condition is normal for nearly all of us, but sadly not for the imposter, who in at least fifty of Amanpour’s separate video frames proved that he suffered from a rare condition known as ‘underbite,’ where a defective or misshapen jaw bone causes the lower teeth to close in front of the upper teeth. This single forensic fact alone is absolute proof that he was not Saddam Hussein. The additional fact that the fake had ragged uneven teeth when compared to the even teeth of Saddam is interesting of course, but unnecessary because we already have absolute dental proof that the alleged Saddam was an imposter, regardless of that.

But back in the mock courtroom, more than a few people were wondering why Saddam Hussein, a real stickler for his appearance, being clean shaven and having short hair all his life, should suddenly choose to change the habits of a lifetime and appear like a tramp with long matted hair and a bushy unkempt beard.

Also, rather like fingerprints and teeth, every human on earth has a uniquely shaped skull. The shorter the hair the more obvious the shape of the individual skull becomes, and because it is already proven that the alleged Saddam was an imposter, mismatched cranial comparison as well would have made the Zionists a complete laughing stock. This I would suggest was the real reason for the long hair, essential to conceal this particularly revealing element of the deception. And although his ‘captors’ certainly gave the imposter quite a lot of expensive plastic surgery around his eyes, forehead, ear lobes and so on, there is absolutely no way that soft-tissue plastic surgery can correct a badly misshapen jaw bone.

Whilst it would be satisfying to speculate that the Iraqi people will one day be able to uncover this gross deception for themselves, I can assure you this will not happen, if only because Zionists (and in particular the Mossad) rarely leave any loose ‘ends.’

On the same day that the mock trial was announced, American Dictator Iyad Allawi (a former Mossad operative himself,) declared that the death penalty had just been placed back on the Iraqi statutes. So it was always obvious, that the fake-Saddam, who was never ‘captured’ by the Americans at all, would be ‘executed’ at a classified location for security reasons, and then buried in quicklime at an equally classified location to prevent pilgrimages to the grave of a ‘martyr.’

Of course, fake-Saddam was assuming that it would all be a ‘mock’ execution and a ‘mock’ burial, because he had probably been promised the usual Mossad perks of a new identity and enough money for life, but this empty promise would only have been honoured had he any further ‘vital work’ to do afterwards, but sadly for him, this was not the case.

So when the fake was officially executed, hanged by the victorious Zionists on 30th December 2006, he had fallen into the category of someone who knows far too much for his own good, and in particular far too much for the greater good of the Zionists.

The final joke is always on us, though. The infinitely more guilty banksters, never have to face justice, or even risk indictment for anything. They have an unlimited supply of patsies, including all of us, for not questioning, not challenging the monumental, deadly lies that are spewed out each day on the airwaves, and in the rest of the media. There is no reliable, accurate number of violent deaths since Iraq was invaded more than a decade ago, but added to those that had already died from the sanctions alone, the figure is now well over one million.

The Madrid 3/11 Bombing

The Madrid 3/11 bombings bore all the hallmarks of yet another Israeli Mossad false flag operation. Yet the most interesting aspects of this particular “Islamic terror” attack is that it was one of the rare instances when the plan went totally awry, in terms of the hoped-for outcome.

The train bombings took place in March 2004, approximately one year after one million Spaniards had joined thirty million other people around the world in protesting the imminent Iraq invasion and in the context of the Spanish people’s overwhelming rejection of the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq.

The Mossad planners were undoubtedly convinced that a no-warning bombing involving a high number of Spanish civilian casualties being attributed to ‘al-Qaeda,’ would not only effect a change in Spanish public opinion and force them into line behind the fake ‘war on terror’ and against the evil ‘Islamic terrorists,’ but would also secure another term for the right-wing war-mongering government of then Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. Three days before the Iraq invasion began, Aznar had joined Bush and Blair in the Azores for a ‘war on terror’ conference to discuss how best to sell the Iraq invasion to the masses. Mossad chose the 11th March 2004, three days before the Spanish general elections, to perpetrate their no-warning attack on Madrid trains carrying large numbers of lower-class workers and immigrants.

The key to its success would be the timing. At first glance, Israel did not appear to have a motive to target Spain. After all, PM Jose Maria Aznar had carried out the Zionist Mafia’s orders, after a secret deal had been struck at the Azores Conference in March 2003. Ostensibly, the conference was a last-minute attempt to agree a new UN resolution in order to avert war over the crisis of Iraq’s ‘WMDs,’ but in actuality it was about how much would be paid into whose secret accounts and how much of their military would be offered up as Israel’s proxy army. Spain had contributed some 1300 soldiers for the invasion of Iraq.

At the peak of Madrid rush hour on the morning of Thursday 11th March 2004, ten explosions occurred aboard four commuter trains killing 191 people and injuring 2050. Strangely, there were exactly 911 days between the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington and the Madrid train bombings, a fact which was interpreted by prosecutor Olga Sánchez as evidence of orthodox Jewish Kabbalistic symbolism in the timing of the attacks. As stated however, the attack did not quite go to plan for the Mossad. When the carefully laid trail of clues pointing to ‘Islamic terrorists’ were ‘coincidentally’ found, rather than rise-up against ‘al-Qaeda,’ the Spanish people blamed Aznar and his government for angering the ‘Islamic terrorists,’ by sending Spanish troops to do Israeli-American bidding in Iraq, against the overwhelming opinion of the Spanish people.

It also became clear that the Spanish government was totally unaware of the impending attacks because in the aftermath of the bombing, the government, without any evidence, immediately tried to pin the blame on the Basque separatist group ETA because they knew what Mossad apparently did not, that in the political and social climate of the time, an ‘al-Qaeda’ attack in Spain would spell the end of any right-wing US-supporting government. It therefore stands to reason that if Aznar had known about the attacks in advance, he would surely have informed the perpetrators that the attack was not a good idea, if they wanted to bolster his government and get Spanish public opinion behind the war on terror.

Thanks to the meticulously psychopathic way in which the Mossad goes about its despicable job however, there was simply no chance of Aznar convincing the Spanish people that ETA was responsible because, as noted, the Mossad had prepared a very detailed bogus trail of ‘evidence’ well in advance, which pointed directly at ‘Islamic terrorists’ and which included the ubiquitous, careless discarding of copies of the Koran and ensuring that the ‘terrorists’ conveniently blew themselves to pieces in an apartment in Madrid, three weeks after the attacks. Which of course was all rather convenient!

In a huge show of ‘people power,’ 11.4 million Spaniards took to the streets, almost 30% of the entire population. The result was that in the elections two days later, the leftist government of Jose Luis Zapatero won in a landslide and within a week, Zapatero publicly confirmed that Spanish troops would be withdrawn from Iraq; the complete opposite of what Mossad had intended.

Vote for Diebold!

“It’s not the votes that count. It’s who counts the votes.” Josef Stalin

The Zionists certainly wanted Bush the lesser to be re-elected in the 2004 US presidential election. In fact, there were parallels between the US election and the UK general election of May 2005. Both had Zionist puppets to play the role of a ‘leader,’ in reality nothing more than a front for Israel. The opposition candidates were both Jews who had changed their name, John Kerry (Kohn) and Michael Howard (Hecht) and both of these opposition candidates were desperately trying their best to lose.

In the UK election, the Zionists’ plan worked, and Blair was re-elected, but Bush was so unpopular and incompetent that Kerry’s apparent indifference to winning would not have prevented it from happening. Hence, it became necessary to ‘rig’ the results by a few additional percentage points.

The subterfuge included, electronic voting machines, such as the Diebold optical scanner machines, with results sent to a central tabulator that was in reality simply a Windows-based PC. Walden O’Dell, Chief Executive of Diebold, had written to around one hundred wealthy Republican supporters in a fund-raising exercise… “I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

So, either the voting machines had secretly been programmed to bias the results by several points in favour of Bush, or hackers later manipulated the collected data in the central tabulators. There were extremely significant discrepancies between exit polls, which predicted a win for Kerry, and the official results. However, where a paper trail existed, the divergence between exit polls and results was within the expected statistical margin of error but by contrast, results from the voting machines had consistently swung towards Bush. The National Election Data Archive demonstrated that the odds of these discrepancies occurring due to chance ranged from 1 in 17,800 down to 1 in 867,205,500. Dr. Stephen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, calculated the odds at 250 million to one, for just three of the major ‘swing’ states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, to swing as dramatically as they did, from their exit poll results. Several other sleights-of-hand included the barring of foreign observers, letters sent to known Democrat voters dis-barring them from voting on false pretexts and preventing certain other minority groups from voting. There were even instances of there being more votes cast than voters in some regions.

The Diebold machine-induced swing in Ohio was sufficient for Bush to steal the election which is ironic in itself as the US had the sheer audacity to continue lecturing other countries about holding free and fair elections, and of the importance of ‘democracy.’ Indeed this had been one of the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq!

With Bush safely re-elected and working to hasten the move to the New World Order, the second half of 2005 featured an above-average number of Israeli false-flag terror operations. In general, these terror attacks, always of course blamed on some suitable scapegoat that would provide a pretext for stripping the people of their human rights and hard-won freedoms, were highly conducive to the Zionists’ drive for world conquest. Specifically, when a nation displeased them in some way, it would be punished with a terror attack. This nation’s political leadership would then be racked with guilt, feeling partly responsible for the casualties, but would also be compelled to cover up the Zionist crimes by complicity with the cover story.

The London Tube Bombings (7/7)

By 2005, The Zionist controlled UK government in conjunction with the ‘usual suspects,’ was ready to give Britain its own 9/11…

There is always a reason that so-called ‘terrorist’ events happen when, and where they do. It was FDR who famously said… “In politics, nothing ever happens by accident…” He was right.

In the early 21st century, British Gas had discovered significant offshore gas fields in Palestinian Authority areas off the Gaza coast. Israel expressed no interest in this gas, even though their gas supplier, Egypt was more expensive. Ariel Sharon preferred to deal with Egypt for political reasons, fearing that a $150+ million annual cash flow to the Palestinians would be used to bankroll ‘terrorism,’ or in other words totally justifiable resistance to Israel’s extreme bullying tactics of the virtually helpless nation.

Israeli and Egyptian officials signed a $2.5bn deal for the sale of Egyptian natural gas to Israel for a 15 year period, with options for a further 5 years. But then Israel discovered that Egypt and British Gas had struck a secret deal, whereby Palestinian gas would be sold to Egypt. So effectively, Israel would be purchasing from Palestine after all, and paying a premium for it too. Hence, the vindictive, paranoid Zionists decided to punish Britain and Egypt for this perceived slight against them. A series of bombings in Sharm el Sheik killed 88 and wounded over 150 – Egypt’s deadliest terror attack to date. Most casualties were Egyptians. But eleven Brits died, and an Israeli Arab. There were no Jewish casualties and the attack was clearly not directed against Israeli Jews. Egypt’s lucrative tourist industry however, was extremely badly hit by these attacks.

Although the gas deal undoubtedly played a part in the decision to strike out at Britain, the primary rationale was International Zionism’s longstanding strategy for world domination, a brilliant, exhaustively documented Machiavellian program for controlling and enslaving the masses by way of manipulating the media, money supply, and national leaders. Puppet governments and oppositions ensure that no matter how people vote, they get precisely the same result; policies that enrich a tiny global elite, whilst the vast majority of honest hard-working folk are increasingly impoverished and enslaved.

In a nutshell, the strategy is divide and rule. Any false flag attack that creates conflict between sections of the host population and allows the manipulators to profit from others’ misery will be conducive to the long-term goal. In 2005, the British public were turning against Tony Blair and the Labour Party, he was about to be voted out of office on a vote of no-confidence and huge unpopularity. The public had eventually ‘seen through’ his pathetic, mock-sincerity and identified him as the deceptive, manipulative, gross liar that he most surely was. His defeat would have constituted a major blow for him and the Zionist-controllers of the Labour Party.

The British public, were totally unsupportive of Blair’s decision to deploy British troops in Afghanistan but unfortunately the newly re-elected Bush administration in the US was committed to the War OF Terror, and was pressurising the Blair government for British support due to the so-called ‘special relationship.’ So, if Tony ‘B-liar’ wished the US to remain on good terms with the UK, he was now in somewhat of a quandary.

Something drastic was required to reverse the feelings of the British public towards the desired war and it was at this point, that the always convenient and expedient, false-flag ‘terrorist event’ was timed to occur. And then, the British public would be so outraged, that they would surely rally around Blair and support his plans for war in Afghanistan, and this was exactly what happened. Just as it always is, when terrorism rears its ugly head.

The effects of the London bombings were immediate. There was a renewed commitment by western leaders to the ‘war on terror.’ All other stories and scandals were removed from newspaper front pages, including Blair’s plummeting popularity. The topic of terrorism had been just beginning to fade from public consciousness amid broadening demands for debt cancellation for impoverished countries. Bush’s, or more accurately, the banksters’ priority, the ‘war on terror,’ was being replaced in the headlines by other, more immediate concerns, so in that sense, the 9/11 attacks were very timely indeed for them.

As with 9/11, the Mossad organisers of the atrocity, would have had to have the full co-operation of British and American agencies, including in this case, the government, the Metropolitan Police, MI-5 / MI-6, etc. Remember, this was a bankster/Zionist-led operation. Rumours of the involvement in the attacks of a cadre of UK Special Force operators, the real ‘licensed-to-kill’ James Bonds, the secret assassination squad, known as ‘the Increment,’ operating on behalf of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS,) have been circulating for many years now. The missions tasked to the Increment are the so-called ‘black ops,’ plausibly deniable missions that are categorically disowned by the British government, if compromised.

‘The Increment,’ despite official denials of its existence is a top secret assassination unit, comprised mainly of SAS / SBS personnel and answering directly to the MI-6 / SIS Chief of Staff. The fact that it officially does not exist, allows the UK Government to deny any accountability for its actions, if caught or exposed. It is widely believed to have been responsible for a number of high-profile, yet secret assassinations and murders, on behalf of the British Crown, including the murders of Princess Diana, Dr. David Kelly and Robin Cook.

At the time of the London bombings, a certain Peter Power was Managing Director of Visor Consultants Ltd., a London-based ‘crisis management’ firm. Power in fact was a disgraced former police chief with a Scotland Yard background which included a secondment to the Anti-Terrorist Branch, deputy forward control coordinator at the Libyan People’s Bureau siege in the 1980s and leading the team behind the existing police street philosophy for dealing with terrorist bombs. He was also the instigator of the current UK Police command methodology, Gold, Silver & Bronze. In addition he frequently appeared on TV and radio and was specifically quoted on the BBC website in relation to his previous role at the scene of major incidents in London. Power was also, stranger still, connected to Rudolf Giuliani, mayor of New York during the 9/11 attacks through his consulting company.

Also, possibly significantly, Giuliani was himself in London on 7/7, after travelling down from Yorkshire in the north of the country, following a speaking engagement at the Local Government Association conference in Harrogate, where he received a standing ovation for praising Tony Blair and hyping-up the ‘war on terror.’

Giuliani was also coincidentally only, “…yards from Liverpool Street station when the bombs went off” and later that day appeared on several TV networks saying that the crisis management teams ‘uncannily’ appeared to be expecting an incident to occur. “Giuliani was having breakfast at the Great Eastern Hotel a short walk from Liverpool Street Station in Central London, when he heard an explosion. He realised it was a terrorist attack, when he rushed outside and heard another bomb detonate,” according to his spokeswoman Sunny Mindel.

The web of deceit extends further when considering the background of the Commissioner of Transport for London at the time, Bob Kiley. Kiley also had connections with Giuliani and with none other than the CIA. Prior to his appointment as Commissioner of Transport for London in January 2001, Robert Kiley served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York City Partnership. The Partnership, the city’s leading business and civic organisation, is responsible for ‘improving the city’s economic climate through advocacy and public-private initiatives in education, job creation, affordable housing, and neighbourhood development.’

Earlier in his career Kiley was recruited by the CIA and quickly became Manager of Intelligence Operations, and then Executive Assistant to the Director. He had served under Richard Helms, who was appointed CIA director after the JFK assassination, the same Helms who was the only director to have been convicted of lying to Congress over CIA undercover activities and served time in prison. He was also heavily involved in the cover up of the MK-ULTRA project and as his Executive Assistant, Kiley was also intimately involved. Kiley was also a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Given all of the above, maybe we should be asking the question as to why a CIA activist and leading member of the bankster establishment, just happened to be in charge of London’s Transport network, at the time of a major terrorist attack? Co-incidence you may say, and you may be correct, but I am afraid that there always seems to me to be far too many such convenient coincidences where these incidents are concerned.

Kiley became the world’s highest-paid public servant when he was appointed, yet left his position as commissioner shortly after the London bombings in 2005 amid controversy about his appointment of many of his American ex-colleagues. Upon leaving his post as commissioner, Kiley received a £1.2m severance package, the terms of which were ‘confidential.’ Mike Gapes, the MP for Ilford South had raised a number of issues about the controversial appointment of Kiley in 2002 and the negative effects of Kiley upon London’s essential public transport infrastructure, all of which were ignored.

The US-owned Bechtel Group was part-owner of the London tube system. Bechtel’s size, its political clout, and its penchant for privacy have made it a perennial target for many journalists and politicians. It has maintained strong relationships with officials in many United States administrations, including those of Nixon, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and also with the Saudi Royal Family. The company has also come under scrutiny and criticism for its financial links to the bin-Laden family, and the suspect manner in which it received Iraqi rebuilding contracts after the US virtually destroyed Iraq in 2003.

On 7/7/2005, in the UK after the event, we were told live on TV, by the above mentioned Peter Power of Visor Consultants, that they, and the private company employing them, who had themselves chosen their own scenario, were running a ‘mock anti-terrorist drill,’ based upon attacks on the London Underground, with almost precisely the same scenario as what really happened on that the VERY same day. The ‘drill’ scenario was to focus on terrorist attacks on three tube trains and one road vehicle simultaneously. But the ‘coincidence’ did not simply end there. Not only had the three tube trains plus one road vehicle scenario been precisely replicated, but Power’s clients had also picked the EXACT three tube stations (out of a total of 247,) where the attacks would occur. Please think about that unbelievable set of coincidences for a few seconds, to let the implications of it sink in. Then, guess what the odds were against all of that happening by chance…

Have you guessed correctly do you think? Well, ready or not, here comes the staggering answer to put you out of your misery… Statistically, the odds against it being pure chance were calculated as…

900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1

This is a number so large that it is totally incomprehensible to most of us mere mortals, but to give some idea of the scope of it, someone once calculated that the number of ATOMS in the known universe is approximately equal to a number that would be written as a one followed by 49 zeroes. Although this is some way off that figure, containing as it does ‘only’ 41 zeroes, it does at least put it all into perspective a little.

Also, it may be of significance that several days before 7/7, there were several hoax bomb scares around London. This, as was no doubt intended, created fear, panic, confusion and a lack of security among the populace, and also caused great inconvenience and unrest as roads were cordoned-off, causing mayhem on the streets. The police arrested several ‘patsies’ and this no doubt added to the ‘realism’ of what they were about to perpetrate.

Back in September 2004, the Israeli software firm Verint Systems was granted the security contract for the entire London Underground. This was ten months before the 7/7 London bombings. Verint had approximately 6,000 CCTV cameras deployed throughout the Underground, which somehow missed tracking the perpetrators as they allegedly made their way through the system – a remarkable feat considering that the average Londoner is caught on camera three hundred times a day, and certainly more evidence that these operations were carried out by sophisticated insiders.

A previous incarnation of Verint Systems, Comverse Infosys, was implicated in the US 2001 AmDocs spying scandal where Israeli phone software, installed on US telecom networks, was being used to warn Israeli drug traffickers to switch phones and identities when the FBI were tapping their phones. Two hundred or so Israelis were arrested and most deported. Also, worthy of note is that in the past, during terrorist attacks where their systems were installed, as the DOW index went down, stocks at Verint have always risen. So yet again, and as with both 3/11 and 9/11, yet another Israeli-owned security company, with extensive Mossad / MI-6 / CIA connections had, prior to the event, managed to obtain control of all the locations of a major, false-flag terrorist event.

In yet another astonishing coincidence, the camera on the number 30 Stagecoach bus that exploded in Tavistock Square was inoperative too. The security system for London’s bus fleet was provided by yet another Israeli company, the very same one that ran security at multiple 9/11 locations, ICTS International. And to make matters even more suspicious, a week after the event, a Stagecoach employee claimed that the bus had been ‘inspected’ for 20 hours over the previous weekend. Was this bus being rigged with military grade C-4 explosives and its CCTV sabotaged? ICTS International’s CEO, was also the convicted money-launderer Menachem Atzmon, and his business partner was the Jewish-Zionist Lord David Young.

As with 9/11, the Zionists made sure that Muslim extremists, or more accurately Muslim patsies would be blamed for the atrocities that would kill not only them, but 52 equally innocent people, and injure over 700 more, 300 of them seriously.

It had become known in the months leading-up to 7/7, that there was easy money to be made for Muslims who agreed to take part in an ‘emergency-preparedness,’ anti-terrorist operation. Mohammad Sidique Khan, better known by his westernised nickname of ‘Sid,’ had been approached for an operation that was looking for young Muslims who would be willing to play the role of make-believe ‘suicide bombers’ for the forthcoming ‘drill.’ However this was an unusual event and not just anyone was to be invited. What was required were “…young men who were conservatively and cleanly dressed and who preferably had some higher education.” In fact this was a very similar exercise to ones which had previously been conducted by Visor Consultants, which had a history of holding such events.

Sid’s wife, Hasina Patel, had been experiencing complications in her second pregnancy and so on the basis that he would be able to get her expensive, private medical treatment with the money he would be paid, he agreed to both take part himself, and to recruit others. Khan asked only men of Pakistani descent who were single. His friend Shezad Tanweer, who had just graduated from university, agreed to join the group. He had just racked up a huge repair bill on his beloved red Mercedes and needed the money. Eighteen-year old Hasib Hussain was a decent, intelligent lad who was about to begin studies at Leeds University that September and as a student, the money would come in handy for him too. Ejaz Fiaz, also agreed to take part and so Khan put forward their names as volunteers.

No one was more patriotically British than Sid and Tanweer. They loved their country and wanted to help their government in any way they could. They had allowed themselves to be taped in 2004, but did not feel good about it. They had been acting in good faith in getting other Muslims, such as Omar Khyam, to make ‘fake’ terrorism threats on tape, but he slowly began to realise that the spooks were trying to ‘set them up.’ It had become dangerous for Muslims, even for patriots like himself and Tanweer. He wondered whether the work they did for the security services had made them safer or put them in a more precarious position.

Tapes that the two of them had made for MI-5 the previous year began to prey on his mind. These tapes had made them look like crazy, fanatical terrorists, dressed up as Palestinians, with red scarves wrapped around their heads. They had been talked into being filmed against his better judgement, but of course, they had also been paid well for it. He hoped that the tapes were lying somewhere, forgotten. But he comforted himself with the thought that everyone knew him and his reputation as a patriot was such that he believed himself to be ‘untouchable.’ He had even been featured in a Sunday Times Educational Supplement article for his excellent work in counselling children of immigrants. He was also known in his local community for conflict resolution with troubled teenagers, and the youngsters knew that he cared about their problems when he talked to them. He was also even a friend of his local Member of Parliament. Still, it would be naive to think that there were no risks at all involved. It puzzled him, as to why an emergency preparedness operation really needed fake ‘suicide bombers.’ And so Sid spread the word that he and Hasina had separated as he did not want her being involved if anything went wrong.

Fiaz eventually decided against becoming involved, for his own reasons, and so Khan contacted Germaine Lindsay, a black bodybuilder who had been born in Jamaica and converted to Islam, to take Fiaz’s place. His wife Samantha Lewthwaite was about to give birth to their second child, so Lindsay was happy to have the extra money. All of the volunteers knew their security services contacts and it seemed as though it may be fun to contribute… and of course to make some extra money.

So now, the scene was set. The fake terrorists had been recruited, the fake ‘warning’ videos had been made, and everyone had their instructions for the day that the exercise was to be put into operation – 7/7/2005. The four mock-terrorist actors were to meet at Luton train station at 07.20 am, on the 7th July 2005 and catch the 07.40 am train from Luton to Kings’ Cross Thameslink Station, with their pretend-bomb backpacks, and then split-up and catch three tube-trains and one bus, to pre-arranged destinations, where the fake explosions were to take place, as part of the training exercise. But unfortunately for the organisers of the event, the train that the four Muslim actors were supposed to catch, the 07.40 to Kings’ Cross Thameslink, was cancelled as was the next one too, and so they could not possibly make it in time to catch the tube-trains that they were meant to be on, as part of the ‘training exercise.’

The four men were supposed to arrive together, on time, at Luton Station, and be caught on CCTV, entering the station, but three of them were not on the same video frames as Hasib Hussain, so their faked images had to be inserted later, using photo-shopping and hence the obviously very badly-doctored official, single-frame, time-stamped photo that we have been shown, from the CCTV outside Luton Station. And of course, they could not show moving CCTV pictures, because it was all faked, and so that is why they showed only one, single-frame still photo.

So how do we know for 100% sure that this photo was faked? Because three of the actors missed the tube-trains that they were supposed to be on, the now ‘magically exploding without a terrorist bomb on board’ ones, as we know for sure that our patsies were at this time still on board the later train from Luton that they were forced to catch. In addition, there was no video footage from Verint Systems of them boarding the three bombed tube-trains, for the authorities to be able to use as false evidence, and so in order to prove to the public that the Muslims were guilty, they had use the single faked photo instead.

In spite of official, documented confirmation that the 07.40 London train was cancelled, as was the one following, the Home Office report still to this day, contains the lie that the non-existent train was the one that the four Muslims travelled on. The authorities have to keep lying about it, in the hope that no-one discovers the lie and in order to continue to make the public believe, that three of the four Muslim men, who boarded a train from Luton to Kings Cross, arrived in time to catch the three tube-trains that exploded. In so doing, the authorities make it perfectly clear, that the truth of what happened that day is of no real importance to them. It is obvious from their actions that the only thing that is important to them, is to make us all believe what they had already planned to make us believe, even when only a cursory examination of the facts and circumstances, easily prove it to be a gross lie.

The actual times of the trains and tube-trains, on that day, having been carefully checked, proves the impossibility of the official fairy-tale. The first train after 07.40 to London, left Luton at 07.56 and arrived at King’s Cross Thameslink Station at 08.42, leaving not enough time to catch the magically exploding trains that had left there. However, Hasib Hussain left the other three at King’s Cross because he still had time to catch his would-be bombing victim, the number 30 bus. But once the others heard about the explosions on the trains they were supposed to board, they soon realised that they had been duped, and that the intent all along was to blame them for the attacks.

The three exploding tube trains left Kings’ Cross underground station at…

08.35 – the eastbound Circle line train

08.42 – the westbound Circle line train

08.48 – the southbound Piccadilly Line train

It was therefore impossible for any of the four accused Muslims to have boarded their intended tube trains and hence, the ‘official’ account is a complete fabrication. So, knowing the intelligence community and its long, documented history of creating false-flag chaos and death for political expediency, here is what really happened…

One day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, and coinciding with the first day of the UK-hosted G8 summit, just as rush-hour was coming to a close, the first of three underground explosions occurred within fifty seconds of each other at 08.50 am.

The first bomb exploded on an eastbound Circle Line train packed with commuters, between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations. The explosive detonated at the rear of the second carriage, killing seven and injuring 171 people. Simultaneously, an explosion occurred in the second carriage of a westbound Circle Line train at Edgware Road, killing six and injuring another 163 people and only seconds later, a third bomb exploded in the rear of the first carriage of a crowded Piccadilly Line train travelling from King’s Cross to Russell Square. The blast killed 26 people and injured more than 340.

Liverpool Street station also houses the Great Eastern Hotel which was hosting a conference for the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) in conjunction with Deutsche Bank, the hotel where Rudi Giuliani, the Mayor of New York on 9/11, just happened to be staying. Giuliani himself said… “I was right near Liverpool [Street] Station when the first bomb went off and was notified of it and it was just to me very eerie to be right there again when one of these attacks takes place.”

141488-004-501DE9AE

It appears that Giuliani had information that the rest of us did not, because the official story for several hours was that there had been ‘power surges’ on the Underground. Given that the Israeli Finance Minister and former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was due at the Great Eastern Hotel for this conference and was warned not to attend a few minutes before the blast, it is more than likely that there would have been an increased police and security service presence in the area.

The Mossad had warned the Israeli Foreign Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, yet another who by coincidence just happened to be in the vicinity that day, to remain in his hotel that morning. A hotel that just happened to be close to where the London bus bombing occurred. How the coincidences all seem to pile-up. Although he later denied it, Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that he had had prior warning, while he was in his hotel in Russell Square, before eventually proceeding to the TASE conference at Liverpool Street where he was due to give a keynote speech. Being an egotistical character, he could not resist painting himself as an important person and he did so by announcing his foreknowledge of the event, but of course this also came at the cost of ‘giving the game away,’ as to who was planning the events.

The CIA and FBI also knew of the attacks in advance. US politicians in London had been warned to stay clear of the London Underground, just as they had been warned to stay clear of American Airlines for a week or so, prior to 9/11.

At first, the three Underground explosions were ‘officially’ reported as having taken place over a period of 26 minutes, from 08.51 to 09.17, which allowed the Netanyahu warning story to be revised to ‘after the first explosion.’ With several detonations occurring after the warning, the decision to avoid the conference would have been vindicated and it was no doubt hoped that the ‘warning’ story would be forgotten two days later, by which time the simultaneous Tube explosions account would be resurrected.

At 09.49 am, Metronet announced that the whole Tube network was being shut-down and London’s Metropolitan police (the ‘Met’) shut-down the mobile phone system for at least an hour in central London, which they initially denied.

The Muslims were not from London. Their homes were many miles away, and so they had no idea what to do, or where to go and hide, once they heard what must have been the terrifying news that the trains they were meant to catch had been bombed. They realised that they could not simply just go home, and did not know anyone in London whom they could trust. Their mobile (cell) phones were not working, first of all because they were jammed, and then shut down by the authorities, so they also could not phone anyone to tell them what had happened. They must have known that they were meant to die in those explosions, but nevertheless, here they all were, alive and well. What would any of us do in that situation?

No doubt they panicked, knowing that they had been set-up and would now have been involved in a frantic race against time to save their own lives. Where better to go than the headquarters of several newspapers, which they would have known were located at Canary Wharf.

On the 5th July 2005, one of the quartet, Mohammed Siddique Khan had taken his pregnant wife to Dewsbury Hospital in West Yorkshire with a suspected miscarriage. Upon returning home, Khan announced to her that he was ‘going to see his friends’ and this was the last time that his wife ever saw him. She miscarried on the 6th July. Would Khan or anyone for that matter, really have abandoned his ailing wife for three days while she was in such a precarious condition? He was a highly respected member of his community, not just by the Asian element, but by all races alike in what is an extremely multi-cultural environment. He was also highly respected by the headmistress (principal) of the special school in which he worked as a classroom assistant. In addition, the police had used him to mediate between rival gangs in local disputes because simply put, he was trusted by all sides. The MP, Hilary Benn had taken Khan on a tour of the House of Commons and he was specifically regarded as being politically neutral, by no means an extremist and an upstanding citizen, protective of the good name of his community and was always seen to be keen to maintain amiable relations with the local white community.

The most likely explanation for Khan’s sudden disappearance on the 6th, I believe, was that he informed his ‘handler’ for the 7/7 exercise that he was not going to be able to meet his obligations due to his wife’s extreme ill health. He may then have been told to ensure that the others could make it without him, because it was certain that the bombings were not going to be called-off. But unfortunately he had now presented his handlers with a problem that had only one possible outcome and I do not believe that I actually need to spell this out.

Could this possibly also neatly explain why the attendant at the filling station where Tanweer filled his car and argued about the change he was given, stated categorically that he only saw one other person in Tanweer’s car, Hasib Hussain. Khan was almost certainly not there and probably, unknown to Tanweer and Hussain, was already dead. This may also be the reason that the now-suppressed BBC Radio 5 news reports from the morning of 7/7 reported that only two and not three ‘suspected terrorists’ had been shot at Canary Wharf and as seen by dozens of witnesses in the surrounding office buildings.

At the inquest, one of the station attendants, a Mr Patel, gave testimony to the Inquest to the effect that a man whom he identified from photographs as Germaine Lindsay, arrived on the concourse of King’s Cross station and immediately asked to “speak urgently with the Duty Manager” and stated that it was “very important.” Mr Patel remembered Lindsay simply for the reason that it was extremely unusual for any member of the public to know the exact job title of the person in overall charge of the station. Usually people would ask for the ‘supervisor’ or simply the ‘manager.’ By this time there was utter chaos on the huge station concourse. The metal grilles on the outer doors to the station had been lowered and locked shut and passengers were not being allowed through the barriers. A sizeable crowd had gathered and were starting to abuse staff in their frustration at being unable to enter the station concourse and several police community support personnel were trying to keep order. However when Patel managed to finally locate the Duty Manager, Germaine Lindsay had disappeared, as it turned out – forever.

The primary cause of Lindsay’s desperation to find out what was going-on, was the fact that he was late for his date with destiny and events had already spiralled out of control for both the patsies and the real perpetrators, by this time. The train upon which the ‘bombers’ had been scheduled to travel from Luton to London King’s Cross station, the 7.40 am, had been cancelled. The train that they eventually caught was also delayed by 23 minutes and so by the time the hapless three/foursome arrived in London using their ‘return’ tickets, yes return tickets note, the master-plan was already underway without them as they had all already missed their respective trains.

The fourth patsy, Hasib Hussain, who was blamed for the number 30 bus-bombing, was reportedly seen wandering aimlessly around London, at one point entering a McDonalds, and eating a burger. He would also have tried unsuccessfully to contact the other three by phone.

He was the youngest of the four, only eighteen years old, and described, by those who knew him, as a ‘gentle giant.’ At eighteen, he was no doubt the least worldly-wise of the quartet and he was also alone in a strange and now hostile city, and a long way from home. He may not even have realised the danger he was in now, believing perhaps that all the chaos around him was just part of the mock-terrorism exercise of which he was an integral part, and so just continued with his assigned role, which was to board a certain bus, at the appointed time, and sit at the back of the top deck.

Now this is where the plot thickens, because we are told that Hasib Hussain started from King’s Cross Thameslink station, and was seen on a number 91 bus travelling west along Euston Road to Euston Station, where he caught the number 30 bus, that would have then travelled east, back along Euston Road from whence he came, and back to where he started at King’s Cross, had it not been diverted into Tavistock Square by the occupants of two strange, unmarked cars. Why would someone carrying a large, heavy backpack do that, unless he was following a script, written by someone who knew, in advance, that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, would be diverted into Tavistock Square, and that Hasib Hussain would therefore not be able to get on it at King’s Cross Thameslink, which is where he had arrived on the train from Luton? It would be a complete waste, of time, energy, money, and an unnecessary risk to take, and thus a totally illogical thing for a real terrorist to do.

And perhaps even more inexplicably, the number 91 bus, that Hasib Hussain is reported to have taken from King’s Cross, along Euston Road to Euston Station; to board the number 30 bus that was diverted into Tavistock Square; actually goes to Tavistock Square. So, if he wanted to get to Tavistock Square, he could just have stayed on the number 91 bus, and been sure of getting directly to Tavistock Square. The number 91 bus route is from King’s Cross Station to Tavistock Square.

There is conclusive proof that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, was part of Peter Power and his customer’s mock-terrorist drill, pre-rigged with explosives, like the three tube-trains, and was pre-planned to be diverted into, and blown-up in, Tavistock Square, rather than being blown-up by a backpack bomb. Whoever planned this, obviously planned to kill Hasib Hussain with that bus explosion, so that he could not tell anyone what had happened, just as they had planned to kill the other three Muslim actors with the explosions on the three tube-trains.

At 09.00 the number 30 bus, licence no. LX03BUF, left Marble Arch, on its return journey to Hackney Wick. It arrived at Euston Bus Station at 09.35 am, then, continued on until at 09.47 am, nearly one hour after the three underground explosions, the final explosion ripped through the upper level in Tavistock Square, splattering blood over the frontage of the British Medical Association’s front door.

The bomb, located near the back of the bus, killed 13 and injured more than 110 people. The explosion launched the roof of the bus into the air, and destroyed the rear of the vehicle. Due to street closures resulting from that morning’s explosion at Russell Square, the bus was using an alternate route through Tavistock Square. Many who had evacuated the Underground had crowded onto service public transport in order to reach their destinations.

On the side of the bus, the remains of an advertisement for ‘The Descent,’ a horror film that was to be released the following day, proclaimed… “Outright Terror… Bold and Brilliant!”

7-7

The bus explosion also just happened to occur right in front of the headquarters of two Israeli-based security firms, Fortress GB and ICTS UK Ltd, both of which were based in Tavistock House, and having Underground-line security contracts. Also not too far away in Tavistock Square was the British Transport Police (BTP) headquarters. The BTP fortuitously and completely by chance had three officers driving immediately behind the bus when it exploded, the first officers on the scene. As the explosion in Tavistock Square took place near BMA House, on Upper Woburn Place. A number of doctors and medical staff in or near that building were able to provide immediate emergency assistance.

Richmal Oates-Whitehead, a New Zealander by birth, was employed at the British Medical Association as the editor of ‘Clinical Evidence,’ an online edition of the ‘British Medical Journal.’ She rose to prominence and the attention of the public as a ‘heroine of the July 7 bombings,’ in the wake of the bus explosion outside her offices at BMA House, after she recounted her story of assisting in the recovery operation to the ‘New Zealand Herald.’

Ms. Oates-Whitehead told of how she was asked by firefighters to assist, before being asked to move away from the scene as police conducted a second explosion on a suspect package identified on the lower deck of the number 30 bus, described as a ‘microwave box.’

But a mere seven weeks after telling her story of assisting in the wake of the 7/7 bus bombing, and pointing out that a second explosion had been carried out on the bus, Richmal Oates-Whitehead turned-up dead in her Shepherd’s Bush flat and was referred-to as the ‘53rd victim’ of 7/7. After her death, the controlled, lying media, quickly manufactured a profile of Oates-Whitehead suggesting that she was a ‘fantasist,’ and a ‘fraudster,’ in what can only be described as a concerted media dis-information campaign to discredit her account of what happened at the scene of the bus explosion and, in particular, the notion that a second, controlled explosion was carried out on the bus.

The veracity of Whitehead’s story was originally called into question by the fact that Scotland Yard claimed to have no record of a second explosion at Tavistock Square. However, in the months that followed it was Scotland Yard’s denial of a second explosion in Tavistock Square that was later proven to be false, not Oates-Whitehead’s account, a fact that raises further questions about the strange life and death of someone originally hailed as a “heroine of the July 7 bombings.”

The ‘microwave box’ story was soon confirmed by a PC Robert Crawford who attended the scene with his ‘sniffer-dog.’ In June 2007 PC Robert Crawford’s dog, a Labrador named Billy, one of 14 police dogs deployed on 7/7, received the Animals’ George Cross award for bravery. As an aside, what a truly ridiculous concept that is, an award for bravery for animals, but nevertheless, this proves conclusively that a suspicious package was found on the bus and also confirmed Oates-Whitehead’s account, that the rescue operation was interrupted by the requirement of bomb squad -- denied by Scotland Yard -- to conduct a second, ‘controlled’ explosion on the bus.

Even the driver of the bus, confirmed that a second explosion did indeed take place in Tavistock Square, also witnessed by Dr. Peter Holden who assisted in the aftermath. It was the denial by Scotland Yard of any knowledge of a second explosion on the bus in Tavistock Square that led those who had reported Oates-Whitehead’s story to investigate further the history of their source. Initially it was thought that her death may have been suicide brought on by the strain of the media ‘witch-hunt’ that followed the publication of her story. However, it was later alleged that she died of a ‘pulmonary embolism,’ otherwise known as a blood-clot on the lungs, a further tragic irony in the story of Ms. Oates-Whitehead who had trained for three years as a radiation therapist and had worked on a study specifically relating to the prevention of blood clots.

As a result of her death being ascribed to ‘natural causes,’ the Coroner’s Office ruled out an inquest into the strange, premature and untimely death of Ms Oates-Whitehead and the campaign to smear her previously good name began in earnest.

Another perhaps obvious question is why would ‘terrorists’ who wished to avenge themselves upon the British people for the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, choose to kill themselves in the process? Surely on such crowded trains and buses in rush-hour it would have been a simple task to set a timer to detonate the explosives and then quietly exit the trains, leaving their bags on the floor amongst the feet of hundreds of unsuspecting passengers. What would have been the risk involved there? Would not their cause have been better served by them living to ‘fight’ another day and possibly repeat the feat elsewhere? Suicide bombing is an expedient used only where smuggling explosives and leaving them in situ is impossible due to heavy security presence and not simply as a pointless statement of bravado, as the authors of this unlikely scenario would wish us to believe.

But back now to the bus issue. Alongside, when it exploded was a van belong to a company called ‘Kingstar’ who provided, to quote from their website, ‘Demolition in areas where minimal disruption and minimal noise requirements are paramount.’ A mysterious ‘witness,’ Richard Jones appeared, and gave an account of what he says happened to the bus, on camera, which is something that normally would not be allowed by the police, unless it was part of a filmed training-exercise. Then, after a spate of very contradictory TV and newspaper interviews, within a very short space of time, that made sure everyone now believes that the explosion was caused by a suicide-bomber on the bus, both Richard Jones and his interviews disappeared from view completely. There was suddenly no trace left of his interviews on the news websites. They had all been conveniently stuffed down the memory hole, along with the first reports of three terrorists being shot at Canary Wharf, never ever to be seen or heard again.

Richard Jones, allegedly a 61 year old IT consultant from Bracknell, Berkshire and originally from Scotland, had been an apprentice at an explosives factory in Ayrshire. In the days that followed 7/7, Jones was to become one of the most widely quoted eye-witnesses to the number 30 bus incident, having allegedly boarded after the Tube was evacuated. As well as escaping the three incidents underground, and the bus incident in Tavistock Square on 7th July, Jones already had experience of being in close proximity to bombs and had previously survived an ‘IRA bomb’ in a Belfast hotel. He went on to become one of only two eye-witnesses who claimed to have seen one of the alleged bombers and whose testimonies were indirectly referenced in the official Home Office narrative.

The other eye witness referenced by the Home Office report would appear to be Danny Biddle, and his many varied, contradictory accounts of what might have happened. Suffice to say that the accounts of both Danny Biddle and Richard Jones have both been entirely discredited through a combination of their own inconsistencies in what they claim to have witnessed, and the facts that have emerged since their testimonies were given.

The four CCTV cameras on the number 30 bus were, similarly to the Israeli Verint Systems’ ones on the underground, not working, and there were no reliable witnesses who could place Hasib Hussain on the number 30 bus. Richard Jones is an unreliable witness, whose physical description, of the man he says was the suicide-bomber, does not fit with Hasib Hussain’s appearance, or what he was wearing that day. So there is no proof whatsoever that Hasib Hussain was either on that bus, or blew it up. Despite this, he has been ‘tried’ and wrongfully declared guilty of blowing up the bus, by the government organised and controlled media machine, all without a shred of real evidence.

The authorities also claimed to have found Hasib Hussain’s ID in Tavistock Square. However, they also claim that ID from another of the four, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was found in at least two, some reports say three separate blast locations. He cannot possibly have been in two or all three locations at the same time, proving that these items were planted after the blasts. And how could their IDs have survived suicide bomb-blasts? Millions of people are now aware of the ‘magic’ fireproof Mohammed Atta passport that was planted at the WTC on 9/11 and believe it implicates him in the attacks, so why change a successful tactic? The most likely scenario was that the number 30 bus had been pre-rigged with explosives during its previous, inordinately long ‘maintenance,’ session, the previous day, whilst the CCTV cameras were also disabled.

Witnesses of the tube-train explosions stated that there were no Muslims with backpacks, and no backpacks, or bags, left unattended on the trains, in the carriages that blew-up, and that the floors of the trains blew upwards from underneath, not downwards, as would be the case with explosives inside the trains. Explosives underneath the train floors; powerful enough to rupture the carriage floors and bend them upwards, would also lift the carriages up off the rails and derail them, as actually did happen. Those explosives were not home-made, but military-grade high-explosives that would not be accessible to ‘Muslim suicide-bombers.’ The official story was that they used home-made explosives, which was later easily proven to have been an impossible lie.

Tony Blair said on the day of the explosions, that, “…we KNOW that this was done in the name of Islam,” when there was no proof whatsoever of who had done it, therefore indicating he had foreknowledge of the plan and who he intended to blame. And later that same day, Efraim Halevi, a former head of the Israeli Mossad, wrote in an article published on the Jerusalem Post website, at 6.10 pm London time that the attacks had been “…carried out simultaneously with near-perfect execution,” which when you think about it is a very odd thing to say. How did he know they had only been ‘near-perfect?’ and how could he have known what the ‘perfect’ results should have been, in order to be aware that the actual results were not perfect… unless of course he had inside knowledge? Indeed, how many more murders of innocents would have been needed in order for it to be considered as a ‘perfect’ execution? And also, perhaps more significantly, how did he know, at least two days before the authorities released the information on the 9th of July, that the bombs were detonated simultaneously, unless he was complicit in the plot? The proof that this too was a ‘slip-up,’ is that the Jerusalem Post article in question was completely removed from their website, after many others began to ask similar questions.

One of the early TV news broadcasts that day reported that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings had been shot and killed, by the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the former Docklands area of London’s East-End. The announcement was made only once, and never repeated, for obvious reasons. How could suicide-bombers, possibly have survived the tube-train bombings, and then been in the Docklands to be shot? In a New Zealand Herald newspaper article it stated that two people were shot dead outside the HSBC building, and in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper only one. Nevertheless, the entire Wharf was ‘locked down’ and thousands of workers in the 44-storey HSBC tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for “at least six hours.” But by the early evening, the police were trying to backtrack on the entire incident, denying that it had ever taken place.

A New Zealander working for Reuters in London said that he and two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30 am.

It is highly probable that two or three of the patsies (depending on whether Mohammed Sidique Khan was present or not) were indeed shot on sight at Canary Wharf, whether the police or MI-5 snipers knew the truth of who they actually were, or not. After all, they were all totally expendable dupes, like all those killed in all the banksters’ wars.

John Anthony Hill, also known as ‘Muad’Dib,’ was the producer of the film ‘7/7 Ripple Effect.’ The film not only disputes the ‘official’ account of the 7/7 bombings, using common-sense, it illustrates precisely, what so many people in the UK and the rest of the world, could clearly see, that 7/7 was a planned false-flag terrorist event, set-up and executed by MI-5 and the Mossad.

There have been several documentaries made on the subject, including ‘Mind The Gap,’ ‘Terrorstorm,’ ‘7/7 What Really Happened,’ but it was the courageous, homemade efforts of Hill’s 7/7 Ripple Effect that really took the internet by storm, and helped expose the ugly truth of who the ‘real’ terrorists were. It became so high-profile, that its producer became a target for more than just mere ridicule and contempt, but a malicious and politically motivated prosecution.

In 2008, Hill mailed some DVDs of 7/7 Ripple Effect to a court, where three more scapegoats were being prosecuted in the hopes of lending greater credibility to the government’s ‘official’ 7/7 fairy-tale. These DVDs were sent by Hill because he knew that totally innocent men were being used as patsies and he genuinely wanted to see justice prevail. As a result of his attempt to see real justice served, Hill’s home in Ireland was raided by police and he was arrested on a charge of ‘attempting to pervert the course of justice.’ Oh the irony. But in reality this was just a malicious attempt to silence him by an out-of-control police state, for the ‘crime’ of obstructing their mass-murdering agenda.

Hill then spent more than a year fighting his extradition to England where he knew he was never going to receive a fair trial. However, his court-appointed lawyer in Ireland flatly refused to do as instructed and sabotaged any successful defence. Hill’s battle against extradition was eventually denied by the Irish Supreme Court and he was then forcibly removed to the UK by counter-terrorist police in November 2010.

He subsequently spent four months on remand awaiting trial for a non-existent crime that he did not commit, but his time was not wasted. During his incarceration, he was spreading the truth of 7/7 to many prison staff and inmates who ALL realised that he should not be in prison. Prior to his eventual court hearing, his first action was to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, by proving, with a wealth of evidence, that ‘Queen’ Elizabeth is not the rightful monarch, and never was. This was a two-point argument. Firstly, he argued, that Elizabeth knew, both then and now, that she was crowned on a fake coronation stone instead of the real Stone of Destiny / Coronation Stone, which meant that not only was she never properly crowned, but she was also knowingly and fraudulently deceiving the public.

But the second and absolutely irrefutable part of the argument was that Elizabeth had broken her legally binding coronation oath, which is a valid contract that she made with the British people, allowing her to be their queen. At the end of March 2011, Hill submitted the basics of this challenge to the court, alongside applications to subpoena ‘Queen’ Elizabeth to testify, and also for production of the Sovereign’s Coronation Bible, which Elizabeth had used when swearing her legally binding oath. Unsurprisingly, he received no reply from the court, totally against normal procedure, so, on the final working day before his trial, Hill visited the court office, and asked them to explain themselves. At that point, he was finally notified that his subpoena applications had been denied and that the court had, ‘mistakenly’ mailed the information to the wrong address.

The judge, hand-picked by the Establishment to handle Hill’s case, was clearly unhappy to have been forced into what he undoubtedly felt was a difficult predicament for him. He had a totally innocent man before him, and a courtroom of witnesses whom he knew were going to make it very difficult for him to carry out the orders he had been given by his evil puppet-masters, and that was to make absolutely sure that a verdict of ‘guilty,’ was returned against Hill.

After allowing Hill a few minutes to make his case, the judge adjourned the court for the rest of the day. The following morning he came back and said he was denying Hill’s case, ONLY on the grounds that it, “did not matter” whether or not a fake coronation stone was used yet totally ignoring and sweeping aside Hill’s other points regarding the Queen having broken her legally-binding contract with the British people. The judge had to ignore and bypass that part of the case, because the legislation is absolutely water-tight and irrefutable, consisting of very simple Contract Law.

With Hill’s challenge officially denied, as he himself had predicted would be the case, the jury was then sworn in, and the prosecution began their litany of lies and deception. In fact there was absolutely no legitimate case to argue on behalf of those evil Establishment figures controlling them, and they ALL knew it. So, the prosecutor simply talked in circles for the better part of a day, whilst most of those in the public gallery and the jury struggled to stay awake.

Hill’s (self) defence was that he had sent the DVDs to court because innocent men were being maliciously prosecuted, just as he now was, and that he could not stand idly by whilst people went to prison for a crime they did not commit. He also used the opportunity to enlighten the courtroom about other false-flag attacks, specifically 9/11. Upon cross-examination, the chief prosecutor vainly attempted to get Hill to admit to wrongdoing but she ended-up hurting her own case and so she eventually decided to quit while she was behind, when Hill berated her for wasting everyone’s time arguing that black was white. She promptly sat down, red-faced and embarrassed by Hill’s logical arguments.

In the judge’s summing-up, he did everything possible to manipulate the jury into returning a guilty verdict, short of openly telling the jury that they must convict. Had the public gallery not been full and over-flowing, he may well have done just that. The jury took two and a half hours before returning to say that they could not reach a unanimous verdict, so he allowed them to make a 10:2 majority verdict and this clinched it in Hill’s favour. To a huge round of applause and cheers from the public gallery, he was reluctantly released from custody by the corrupt judge who scurried from the courtroom, visibly upset, probably knowing that he would be severely chastised by his controllers, for failing to gain a conviction.

The Jean Charles de Menezes Incident

A tragic but nevertheless interesting postscript to this whole sorry incident was the shooting of the Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes two weeks following 7/7. The official version of events was that he was thought by a group of armed policeman to be a terrorist as he was (according to them) wearing a large overcoat on a warm sunny day and appeared to be hiding something underneath it as well as having a ‘foreign’ appearance. According to the police account, he was spotted and chased, at which point he fled in panic, vaulted the barrier at Stockwell tube station and boarded a train in his futile attempts to avoid arrest. At this point the police caught him and held him down and simply shot him seven times in the head. Not once, but seven times.

Why would they do this when he was already under restraint? Again the official version stated that it was because they thought he had a bomb and was going to detonate it at any moment. Do they really think we are all so stupid? What purpose would shooting someone in the head seven times when already under restraint, serve? Why would simply handcuffing him not fulfil much the same purpose? There is no doubt in my mind that this action was taken in order to ensure that there was no way that de Menezes could survive and as with many aspects of this whole sorry story, there is far more to this particular incident than meets the eye.

For a start, it was subsequently proven that de Menezes was not wearing a large overcoat as the police had falsely claimed; he was wearing a t-shirt, lightweight jeans and a short, light denim jacket. He had no bag with him and nor was he carrying anything else that could have been mistaken for a bomb or explosive device. In fact the whole story about him fleeing and the police giving chase into Stockwell tube station was a complete fabrication. Jean actually sauntered into the station, used his ‘Oyster’ pre-paid travel card in the normal fashion and headed for a train bound for his destination of North West London where he happened to be working at the time. Having disembarked from the escalator at the appropriate platform, a train was just arriving and so he jogged leisurely along the platform and boarded the train carriage. He sat down at a convenient seat and took out the newspaper he had with him, to read on the journey. At this point an undercover, plain-clothed police officer standing in the tube carriage identified Jean to nearby (similarly plain-clothed) officers at which point they raced onto the tube-train carriage, dragged him out of his seat, held him down and shot him as described previously, killing him instantly. Incidentally, the bullets used were known as ‘dum-dum’ bullets which are particularly vicious, causing maximum possible damage to human flesh and bone. These bullets are ‘illegal’ in international warfare so it really does beg the question as to why the Metropolitan police were issued with them – or indeed, was this a ‘special’ case that warranted their use?

Jean’s family were not informed about his killing until more than 24 hours after it happened despite the officers on the scene finding Jean’s wallet with his Brazilian driving licence inside it. The Metropolitan Police immediately began briefing the press with ‘off the record’ statements saying that Jean was a terrorist, that he was acting suspiciously, that he was wearing a bulky coat and that he was challenged but refused to co-operate. All of these statements have of course subsequently proven to be absolutely, totally false.

Usually in the event of a death at the hands of the police, an immediate investigation is begun by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC.) However, one hour after Jean was killed; the head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Iain Blair contacted the Home Office asking for the immediate suspension of any investigation by the IPCC. He ordered his officers to close Stockwell tube to any investigations and as a result of this it was six days before the IPCC could begin their investigations. This of course was six days during which vital evidence could have been fabricated or destroyed and a cover-up could have been instigated.

Five hours after de Menezes was murdered, Sir Iain Blair appeared on national television stating that the ‘incident’ at Stockwell tube was related to the anti-terrorism operations and that Jean was challenged and resisted (a blatant lie.) He also claimed that he was not told until the next day that Jean had been an innocent man but this must also be a blatant lie, I feel. Do they seriously expect us to believe that a man was shot to death in this brutal, illegal manner by police officers and yet the head of the force was not told about it until the next day? In any event it was subsequently discovered that Blair had contacted the Home Office regarding the matter, one hour after the incident.

The family of de Menezes firmly believe that the actions of police officers and of Sir Iain Blair constitute an attempted ‘cover-up’ operation. The disappearance of the CCTV from Stockwell tube (that old trick again,) the attempt to block the IPCC from commencing their investigations, the tampering of the police records on the day, the police briefings suggesting Jean was acting suspiciously, all suggest that the police knew far more than they were admitting. To this day, no officer has yet been prosecuted or disciplined for the de Menezes killing, thus confirming the impression that the police in the UK are free to act with impunity and without consequence to their actions.

So, was this really all a huge mistake or could it have been something more sinister? The undercover police officers obviously knew where to find de Menezes on that day, unless we believe that they just happened to be loitering at Stockwell tube station, armed to the teeth, at that precise moment with nothing particularly better to do with their time. If this was not the case, then what was the reason for the elaborate cover-up and frantic attempts to cover their tracks? The primary justification from the police for de Menezes’ shooting was that they suspected him of being a terrorist simply because he was wearing a large coat which they ‘believed’ was concealing a bomb but as this has since been proved to be a gross lie, it also negates the excuse given for shooting him seven times in the head, which even assuming the police were telling the truth, was extremely flimsy at best. So what could the real motivation have been?

Jean Charles de Menezes was an electrician by trade, a fact never disclosed by the police at the time. In fact at one point in the aftermath of the event they actually point-blank refused to name his occupation. This I believe to be highly significant in the light of subsequent information I received.

Several years ago whilst in London at a conference, I happened to sit next to a local man who claimed that he had known him vaguely. He told me that de Menezes’ occupation was electrical engineer and that he had been working as a contractor on the London tube immediately prior to 7/7. This person then told me that he strongly believed that de Menezes was brutally murdered not because he was mistaken as a terror suspect at all, but simply because he had been privy to aspects of the plot, in particular relating to the planting of the explosives under the floors of the trains which were detonated by means of ‘power surges’ and afterwards, despite serious threats against him and his family, he could not resist telling what really happened, to anyone who would listen.

This is complete speculation as I have no proof whatsoever that it is true but it does have a certain ‘ring of truth’ to it and would neatly explain the mystery.

However, no matter what the real truth, the fact remains that the illegal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was certainly no mistake and was, I am convinced, part of the cover-up operation of the 7/7 tragedy.

283257_377582432329643_1531969685_n

ISIS, the latest incarnation of the fake Terrorist Bogeyman threat

ISIS or the ‘Islamic State,’ is nothing more than an enemy-by-proxy, created by Western Intelligence services in order to further usher-in their New World Order. ISIS is indeed, central to their plans for the NWO and that name is now permanently etched into mainstream media news consciousness and deeply entrenched into the psyche of brainwashed Americans and Europeans who still believe that mainstream media news is the truth.

But it is a fact that injured ISIS fighters are sent to Israel for medical treatment and recuperation and that the US and its Jewish-Zionist allies are liberally funding the ISIS insurgency currently destroying the sovereign nation of Syria.

ISIS is now so deeply entrenched in the public consciousness that the psy-op has now reached new heights. Most truth-seekers are all now aware that ISIS is virtually invincible. So much so that even the might of all the western armed forces, with their unlimited resources are powerless to stop their irresistible might – if you believe this preposterous nonsense emanating from the mainstream media hacks. ISIS is also able to fight on multiple fronts and yet still be victorious. ISIS is simultaneously in the Middle East and in America. They are in France, Belgium, Canada, England, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and many other countries, all except Israel in fact. They also have a magical, endless supply of ammunition, food, water and supplies which they receive from the US and its NATO allies, however to actually report this fact is apparently ‘conspiracy theory.’

The ISIS phenomenon is indeed a salutary demonstration of the power of the security services and the bankster-controlled mainstream media. They have between them created an entity that is now the most important weapon against humanity and ‘peaceful’ nation states. In fact the banksters hope to use ISIS to get everything they want – and will succeed unless we can prevent them by the power of word of mouth.

ISIS is allocated more news and airtime today than most celebrities, most politicians, professional athletes or anyone else, for that matter. It is almost constantly in the news to the extent that we get an almost daily episode of the ‘ISIS Show.’

That we westerners are subjected to this constant barrage of ISIS propaganda in itself is a reminder of how even more corrupt and politicised the mainstream media has lately become. It serves as a perfect tool for the financial elite, for without the media, ISIS would have almost no role within the control mechanism. They need to make ISIS larger than life, and scarier, and largely succeed in so doing.

$C:\Users\JohnH\Desktop\get-attachment-129[1].jpg$

We all should rise above this psy-op instead of feeding the intelligence services agenda which is deliberately aimed against humanity. Those of us who are aware, all have an obligation to expose the fact that western governments are arming and funding ISIS and that all else is dis-information. This is all part of the end-game narrative to set-up all nation states for chaos by continuing to increase the refugee crisis which is a great tool for the destruction of nation states. This may also justify a global police service and serve as a perfect tool to push for even more gun control, and give them the perfect profiling tool to continue to label anyone who speaks against the agenda, as a ‘domestic terrorist.’

Obviously, ‘terrorism’ is simply nothing more than sophisticated, yet bloody propaganda. It is through this technique that the general public is being constantly programmed according to the will of the self-proclaimed, bankster ‘ruling classes’ facilitated by their ‘on the ground’ operatives in secretive groups such as the CIA, MI-5, MI-6 and the Mossad (including ADL and AIPAC,) following certain scripts. And for a very long time this has worked amazingly well too.

The Number Eleven

With this in mind, we can also recognise a clear pattern in many of the obscene outrages committed against the ordinary people of the world in the furtherance of the banksters’ sick agenda. One specific pattern that has emerged is that of their fondness for certain symbols and numbers, so by way of an example, let us concentrate on one specific number, the number eleven in order that this pattern may be fully discerned.

It is the date of a false flag that is usually the first clue. For example, 11th March 2011 (11/3/11,) the Madrid bombings. As was the case with 11th September 2001 (11/9/01,) or the Kennedy Assassination, 22nd November 1963 (22/11/63,) these are powerful, ritualistic, occult dates which the bankster/Illuminati almost ALWAYS employ when orchestrating one of their murderous operations masquerading as a ‘natural’ disaster or as a ‘terrorist attack.’

11-lists

From 2001 to 2013 alone, twelve attacks on the 11th day of the month were/are linked to ‘al-Qaeda,’ by western governments and their lackeys in the media…

11 September 2001, USA, World Trade Centre, Pentagon

11 April 2002, Djerba, Tunisia, explosion at El Ghriba synagogue

11 March 2004, Madrid, Spain, train bombings

11 July 2006, Mumbai, India, train bombings

11 April 2007, Algiers, Algeria

11 July 2010, Kampala, Uganda World Cup bombings

11 December 2010, Stockholm, Sweden, bombings

11 April 2011, Minsk, Belarus, Metro bombing

11 September 2012, Benghazi, Libya, attack on CIA villa

11 May 2013, Reyhanli, Turkey, car bombs

11 July 2013, Iraq: attacks and bombings

11 August 2013, Konduga, Nigeria, attacks

And finally this attack was not linked to al-Qaeda but should certainly be categorised as terrorism:

11 March 2011, Fukushima, Japan, nuclear sabotage, eco-terror

And, speaking of eco-terror, we have seen much evidence in this chapter, proving that ALL terrorism is manufactured by certain entities for the purposes of fulfilling their own egregious agendas, but let us now concentrate on another, particularly nasty form of terrorism… eco-terrorism.

What do I mean by ‘eco-terrorism?’ Simply the destruction of the environment and or the biosphere as a means to a surreptitious end. One way of achieving this is through the use of what has come to be popularly known as ‘Chemtrails.’

chemtrails+%25281%2529

Just as the controlled media has been instructed to avoid covering the ongoing extinction-level radiation catastrophe at Fukushima, they have also been told to keep quiet regarding the equally dangerous topic of covert ‘aerosol’ geo-engineering as catastrophic warfare waged against humanity.

Chemical Trails or ‘Chemtrails’ are a very real threat to humanity on a global scale. However it is unclear exactly what the reason is for this planetary-wide operation that is spraying innocent citizens with toxic chemicals containing among other things calcium, magnesium, barium and aluminium oxide and other sub-micron particulates containing live biological matter.

‘Contrails’ as distinct from ‘Chemtrails,’ are not new. They were commonly seen in WWII, for example, emanating from both bombers and fighter planes. These may be seen on the Internet in vintage newsreels and still photographs of combat missions. They do look similar to what we see in our skies today, but there are several very important differences.

True contrails are composed of water vapour in engine exhaust that freezes into ice crystals on contact with very cold air. This is then seen as ‘clouds’ of small ice crystals. However, if the air temperature is above freezing point, there will be no trails and this is why true contrails do not manifest at low altitudes where the air is much warmer. If they form at all, their duration depends on the moisture content of the air. When the air is humid, the ice crystals tend to linger but if the air is dry, they are quickly absorbed and dissipated. We may conclude from this that there are two conditions that must exist for contrails to linger over longer distances… The air must be below freezing, and it must also be humid.

Moisture content in the atmosphere decreases as altitude increases and air at high altitudes is under much less pressure than at low altitudes and therefore cannot hold as much moisture. Higher altitudes also tend to be less moist than lower altitudes and although some clouds may exist for short periods of time above 27,000ft, these are very rare.

hqdefault

However, Chemtrails are a chemical cocktail that is sprayed at around 10,000 to 20,000 feet to avoid commercial air traffic, and to better control the diffusion into the local area. ‘Marker’ planes are often deployed to lay-down indicators as to where the spray-planes are to unload their tonnes of toxic particulates.

As always the bankster dis-information machine is unleashed whenever this illicit spraying of the population is questioned. Here is a list of common LIES that surround these ongoing attacks on the human race. When their existence is not being outright denied, they have been variously excused as:

Ice Crystals. However, ice crystals do not last more than 45 seconds maximum, whereas Chemtrails never properly dissipate and remain visible or several hours after spraying, eventually coalescing into widespread cloud-like entities often blanketing the entire sky in a wispy haze.

Bad Fuel Mix. Various government sources have suggested that Chemtrails, are the result of bad fuel mixtures. Given the nature of jet refuelling at airports, this is a ludicrous assertion.

Reflective Shield against Global Warming. First and foremost, global warming itself is a complete scam, so the idea that they are spending millions of pounds spraying to prevent something that they well-know does not even exist, is highly unlikely in the extreme. Secondly, there are not enough planes in the world to begin to attempt this charade of a cover story. And thirdly, this story is known to have been taught to schoolchildren in America to render this deadly programme as a ‘positive’ to young, gullible and trusting minds. But the very fact of it being taught to them is a tacit acknowledgment that it is actually happening, and not a figment of the imagination of some crazy ‘conspiracy nuts.’

chemtrails2

Chemtrails – a worldwide phenomenon

There is no doubt that subtle geo-engineering is taking place, at the heart of which, may well be Chemtrails. Geo-engineering is undertaken by the injection of unnatural substances into the atmosphere, in order to manipulate the weather and which also has the effect, either desired or undesired, of toxifying the environment below. The technology has been patented in weaponised form in order to deprive certain targeted countries or areas, of the healthy growth conditions required for crops and livestock, but which also causes human populations to forcibly ingest harmful chemicals such as aluminium oxide in great quantities and which may also cause premature heart failure and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Most researchers agree that Chemtrail spraying began in the late 1990s on a small scale, gradually increasing to the point where today, most populated areas of the world are sprayed on a regular basis. One of the most damning aspects of the evidence is that Chemtrails have been sampled globally, and in all cases have been found to contain highly concentrated levels of both barium and aluminium oxide plus other particulates. These particulates usually fall into three categories: ionised metallic salts, fibrous materials, and desiccated human red blood cells. The purpose of the inclusion of these particulates is of course, a mystery. However it is no mystery as to what their effects on the human body are.

Ionised Metallic Salts / Barium Oxide. Salt has a profound effect on both the atmosphere and the human body. It provides water or moisture with the ability to carry an electrical charge, effectively converting the human body into an electrical circuit which then leaves it susceptible to control through electrical stimulation. Please understand that these particles are mere fractions of a micron in size, and can therefore enter the body directly through the skin. Government weapons such as HAARP and other, newer technologies have the patented ability to broadcast neuro-frequencies over a population creating a generalised pattern of thought. This may sound like it has sprung from the pages of a trashy science fiction novel, but it is truly ‘science fact.’ As the atmosphere is manipulated through electrical means, the human ability to maintain control over our own thoughts and internal neural communication can be greatly impaired. This can lead to the manipulation of moods, as well as the basic physical processes.

Aluminium Oxide. Perhaps the most dangerous substance being sprayed is aluminium oxide. Concerned citizens around the world have tested their water, soil, snow, and children’s hair follicles and found up to 60,000 times the levels normally found naturally. Aluminium oxide has a profoundly devastating effect on the human body and once ingested, aluminium forms plaque in the arteries blocking the body’s natural abilities to flex the artery walls and rid itself of toxins. Aluminium oxide is also well documented as having the ability to travel through the blood/brain barrier and accelerate dementia. It is also sad to note that in many areas where Chemtrails are being regularly sprayed in concentrated levels that plant life is gradually dying-off. It is perhaps significant that one particular chemical company, Monsanto, has already developed and patented aluminium resistant seeds. Why would that be? This suggests some level of involvement or at very least complicity, in the Chemtrails conspiracy.

Fibrous Materials. These are, sub-micron sized fibres that cannot be seen by the naked human eye. They are ingested through normal breathing and cannot be neutralised by bodily fluids such as saliva or mucous. It is a well-known fact that many pathogens cannot survive outside of the human body. However, being encapsulated inside a not-so-friendly microscopic fibre may provide a safe haven until a suitable human host can be invaded.

Desiccated Human Red Blood Cells. It is a terrifying thought, to imagine that freeze-dried human blood cells are literally falling from the sky and being ingested by unsuspecting citizens, but there is indeed evidence from researchers to suggest that this is indeed happening… globally. It is a scientific fact, that, the more foreign bodies that enter the blood stream the shorter a person’s lifespan will be. The reason is quite simple. Foreign bodies are dealt with by the immune system and the greater the load placed upon the immune system, the faster one ages, and typically, the more illnesses triumph over time. The human body is constantly purging cancerous cells but if the immune system is persistently side-tracked in flushing foreign particles, the cancer cells have a greater chance of overwhelming the body’s weakened defences.

Strangely enough, Greenpeace, the group that allegedly works to prevent abuse of the environment, refuses to commit either time or money to this issue that is far more serious than curbing whale hunting or dolphin netting. But of course, Greenpeace is simply another example of bankster-controlled opposition.

Greenpeace-Logo-Font

Many Chemtrail apologists cling to the ridiculous notion that they are merely ‘persistent contrails,’ that have miraculously managed to last for hours and eventually diffused into what appears to be natural clouds. This is easily countered by the study of the spraying patterns that pilots use when laying Chemtrails. It appears that recently, those in charge of the project are attempting to change their techniques somewhat in order to conceal the blatant nature of their nefarious operations. Here are some sample techniques which demonstrate this point…

chemtrail-marker

Marking

In a sky containing huge numbers of Chemtrails that stretch for hundreds of miles, tiny markers are often initially laid to denote the secondary pass boundaries indicating to the pilots where to start and stop their spraying passes.

chemtrail-tbar3

T-Bars

As pilots are instructed to strategically fill marked off areas, they achieve this simple goal by turning off their sprayers when they have reached their clearly denoted marker or boundary.

chemtrail-zbar

Z-Bars

In some cases the designated or authorised areas of spraying require a slimmer region of spraying which is filled in by secondary spraying that starts at one boundary and ends very quickly at a neighbouring Chemtrail.

chemtrail_small

One of the most alarming facts about Chemtrail spraying is the escalating sickness rates such as respiratory problems that are not only blamed on ‘asthma’ conditions, but also a mysterious array of ‘flu-like’ symptoms that lack true flu viral infections. And if you do not enjoy the more ‘traditional’ versions of Chemtrails raining down on you, then you will certainly not appreciate the new, improved’ version, which the United States Air Force promises will feature the aerial depositing of programmable ‘smart’ molecules, tens of thousands of times smaller than the particles already hospitalising people with respiratory, heart and gastrointestinal complaints.

photo-of-the-day-four-chemtrail-tankers-spray-with-no-gap

Nozzles-on-chemtrail-spraying-plane_400

Under development since 1995, the military’s goal is to install microprocessors incorporating huge computer capabilities into ‘smart particles,’ the size of a single molecule. Invisible except under the magnification of powerful microscopes, these nano-sized radio-controlled chips are now being made out of monatomic gold particles. Networked together on the ground or assembled in the air, thousands of sensors will link into a single supercomputer no larger than a grain of sand. This is all brought to you by the same military-corporate-banking complex that runs America’s permanent wars. Raytheon Corporation is already profiting from new weather warfare technologies. Raytheon also owns General Dynamics, the world’s leading manufacturer of military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and forecasts the weather through its Advanced Weather Information Processing System. According to researchers, these Raytheon computers are directly linked with their UAV weather modification drones.

The US Military is already in the climate-change business. The single largest burner of kerosene and petroleum on this planet, its high-flying aircraft routinely bombard Earth’s own protective radiation shielding with huge nitrous oxide emissions, while depositing megatons of additional carbon, sulphur and water particles directly into the stratosphere, where they will do three-times more damage than CO2 alone.

A single F-15 burns around 1,580 gallons an hour. An Apache gunship helicopter manages about half a mile to the gallon. The almost two thousand Abrams tanks in Iraq, each operate at a consumption level of five gallons to the mile, whilst firing radioactive shells that will continue destroying human DNA until the end of time, which if we continue as we are, is not actually going to be too far distant.

A single non-nuclear aircraft carrier burns 5,600 gallons of fuel per hour – or one million gallons of per week. In addition, every four days, each carrier takes on board another half-million gallons of fuel to supply its jets.

Meanwhile, the 60-year quest for weather manipulation continues apace. According to the USAF’s own weather modification study, ‘Owning the Weather 2025,’ clouds of these extremely tiny ‘nano-bots’ will be dropped into hurricanes and other weather systems to blend with storms and report real-time weather data to each other, and a larger network of sensors. These smart particles will then be used to increase or decrease the storm’s size and intensity, and to ‘steer’ it to ‘specific targets.’

The air force report also boasted that nano-Chemtrails, “…will be able to adjust their size to optimal dimensions for a given seeding situation and make adjustments throughout the process.” So, instead of simply being sprayed into the air at the mercy of the prevailing winds, as is the fate of normal Chemtrails, their nano versions will be able to, “…enhance their dispersal by adjusting their atmospheric buoyancy and communicating with each other” as they steer themselves in a single co-ordinated flock within their own artificial cloud.

Nano-Chemtrails will even, “…change their temperature and polarity to improve their seeding effects,” the USAF stated. Rutgers University scientist J. Storrs Hall held out the military’s hope that these new nano weather-warrior bots, “…interconnected, atmospherically buoyant, and having navigation capability in three dimensions, clouds of microscopic computer particles communicating with each other and with a control system, could provide tremendous capabilities.”

The Chemtrails with which we are all now sadly too familiar after almost twenty years of deployment, continue to inflict eye infections, nosebleeds, skin sores, muscle pain, chronic exhaustion, weakened immunity, acute asthma and allergies, short-term memory loss and heart attacks on people in many countries. Small particulates such as the aluminium oxide found in Chemtrails also kill. Dr. Dan Woodard confirmed that prolonged exposures to very high concentrations of particulates that are visible in the air, “…can produce pulmonary fibrosis, somewhat like the silicosis formerly seen in coal-miners.”

…So, to conclude this chapter on the truth about terrorism, it is apparent that it is not just perpetrated by some nebulous, poorly-funded, shadowy group of fanatics who have a burning desire to perpetrate atrocities against we ordinary, innocent folk. And neither is it perpetrated by large semi-mythical groups such as al-Qaeda and the latest invented bogeyman, ISIS, who have huge financial, material and man-power resources at their disposal and yet who strangely choose to target only the citizens of the countries they purport to hate, and not their governments.

It is also somewhat strange that the countries from whence these alleged terrorist groups purport to spring, despite having plenty of reasons to target Israel and the Israelis, in actuality, never do so. Indeed all the evidence shows that it is the Israelis who are the single-most, least likely group to suffer at the hands of so-called terrorists.

No, terrorism in all its forms, through even a cursory examination of the true facts can easily be shown to be in all cases, government and security services acts of aggression with a common motive of advancing the agenda of the bankster-Elite and the Zionist entity…

…and whilst the masses continue to swallow the daily lies, and watch in trepidation the increasingly ludicrous, manufactured events that conveniently for the banksters, unfold before us; it is just another ‘mission accomplished,’ facilitated by the War OF Terror inflicted upon us all…

Chapter 22

The World Betrayed

change-3

obama29_19

The illusion of choice is all part of the banksters’ game, as is the illusion that we live in a free, democratic society. The more things change, the more they stay the same… Once again, the joke is on us.

Enter Barack Obama. On 23rd July 2008 in Berlin, after more than sixty years of post-war, bankster-inflicted self-hatred had damaged both the minds, and spirits of the once proud German people, he showed his true, bankster colours by declaring before the frenzied crowd, “Tonight, I speak before you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”

German ‘guilt-tripping’ over the manufactured and exaggerated evils and excesses of ‘Nazism,’ and media hype had combined to create the most ridiculous spectacle of the ‘Obama-Mania,’ to date. Around 200,000 Germans gave the US presidential candidate Barack Obama a delirious reception. The same mass adulation in fact that seventy years previously had also been shown Adolf Hitler, was now bestowed upon an uneducated, gay, Marxist, elite-puppet who had never held a real job, and had not even yet been elected.

He wasted no time at all in pushing the Global Warming hoax… “This is the moment when we must come together to save the planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands… This is the moment to give our children back their future… To stand as one.” Wonderful sentiments of course, in many ways but would there be a cat in hell’s chance that he would ever carry out his suggestions? Err, no. Politicians’ empty rhetoric is exactly that, fine words, but no intention ever of actually putting them into practice.

To equate the New World Order, whose agenda was soon to be advanced on Obama’s ‘watch’ with Zionism is incorrect. Zionism is just one strand of the NWO plans, a means to an end and not an end in itself. Surprisingly to some, the antithesis to Zionism, and just as important an element in the overall, big picture, is the false opposition led by people such as Vladimir Putin and President Ahmadinejad of Iran. As always, the Rothschilds control them both through MI-6 and this Hegelian dialectic succeeds the Nazi-Communist stand-off of WWII and the US-Soviet conflict of the second half of the twentieth century. It is impossible to have a conflict without two apparently opposing sides and this time around, Putin and Ahmadinejad have been cast as defenders of Nation and Religion. But do not be fooled, this is the Rothschilds’ usual modus operandi. They routinely simulate a false opposition to generate strife and it is that allows them to initiate profitable conflicts whilst orchestrating the planned outcome. Meanwhile the idealistic masses are whipped into a frenzy of patriotism by their respective mass-media to fight and die for the ‘just cause.’

According to some deluded researchers, Vladimir Putin will singlehandedly rescue the world from the clutches of the Rothschild/Rockefeller criminal banking cartel. Putin is regarded by these elements as the modern-day version of George Washington who will lead the world to the Promised Land whilst crushing the New World Order. Would that this were true, but to believe so would be to engage in the fantasy-world thinking of an imbecile. There are no good guys and there are no bad guys, there are only the banksters, who own and control everything. It may be true that Putin appears to be in control of part of the world’s chessboard as evidenced by his repulsing of the planned American invasion of Syria, but who is in control of Putin?

Today, some are even crediting Putin with paying-off the Rothschild debt, kicking the banksters out of Russia and standing up to the New World Order in the same manner that the world witnessed as Iceland jailed its criminal banksters that had completely wrecked their economy and stolen billions. On the surface, the idea has been promulgated that Putin is a freedom fighter against the NWO and the fact that he is actually controlled opposition, is something that many truth-seekers find difficult to believe.

Exactly one year after Georgia’s phony ‘Rose Revolution,’ George Soros and the NWO gang replayed the same spectacle in Ukraine, another former Soviet Republic friendly to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. When the bankster-controlled candidate Viktor Yushenko lost a close Presidential election to Viktor Yanukovych, ‘spontaneous protests’ erupted once again. The Soros-funded protestors again claimed ‘voting fraud’ and this baseless accusation was repeated ad nauseum in the western press. Putin was even accused of poisoning Yushenko. And then, as was the case in Georgia, the world was treated to a Hollywood-style musical filled with orange banners and under intense pressure from inside, but especially outside of Ukraine, a second ‘election’ was held. This time, all went to plan as the Globalist puppet won comfortably and the ‘Orange Revolution,’ resulted in another hostile puppet-state on Russia’s borders.

Putin, meanwhile made ‘a stand against the NWO,’ making it clear that he would not be controlled by the globalists, the ‘uni-Polar world,’ as he calls it. In a 2006 speech Putin openly condemned Globalism… “The uni-Polar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign, one centre of authority, one centre of force, and one centre of decision-making. This is pernicious. At its basis there can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.”

But when the Globalist-banksters attempted to unleash yet another ‘Colour Revolution,’ this time in Russia, Vladimir Putin was opposed by the former chess champion, Garry Kasparov (born Garry Weinstein) and when Kasparov and 3,000 of his ‘supporters’ staged an anti-Putin rally in St Petersburg, the police detained nearly 200 of them, including Kasparov himself.

Kasparov had worked as an organiser of street-agitation for the Rothschilds. He was widely viewed as an arrogant traitor by most Russians and his popularity fell so low, that he decided to abandon his candidacy for president in 2008, although he continued to speak out against Putin whilst visiting Israel and the US.

On the 8th August 2008, the bankster-puppet state of Georgia attacked the Russian protectorate of South Ossetia, in an unprovoked action. The Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and US President George Bush were seated close to each other as they watched the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China and when Putin was informed that Georgia had invaded South Ossetia, a tiny independent state whose inhabitants are Russian citizens, he wagged his finger at Bush and stormed out of the stadium. He immediately mobilised the Russian army, but by the time they had arrived to liberate South Ossetia, 2,000 civilians had already been murdered by the US/Israeli-equipped Georgian army. The Russians however, soon routed the Georgian invaders, chasing them back deep into Georgian territory.

Then, in a manner similar to the lies surrounding the German-Polish conflict of 1939, the Globalist media reported that Russia had ‘invaded Georgia.’ As is the custom of the Zionist bullies, Brzezinski publicly equated Putin to Hitler but no mention was made of the fact that it was Georgia, encouraged by the US that began the conflict. Nothing much changes, does it?

But the banksters had other, bigger fish to fry and the focus was soon shifted away from the now virtual forgotten South Ossetia conflict in October 2008, when both US political parties unsurprisingly united to bailout the banksters – with taxpayer’s money…

The Wall Street banks and investment houses had profited greatly from Greenspan’s housing bubble of the early-mid 2000s, but suddenly the party was over as the bubble burst (as it was bound to do eventually) and they immediately demanded that $700bn of losses be covered by the US taxpayer as the banks were ‘too big to fail.’ In fact the bailout ended-up being trillions!

An analogy to what had happened would be… Imagine going to a casino with suitcases full of cash and risking millions upon millions upon the roll of a ball or a dice. Initially, due to the amounts being gambled you would begin to win big, but eventually as the law of averages and chance took-over, the money would disappear faster than you could cry ‘fraud.’ Imagine then, despite risking-all yet losing, everything was fine because you could then ask for your losses to be returned – and then some. And what’s more, you would get it too! Only the banksters can indulge in no-lose gambling, knowing that if they win, they can keep all their winnings, but if they lose, they will get their money back anyway. This they have always done but it was just that this time, it was a little more high-profile than ever before.

Whilst the well-connected criminals, such as Goldman Sachs agent and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson twisted the arms of Congress, the Establishment media terrorised the American public with horror stories of what would happen if the banksters were not bailed-out and new ‘emergency powers’ were not given to the Federal Reserve. Of course, despite the fact that there were rumblings of discontent and even protests from the usually quietly compliant public, this did not prevent the politicians from robbing them on behalf of their masters. After an initial failure in Congress the bailout bill passed on its second attempt. It was the largest robbery in US and world history.

bankheist

Bloomberg News reported the results of its successful case to force the Federal Reserve to reveal the lending details of its 2008-09 bank bailout, reporting that by March 2009, the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion in loans and guarantees to rescuing the financial system; and that these virtually interest-free loans came with ‘no strings attached.’ The Fed later insisted that the loans were repaid and that there were no losses, but the Bloomberg report said that the banks reaped a $13bn windfall in profits and also that, “…details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.”

beware_the_banksters_cartoon

Let us return now to Barry Soetoro, aka Obama. On the 4th November 2008, a previously unknown Chicago street agitator and vote-fraud organiser, completed his ultra-rapid, media-fuelled ascent to the Presidency. A known-to-be Marxist activist with close ties to former ‘terrorists,’ Obama was the ultimate puppet of choice of the NWO Globalist billionaire George Soros and his bankster pals. The Jewish-Hungarian Soros and his paid mob of fake, liberal activists ‘invested’ millions of dollars and countless man-hours into getting Obama elected. After ‘defeating’ Hillary Clinton in the Democrat Primaries, and the unelectable Republican candidate, John McCain, Obama acted quickly on behalf of his masters and in his first 100 days, stacked-up an astonishing budget deficit of $1.6 trillion, allocated another bailout, this time to General Motors and advanced socialised health care, allowing Goldman Sachs to loot the Treasury, gave sweeping new powers to the Fed, and expanded America’s military role in Asia, despite all promises to the contrary.

Obama was an artificial creation of the most intense media campaign in history. He suddenly appeared on all the major magazine covers, appearing on fifteen Time covers in 2008 alone. By installing a black man as President, the Globalists could now advance their agenda more radically than ever before. Fear of being labelled ‘racist,’ combined with media-inflicted ‘white guilt’ shielded the Marxist President from the strong condemnation he deserved.

Following his election, Obama quickly moved to seal his past personal records, via Executive Order 13489. After years of speculation, there is now substantial information to demonstrate that what was being concealed is that his unique rise to power can only be explained by his intelligence roots. However, this is more than the story of one man or his family, there is a long-term strategic plan to recruit promising candidates into intelligence and steer these individuals and their families into positions of influence and power. Consider that it is now declassified information that the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair was recruited into MI-5 before becoming the Labour Party leader, or that George H. W. Bush not only became CIA director in 1976 but had a much longer past in the organisation. While we may never know the absolute truth, it is certain is that we have never been told the truth about who holds the real power, nor who this faux president really is.

So, any information given to us regarding Barack Obama’s past, has to be highly suspect. His bankster masters have disseminated so much dis-information and lies and photo-shopped so many photos of him and his ‘family,’ that we can only take an educated guess as to what is fact and what is fiction.

Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, named ‘Stanley’ by her unstable father, after himself, was teased about her name all throughout her childhood and adolescence leading to her becoming a very ‘troubled’ teenager. When she was 17, she dropped the ‘Stanley’ element of her name understandably, but by this time, she had already embraced Marxism and had begun posing naked for a Communist named Frank Marshall Davis, who had a passion for both photography and pornography. Ann Dunham then began having sexual relations with a succession of older, black men.

In 1960, Ann became pregnant. She claimed that a black Kenyan Marxist named Barack Obama was the father. In his research, the intelligence journalist Wayne Madsen discovered connections between Obama’s family and the CIA and although Barack junior often boasts about being the ‘son of a goat herder,’ his father actually had very close ties to the CIA from the 1950s until the end of his life. In fact Barack Obama Sr. was closely involved in the CIA-sponsored operations in Kenya to fight the rising Communist influences on students in the 1950s and 1960s.

Obama Sr. was eventually brought to the United States along with 280 East African students who were ‘aided’ with a grant from the JFK foundation. This airlift was actually a CIA plan to indoctrinate young students in Africa so that they could secure American influence in the African nation, which had become a battleground with the Soviet Union and China. At the time, both the CIA and Britain’s MI-6 were concerned about Soviet penetration of Kenya’s independence movement. Kenya became independent of Britain in 1963.

Obama Sr. was the only one of the Kenyan students sent to the University of Hawaii, where the CIA was very active during this time period. ‘Junior’ often claims that his parents met in a Russian Language class. However, Obama Sr. was a drunkard who, apparently unbeknown to Dunham at the time, had his own wife and children back in Kenya. But maybe Ann did not care as at the time, she was also having sexual relations with another black man, Frank Marshall Davis.

ht_obama_birth_certificate_jp_120301_wg

Barrack Hussein Obama Jr. was born on 4th August 1961, six months after Ann and Barack Sr. had married. His mother was eighteen years-old, and his ‘father’ was twenty-five. But as with everything else about Obama, even his birth, and his birth certificate are suspect. His loyal supporters claim that Barack Obama produced his real birth certificate in 2011. A single reporter – Savannah Guthrie of NBC news, was allowed to see the ‘real’ document, and then it was scanned as a PDF file and uploaded to the internet for everyone to see and as far as the Obama supporters were concerned, that was the end of the story.

The only problem was that numerous electronic document experts have now shown, using steps that anyone can repeat, if they have the right software, that the document the White House so confidently uploaded is not simply a scanned version of an original paper document. Instead, it is what is known as a ‘layered’ document. A scanned document will have only one layer, which is the image itself, whereas a ‘layered,’ electronically manipulated document will show one electronic addition after another. The White House’s birth certificate PDF has been shown to contain nine layers, thus proving that it was an assembled electronic document, not a scanned paper document.

In addition, the real identity of Barak Obama’s father is widely believed to be Frank Marshall Davis. Obama looks nothing like his alleged Kenyan father, but closely resembles Davis, but he was nevertheless, abandoned by his Kenyan ‘father.’ Then just a few years into their unlikely marriage, Ann divorced the drunken bigamist in 1964, after which he returned to Kenya, where he maintained close ties with Kenyan leaders such as Tom M’Boya, who was recruited by the CIA and became an important asset for them. A CIA affidavit from 1958 described M’Boya as a man who “still appears to be the most promising of the African leaders.” Obama’s CIA influences remained strong in Kenya for the rest of his life, until his death from a drunk-driving accident in 1982.

Recent FOIA releases of Barack Obama Sr.’s immigration records disclosed that he was not co-habiting with Stanley Ann Dunham after the marriage and the birth of little Obama. In fact, the US Immigration Department had been investigating whether or not the Obama-Dunham marriage was legal. However, in 1965, Ann married Lolo Soetoro. She, Lolo, and little Barack, who now became known as Barry Soetoro, settled in Indonesia. (She and Lolo divorced in 1980.)

While Ann Dunham is often portrayed by her son and the media as a free-spirited ‘flower-child,’ it seems that her Russian language training in college made her an asset for the government throughout the turbulent 1960s. The CIA’s main goal in Indonesia was to steer the country away from Soviet Communism, so a fluent Russian speaker such as Dunham would have been useful. Obama has however, desperately tried to cover-up his mother and stepfather’s roles in Indonesia during this period, which is understandable considering that the CIA was involved in promoting a coup in which over a million civilians were killed, and it is almost certain that Soetoro and Dunham were involved in this dirty work. In fact Obama seems to have been avoiding Indonesia ever since he became President, twice cancelling planned visits at the last moment. Maybe he is worried about what the Indonesians will reveal about his past, as soon as he sets-foot on their soil?

In March 1968, the CIA backed, pagan mystic and mass-murderer General Suharto, took power and instituted a ‘New Order’ in Indonesia. The killing led by General Suharto had begun in October 1965 when tens of thousands of Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and its supporters were arrested and executed. In the 1990s, details of US involvement in the massacre became public when several former State Department officials admitted their role. In total, with US compliance and assistance, around three million people were killed by General Suharto and his butchers.

Ann’s Indonesian husband, Lolo Soetoro just so happened to be a Colonel in General Suharto’s CIA-backed killing-squads. Under the cover of being an anthropologist, Ann infiltrated indigenous groups and tribes in the countryside and the islands of Indonesia in order to clandestinely identify PKI leaders and sympathisers who were subsequently brutally murdered.

Then in August 1970, Ann had a baby girl with her new husband, which they named Maya Soetoro and who was the half-sister of Barry. At this time Ann Soetoro hired ‘Evie,’ a transvestite, to care for young Barry and Maya whilst she continued her work for the CIA. In 2012, it was revealed that Evie was now a homosexual prostitute.

Around 1971, Barry returned to Hawaii to live with Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, his grandparents, after being relentlessly bullied at school in Indonesia. However, Stanley soon turned Barry over to the CIA paedophile, rapist, and exhibitionist, bisexual sadomasochist Frank Marshall Davis for satanic ritualised sexual abuse and dissociated conditioning and programming (MPD.) MPD conditioning is a regimen of physical and psychological beatings, rapes and sexual molestations that give birth to a cluster of ‘alter’ personalities.

Meanwhile, Madelyn Dunham became the first female vice-president of the Bank of Hawaii in Honolulu. This is a bank used by several CIA-front organisations. Indeed it was she who handled escrow accounts used to make CIA payments to US-supported Asian dictators like Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos, the Sultan of Brunei, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Gandhi’s son and future Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu, and President Suharto in Indonesia. In effect, the bank was engaged in money-laundering for the CIA to covertly support its chosen leaders in the Asia-Pacific region.

By his own adult admission, Barry wasted his High School years as a marijuana smoker and was a ‘mediocre student.’

obama-sealed

After High School, Obama was also a mediocre college student at Occidental College in California and his drug use continued and moved onto cocaine. It was whilst he was at Occidental, that he began to embrace the homosexual lifestyle. As a pot-smoking, mediocre student and admitted crack user at both High School and Occidental College, Obama’s alleged acceptance to the elite Columbia University, and then Harvard Law, seemingly defies explanation… but that is only where we ‘normal’ people are concerned. It is obvious from this fact alone that Obama as being ‘groomed’ for greater things to come.

One of the participants in the Chicago CFR’s 1971 conference in Oak Brook was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would later become President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, the chief architect of the US support for the Afghan Mujahedeen, and ‘coincidentally,’ one of Obama’s professors at Columbia University. But, bearing in mind that Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama was a CIA creation from the very beginning, him being a Marxist/Communist and a CIA asset, was all a planned intelligence cover. Anticipating that there would be plenty of resistance to a black man becoming President, his CIA masters planted so many diversions into his background that different opposition groups would be confused and distracted. Together with questions of his birth certificates, medical records, school records etc., they anticipated that everyone would become bored with guessing who he really was.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, when questions were raised about Barack Obama’s Columbia years, FOX News interviewed more than 400 people who had been ‘on campus’ during the alleged ‘Obama years’ of 1980 to 1984, professors, students, nurses, librarians, custodians, shopkeepers, and yet in their investigation, not one of the 400 people interviewed, remembered Barack/Barry. Not a single one.

William Ayers was one of the most notorious ‘real’ domestic terrorists in US history. His group, the Weather Underground, bombed New York City police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. On 9/11, while the world watched in horror as the US was attacked, William Ayers told the New York Times... “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Regardless of this, Obama announced his candidacy for Illinois Senator in 1995, from Ayers’ house.

Although no-one had ever heard of him at the time, Obama received an impossible-to-believe $125,000 ‘advance’ to write a book about race-relations, which he incidentally failed to write, instead using the cash, for amongst other things, a vacation in Bali with his ‘wife’ Michelle. And yet despite his failure to complete the book, he received a second advance, for $40,000, from another publisher, and he eventually completed a manuscript called ‘Dreams from My Father,’ which strongly reflected the writing style of the aforementioned William Ayers.

The large steel menorah in Chicago’s Daley Plaza is a stark reminder of who wields the real power in Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago. A local Zionist-atheist succeeded in having the traditional nativity scene banned, on the grounds that it was a religious symbol. But the massive, ugly steel menorah, a Jewish religious symbol, was permitted, without question, in the central plaza of a city that is overwhelmingly Christian. The real power behind Obama is in fact, the secret Chicago Zionist network, headed by Obama’s sponsor and mentor, Rahm Emmanuel.

In 1996 Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate and joined the ‘New Party,’ which openly promotes Marxism. He was then elected unopposed to the Illinois legislature after his much better-known opponent, State Senator Alice Palmer, was denied standing for undisclosed, ‘petition irregularities.’ A likely story.

In late 1999, Obama purportedly engaged in homosexual activities and cocaine-snorting in the back of a limousine with a man named Larry Sinclair. Then in a July 2010, interview with The Globe, Norma Jean Young, the 76-year old mother of the late Donald Young, spoke out and declared that persons trying to protect Obama murdered her son at the height of the 2007 Democratic presidential primary to protect Obama from embarrassing revelations about his homosexual relationship with her son. Donald Young’s bullet-ridden body was found in his Chicago apartment in December 2007, in what appeared to be an assassination-style killing.

So where are Obama’s girlfriends from high school and college? Before meeting the somewhat ‘mannish,’ large-framed Michelle at age 27, Barack Obama’s sexual history appears to be a mystery.

Many people believe that ‘Michelle’ Obama is not all that ‘she’ seems. Judging by ‘her’ mannerisms and physical looks alone, there is enough evidence to ask questions. Indeed, some say that Michelle Obama, ‘First Lady’ of the US, was born a man, Michael LaVaughn Robinson in Chicago, Illinois on 17th January 1964. Michael is the second son of Fraser Robinson, a well-known cocaine dealer and Marian Shields Robinson, a transient street prostitute who was diagnosed with the HIV virus in 1998. Michael was a popular high school athlete and in 1982, he won a scholarship to play football for the Oregon State Beavers, but shortly afterwards, suddenly dropped out of the school. Friends at the time recalled that Robinson regularly told them that he was a, “woman trapped inside a man’s body.”

To hide the shame of his new identity, Robinson left Oregon State to attend Princeton University under his new legal name, ‘Michelle Robinson’ and several years later, he met Obama who quickly became aware of Michelle’s ‘true’ identity. They subsequently ‘married’ and adopted two children. You should draw your own conclusions as to whether Michael or Michelle is a male or a female, but there is no doubt that the marriage, is as fake as Obama’s personal history and his presidency.

mike-obama_collection

obama-michelle-man

We know that Obama’s life has been a long sordid tale of dis-information and deception so being ‘paired-off’ in this way for appearances’ sake is not that difficult to believe. But again, this could all be more dis-information cover, like claiming he is a ‘closet-Muslim,’ when he is really a creation of the Zionists. Yet one thing through all this mystery and subterfuge is certain, Obama is a whole new breed of presidential evil. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, with no sense of guilt, compassion, empathy or decency. He has betrayed everyone who ever believed in him, maybe black people most of all, but despite all this, he was the Rothschilds choice as president.

Obama’s secret, gay lifestyle however, is ‘secret’ only from the brainwashed masses. He began frequenting a gay club called ‘Man’s Country’ in the mid-1990s, during the time he ceased being a ‘lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School’ and his election as an Illinois State Senator in 1996. Rahm Emanuel his ‘boss,’ reportedly also joined ‘Man’s Country’ after he left the White House and moved back to Chicago in 1998 to join the investment firm of Wasserstein Perella.

Man’s Country is a membership club that caters for gay men. The club’s website advertises steam rooms, ‘fantasy rooms,’ bedrooms, male strippers and gay adult movies. However, this was not the only venue for Obama’s predatory gay-sex activities. The Chicago gay community is aware that Obama often made contacts with younger men at his famous ‘pick-up’ basketball games.

The truth is that far from being a Muslim or ‘Muslim lover,’ as so many people have been deceived into believing, Obama is a Zionist agent. Even his name, ‘Barack Obama,’ has well-documented Hebrew roots. ‘Barack’ derives from ‘baraka,’ which in Hebrew means ‘blessing.’ His Zionist roots are clear.

Rahm Emanuel is an aggressive, vulgar, Chicago-based ‘enforcer,’ with an in-your-face, pit-bull style. A rabidly Israel-first, Orthodox Jew, Emanuel was educated in a Talmudic yeshiva and served as a volunteer in the IDF, the Israeli Defence Force. It is probably also superfluous to state that he is a dual, Israeli-American citizen.

Mentored by members of Chicago’s corrupt political machine, Emanuel entered Washington politics in 1991 after becoming Bill Clinton’s campaign finance committee director. After leaving his post as a policy aide for the Clinton administration, he used his influence as an investment banker to rake in millions during the late 1990s. With this money, Emanuel won a congressional seat in 2002, became the fourth-ranking House Democrat by 2006, and then became the most powerful member of Obama’s executive office team.

Emanuel’s Israeli-born father Benjamin, was an integral member of the Zionist terror-group known as Irgun during the 1940s. Along with another notorious terrorists, the Stern Gang, Irgun bombed Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946 where 96 people were killed, whilst also instigating the 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre.

‘Anti-Semitism’

There is one topic that is considered particularly ‘taboo’ today, and this in itself, totally belies the myth that we in any way enjoy complete freedom of speech. The only freedom we have in fact, is the freedom to do as we are told and not ‘rock the boat,’ or else suffer the consequences.

The unsurprising story of what happened to the veteran journalist Helen Thomas, who died at age 92 in 2013, puts this into perspective somewhat. For more than fifty years Thomas was hailed as one of the most honest, no-nonsense reporters in the Washington press corps. Thomas (unlike many others in the media) was never afraid to publicly challenge presidents and politicians whom she thought were being disingenuous. Feminists characterised Thomas, the first female president of the National Press Club, as a role model for women and Thomas herself said she asked tough questions of politicians that she believed were the questions any ‘housewife’ would want her to ask.

Despite her remarkable record of ‘no-holds-barred journalism’ that brought widespread acclaim and international respect, Thomas was forced into retirement in 2010. Although she had won her reputation for her honesty, it was her candour on one issue, that of the United States-Israeli ‘special relationship’ that brought about an abrupt end to her distinguished career.

On 27th May 2010, while Thomas was outside the White House a video-camera wielding Jewish rabbi, David Nesenoff, confronted Thomas and asked for her comments on Israel. Thomas said with her usual bluntness, “…tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.”

The rabbi then asked where the Jews should go, and Thomas responded, “…they should go home.” When the rabbi demanded to know where ‘home’ was, Thomas said, “Poland, Germany and America and everywhere else.”

The rabbi immediately went to the media with the story and the until-then respected journalist was promptly accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ (yes, never fails,) even though she had told the truth about the foreign origins of many of the Jews who had settled in Palestine, displacing native Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs. Critics were quick to point out that Thomas was the daughter of Christian Arab immigrants from what is now Lebanon and that, over the years, she had been suspected of a ‘bias’ against Israel. By ‘bias against’ this presumably meant, ‘not biased towards’ as it is expected she should be. The implicit point being made was that Thomas’ heritage should have automatically denied her the right to comment on the Middle East.

When reviewing the unedited video of her ‘interview,’ what becomes apparent, is that the rabbi is rephrasing her answers to a question about Israel. Her edited response was “they should get the hell out of Palestine,” conveniently omitting the ‘homes’ that she believed that they should return to, and even the UN had long since endorsed that stance. The rabbi, a member of the ADL, knew what he was doing when he ensnared the distinguished 89-year old journalist. The ADL and other Zionist strategists had long-sought her removal from this influential position.

The campaign to force Thomas’ removal was led by former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer who was the Zionist insider who repeatedly insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

What is even more reprehensible is that n0 US journalist has ever had the courage to challenge a US president on Israel. When Obama gave his first news conference, it was Helen Thomas who asked which country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons. Rather than reply honestly, he simply evaded her question. That was the reason that an ADL operative targeted her. The strategic objective was to serve notice that no-one should be allowed to ask honest questions about the many perils that the US-Israel ‘special relationship’ poses to the security of the US and other nations.

And as always seems to be the case, the Zionists won the battle. No remaining White House correspondent is likely to ask any difficult questions about Israel’s impact on America’s national security interests.

Then suddenly, Thomas’ booking agency dropped her as a client even though she was popular on the lecture circuit and a writing colleague announced that she would no longer work on any books with Thomas. The Society of Professional Journalists also announced that it was no longer awarding its award for lifetime achievement named in Thomas’ honour. Disheartened by the witch-hunt she resigned from Hearst Newspapers, but in a speech several months later, Thomas said, “I paid a price, but it’s worth it to speak the truth,” adding that, “Congress, the White House, Hollywood, and Wall Street, are owned by Zionists. No question in my opinion.” When challenged on her latest remarks, Thomas said, “I just think that people should be enlightened as to who is in charge of opinion in this country.”

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) announced that Thomas, “…clearly, unequivocally revealed herself as a vulgar anti-Semite,” but Thomas had the last word. When asked to respond to the ADL’s charges, she said, “I’m a Semite.”

Christian Zionism

“Most Zionists do not believe that God exists, but they do believe that he promised them Palestine.” Ilan Pappe, Israeli historian

“From its’ inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to God should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic, racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the wellbeing of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities.” Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann

Judaism-Rejects-Zionism-Anti-Zionist-Jews-Protest

Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst rabbis.

Christian Zionism has led millions of so-called Christians to support war rather than peace, and the merciless killings of millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. How can people who claim to follow Christ be so misled?! Because they have been fooled into believing that the Bible teaches something it does not; Christian support of Zionist Israel. Walk into any Christian bookstore and it becomes apparent that virtually everyone who calls themselves a follower of Jesus Christ has been tricked into believing a false theology, which leads them to believe, erroneously, that the Bible commands them to support the Jewish nation of Israel.

The driving force behind this deception was the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible, which was the first Bible printed by Oxford University Press that included theological reference notes that guide the reader as to how to correctly understand, or interpret, the biblical text. It is no coincidence that the rise of Zionism began not long before the Scofield Reference Bible was published. In the late 19th Century, England was where Zionism first found political support and British Christians were taught that they were one of the lost tribes of Israel; therefore they should support the Zionist venture to create the Jewish state of Israel.

With the advent of WWI, England began the push to create a Zionist homeland for the Jews in Palestine. This served two functions. It would ensure safe passage through the Suez Canal and trade with India and it would placate the Zionist Jews and the British Christians who had been fooled into believing that they should support Zionism in obedience to God and the Bible.

One hundred years later, and American Evangelical Christians have, long ago, been fooled into believing they should support Jewish Zionism, because they mistakenly believe that the Bible teaches this, and that God will curse them and America if they do not comply. The end result of this is the ongoing support from the ‘Christian Right’ for endless wars on behalf of Israel.

It should be no surprise to any Bible-believing Christian that false teachings and false teachers will use the Bible to convince well-meaning believers to believe a lie rather than the truth, because the Bible itself, warned of this danger. So, the bankster-Zionist leaders initiated a programme to change America and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was a Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Schofield and a much larger tool was a well-respected European book publisher, ‘The Oxford University Press.’ The intention was to manipulate the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield’s role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and at the bottom of pages. The banksters’ Oxford University Press used Scofield as the Editor, and the revised bible became known as the ‘Scofield Reference Bible,’ and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-seller in America and has remained so for over a century.

Scofield had produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist, but which was already in the plans of the committed, well-funded authors of world Zionism. There has been several editions, each succeeding version moving closer and closer to Zionist ideals. Extensive pro-Zionist notes were added to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield’s most significant notes from the original editions were removed where they apparently did not further Zionist aims powerfully enough. Yet this edition still retains the title, ‘The New Scofield Reference Bible, editor C.I. Scofield.’ Its anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.

The Talmud (Jewish holy book) states that only Zionists are human beings and that Gentiles (non-Jews) are just animals created by the Zionist god Yahweh, to be used by the Zionists, like any other animal. As Gentiles are merely animals, they cannot really own anything, and it is therefore the duty of the Zionists to make sure they do not. This may all seem very quaint and fanciful, but it is precisely the beliefs of Zionists, even today and goes some way towards explaining their attitudes to the rest of humanity.

They understand that the success of their current effort to defraud the rest of the world out of every penny they own, depends on three factors. Firstly it depends on their control of the mass media and also it depends on the unprecedented degree of political corruption which exists almost everywhere in the Western world, and it also depends on the confusion of Gentiles everywhere. Never before has there been a time when the Zionists have wielded as much open power as they do today. No previous government in the US has had as many Zionists in positions of power as the present Obama government, as is the case in Europe too. The Zionists around Obama are mirrored by similar high-ranking Zionists around David Cameron in Britain. In Russia too, even, Zionists also hold most of the key posts around Putin.

And almost everywhere except the United States, Zionists have succeeded in having laws passed making it illegal to disclose publicly what the Zionists are doing. In Britain, France, and in Germany hundreds of decent people are in prison today because they dared to speak the truth about the Zionists and their despicable actions.

In fact, I should like to place a bet with you dear reader, that by April 2017, the anniversary of the publication of this book in April 2016… and that is that on the Amazon® page for the book in its reader reviews sections, there will be at least two and possibly more ‘one star’ reviews (the lowest possible score) that state that this book is ‘anti-Semitic,’ or words to that effect, whilst offering no cogent, reasoned arguments against its contents. Some of these will be from Zionist ‘shills,’ who are actually paid to track-down books such as this, in order to discredit them by the expedient of labelling the author as an ‘anti-Semite,’ and an equal number will probably be from ordinary, Jewish or non-Jewish people such as you and I, but who nevertheless have succumbed to the Zionist propaganda that brands everyone who speaks-out against Zionism, as anti-Semites, too. I guarantee that a good number of the people in this latter category, will, at the first hint of criticism of Zionism that they encounter within these pages, immediately dismiss it as ‘anti-Semitic’ and discard the book completely in ‘disgust,’ or immediately rush-off to Amazon® reviews and become one of the group described above. Never, ever underestimate the extreme power of intense, prolonged propaganda and conditioning.

anti-zionism_is_not_anti_semitism

Perhaps the most famous, most iconic anti-Zionist speech, certainly the one with the largest audience, came from of all places, Zionist-owned and controlled Hollywood itself...

Vanessa Redgrave won an Academy Award for ‘Best Supporting Actress,’ for the WWII-set drama Julia, in which Redgrave had the title role. Although she fully deserved the award, her speech at the awards ceremony in 1978, has become notorious for the controversy it engendered. In addition to starring in Julia, Redgrave also funded a documentary entitled The Palestinian in which she backed the Palestinian cause against Israel.

Some Jewish groups immediately accused her of course, of being an ‘anti-Semite.’ A confrontation was inevitable and when the Academy Award nominations were announced with Redgrave among the nominees, the time and place was set. Around seventy-five Jewish Defense League (JDL) members and two hundred Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) followers and sympathisers were present for the media circus outside. John Travolta presented the Best Actress award and, Redgrave made the following acceptance speech…

“My dear colleagues, I thank you very much for this tribute to my work. I think that Jane Fonda and I have done the best work of our lives and I think this is in part due to our director, Fred Zinnemann. And I also think it’s in part because we believed and we believe in what we were expressing – two out of millions who gave their lives and were prepared to sacrifice everything, in the fight against fascist and racist Nazi Germany.

And I salute you and I pay tribute to you and I think you should be very proud that in the last few weeks you’ve stood firm and you have refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behaviour is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression.

And I salute that record and I salute all of you for having stood firm and dealt a final blow against that period when Nixon and McCarthy launched a worldwide witch-hunt against those who tried to express in their lives and their work the truth that they believe in. I salute you and I thank you and I pledge to you that I will continue to fight against anti-Semitism and fascism.”

Redgrave and Travolta embraced and left the stage together to loud applause. However, not present for the diatribe were the ‘Zionist hoodlums.’ They were just outside burning an effigy of the Redgrave and shouting ‘Vanessa is a murderer!’

It is ironic, that the star of a Jewish-produced film, Julia, about a woman murdered by the Nazi German regime in the years prior to WWII for her anti-Fascist activism was now being condemned in the same manner by the very people who claim that they were subjected to the same abuse at the hands of the Nazis. But of course, the irony was totally lost on the Zionists, as that did not fit in with their agenda. Redgrave’s co-star in the film was the equally outspoken Jane Fonda, playing the even more outspoken, Jewish writer Lillian Hellman.

I suppose it is totally unsurprising that the Zionists, having so much power, use it to advantage at every opportunity. Indeed they use this to their advantage, everywhere and in every way but it is also interesting to note that this display of unbridled greed and arrogance has even made some of their adherents a little nervous.

Charles Krauthammer, a Zionist writer for the Washington Post, the second most powerful Zionist-supporting newspaper in the United States, wrote a column in 2002, which began with the words… “The pursuit of billions in Holocaust guilt money has gone from the unseemly to the disgraceful.” Krauthammer referred to the whole racket as a ‘Holocaust shakedown.’ However, it is not that Krauthammer believed that the Zionists should not have all the money they can extract from whatever source, it was simply that he was appalled by the reckless display of naked, unprincipled greed as more and more “Zionist shysters,” (his words, not mine) trample each other in the rush for illicit gain. However I feel that he was really only concerned with the Zionists’ greed becoming too obvious to the masses, more than any sense of injustice at his fellows’ behaviour.

Now, the unfortunate fact is that no non-Zionist writer for a major newspaper would dare to write what Krauthammer wrote, not even in the United States, where it is still legal to write such things. For two generations the Zionist media have conditioned them by instantly and loudly accusing anyone who speaks-out, of being a ‘racist,’ a ‘hater’ or an ‘anti-Semite.’ We have all been conditioned to run, whenever we hear one of those accusations and that answers the question of why we let them get away with it.

Their media control keeps the masses confused and unaware. The corrupt politicians who now characterise our ‘democracy’ are always ready to prostitute themselves for them and betray the people whose interests they are supposed to be representing. And those among us who are perceptive enough and independently-minded enough to understand what is happening are nearly all too cowardly to speak out. Understandably perhaps, knowing the fate of many who have had the courage to do so.

So, I confidently predict that the Zionists will continue coming back for more, and more, and more – until they either have it all, or what Charles Krauthammer fears will come to pass, and the masses all become aware and say, ‘no more.’ At the moment however, the former outcome seems most likely.

The Western world has for seventy years, been inundated with Holocaust™ documentaries, Holocaust™ movies, Holocaust™ museums, Holocaust™ books, and Holocaust™ curricula. The aim of course is to immunise Zionism and Israel from valid criticism, and most conveniently, to obscure the Allied war crimes perpetrated against millions of innocent German civilians.

And then, of course, there is also the other ‘taboo’ subject that we are not supposed to question… 9/11.

memorial-meme

National September 11 Memorial and Museum

The official commemoration and memorialisation of 9/11 is yet another crass, commercial enterprise, playing on the average person’s naivety, gullibility, and emotions, similarly to the fake ‘Holocaust’ narrative and the industry that has arisen around it to perpetuate that fabricated event. The entire memorial and museum is about raising money, selling official 9/11 propaganda, and remembering and honouring the alleged victims, the real victims and the emergency services casualties.

The National September 11 Memorial and Museum have no interest whatsoever in any critical examination of the actual events of that day, or the policies, both domestic and foreign, enacted as a result of 9/11. The invocation of the alleged 9/11 victims and heroic first responders is designed to systematically exploit the masses at a base psychological and emotional level and significantly, this focusing strictly on the alleged victims and first responders, and their horrific experiences, detracts from any critical examination of the information being presented. This is not by accident, but by specific design. The insidious, deceitful and manipulative forces behind 9/11 and the official commemoration of the event do not want people to think critically about the day’s events and its aftermath.

What the Zionists are now doing with 9/11, is literally the same as they did and are still doing with the fake Holocaust™ narrative of WWII, making it a commercial enterprise, another industry complete with memorials, museums, books, documentaries, official spokespersons, propagandists, etc., that exploits people psychologically and emotionally in order to maintain and perpetuate entirely false narratives of past events that advance a particular Zionist agenda.

It is no exaggeration to say that the museum built beneath the World Trade Center plaza in Lower Manhattan that opened to the public in 2014, is intrinsically connected to the individuals and institutions that are also responsible for the ongoing memorialisation of the Holocaust™. Alice Greenwald, director of the 9/11 museum, took the position in 2006 directly from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, where she served as associate museum director for museum programmes. David Layman, who designed the exhibits for the 9/11 museum, did the same work for the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Clifford Chanin was curator of the Legacy of Absence collection for the same Illinois museum. He worked for several years as a consultant to the 9/11 Museum and is now its vice president for ‘Education and Public Programs.’

The Holocaust, Chanin said in an interview, showed us… “…the importance of memory, the civic function of memory, how to memorialise mass murder. It codified the moment.” Chanin regards the remembrance of the Holocaust as providing a “…template for shaping the way we collectively, even globally, pull out from an historic event its larger meaning for mankind.”

The official memorialisation of both 9/11 and the fake Holocaust™, along with the manner in which these subjects are constantly drummed-into our consciousness by the Zionist-controlled media and deceptively taught to our children, are not concerned with any critical analysis of what actually happened during these events. Rather, the official explanation for both 9/11 and the alleged ‘Holocaust’ are taken as read, and we are instead asked merely to ‘remember the victims and honour the heroes.’ In the case of 9/11, the heroes were the emergency services and in the case of the Holocaust™, individuals who ‘protected the Jews from the Nazis.’

Obama attended and spoke at the dedication ceremony for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, which The New York Times reported in this way… “Mr. Obama, solemn and quiet, used his remarks not to talk about the events that followed that day, the wars he has tried to end and the policies he has reshaped but continued. Instead, he focussed on the victims who perished in flames and smoke and those who tried to save them. ‘Here we tell their story, so that generations yet unborn will never forget, of co-workers who led others to safety,’ he said.”

How fitting to have a mass-murdering President, created and controlled by Zionists, speaking at the very crime scene that Israeli and US Zionists, used to foment endless war and continued slaughter. This is how the Zionist lies of history are maintained, perpetuated, and reinforced, through psychologically and emotionally exploitative propaganda.

The traumatic imagery associated with both 9/11 and the Holocaust™ are often invoked and used to maintain, perpetuate, and reinforce the official narratives of these events as well. In the case of 9/11, the images of ‘hijacked commercial airliners,’ allegedly filled with innocent Americans smashing into the World Trade Center towers were replayed over and over again, re-introducing and reinforcing the traumas of 9/11. Whereas in the case of the ‘Holocaust,’ images of emaciated persons, piles of dead bodies, and other photographs and videos associated with the Holocaust™ reintroduce and reinforce the trauma of the official Holocaust™ narrative.

It is the emotional and psychologically traumatising nature of the victims’ stories or experiences (whether real or fabricated) for both events, that renders the average person incapable of critically examining the information with which they are being presented.

911-memorial-shop-merchan-009

The controversial and crass 9/11 museum gift store that sells overpriced ‘souvenirs,’ and where less than 8% of the merchandise is made in the USA, simply contributes towards paying for the executive overheads. Sorry, but there are no ‘Israel did 9/11,’ souvenir badges or buttons to be seen anywhere. Strange.

As detailed in the 9/11 sections of this book, there is overwhelming evidence of Zionist mass-murder and treason, but to then have the same criminals open a monument and a museum to their crimes… Is there no justice?

Palestine

However, there is a Zionist construction that the world’s media rarely reports on… Behind which, the plight of some 1.5 million innocent Palestinians, are held in the world’s largest open-air prison… Gaza.

Gaza-wall-blockade

The West Bank Barrier

Israel’s 430 mile-long West Bank Barrier has become the most visible manifestation of the Israeli military occupation and most pressing issue for Palestinians. Often misleadingly referred-to as a ‘fence,’ this substantial structure traverses the West Bank, on Palestinian soil, leaving Palestinians on the wrong side isolated from their land, extended families, and way of life.

On 9th July 2004, at the request of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, making clear that the construction of the barrier and the settlements were illegal. This represented the most authoritative statement to date of the content and applicability of international law concerning Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

The barrier runs along the entire land border of the Gaza Strip. It is made-up of wire fencing with posts, sensors and buffer zones on lands bordering Israel, and concrete and steel walls on lands bordering Egypt.

Since the foundation of Israel in 1948, Gaza has always been a densely populated area dominated by so-called refugee camps. These are conurbations mainly occupied by families originally displaced from towns and villages in other parts of the country, which now constitute the State of Israel. Israel launched a major ground offensive against Gaza in December 2008, ‘Operation Cast Lead,’ in response to sporadic ‘rocket fire.’ It only ended when Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire after 22 days of death and destruction, saying that its goals were “more than fully achieved.” An estimated 1,300 Palestinians were killed, virtually all of whom were civilians. Thirteen Israelis also died, including four soldiers in a ‘friendly fire’ incident. However Gaza’s civilian infrastructure was also extensively damaged.

It is apparent that Israel does not want peace, until every last Palestinian is either dead or removed from their lands. Israel created Hamas as a pretext to wage war on the Palestinians and Hamas’ ‘bottle-rockets’ are mere pea-shooters compared to Israel’s US-provided military might, but they do provide another excuse to attack and kill Palestinians. But why did Israel create Hamas? Firstly, let us be clear that Israel does not want peace, they want all of the current, rapidly-shrinking Palestinian territories, and their belligerent settlement practices confirm that. And the Israelis claim a willingness for ‘peace talks,’ only in order to actually stall the peace process and to advance the further colonisation and annexation of Palestine. The most convenient expedient towards these goals, presented with the sycophantic assistance of the overwhelmingly Zionist media, is the claim of ‘Palestinian terrorism.’

The public is fundamentally naive, and fails to suspect the Machiavellian extremes to which Israel constantly resorts. These include the creating of a false enemy, namely Hamas, thus enabling the Israelis to point to a ‘deadly enemy’ as being the ones to blame for supposedly stalling the process.

The schemers in Israel saw Hamas in its earliest days as a counter-balance against any Palestinian moves for peace. In other words, as long as Hamas had enough influence, it might prevent the peace process.

Israel needs an unending state of war in order to be able to continue to justify its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and, inevitably, expand its borders into land currently occupied by the current Palestinian population. So Israel is now somehow ‘justifiably’ stating that ‘we are under siege and fighting back to protect our people,’ but the fact is that it is the Palestinian Christians and Muslims who are under siege. Many, many more Palestinians have died during the conflict, than Israelis.

Gaza is a tiny place totalling just 146 square miles, but its population of 1.8 million makes it one of the top 40 most densely populated places on the planet. With virtually no industry and a demographic overwhelmingly dominated by youth, it offers few opportunities for its residents. According to Oxfam, conditions are increasingly desperate in its overcrowded schools and buildings, where it is estimated that up to 450,000 people are sheltering. This figure is a dramatic increase on the 200,000 that UNRWA, the UN relief organisation for Palestinian refugees, estimates are currently living in its 85 shelters. Oxfam also claims that many people have access to as little as three litres of safe water a day, far below international emergency standards. It says that there has been massive destruction of water and sewage systems and electricity supplies, by Israel and that spills of raw sewage threaten to contaminate water sources and the threat of disease is rising.

Israel has imposed tight restrictions on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip, measures it says are vital for its own security. However, Palestinians in Gaza feel confined and are suffering great socio-economic hardship. The dominant Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas, which as previously stated is covertly Israeli funded and controlled and other militant groups, quite understandably regard these restrictions as intolerable. Hamas’ charter is committed to Israel’s destruction but in recent years it has said that it will consider a long-term truce with Israel. And so, the ongoing charade continues… And more and more innocent men, women and children from both sides, are killed as simply pawns in the Zionist game.

WikiLeaks

According to Wikipedia™, the internet’s prime encyclopaedic source of ‘information’…

“WikiLeaks is an international, online, non-profit, journalistic organization which publishes secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources. Its website, initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the organization Sunshine Press, claimed a database of more than 1.2 million documents within a year of its launch. Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder, editor-in-chief, and director. Kristinn Hrafnsson, Joseph Farrell, and Sarah Harrison are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Julian Assange. Hrafnsson is also a member of Sunshine Press Productions, along with Assange, Ingi Ragnar Ingason, and Gavin MacFadyen.

The group has released a number of significant documents which have become front-page news items. Early releases included documentation of equipment expenditures and holdings in the Afghanistan war and corruption in Kenya. In April 2010, WikiLeaks published gun-sight footage from the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi journalists were among those killed by an AH-64 Apache helicopter, known as the ‘Collateral Murder’ video. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available to the public.

In October 2010, the group released a set of almost 400,000 documents called the ‘Iraq War Logs,’ in co-ordination with major commercial media organisations. This allowed the mapping of 109,032 deaths in ‘significant’ attacks by insurgents in Iraq that had been reported to Multi-National Force – Iraq, including about 15,000 that had not been previously published. In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp...”

Julian Assange and his ‘whistle-blower’ organisation, Wikileaks seem to be constantly in the forefront of the ‘news.’ But while Assange is self-portrayed as an advocate for government transparency and WikiLeaks has been touted as the ‘next generation’ of dissidence, it is all nothing more than an elaborate deception. Assange himself is nothing more than a Zionist shill and the only thing of which WikiLeaks is the ‘next generation,’ is COINTELPRO. Assange is closely affiliated with Australian intelligence, the lapdog of Mossad and MI-6, and WikiLeaks is intrinsically connected to the CIA, Mossad and international Zionist war criminal, George Soros.

The Israeli mouthpiece newspaper, Haaretz, berates anyone who speaks the truth about WikiLeaks as a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ and the Zionist intelligence group in America, the ADL, headed by the Zionist thug Abraham Foxman, launches a full-scale assault on anyone linking WikiLeaks to Israel. The ADL has, as always, smeared, slandered and character-assassinated those with the courage to speak contrary to the Zionist-owned media’s narrative about WikiLeaks as ‘anti-Semitic,’ – the typical tactic.

In fact, the ADL’s vehement defence of WikiLeaks, makes it apparent and is indeed proof positive of its role in disinformation. Also, considering that Julian Assange believes that 9/11, arguably the greatest cover-up in American history, is a ‘false conspiracy,’ and that those who seek truth about 9/11, ‘annoy him,’ it should come as no surprise that WikiLeaks is a significant tool of dis-information.

Anything touted by Zionism is not to be trusted. Zionists do not profit from leaks, they are exposed by them. Zionists do not promote leaks, they bury them and Zionists certainly do not reward whistle-blowers, such as Assange with multi-million dollar book deals, instead they imprison them on fabricated charges, torture them and if need be, eliminate them.

In fact, WikiLeaks like its bastard cousin Wikipedia™ itself, is a Zionist-Israeli controlled, psy-op. If Assange and WikiLeaks were actually genuine truth-seekers, I can guarantee that you would never have heard of them.

Edward Snowden

One of the patterns evident, concerning the ‘theatre of operations’ known as the ‘media,’ is the never-ending labyrinth of trails and endless, conflicting details that do not ‘add-up’ concerning a figure like Edward Snowden. The use of the military term ‘theatre of operations’ is especially appropriate here, since we are constantly enveloped in a morass of media theatre and infotainment. This is no accident. The theatre of ‘infotainment’ itself is an important tool of the banksters and where Edward Snowden is concerned, the recent ‘darling’ of the controlled-media, the trails and legends surrounding his background are purposely misleading.

Concerning this intentional labyrinth of false trails and bogus information, the analyst Jon Rappoport commented, “Of course, the American people do not consider all these potential elements of the Snowden affair. Although they watch spy movies and television shows, they do not believe, when push comes to shove, that intelligence operations have layers and false trails and cover stories and limited hangouts. They do not believe that deception can run that deep. They do not stop to realize that all spies are trained to lie. Lying convincingly is the number-one requisite for a spy. Lie to enemies, lie to friends, lie to the press, lie to other agencies of government. If a spy does not wake-up every day, thinking about what lies he’ll tell from breakfast to dinner, he’s a dud! A washout! A danger to himself and others! Spies live in a labyrinth of deceit and it takes a certain kind of personality to thrive in that atmosphere.”

Most people accept that Snowden is what he presented himself as, a genuine whistle-blower that saw the error of his ways and decided to ‘come clean,’ disagreeing only on whether he was a ‘traitor’ or ‘patriot.’ Few of these people however, are willing to accept the possibility of deception in such affairs, but as fellow philosophers know, basic logic and critical thinking, some years in media analysis and basic knowledge of espionage and geo-politics will provide anyone with the knowledge of discernment where the media is concerned.

Having revealed that he was a trained CIA ‘operative,’ and not simply an analyst, Snowden has thereby called into question his entire whistle-blower background story. In other words, Snowden has in effect said, ‘I was not an analyst, I was a professional liar.’ Only a fool would continue to believe something already questionable from a now admitted liar, yet the theatre of media operations continues to promote Snowden as a genuine whistle-blower, nevertheless.

Significantly, no revelation from Snowden so far has been anything that was not already known and this in itself is a clue to the real truth. Whistle-blowers usually reveal something hidden that endangers them, leading to Snowden’s attempts to flee to China and Russia. But the very few ‘revelations’ of Snowden were already contained within James Bamford’s book, ‘The Shadow Factory,’ published in 2008. And the bankster-intelligence establishment is well aware of Bamford’s book which outlines the entire spy-architecture.

This is why the phrase, ‘theatre of media operations’ is so appropriate. However, ‘real’ whistle-blowers receive no plaudits in this theatre of operations, they are either ignored or killed. The ‘theatre of media operations’ is simply the flip-side of Hollywood, faux opposition and ‘infotainment’ for the masses.

The faked death of Osama bin-Laden

The theatre of media operations continued on 2nd May 2011 with the claimed ‘death’ of Bin Laden.

Of course, the truth was, as clearly demonstrated previously, that bin-Laden had already been dead and buried for more than nine years at this time. In October 2002, Israeli intelligence said that Israel and the US, assessed that Osama bin-Laden had died on 16th December 2001 in Afghanistan, probably of ‘Marfan syndrome,’ from which he had suffered for many years.

The entire bin-Laden ‘raid’ episode was pure theatre that was designed to provide Obama with a boost in the polls and create a distraction. A distraction from what, specifically though?

In April 2011, the release date of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate,’ was announced as being the 17th May and ‘pre-sales’ began on Amazon™. Corsi’s work was regarded as being extremely thorough and meticulous and within hours, it was at ‘number one’ on Amazon™, one month before its release. The Obama regime panicked.

On 27th April, in an attempt to diffuse the impact of the Corsi book, the Obama regime released a PDF image purportedly a scan of his original long-form Hawaiian birth certificate. Within hours, thousands of graphic designers, many of whom were self-professed Obama voters and supporters, isolated and demonstrated with dozens of objective proofs, that the PDF released by the Obama regime is not just a forgery, but an astoundingly incompetent and obvious forgery.

To the thoroughly inexpert eyes of Barack Obama, the forged document appeared extremely convincing, and was thus released, but within hours, they knew that they had not only made a mistake, but a huge mistake that could land them all in prison. The forger was so incompetent that he/she did not even ‘flatten’ the image, in order to compress and mask the component layers before posting it on-line. And that was just the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of glaring errors. And of course, the mainstream press was completely complicit in the cover-up of the forgery.

So Obama and his ‘handlers’ needed a huge distraction and they needed it rather quickly. They had been planning on holding the staged bin-Laden ‘capture and killing’ for just such a moment and that moment had now arrived.

Allegedly, on 2nd May 2011, the bin-Laden operation duly took place but in all likelihood, it was probably a low-to-mid level Taliban or insurgent leader that was killed. Within hours, Vice President Joe Biden destroyed any idea of operational security and announced, in effect to the entire world in public remarks at a dinner at the Ritz Carlton, that bin-Laden had been killed in a raid carried-out by the Navy SEALS. Shortly afterwards, the responsibility was allocated to ‘SEAL Team 6,’ also known as DEVGRU. Up until this point in time, all DEVGRU activities and information had been highly classified, but now suddenly, the term ‘SEAL Team 6’ was plastered on every TV screen and newspaper in the world. The Obama administration obviously wanted the entire world to know the name, ‘SEAL Team 6.’

The last thing that Obama or his sponsors / handlers wanted, was for anyone to focus on all his criminal scandals; first and foremost his criminal ID fraud which had been the very basis for propelling him into the White House as de facto president.

…But now, after all the lies about their wars, unemployment and inflation figures, and their lies about almost everything else, they were now claiming that they had hunted-down and killed the most wanted man in the world. That evening, Obama gave his late night speech to the world from his home, the White House. It was virtually unheard of for the President to address the nation at such short notice this late at night, but bin-Laden’s death created joy throughout the Western world, especially in the United States where many of its citizens gathered in the streets to celebrate. They seemed happy to hear about the summary execution of a man who was accused of crimes that all the evidence strongly indicates he did not commit. This lack of evidence however, did not seem to impact upon their celebrations though.

Naturally, some more sceptical people’s reaction was, ‘OK then, show us the body,’ but unfortunately this seemed to be a difficult request to fulfil as his body was ‘buried at sea to honour Muslim tradition.’ Yeah, right. How long have the US armed forces been so sensitive to the devout beliefs of Muslims, especially ones that they have deemed as ‘public enemy number one?’ Was Saddam buried at sea then? No? How about Colonel Gaddafi then? Oh, OK then. But strangely… or not, it is not and never has been, Muslim tradition to bury their dead at sea, unless of course they died at sea.

Since the body had been conveniently disposed of, dumped in the Indian Ocean, the sceptics’ next reaction was ‘OK then, in that case show us the pictures of bin-Laden’s dead body.’ This also proved an impossible task, but no problem, the establishment had a ready-made ‘get out of jail-free’ card for this one too. A few days after the alleged raid on ‘bin-Laden’s’ compound in Pakistan, the White House made another announcement. They explained that the pictures would not be released due to potential international criticism for insensitively displaying the pictures as a ‘trophy,’ conveniently overlooking, or at least hoping the great-unwashed would overlook, the fact they had no problem showing the bodies of other people they had murdered in cold-blood, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi being but two examples of this. And sensitivity is fairly low down on the list of accusations that could be made against the US government, I would have thought. Still though, who was going to question these highly suspect proclamations? Not the masses, that was for sure.

However, those whose intelligence was maybe a little more substantial than the greater majority of couch-potatoes, submitted FOI requests to make the pictures available to the public. Regrettably, the Pentagon claimed to be unable to locate the pictures, or any proof whatsoever of bin-Laden’s death, for that matter according to this article written by the ‘Army Times…’ “Citing the law, the Associated Press asked for files about the raid in more than 20 separate requests, mostly submitted the day after bin-Laden’s death. The Pentagon told AP this month it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin-Laden’s body. It also said it could not find any images of bin-Laden’s body on the Navy aircraft carrier where the al-Qaida leader’s body was taken… The Pentagon said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin-Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin-Laden’s body if he were killed. It said it searched files at the Pentagon, US Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida, and the Navy command in San Diego that controls the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson, used in the mission.”

By this time, even the less intellectually well-endowed amongst us were beginning to doubt the official story. Even without the lack of evidence to back up the White House claims of Osama’s recent assassination, there had already been several reports of his death, previously. In fact one organisation had already vociferously claimed that his death was ‘a fact’ almost a decade previously, and that organisation was none other than the United States government itself.

However, things now began to get a little more serious as several of the people involved in the ‘bin-Laden’ raid were beginning to turn-up dead. Of course they were portrayed by the media as being unrelated combat deaths, but there were too many of these ‘convenient’ deaths for them to all be coincidences in my opinion. So not only was there no proof whatsoever that bin-Laden had been killed at this time, but many of the people who were allegedly involved in the non-existent death, were no longer around to tell the story.

Pakistan national TV had already exposed the death as a lie, but the BBC also interviewed fifty residents of Abbottabad, where the ‘raid’ allegedly took place. The residents all said that it was impossible that Osama bin-Laden had lived in their midst without their knowledge and the person who lived next door to the alleged ‘bin-Laden compound,’ said that the resident shown in the American photo was not bin-Laden, but his neighbour whom he knew very well. The Pakistanis therefore openly accused the Americans of perpetrating a hoax.

Who can believe that the ‘terror mastermind,’ the head of what at the time was said to be the most dangerous terrorist organisation in the world, would be left alone, unguarded and unarmed, with only two women to protect him? And who can believe that such a defenceless person with such essential information for Washington’s war on terror would simply be shot on sight by US Navy SEALs? Why would Washington waste such an archive of information? Indeed, why would Washington forego the triumph of parading their captive before the world and confronting him in a courtroom with his crimes and why would Obama, faced with a re-election campaign, forego the patriotic publicity of a White House ceremony at which he pins medals on the heroic SEALs? What other politician would forego such an opportunity?

I find it very difficult to believe that the SEALs’ identity had to be protected in order to keep them safe from terrorists, or that Obama would let his re-election take a backseat to such a consideration? No politician would handle the real capture of Osama bin-Laden in such a politically wasteful way.

The Obama regime claimed to have given bin-Laden a Muslim burial at sea, from an aircraft carrier, The aircraft carrier had around 6,000 crew, yet from emails that sailors sent home to family and friends, none of them seem to have witnessed the sea-burial service. When this story of the emails reached the public domain, Washington quickly announced that bin-Laden’s burial was conducted in secret and that no-one but a few officers were involved. Think about this for a moment... Firstly, this was a massive victory in the war against terrorism yet it was being kept secret from sailors whose morale would have been raised, so why keep such a morale-boosting event from the crew of a warship? What was achieved by the secrecy? Secondly, do you really believe that an at-sea burial can be conducted on a ship with 6,000 personnel with watches being kept, with sailors on duty on deck around the clock, performing a variety of necessary functions, and no one saw anything? No, me neither. The whole idea is utterly preposterous.

Then, on 6th August 2011, a ‘Chinook’ helicopter was shot-down in Afghanistan. Within hours, even before family notifications could possibly have been completed, global press reports positively confirmed that 22 of the 30 Americans killed were not just SEALS, but members of ‘SEAL Team 6.’

Again, DEVGRU operations had, up until this time, been highly classified yet the Obama regime made a point of immediately revealing the identities of the SPECOPS forces casualties. In the past, DEVGRU men and other SPECOPS personnel had been killed in action, but their missions were so secret and so crucial to operational secrecy that their deaths were always covered-up by the government and attributed to such things as ‘training accidents’ and other non-specific causes.

The members of these secretive units understand that operational secrecy is paramount and that they will never be publicly acknowledged for their heroism, and that if they are killed or captured in action, the government will lie about that in order to protect its interests and to prevent the enemy from using the situation to its advantage. I would ask you to compare the reality with what actually happened. And also remember, that bin-Laden had been dead for many years. The raid of 2nd May was pure theatre to distract the world from the release of the forged Obama birth certificate.

The SEAL team families noticed that normal deployment operational procedures were not followed, that the entire SEAL team was loaded on a 50-year old Vietnam War-era helicopter and not dispersed as required on their normal modern attack helicopters, and that a variety of other procedures devised to protect such expensively trained Special Forces were not followed. SEAL team members, according to parents, had written home expressing concerns about their safety. And according to several parents, the SEALs themselves sensed that they were in danger from internal forces, not from the external enemy.

Questions still haunt the families of the members of the 2011 helicopter mission in Afghanistan. The investigative file made available to The Washington Times showed that the helicopter’s landing zone was not properly vetted for threats nor protected by gunships, while commanders had criticised the mission as too rushed, and the fifty-year-old Chinook as ill-suited for a dangerous troop infiltration.

“I have lots of unanswered questions. I want to know why so many US servicemen, especially SEALs, were assembled on one aircraft. I want to know why the black box of the helicopter has not been found. I want to know many things.” Sith Douangdara, whose 26-year-old son, John died in the crash.

Just as the aircraft carrier crew did not witness the at-sea burial of Osama bin-Laden, the members of the SEAL team were asking each other, “…who was on that mission that got bin Laden?” The answer was a very round number. Zero… none of them were and so, fearful of the ensuing ‘backlash’ that would follow the SEAL team’s discovery that none of them were present, they were eliminated.

Despite, or maybe even because of this deception, Obama was re-elected for a second term. And another contributory factor maybe, was another ‘popular’ death…

Muammar Gaddafi

Muammar Gaddafi, was certainly an unusual, so-called ‘dictator.’ In fact Libya under Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy. Their government was much more responsive to the people than the United States, Britain or any other western democracy. Given the lies and distortions of the bankster-controlled media, this does not seem possible, but the fundamental difference between our so-called ‘democratic’ systems and Libya’s direct democracy was that in Libya, citizens were given the chance to contribute directly to the political decision-making process.

We have a very tightly Zionist-controlled, indirect form of democracy with no real say in how the government is run. We only get to pretend to elect the puppet-criminals who run the country only for the benefit of the bankster-Elite. By contrast, all Libyans were allowed to voice their views directly, not simply in one parliament or ‘house’ of a few hundred elite politicians, but in hundreds of committees, manned by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya, before the murder of Gaddafi, was the most prosperous and democratic nation in Africa. And this was the real problem.

He raised the literacy rate from 20 per cent to 83 per cent.
He built one of the finest health care systems in the ‘Third World, whereby everyone had access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, free of charge and should a Libyan need surgery that was unavailable in Libya, funding was provided for the surgery overseas.
He raised the life expectancy from 44 to 75 years of age.
Basic food items were subsidised and electricity was made available throughout the country.
He developed huge irrigation projects in order to support a drive towards agricultural development and food self-sufficiency.
Recognising that water, not oil, would be the scarcest resource of the future, Gaddafi initiated the construction of the ‘Great Man Made River,’ which took years to complete. Referred to as a ‘wonder of the modern world,’ this river pumps millions of gallons of water daily from the heart of the Sahara desert to the coastal region, where the land is suitable for agriculture.
Any Libyan who wanted to become a farmer was given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, livestock and seed.
Gaddafi vowed that his own parents, who lived in a tent in the desert, would not be housed until every Libyan was housed.
Under Gaddafi, Libya had attained the highest standard of living in Africa.
Gaddafi put up a communications satellite, the first by an African nation, to bring the continent of Africa into line with 21st century technology. This also bypassed the massive fees that European companies had been charging Libya.
He gave women full access to education and employment.
Gaddafi nationalised his nation’s oil reserves and used the revenue to build schools, universities, hospitals, and infrastructure.
Money from Libya’s oil revenue was regularly deposited into the bank account of every citizen.

In 2010 Gaddafi offered to invest $97bn in Africa to free it from Western influence, on condition that African states rid themselves of corruption and nepotism. Gaddafi always dreamed of a well-developed, united Africa and was about to make that dream come true – and nothing was more terrifying to the banksters than a developed, united Africa.

He was also planning a return to a ‘gold standard’ and to introduce the Gold Dinar, a single African currency that would serve as an alternative to the US dollar and allow African nations to share the wealth. But most of all it was Gaddafi’s ‘golden oil’ plan, which would have wrecked the banksters’ monopoly over the global economy that signed and sealed his death warrant. The proposed gold dinar instituted by Libya would have had serious consequences for the corrupt world financial system, but would also have empowered the people of Africa, which the banksters wanted to avoid at all costs.

Gaddafi’s gold dinar plan and his intention to cease selling Libyan oil in US dollars, demanding payment instead in gold-backed dinars, would have destroyed the US Dollar according to many observers. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

Saddam attempted something similar in 2000 with the result that Iraq was invaded and he was eliminated. Iran began selling oil in Euros rather than US Dollars and the country was immediately placed on the ‘hit list’ and totally vilified. And as soon as Gaddafi began plans for the gold dinar, gold for oil, he was ambushed and assassinated on the street.

So who else would like to play assassination-roulette with the all-powerful wizards of the banking cartels, with US foreign policy and dollar supremacy? No one else has the military might, nor the courage to play such a dangerous game... except for perhaps Russia and China, but they are both quite complicit in the current status quo anyway.

The French President at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a, “threat to the financial security of the world.” The Elite were apparently panicking over Gaddafi’s plans.

“Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power-elite, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks. So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward for removing him from power…The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence. Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea. Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gaddafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.” Financial analyst, Anthony Wile, editor of the ‘Daily Bell.’

According to Wile, Gaddafi’s plan would have strengthened the entire continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money, not to mention international investors who had long been concerned over America’s insolvency. It would have been especially devastating for the US economy, the American dollar, and particularly the Elite-banksters.

“…if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported ‘democratic’ uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from ‘freshly counterfeited funny-money.’ Had Gaddafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large. But a Gaddafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperilled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.” Ilana Mercer, ‘WorldNetDaily’

Of course, none of this was reported in the western, mainstream media.

Adding credence to the theory of why Gaddafi had to be eliminated, as The New American reported in March, was the strange decision of the ‘rebel’ opposition to Gaddafi to create a central bank to replace Gaddafi’s state-owned monetary authority. This decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict. In a statement, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company, and more significantly, “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

So, in just a few short weeks, amid complete unrest in Libya, not knowing if they would or could maintain their new-found power, these mostly financially-illiterate ‘rebels’ thought that a Central Bank would be a good idea? Why change something that had worked perfectly for years, had brought Libya out of poverty, something that the nation owned, into a new central bank owned by the same Elitist criminals that own America’s Federal Reserve? Why handover all of their resources to an international banking cartel? To thoughtfully and generously prevent a ‘world-wide financial panic,’ or because they were under the control of the international banksters?

The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left financial analysts across the world scratching their heads, and simply asking, ‘why?’

“I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag-tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. The uprising looks like a major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.” Robert Wenzel, for the Economic Policy Journal.

In 2007, the former US General, Wesley Clark told Democracy Now that just ten days after 9/11, another general had told him that the Bush government was planning to invade, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. What all these countries had in common at the time, was that they were not members of the BIS, the Bank of International Settlements, i.e., the banking cartel.

The ‘Human Rights Watch’ reported that there had NEVER been any type of civilian bloodbath by Gaddafi, contrary to what we had been told by the professional liars in the mainstream media. We were also told constantly that Gaddafi, was a ‘madman,’ a brutal dictator and a grave danger to peace. However, there is plenty of evidence to counter this. There is plenty of film footage depicting Ghaddafi riding in an open car, standing and waving to the crowds for miles in the open air, standing on balconies, an easy target in fact for an assassin, with no security guards to protect him. There were no attempts on his life during all his years as Libyan leader – except from the US, which ultimately succeeded. He was nothing like the much-hated and vilified fiend that he was portrayed to be by the Zionist news media.

Indeed, why would a people living in such a benevolent society hate Ghaddafi? According to polls, over 83% of them deeply grieved his death. He roamed freely in Libyan streets, not once coming under attack from his people, not until he threatened the international banksters, that is. The killing of Muammar Gaddafi at the hands of the banksters’ NATO-backed forces marked the end of a campaign expressly aimed at the assassination of a legally-elected head of state and the overthrow of a sovereign country in direct violation of international standards that had been in force since the Nuremberg trials at the end of WWII and the establishment of the Geneva Conventions.

The NATO campaign, known as ‘Operation Unified Protector,’ was a continuation of the US-led Operation ‘Odyssey Dawn.’ It formally began on 23rd March 2011 and was ostensibly an operation to enforce United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. From the outset, the NATO coalition partners insisted that the aim of the mission was not to assist a rebel insurgency in overthrowing the Gaddafi government, but to ‘protect civilians,’ in accordance with UN resolutions.

Within one month, the true aim of the intervention, to assassinate Gaddafi was confirmed when NATO forces bombed the personal residence of Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, Muammar’s youngest son in an admitted attempt to kill the Libyan leader himself. While Gaddafi himself was not caught in the strike, his son and three of his grandchildren were killed in the bombings. Muammar Gaddafi, leader of the Libyan people for 42 years, was brutally executed in a series of events on 20th October 2011 in the coastal city of Sirte. The city had been a bastion of resistance to the US-NATO war in Libya which had been raging for over eight months.

Gaddafi, 69, was in Sirte directing the resistance fighters who had defended the country against a bankster imperialist-engineered civil war and bombing campaign that had resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Libyans and other foreign nationals. Just two days prior to the assassination of Gaddafi, Obama’s Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton was in Libya meeting with the National Transitional Council rebel regime calling for the capture and killing of the leader who had ruled the North African state since the Al-Fateh Revolution of September 1969.

The strike that resulted in the death of Gaddafi was initiated, organised, coordinated and led by NATO and SAS forces. The attack began when Gaddafi was fleeing Sirte in a convoy of 75 vehicles. Drone pilots at Creech Air Force base in Nevada launched a round of Hellfire missiles from a Predator drone aircraft, destroying the lead vehicle and prompting a French bomber to release two laser-guided 500 pound bombs into the centre of the convoy. British SAS troops, meanwhile, coordinated the ground forces that eventually captured Gaddafi.

It was initially said that Gaddafi was killed in crossfire involving loyalist forces and the NTC rebels. However, this fabrication quickly evaporated when a video, shot by someone in the ‘lynch-mob’ showed that Gaddafi was alive when apprehended, then beaten and brutally sodomised, before being summarily executed without trial.

And then there were three. Now only three countries in the entire world are without a Rothschild-controlled Central Bank…

Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Libya is no longer on the list.

So it is said that we are fighting a ‘war on (of) terror’ against Islamic fundamentalists. We are deceptively told that they are greatest threat of all, to our ‘freedom.’ Which freedom is this I would venture to ask? They, not ‘we’ are killing Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen and anywhere else the Global Hawk can reach. No trial or evidence is required, just summary execution by the invisible hand of western justice. When Bush junior was in power he said, “…we will bring them to justice,” which apparently now only involves an Air Force computer operator in Reno, Nevada pressing the ‘kill’ button. In the process they (I refuse to use the term ‘we’ – these sadistic mass-murderers do not represent me) have made war and destroyed the infrastructure of several sovereign countries and killed millions of innocent people, all under the guise of ‘liberation.’

The original terrorists who began the uprising in Libya, had suddenly become ‘freedom fighters.’ By what magic did this transformation occur? How did Obama, Hillary Clinton et al, transform those bloodthirsty terrorists, worthy of summary execution in any other circumstances, into the heroes of liberation in Libya? Are these terrorists now ‘their’ new allies in the War of Terror? If our friends in the US decide to overthrow the criminal cabal in Washington and Wall Street, will they too, be embraced as ‘heroes and liberators?’

If we drag the banksters through the streets, torture, beat and kill them, will we be heroes? In one set of circumstances they would appear to be terrorists and yet in another they are the new ‘heroes of democracy.’

If American ‘patriots’ took back their country back from the banks and corporations, would they still be patriots – or terrorists? Would they be embraced as heroes or would NATO attempt to eliminate them? Would they bomb them back to the Stone Age and call it ‘saving civilian lives’ and ‘liberation?’ Would they send in black ops and Special Forces and the SAS to track them down and coordinate air strikes? Would they even bother with a UN resolution or just take the law into their own hands?

Gaddafi was of course confused by this too. He now trusted the West again. He had turned over his WMDs to Bush, delayed upgrading his missile air defence system and long range weapons. He was a man of peace but the leaders of the West that had once embraced him as a friend and ally were again trying to kill him, as Reagan had in 1986. Beware westerners bearing gifts. Do you think that the banksters may have been after the spoils of war? The oil, and not forgetting the 144 tons of gold! Gaddafi’s last recorded words to his captors were, “Do you know right from wrong?” Apparently not.

Many ‘brainwashed’ people seem to enjoy this macabre spectacle of betrayal and butchery. They justify it to themselves by convincing themselves that Gaddafi was a ‘brutal dictator’ and deserved his fate. I saw only the brutality of America, the UK, France, NATO and the ‘terrorist rats’ they used to depose Gaddafi. Libya today is a testament to the west’s deception, brutality, treachery and moral corruption and also to their thievery as they the appropriate the $200bn of sovereign wealth funds Libya had invested around the world. The bankster-sponsored leaders of the free world are the real brutal murderers and terrorists.

Actors and stooges

The so-called leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was trained by the Israeli Mossad in psychological warfare and he is essentially an actor playing the role of ‘Islamic radical.’ This is not the first time that a Zionist asset has posed as an Islamic radical in order to blacken the name of Islam. Shortly after 9/11, an American Jew named Adam Pearlman began calling himself Adam Gadahn. He grew an Islamic-style beard and then allegedly joined al-Qaeda, becoming the group’s ‘spokesman’ and PR man. Gadahn appeared in numerous, menacing al-Qaeda videos preaching ‘jihad” against America, but his cover was blown when a newspaper revealed him to be the grandson of a prominent Zionist, who sat on the Board of Directors of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Zionism’s prominent propaganda arm in the US.

adam_yahiye_gadahn_adam_pearlman_eua_terrorista_465

Adam Pearlman

ISIS’s true intention, many claim, is to incite sectarian divide in Israel’s neighbouring states, thereby advancing Tel Aviv’s divide and conquer,’ policy for the fracturing of its regional foes. Is it a coincidence that ISIS and its affiliates have targeted Libya, Iraq, Syria and whilst leaving alone the corrupt, US-backed dictatorships in Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Not to mention ISIS’s complete lack of action against Israel or the US.

What also remains unmentioned by the ‘air-heads’ of the mainstream media, for obvious reasons, is that many of the problems in the Middle East would not exist if not for the establishment of Israel in 1948 on the blood of the Palestinians and many others. Much of the unrest in the region stems from that original sin. The bellicose, racist regime in Tel Aviv is bent not only on the conquest of the Middle East but the whole world, as pronounced in coded language by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in a 1962 interview published in Look Magazine. In the interview Ben-Gurion outlined his vision for the future, predicting that by 1987 all countries and continents, with the exception of the Soviet Union, “…will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.” In other words, Ben-Gurion envisioned Jerusalem to be the centre of an NWO global government led by the Zionists.

untitled-jpg

Everything we were taught and brought up to believe in is totally corrupt… Fake ISIS beheadings made the headlines in 2014. This was the latest technique that the power-crazed, psychopathic ruling elite are attempting to inflict upon the awakening masses. They are very well-versed in human psychology, and know how war-weary people have become. Thus, in order to garner enough public support in America, Britain and elsewhere for their planned WWIII, they are not only resorting to fear (an age old tactic,) but in addition to that, they are resorting to horror and revulsion. So just in case the public are not quite scared enough by the new bogeyman ISIL/ISIS/IS, then they will hopefully be so traumatised by the fake ISIS beheadings that they will support a Western invasion of Syria and Iran.

This is pure trauma-based mind-control, but for mass public consumption. As was the JFK assassination and the 9/11 false flag operation, it is orchestrated horror to psychologically disrupt the inherent benevolence of 99.99% of humanity. However, this tactic did not fool everyone. These amateur productions are just, too fake. None of them portray the actual alleged moment of killing, they all just fade to black at that point. Why would ISIS, renowned for its brutality suddenly stop short and censor themselves? Of course they would not and they did not, because the whole thing is faked. I apologise in advance for the pictures below. Had they been real, I would not have included them. Please remember that they are faked and that that is not a real, executed person, nor is it real blood, which turns almost black extremely quickly.

376103_james-foley

The fake ISIS ‘beheading’ of James Foley

There are many ‘giveaways’ that indicate that this was definitely a fake beheading. Consider that:

Foley had a stoic voice before his supposed execution and showed no sign that he was about to die.
He appeared to be laughing, just before his supposed beheading.
Who among us would just kneel there calmly and submit to having his head removed with a knife?
The video did not show the alleged moment of execution – no cutting, no stabbing, and no blood.
Different people appeared to be used for the role of James Foley.
The FBI concealed all their information on James Foley.
Foley’s ‘parents’ seem to be paid CIA crisis actors. (More of this later)

The pattern continued…

Sotloff2-2740998-20FF2C3100000578-723-634x450

Fake ISIS beheading of Steven Sotloff

the-fake-journalist-steven-sotlof

As with the fake Foley beheading, evidence again demonstrated that the event was faked.

There was absolutely nothing in the background apart from sand and ‘blue-ness.’
Sotloff was dead calm and emotionless before his supposed execution.
The video was extremely professionally done.
Why did his supposed mother make her bizarre plea?
The Israeli organisation SITE (Search for International Terrorist Entities) were the first to come up with the video (as their co-founder Rita Katz let slip.) How? Because it was they who produced / commissioned it.

hqdefault

Crisis Actors

No book outlining all the crimes and peripheral criminal activities of a small group of people who control the world, would be complete without an explanation of how they are ably assisted in the facilitation of all the ongoing deceptions and charades, that make up the world of the banksters.

How do the banksters perpetrate all these false flag shootings and all the other atrocities that seem to constantly occur all around the world today, without being immediately called to account? They do it by the large-scale hiring of so-called ‘crisis actors,’ people who are willing to lie and prostitute themselves in return for huge payouts, about how they or their now ‘sadly-deceased’ loved ones were caught-up in the manufactured violence. The ‘crisis actor’ phenomenon has now reached almost saturation point and their presence has become so widespread and ubiquitous, that it is now of almost epidemic proportions.

Are we all too concerned with the event itself that no one has stopped to ask the question, how can we track down and hold accountable these actors who are greatly contributing to the destruction of freedoms all around the world? It is a brand new narrative and it is something that truth and freedom-lovers will have to tackle at some point in the near future, if humanity is to survive future catastrophes.

The need for an investigative body that will penetrate the secrecy of government to hold crisis actors (among others) responsible for their crimes is urgent. So let me be one of the first to say it… Crisis actors are just as guilty as those in power, who are committing crimes against humanity, and they must all be held accountable. It is past time now to view crisis actors in this manner from now on.

All crisis actors are guilty of treason against the people of the world as they have engaged in deceit of the general public in return for significant monetary gain and convenient protection by the state for the purposes of enslaving the masses and promoting tyranny. Many of us have watched in horror as treasonous crisis actors have partaken in mass-shooting ‘drills’ that ‘go live.’ They then engage in lying testimonies regarding these staged events. They have been caught-out in many deceptions, including appearing at several different staged events, offering impossible details often inconsistent with reality; offering overly-analytical, detailed descriptions of events with the sole intention of selling the official account; inappropriately laughing in moments we are led to believe they are supposed to be mourning tragic losses of close loved ones; stuttering inexplicably, reading their lines from prepared cards; magically describing what others are thinking, and for good measure appearing on live TV and calling for more gun control in the light of this new crisis.

Sooner or later humanity as a whole will have to strip down the veneer of lies and deceit, behind which these crisis actors exist. We have to first wrap our minds around the reality and the seriousness of their crimes. Realise that these crisis actors are the forefront of the New World Order and as absolute traitors, not only to their countries and their families, but also to the human race as a whole, they should all be subject to arrest. As traitors they have been offered a ‘seat at the table,’ by those who want to take away our freedoms, destroy nation states and establish their New World Order.

The crisis actor phenomenon that we see today had small beginnings. We always knew that some people lied on live TV about 9/11, but then they were referred to as simply collaborators and liars. The phenomenon today has reached a whole new level, look and feel.

This lying phenomenon seems to have become deeply embedded by Hollywood into the collective consciousness of humanity. Numerous TV shows over the past few years have focused on the concept of lying and have subliminally trivialised or made light of lying. Often lies are painted as a positive with respect to doing business. This is called ‘marketing,’ and at other times, the goal is to convey the idea that lying is normal. I believe all of these social-engineering agendas have contributed in some way to today’s crisis actor phenomenon.

Crisis actors now take their place alongside others such as drone operators, Chemtrail pilots, mercenary black ops groups and members of bankster proxy-army groups such as ISIS. All of these groups have offered themselves up as tools of the New World Order, partaking in crimes against humanity without consequence. These are people of zero-conscience who have perhaps been mind-controlled, lured with money and power or have simply chosen to ignore their consciences in order to commit acts of evil against humanity for monetary gain.

It was soon discovered by researchers that the bodies supposedly massacred in a Paris nightclub venue in the Paris attacks of 2015, were dummies, planted by the spinmeisters who arranged the whole hoax to convince the public that the bloody stunt really happened. This ridiculous situation compares with the Sandy Hook incident, in which children were claimed to have been killed but no bodies were ever reported being seen by local hospitals. It was a prima facie example of the police, whose mandate is supposedly to protect and serve us, actually preventing us from discovering the truth of a major crime.

The Boston Marathon bombing was another government sponsored charade, with one designated patsy murdered in the streets by police and his brother sentenced to die by a kangaroo court without ever being allowed to put forward his side of the story. Still, again, why change a highly successful formula?

The conspiracy conducting this long-running political campaign to get people to give up their guns is insidious and seemingly inextinguishable, despite the fact that it only increases gun sales. It includes the entire Zionist-controlled media, of course, and journalists and police at every level willing to participate in scams for which, in the specific case of Sandy Hook, they were paid millions of dollars for their participation.

But why are governments so keen for us to relinquish arms? To completely subdue us and remove our ability to defend ourselves from any future assaults on our rapidly disappearing freedoms. This process is well underway. The media slander those that insist on the retention of the capability and right to ‘bear arms’ but it is this group that are defending the rest of us from an unthinkable future, total governmental control of every aspect of our lives.

Doctors who try to circumvent the poisonous medicines of Big Pharma, are suicided by those who want to continue to poison their patients and deny life-saving techniques and medicines from people who really need them. A pertinent simile may be Ray Bradbury’s depiction in his novel ‘Fahrenheit 451’ of firemen whose job is to start fires instead of extinguishing them, which is a parallel of the behaviour of the US military monster today, which rather than protecting citizens is concerned only with murdering those innocents for totally false reasons, and the intelligence community creating fake terrorist incidents and then prosecuting and convicting innocent patsies to make government agents appear as heroes, when in reality they are criminals.

As Bradbury’s deranged firemen burned books as well as the minds of would-be intellects oppressed by their governments, so our military and police today do exactly the opposite of their raison d’étre, preserving our safety and defend our freedoms. Instead they intimidate the majority into silence and leave them cringing in fear and hoping to avoid a violent police / paramilitary team crashing through their front door even though they are at the wrong address.

The Zionists who control the ‘first world’ are never going to listen to reason and suddenly agree to behave in a reasonable and rational manner. They are going to keep stealing and killing until they are either stopped or all resistance is dead. But unfortunately, the vast majority of ‘sheeple’ are unconcerned with matters of justice. They just sit at home and watch the violence and horror on TV, and close their minds to the realities of what is going-on outside their front doors. At exactly the time we need more people to behave like Fahrenheit 451’s hero, Guy Montag and stop this slide into insanity, where truth is whatever our voracious governments say it is, we are instead seeing an unprecedented ‘burying of heads in the sand’ as to what needs to be done to ensure the survival, not just of our species, but every other species too.

Iran

As stated earlier, when one discusses the reasons for military action, invasion, and occupation from the point of the view of the globalists who direct such operations, there is seldom only one reason for any given action. However, when one considers the information presented here, it would be foolish to rule out the motivation of the imposition of private, central banks upon the last few remaining countries to resist the banksters’ tyranny.

Indeed, one need only look at recent history and the targets of US/NATO military operations to discern a distinct pattern. Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya were all countries outside the clutches of the international banking cartel, and they are all countries which have now been attacked, occupied, threatened and fractured by US/NATO power -- usually based on fabricated excuses. Syria, another country without a state-owned central bank, is likewise being subjected to the Anglo-American onslaught.

Although experiencing the political and financial ramifications of even the slightest resistance to global banking interests, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea are now the only remaining ones awaiting their eventual, inevitable fate. Nevertheless, whilst Syria is the most immediate target of the NATO war machine, it only wins that distinction by a narrow margin. Iran, even in some mainstream views, remains a close second. Indeed, in most knowledgeable circles it is understood that Syria is merely a stepping stone to the larger goal of an invasion of Iran. The vultures are circling and they are just waiting for the right moment to attack their helpless prey.

There is no doubt that the peaceful government of Iran has been targeted for elimination. However, between the pure Globalist, George Soros-Bilderberger faction, and the radical Zionist faction of the New World Order, there is a deep divide over how to overthrow Iran. The Bilderberger Globalists believe that a military invasion of Iran is costly and risky and they would prefer to internally subvert Iran with a CIA-style ‘Colour Revolution.’ The Zionists on the other hand, have little patience for long term strategies. They want it all… now!

iranusbases

The inter-faction dispute is so fierce that at one point, Globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski openly suggested that the US shoot-down Israeli planes if they attempt to bomb Iran. The Zionists then responded by using some of their controlled talk radio ‘mouthpieces’ to make ‘limited’ verbal attacks upon the adherents of Soros, and even the Bilderberg conferences. The Bilderberger / Trilateralists then fought back by exposing scandals related to the FOX News chief, international media mogul, and arch neo-con Rupert Murdoch.

Obama is clearly in the Soros / Brzezinski / Bilderberg camp, but he also knows that he must respect the Zionist / neo-con power base too. Like two competing Mafia Families, the internal squabbles between the Bilderbergers and the Israel-Firsters can be very ugly at times. But, both the lunatic factions of this New World Order crime-gang ultimately work against the interests of the people and will no doubt eventually arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement, over the Iran situation.

An October 2009 article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph showed a photograph of the Iranian President holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008. This clearly shows that his family has Jewish roots as a close-up of the document revealed that he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. The short note scrawled on the card suggests that his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they ‘converted’ to Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians were from Aradan, Ahmadinejad’s birthplace, and the name derives from ‘weaver of the Sabour,’ the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran’s Ministry of the Interior. Some believe that Ahmadinejad’s track record of hate-filled attacks on Israel, is an over-compensation to hide his past, but is maybe just possible that he is yet another actor, another closet Zionist who is acting out his role as controlled opposition?

Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioning its right to exist and denying the Holocaust. In fact British diplomats once walked out of a UN meeting after the Iranian President denounced Israel’s “…genocide, barbarism and racism.” Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit… “Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations.”

Pure theatre.

Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Holocaust™…. “They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets,” he declared at a conference on the Holocaust™ staged in Tehran in 2006.

Netanyahu’s bitter ravings about Iran wanting to, “wipe-out the State of Israel,” has since been exposed as a deliberate fabrication by wire service translators working for Western news agencies. In October 2005, speaking to a large audience of students in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said, “The Imam said this régime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” This was a slight mis-quotation of a comment made 25 years earlier by Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Khomeini was referring to the Zionist régime currently, and temporarily, in occupation Jerusalem government and his comment was a prediction, not a threat.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad took great care to make his meaning clear in his own speech. If all the inhabitants of the land of Palestine, Muslims, Jews and Christians, one day had the right to vote freely and choose a régime of their own preference, the Zionists would disappear from governance in Palestine just as, for example, the Communist régime had disappeared from Russia when the Soviet Union crumbled in 1989-1991.

Despite this, Western political spin-doctors continued, willfully, to use the contrived version of Ahmadinejad’s words to escalate perceived tensions between Iran and Israel in the media. As recently as September 2011, speaking to the UN General Assembly in New York, Obama lied, “Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map.” The media-manufactured conflict between Israel and Iran was never a conflict between peoples, it was a pre-arranged, theatrical clash between two Sabbatean Satanist national leaders who were close colleagues in a Middle East-based global subversion. Ahmadinejad (aka Sabourjian), let us not forget, is Jewish-born. He claims that Israel is occupying Palestine ‘illegitimately,’ and that Israel should not be considered as a country and even traditional ‘Torah’ Jews agree with this.

Ahmadinejad is himself a Torah Jew, as proven by his birth certificate. Maybe the reason that Israel wishes to totally destroy Iran is that Iran has the largest population of Torah, i.e., ‘real’ Jews, in the Middle East, outside of Israel. Remember that the Zionists hate the real Jews as much as they do the Muslims and Christians. His speech was not about destroying Israel, it was about removing the Khazars, or Ashkenazi Jews who were the causing of all the problems in the Middle East.

Islam forbids the charging of interest, a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago, charging interest was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was rightly considered as exploitation and enslavement. Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to entice a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus enter into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If any leader refuses to accept the loan, he is often either ousted or assassinated and if all else fails, military invasions will follow, and a Rothschild-controlled, usury-based bank is then established.

The Rothschilds exert an extremely powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies and so by repetition of lies and propaganda, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about the ‘evil villains’ who oppose them. They control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements.

To equate the New World Order with Zionism is incorrect. Zionism is just one pincer in the NWO. The other is the ‘controlled opposition-to-Zionism,’ represented by Russia’s Putin and Iran’s Ahmadinejad. The Rothschilds control them both through MI-6 and the Mossad.

This dialectic succeeds the Nazi- Communist one of WWII. Putin and Ahmadinejad have been cast as defenders of ‘nation’ and ‘religion.’ But do not be fooled. This is the Rothschild modus operandi. They routinely simulate an opposition and fight among themselves. In this way they can initiate profitable conflicts and orchestrate the outcome. Wars keep us off balance and unable to address the real problem, the only problem… the banksters.

Chapter 23

The Last Word

Rod Serling, presenter of the original version of ‘The Twilight Zone’

Three centuries of bankster crimes against humanity… three centuries of mass murder, extortion, slavery, genocide and Satanism, on such a massive scale that the unsuspecting masses cannot easily comprehend or understand it and which has therefore protected those responsible from scrutiny and indictment. Most people are totally unable or unwilling to wake-up and recognise the crimes that are committed every single-day, around them, because of their cognitive dissonance. This is not the fictional Twilight Zone, it’s the REAL one.

These criminals have long succeeded in brainwashing and conditioning their victims to be happy and grateful for their enslavement and ignorance. They take great comfort in knowing that the masses are too consumed with their own daily routines and survival, to care, or even notice their criminality.

Mark Twain said it most aptly… “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled.”

Indeed, the world is run by evil psychopaths, sociopaths and Satanists, aided and abetted by a conscience-less minority with no morality. Seven billion people in the world; controlled by less than 70,000 people. That is, 99.999% of the world’s population controlled, manipulated and used by one thousandth of one-percent or 0.001% of them.

This global banking mafia I have referred to throughout as the banksters, are headed by the Rothschild-Zionist international bankers who control the multi-generational Anglo-Royal families who are senior members of the ancient Sun/Lucifer worshipping pagan, occult secret societies the JASON Society, Chapter 322 of the Order of Skull and Bones, 33rd degree Luciferian Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Scroll and Key, Knights of Malta, Templars, etc., who since 1983 have also infiltrated and now control the Vatican, the Jesuits and Black Nobility, etc. They are collectively known as the Illuminati, Globalists, the Elite money power etc. But whatever name or description you care to use, ‘banksters’ are what they really are.

This Global Banking Mafia and their descendants, in-laws and agents (Rockefeller, JP Morgan, DuPont, Carnegie, Astor, Warburg, Aldrich, Schiff, Mellon, Ford, Committee of 300, etc.) own and control ALL the central and private banks, oil, gas, mining, diamond and gold production and Fortune 500 corporations, plus ‘think tanks,’ universities, institutes, charities, churches, synagogues, round tables, Councils, Commissions, Committees, focus groups, foundations, NGOs and ALL political parties.

They in turn finance and manipulate the Malthusian, pro-depopulation-minded minions of heavily bribed, blackmailed and brainwashed (Tavistock, Rand, Stanford, NTL, IPS, etc.) educators, clergy, scientists, medical, military, intelligence, corporate, media and political useful idiots into intentionally creating and promoting synthetic terror, fake dictators, fictitious terrorist groups, false flag attacks, pointless wars, racial conflicts, artificial famine, intentional drought, toxic additives in foods, man-made disease, fake pandemics, and environmental and economic disasters. These tyrants of terror constantly promote and engender fear in order to make trillions in profit by providing fake solutions for their self-invented, non-existent threats. To understand this phenomenon better, I recommend reading George Orwell’s, 1984. This explains it all so much better than I ever could.

Marxism, Globalism, the New World Order... All these are euphemisms for a phenomenon embodied in the invisible empire of the Rothschild family. The Rothschilds do not die, they simply depart into history, and their place is inconspicuously taken by their sons and grandsons, down the generations. It is said that the old master, Jacob has now left this mortal life, and that his place has now been occupied by his son Nathan (Nathaniel Philip Rothschild, who bears the name of the founder of the English Rothschilds.) The heavy burden has fallen on the frail shoulders of the young heir, but Nathan is far from alone. In the running of the ‘empire’ he will be aided by his uncles Evelyn and Edmund and the other members of the English branch of the family, Catherine, Emma, Leopold) and also his French cousins, David and Eduard.

The Rothschild family, for generations, has produced presidents, governors, prime ministers, ministers and other controllers who are making sure that everything goes according to their grand plan. The European Union (EU) was created by the Rothschilds in 1950 by Robert Schuman, a Khazar. The EU is an exploiter of Russia, which to this end the Rothschilds have employed Soros, Berezovski, Hodorkovski, Kasparov, etc. In order to unveil the background and causes of these events, we must delve into the dark history of the Khazar Rothschild dynasty; identify the agents, the grey eminences, the greedy politicians, as well as the mechanisms of their actions.

Let us start with the Rothschilds, the main characters, as they are the ones sitting at the head of the table. Although ever since World War II the Rothschild departments for the creation of public opinion have been assuring people that the power of the Rothschilds today is insignificant and that they will be remembered for their vineries in France or gardens, stately homes and philanthropy in Great Britain, reality presents a completely different picture. Building upon the foundations laid by their fathers and grandfathers, the present-day descendants are continuing a mission that has lasted for several centuries. Today, the Rothschilds have the conquest of Russia firmly in their sights, aided by the armies of NATO, which fights for the continuance and expansion of the Rothschild Empire. The Rothschilds originate from Frankfurt and it is no coincidence that this is the greatest financial centre in the EU. It is very significant that Frankfurt is the seat of the Central European Bank and all the major European and American banks, which are mainly controlled by the Rothschild dynasty.

The Rothschilds claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars. They are from an area, formerly called Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia.

The reason the Rothschilds claim to be Jewish is that the Khazars under the instruction of their King, converted to the Jewish faith in 740 AD, but of course that did not include converting their Asiatic Mongolian genes to the genes of the Jewish people. Approximately 90% of people in the world today who call themselves ‘Jewish’ are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. When their empire fell apart in 10th century they settled down across Russia and Eastern Europe, but they are ‘converts’ and have no Semitic origins or genetics at all. The original, Semitic Jews from the Holy Land, make-up about 7 to 10% of the Jewish population of the world and are treated as ‘second-class citizens’ by the Ashkenazim in Israel. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright and by God’s decree, when in actual fact their ‘real’ homeland is a thousand miles away in Georgia.

Prince Charles, the heir to the throne of England, routinely lectures the ‘unwashed masses’ about sustainability and the environment. And whilst stating that the ‘age of convenience’ must come to an end to save the planet, in 2009 he embarked on a 16,000 mile trip in a luxury converted Airbus with fourteen of his staff at a cost of £300,000 to the taxpayer, to browbeat people of the world into limiting their carbon dioxide emissions. Whilst ordering the ‘peasants’ not to eat beef to help mother earth and insisting that people ‘use less resources,’ he himself eats the finest foods prepared by the royal family’s many chefs as he relaxes in the surroundings of his four estates, including his Highgrove estate which covers over 900 acres.

The fact that the leaders of a movement that is trying to convince the middle class to restrict their family sizes and even remain childless, suppressing their quality of life and obsessing about CO2 emissions, are ultra-rich elitists who themselves spring from huge, sprawling family dynasties and generate hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide as they gallivant around the globe living a life of opulence, all the while instructing us mere mortals to refrain from doing so, should tell us something about the credibility of the message.

Queen Elizabeth II’s shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. The Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002... “…the reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments. This is because her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike the members of the Commons and now the Lords, the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests...”

One rule for us… and no rules at all for them.

In fact, the Bank of England Nominees scheme has been available for decades to the entire World’s current heads of state to allow them anonymity when buying shares. Therefore, when a company publishes a share register and the ‘Bank of England Nominees’ is listed, it is not possible to gauge whether the Queen, Obama or even Benjamin Netanyahu is the true shareholder.

The Royal Family’s newest member is Jewish. During the wedding ceremony it was pretended that Kate Middleton is Christian but her family roots clearly show that she is a Sephardic Jew on her mother’s side. Moreover the timing of the wedding and the way it was based on Jewish culture verify the evidence. Her mother’s maiden surname was Goldsmith and according to Jewish laws if a mother is Jewish, then her children are also Jewish. Therefore Kate Middleton is a Sephardic Jew and her children are Jewish, based on Jewish law.

This gains more significance once we acknowledge that she is the wife of a man who will be not only become the king of England but also the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Sources close to them have said that Kate Middleton and her parents would not regularly attend the church service, therefore the Church of England decided to baptise the new member ‘unofficially’ and secretly so that her marriage to Prince William could be confirmed. Nevertheless even baptism cannot prevent Prince William’s son, the next king and head of the Church of England, from being technically Jewish.

However, this scenario does not end there. There are others in the British Royal Family who were and are Jewish. The late Princess Diana was also born to a Jewish mother and was thus officially Jewish and therefore her sons William and Harry are also Jewish, by default.

The British Empire

Britain has been a global bully and manipulator of nations for hundreds of years and it has long sought to conquer and exploit the people of the world – including its own. The British Empire that began to emerge from the late 16th and early 17th centuries onwards, became the biggest in known history.

At its peak in the 1920s, it covered more than 13 million square miles (about a quarter of the world’s surface and 458 million people, a quarter of the world’s population (as it was then,) was ruled from London. The entire British economy in that period was totally founded on the mass exploitation of resources and people, primarily in other ‘conquered’ territories. Britain was also heavily involved in the slave trade, much of which was co-ordinated by the House of Rothschild out of London, and many aristocratic and establishment families of today, made their past fortunes from it. The many natural resources of its colonies were appropriated and shipped back to Britain to be made into material goods in the sweatshop mills and factories in the manufacturing heartland, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the north of England and these products would then, as well as being sold domestically, be shipped back whence they came, in order to complete the resource / manufacture / profit cycle.

Of course the ‘great’ British Empire, was really the great British bankster Empire, founded on theft, mass-murder, misery and forced labour, both at home and aboard.

And of course, then as now, the British army were the banksters ‘enforcers,’ colonising huge swathes of Africa and the far east through genocide and destruction, either directly, or by manipulating factions in the target countries into civil wars to create the conditions that the British bankster establishment could exploit. The Zulu shaman, Credo Mutwa, the official historian of the Zulu nation, speaks of the British modus operandi in Africa, as employed by Rothschild agents such as Cecil Rhodes. For example, the British would often set one tribe against another for some trumped-up reason. Rhodes would then wait until one or both was close to annihilation and then offer the protection of the British Empire – at a price of course – usually their abundant natural resources of gold, silver and diamonds, for example.

The price was often also to become subject to the rule of the British monarch. The British establishment either played this ‘game’ or directly assumed control through military superiority.

The ‘British-Zulu Wars’ of the 1870s were a prime example of this strategy. Sir Henry Bartle Edward Frere, a British colonial administrator who made his name in India, was sent to South Africa to impose the centralised rule over the Confederation of South Africa, but quickly realised that this would not be possible without the total subjugation of the Zulu nation with its standing army of 40,000 warriors.

He firstly exaggerated the threat to the British posed by the Zulus, in order to win support back home for a war, (stop me if you have heard this one before, too) and then presented an ultimatum to the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, that Frere well-knew would be rejected. This included the disbanding of the Zulu army. As a result of this, two bloody wars followed and an estimated 10,000 Zulus died in a vain attempt to stop the British corporate war-machine imposing its will upon the indigenous populations. This was a story repeated over and over again.

In fact, the ‘great’ British Empire was also a major player in creating the mayhem and upheavals in the Middle East in league with its controllers, the House of Rothschild. American imperialism is simply the latest incarnation of British imperialism and this is why they continue to collaborate so closely. They are in effect, both the spawn of the same historical, psychopathic gene pool and work together as one single unit.

The strategy involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq was taken straight from the blueprint of the British Empire – the same technique they used, to justify war against the Zulus and so many others before and since. They are an obstacle to the multi-national corporations’ greed, which is then portrayed to the ‘people’ as being ‘a danger to the country’ and even the world, and so the banksters then receive their popular mandate to subdue and conquer them.

in/ the world and so we

The US has established its control over no less than 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or subduing or supervision of these various regions is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire planet. All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain. The US Military has bases in 63 countries and in total, there are more than a quarter of a million US military personnel deployed worldwide and the occupied land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands.

As detailed previously, in order to justify the vast, hugely corrupt military-industrial spending, the loss of civil and constitutional rights and to justify the 24/7 monitoring of everything we do… as history has proven time and again, they have to create an enemy otherwise known as the ‘problem.’ Fascism and Communism had limited potential, but they served the banksters well as the ‘problem’ almost throughout the entirety of the twentieth century. But now they have given us terrorism as our new ‘problem,’ and although it was created originally to vilify Muslims, it can also stretch to include any group that opposes the will of the banksters, be it patriots, freedom fighters, trades-unionists, strikers, those questioning the Holocaust™, 9/11 or indeed anything that the ‘government’ may deem as unlawful – or even against its best interests.

‘False flag’ attacks

In order to make the ‘problem’ credible and to manufacture an enemy where none exists, it is necessary to create it by the ‘framing’ of a group or a country, by use of a process known as a false-flag attack. Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the venom of the masses toward group the banksters may be seeking to vilify. That end may well be to engineer a war, or it may be aimed ultimately at the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights, whilst in some cases, it may be an economic agenda.

Indeed, ‘false flags’ come in many guises – domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other forms that are often a hybrid of several contributory elements. Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require. For instance, the chemical weapons attack which took place in Syria in August 2013, serves as an example of a foreign false flag designed to whip-up the American public’s fervour for war, in a similar vein to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam that sparked the desired (by the banksters) Vietnam War.

Domestically speaking, a large-scale false-flag attack such as 9/11 or 7/7, may be used to engender both massive public support for war and a popular willingness to surrender civil liberties, constitutional procedure, and constitutional or human rights – as indeed were the purposes for which 9/11 was used by the US government and to a lesser extent, other country’s governments also.

Smaller-scale domestic false-flags such as the Sandy Hook ‘shootings’ may often serve to invoke the implementation of gun-control measures or a greater police state. But there are, of course, many different versions of false-flag attacks and none fit any clearly defined descriptions, beyond the generalised term of ‘false-flag.’ With that in mind, it is also true that, whilst grand-scale false-flag attacks are always a possibility, it has usually been the smaller-scale events coming in the form of mass-shootings, most often of the ‘lone-nut’ gunman variety, that have been used most effectively by the banksters and their mouthpiece media outlets in recent years. But whilst the scale of the attacks has diminished, their frequency has increased correspondingly.

However, due to a growing, competent alternative media and research community, as quickly as these false-flag attacks are launched, a rapid spate of detailed deconstructions of the official narratives follow immediately in their wake. Whilst some critiques of the official version of events are totally incredible, bordering on paranoia and impossibility, there are nevertheless, capable researchers who are quickly able to expose the event and assign a credible purpose to it. Indeed, it is for this reason that the false flag has suffered serious setbacks in terms of its effectiveness and perhaps a contributory reason for the ongoing escalation of this tactic.

Because the false-flag attack is designed to instil fear, panic, and a programmed response from the general public, it is important to deconstruct the narrative of that attack as it is presented. However, given that these events seem to be increasing exponentially, it is important not to attempt to expose and deconstruct every false-flag that occurs. We cannot ignore the huge conflagration in order to extinguish the occasional, small brush fire. The false-flag after all, is only a symptom and not the disease itself.

It is therefore important that the public recognise all the indicators of the false flag when it happens, move on and thus render the attack as neutralised – apart from its victims and their families of course.

Here is a list of some of the most common elements present in false-flag attacks, and which should enable their immediate recognition…

1. High Profile Event. The first question to ask would be, “Is this a high profile incident?” The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. If an attack takes place at the World Trade Center complex causing the buildings to explode and collapse, or if it takes place at the White House, or Pentagon, it is clearly high profile. Thus, the location can be factored in. In other circumstances, however, the act itself may be the major factor such as was the case in Sandy Hook, an unimportant location but a horrific act (allegedly) that made world headlines. The most important factor, of course, is media attention. Regardless of location or the act, if the media ‘hypes-up’ the story and it appears simultaneously on all the major mainstream news channels, the incident can be considered a ‘high profile event.’

2. Changing Stories. In informed research circles, it is well-known that first reports, immediately after the event are usually the most reliable. This is not to discount the existence of early confusion, but the information will not yet have been subjected to the top-down media revision that will inevitably take place as the story is moulded to fit the narrative pushed by the individuals who either directed the attack or at least have connections with those who are able to control the manner in which various media outlets report it. For example, initial reports may point to five gunmen, yet very shortly afterwards, reports may only mention two. Then only a few hours later, all references to more than one gunman are redacted entirely, with only the ‘lone gunman’ story now remaining. This ‘final’ version of events will then be repeated in an ongoing loop for several days or even weeks in order to eradicate any remaining vestiges of the original story, which will of course thereafter be ridiculed as ‘mistaken’ or more likely, ‘conspiracy theory.’

3. Simultaneous Drills. Another hallmark of the false flag operation is the running of drills shortly before or during the actual ‘attack.’ Many times, these drills will involve the actual sequence of events that takes place during the real life attack. These drills have been present on large scale false-flags such as 9/11 and 7/7 as well as smaller scale attacks like the Aurora shooting. At least 46 drills were underway in the months leading up to 9/11 and on the morning of the attack. These drills were all directly related to the events which took place on 9/11. Likewise, the 7/7 bombings in London were running drills of exactly the same scenario that was occurring at exactly the same times and locations.

Operational drills are used by false-flag perpetrators for at least two reasons. One reason is the creation of intentional confusion if the drill is taking place during the actual attack. The other, more effective aspect, however, is using the drill as a ‘cloak’ under which to plan the attack or even ‘go live’ at the time to launch the event. Even more so, it gives the individuals who are involved in the planning of the event an element of cover, especially with the military / intelligence agency’s tight chain of command structure and ‘need-to-know’ only, philosophy. If a loyal military officer or intelligence agent stumbles upon the planning of the attack, that individual can always be told that what he has witnessed is nothing more than the planning of a training exercise. This plausible deniability continues all the way through to the actual instigation of the drill. Then, of course, after the completion of the event, ‘coincidence’ is used to explain away the tragic results.

4. Cui Bono? The most important question to ask immediately after any high profile incident is ‘cui bono?’ or ‘who benefits?’ Indeed this element is one of the basic tenets of crime detection in that whoever stands to benefit most from a crime is likely to be the one who committed it. If there is an obvious benefit to any entity, then it is relatively easy to detect a false-flag attack immediately. We should also look closely at the behaviour of these entities prior to the attack and shortly thereafter. For instance, the presence of legislation which would stand little chance of being passed before the attack but which is quickly passed afterwards is one clue that the conveniently-timed attack was actually a false-flag. Patriot Act style legislation had actually been written before 9/11, but stood little chance of passing in Congress due to the political climate in the United States at the time. After 9/11, however, the Patriot Act was fast-tracked through both Houses of Congress with virtually no debate and with the full endorsement of the American public, akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

To use 9/11 as an example, it is a fact that a number of individuals who were in positions of power within the US government during the time the attack occurred had desperately wanted to invade several Middle Eastern countries. After the attacks, a war psychosis gripped the ruling class of the United States and the outraged American public followed on in their wake on a media-instigated wave of patriotism and ‘war-fever.’

Following the ‘shoe’ and the ‘underwear’ bombings, came public acceptance of the implementation of full-body scanners at airports, a technology which would not have been readily accepted prior to the incident and subsequent propaganda campaign. However, the scanners had already been purchased in bulk, one year earlier, by a firm owned by Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security. Of course, the same can be said for the explosion of crazed ‘lone-gunman’ shooting sprees that took place all across the United States amid propaganda pushing for increased gun control measures.

5. Unanswered Questions. Another hallmark of the false-flag operation is relatively obvious – the presence of unanswered questions regarding the details of the attack, the perpetrators, and the motive. Although the media narrative that is in place soon after the attack ignores these questions, they will inevitably remain if observers are able to think for themselves and focus only on the actual information available. An example of such questions would be WTC Building 7 on 9/11 or the questions of additional shooters at Sandy Hook.

6. Case quickly closed. Once an acceptable patsy and cover story is chosen by the perpetrators and endorsed by the media, all other opinions and questions are refused air time. Nothing that even slightly contradicts the official story is acknowledged as legitimate. Once this happens, the patsy, if still alive (in rare circumstances) is charged, prosecuted, and convicted in an often secret proceeding. In many cases, the suspect is killed in the process or shortly after the fact, thus negating any first hand contradiction of the official narrative. Either way, the case is closed very soon after the event.

7. Suspects’ Connection to CIA, FBI, etc. One key indicator of a false flag is any possible connection that the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies, domestic or foreign. A connection to any one of these organisations and institutions may well explain how the attack was co-ordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies. Likewise, the Tsarnaev brothers who were accused of masterminding and carrying out the Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack. Connections to certain military agencies and communities should also serve as the same ‘red flag’ as connections to intelligence agencies, since these institutions are generally intrinsically linked.

8. Convenient Scapegoat. Another clue to a false-flag attack is the existence of a convenient scapegoat. All false-flag operations consist of a carefully crafted narrative, complete with a group of individuals set-up for demonisation. The Oklahoma bombing had McVeigh and thus, ‘right-wing extremists’ in general and on 9/11, there were the ‘Muslims.’ In the mass-shooting sprees, it was ‘gun owners’ who were the intended target group. Regardless, a readily-identified patsy will always represent the group or the social demographic set to be demonised.

9. Clues in the Controlled Media. Media clues, more accurately described as predictive programming, is more easily identified in hindsight. This often involves the portrayal of a very similar incident occurring in a film or television show. In other instances, it may involve the conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack into scenes. For instance prior to the actual event, ‘The Lone Gunman,’ (appropriate name) a short-lived spin-off of the X-Files, carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center towers. Similarly in The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy Hook, before anyone had even heard of it, with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.

Although it is extremely important to educate ourselves as to the nature and purpose of false flag attacks, education should not be a goal in and of itself. The public not only needs to know the truth surrounding specific false flag events as they appear, they need to understand the methodology of identifying them on their own and in real time. Creating a culture in which the general public is able to recognise the false flag attack as it is happening, without the need for a massive effort by alternative media sources, researchers, or activists, is the first step in not only rendering the tactic useless, but in channelling the energies of the people towards effective action or, at the very least, creating a culture in which that force cannot be derailed by the banksters.

There have been so many false-flag attacks perpetuated throughout the ages, that it is impossible to ‘do them all justice’ in the space available here, so I will concentrate on one only. Therefore, here is an in-depth detailed, analysis of one classic, false-flag operation, the Sandy Hook school shooting of 14th December 2012…

Sandy Hook

“The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members. Prior to driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived at the scene, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. The incident was the deadliest mass shooting at a high school or grade school in US history and the second-deadliest mass shooting by a single person in US history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings. The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals for making the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.” Wikipedia™

In January 2014, the Zionist-run New York Times, America’s ‘newspaper of record’ reported that, with its ‘final report,’ the criminal investigation of Sandy Hook by the State of Connecticut was over. Remarkably, the report did not even include the names, the ages or the sex of the alleged victims of the shooting. There was no actual identification of any of the dead. Even the Danbury, News Times found it unsatisfying and the fifty-two ‘autopsy photos’ that accompanied the report were redacted. The New York Times itself now appears to be responsible for a stunning display of journalistic incompetence on a matter of enormous public concern.

Anyone with the time or inclination could search through hundreds of years of American crime reports and surely would not find another instance in which the names, the ages or the sex of the victims is not given, with the rightful exception of victims of sex crimes. Withholding this information is part of a pattern of deception and deceit that extends to the Clerk of Newtown making secret arrangements with the state legislature to avoid releasing death certificates to the public, attempts to withhold the 911 calls and gag orders that were imposed upon those responsible for demolishing the school building itself.

The commissioner said that… “…balancing the often competing interests of government transparency and individual privacy has been difficult,” but the situation is nevertheless completely absurd. This appears to be only the latest in a series of obscene measures being adopted to conceal from the public that the Sandy Hook ‘massacre’ was in fact an elaborately staged hoax, which no-one who takes a serious look at the evidence can reasonably deny because, in view of what has now been proven about the event, no other alternative explanation is reasonable.

The basic principle that applies here is inference to the best explanation. Consider the totality of the evidence in this case. Is the evidence more probable on the hypothesis that Sandy Hook was a real event or that it was instead an exercise or a ‘drill’ which was presented as though it had been a real event?

From the very beginning, there were many qualified people among so many others, who questioned the ‘official’ fairy-tale that the Zionist mass media and their army of pseudo-journalists, promoted as the truth, with the tragedy of the mass shooting committed by yet, another ‘lone-nut’ gunman. But as time passes, inconsistencies, including numerous instances of foreknowledge continue to create a mountain of doubt about the circumstances of Sandy Hook. Growing public scepticism combined with the increase in credibility of the non-corporate, alternative media is the most likely reason that the FBI has now ‘classified’ the evidence in the shooting. The act of classifying evidence is designed to provide a firewall of secrecy and FOIA denials to effectively ‘cover-up’ incriminating details that could send many officials to jail.

Even from a detective’s point of view, the Sandy Hook case just does not compute. And as you have already seen throughout this book, our governments are not to be trusted, and what they tell us, is certainly not to be believed. Even with all the intense television coverage, there were never any ‘real,’ probing, pertinent questions being asked or answered. FDR famously said “nothing in politics happens by accident” and Sandy Hook was very much a political event.

Beginning in late 2011, the scandal concerning Operation Fast and Furious was heating-up and leading us right into the US Department of Justice and strongly implicating Barack Obama. It was exposed as a government-led operation, walking guns across the border into Mexico. At the same time, Obama and company were alleging that those same guns were being supplied, illegally, by Americans. It has been alleged that Obama intended to use Operation Fast and Furious as justification for passing a law banning assault-type weapons. He and Clinton’s claims that guns were being supplied, illegally, by Americans, certainly makes the case that such was Obama’s intent.

So was Sandy Hook perpetrated because Operation Fast and Furious was exposed as a government-led operation, thereby terminating its usefulness to Obama and company, in pushing for an assault-type weapons ban? When Obama made the allegation that the guns ultimately connected to the operation, were being supplied illegally, by Americans, his allegations did not gain sufficient traction and were being vigorously denied by Second Amendment activists, who, it turned out, were right. Any despot worth his salt, knows that common sense and fact cannot be overcome unless emotion can be engaged to overcome both.

And surprise, surprise, we only need to look at what occurred in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook incident – mass hysteria was instigated, augmented at every turn by the mainstream media. Pictures of the Sandy Hook children who ‘died’ were posted everywhere, there was a blow-by-blow coverage of the funerals, impassioned news conferences by one of the ‘fathers,’ Robbie Parker who had to pause to get into his ‘character’ before beginning to speak, Obama and his fake tears, pictures of Obama with the ‘families of victims,’ and relentless, unremitting coverage of every little detail, all carefully wrapped in sadness and horror with the requisite outrage aimed at guns. It was a complete media circus, intended specifically to appeal to the emotions, even down to the children surrounding Obama as he signed his presidential actions in response to Sandy Hook, and Vice President Biden’s ‘emotional’ discourse on guns. It was barely three hours after the wall-to-wall news coverage of the Sandy Hook incident commenced that CBS news was calling for gun-control rapidly followed by the other networks.

There is little doubt that the banksters are desperate to confiscate guns from ‘the people.’ And although as a Brit, I do find the American passion for the ‘right to bear arms’ a little obsessive, I can nevertheless understand that losing that right would create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty… fear of what the government could promulgate, whilst the masses were virtually defenceless. Gun confiscation is definitely the ‘thin end of the wedge’ though, and although I am not an advocate of violence in any way, shape or form, I do agree that losing the right to bear arms would leave the people extremely vulnerable.

By 2014 however, the truth behind the Sandy Hook story was really starting to be revealed…

The FEMA/DHS plan for ‘Mass Death of Children at a School by Firearms,’ was a Federal Emergency Management / Department of Homeland Security document designated ‘For Official Use Only’ which revealed plans for a “Site Activation Call-down Drill Exercise Plan,” otherwise known as a “Mass Casualty Drill,” earmarked for the 14th December 2012. (See point 3 above)

The Attorney General, Eric Holder, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, and US Prosecutor in Connecticut, David Fein announced ‘Project Longevity’ on 27th November 2012. The plan, created on 8th October 2012, explicitly referenced a scenario where the “Mass Death of Children at a School by Firearms is followed by a suicide or apprehension of an Unknown Shooter.” The 20-page document further instructed the ‘Use of Media’ to be employed for ‘For Evaluation’ and for ‘Information Distribution.’

Whilst the date for the drill was marked ‘December 14, 2012’ on the document’s cover page, on page 12 under ‘Chapter 2: Exercise Logistics,’ the event was actually scheduled one day earlier. “The Preparation for Mass Casualty Drill will be conducted on 12/13/12 beginning at 8.00 am. Exercise play is scheduled until the exercise director/Controller determines that the exercise objectives have been met. Everyone must sign in with Controller upon arrival.”

The instructions emphasised that… “All spoken and written communication will start and end with the statement, ‘this is a drill.’”

Was this the plan for what came to be widely-known as the ‘Sandy Hook School Massacre?’ No location for where the exercise was intended to take place appeared on the document, yet in July 2014, Wolfgang Halbig announced that Connecticut State Troopers intimated to him that the Sandy Hook event was ‘scripted,’ and that some had submitted false affidavits on what had taken place that day.

Also, on 14th December 2012, two similar ‘exercises’ were apparently taking place in very close proximity to Newtown. At roughly 9.00 am, an ‘Active Shooter Drill’ exercise commenced in Carmel, 45 miles from Newtown. “By grim coincidence, even as the terrible events were unfolding in Newtown on Friday morning,” the ‘Southeast Brewster-Patch’ reported, whilst the Putnam County Emergency Response Team ‘ERT’ just happened to be assembled for regular training in Carmel, and team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school. Here we go… alarm bells already ringing… drills and coincidence alert!

The ERT was comprised of specially trained, heavily armed officers from the Sheriff’s Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments. When the news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene.

On 14th December 2012, at around 9.35 am, in the Sandy Hook library three faculty members ‘heard noises’ and moved 15 or so students to a storage closet in the library, filled with computer servers. “Hold hands. Be quiet,” one teacher told the children whilst one child questions “…whether there were pots and pans clanging. Another thought he heard firecrackers and another was worried that an animal was coming to the door. They were children in a place built for children, and the teachers didn’t know how to answer them … ‘It’s a drill,’ said a library clerk named Mary Anne Jacobs.” Washington Post, 15th December 2012.

Then on the 17th December 2012, during Dr. Mehmet Oz’s TV programme, which was dedicated to the Sandy Hook ‘massacre.’ Oz asked one of the children, a boy around 8 or 9 years old, “What do you remember from that day?”

“I remember that a lot – a lot of policemen were in the, um, school. Um… well, a lot – I was like [pause] hiding under – when we were having a drill… we were hiding under, like …” As he hesitated and took several deep breaths, his ‘mother’ nudged him and Oz immediately changed the subject.

On 13th January 2013, the Attorney Alexis Haller, one of the ‘victims’ uncles,’ composed and submitted a detailed memorandum to the Obama Administration’s White House Task Force on Gun Violence. The eight-page document proposed “a range of [state, federal and local] legislative reforms to help prevent another targeted school shooting… The proposals are based upon conversations within the family, consultations with school security experts, independent research related to prior school shootings, and discussion with legal professionals to focus on criminal law.”

The statement also urged linking gun control measures to mental health diagnoses, federal grants for school security system upgrades, and mandatory lockdown drills at public schools. Hmmm, all beginning to come together, now I see.

Here are ten reasons that support the conclusion that Sandy Hook was staged and not a real event.

Proof of death has been suppressed. Twenty-eight people allegedly died; 27 children and adults, including the ‘shooter’ Adam Lanza, at the school, and his mother, Nancy Lanza, in her home in Newtown. However, there is no direct proof of their death, no photographic evidence or video footage was released to confirm the official story that these 28 persons actually died. In fact, no video surveillance footage shows anything at all. Not even Lanza shooting the front plate-glass window, or walking through the halls like Rambo; even though this is a school that, had updated its security system at the start of the 2012-13 academic year.

The best that the authorities could come-up with was a heavily redacted report that included numerous photos of the inside of the school, with a few marks that slightly resemble bullet holes, several bullets on the floor, and many black images with white numbers, which we are supposed to associate with dead people.

Adam Lanza could not have done the shooting. Adam Lanza, reportedly a frail young man weighing 120 pounds with Asperger’s Syndrome, was said to have carried massive weaponry on his person when he shot his way into the Sandy Hook school and proceeded to kill 26 people and then himself, after he supposedly killed his mother, before driving to the school.

According to State Attorney Stephen Sedensky, Lanza killed his 26 victims with a Bushmaster .223-calibre rifle and then killed himself with his Glock 10-mm handgun. Lanza was also supposedly carrying three 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster as well as a Sig-Sauer 9-mm handgun. The victims were shot multiple times each in a fusillade of bullets from these military-style weapons. In order to wreak this havoc, he fired more than 150 rounds, and he must have carried more rounds in addition. Lanza was reportedly found dead wearing a bulletproof vest and military-style clothing.

Then there was the nonsense involving the weapons and other paraphernalia that were allegedly found in the Lanza house. The ‘arsenal’ supposedly included guns, Samurai swords, knives, a bayonet and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, according to search warrants released. Other items of interest were ear and eye protection, binoculars, holsters, manuals, paper targets, a military-style uniform and Lanza’s NRA certificate (specifically to further denigrate the NRA, no doubt.) Lanza had also reportedly compiled a spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide in 9-point type detailing 500 victims of other mass murders and we are supposed to believe this, and, at the same time, that Adam Lanza was a shy, quiet boy who did not like noise and chaos.

As Mike Powers, a professional military investigator and ballistics expert, observed, this young man of slight build could not have carried all these heavy, bulky weapons and ammunition on his person. Furthermore, since first responders were supposedly inside the school within seven minutes, there was not enough time for Lanza, to have carried out the shooting as reported. In an interview Powers stated that Lanza could not have fired so many times continuously without destabilising himself with the intense noise from the Bushmaster. As a novice, he could not have shot an AR-15 with such speed and accuracy, supposedly changing magazines 4-5 times without a stoppage.

In less than five minutes, according to the media, Lanza killed 26 people and then himself, creating only one injury victim. That is a 96% kill rate, which is unheard-of accuracy among even the most experienced marksmen. In fact the whole scenario is a physical impossibility. In January 2013, activist and researcher Lynn Stuter of newswithviews.com sent out an e-mail concerning the fact that the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) showed that Adam Lanza, the alleged Sandy Hook shooter, actually died on 13th December 2012, the day before the incident occurred. She outlined, step by step, how she obtained this information, so that doubters and potential de-bunkers could check the facts for themselves. The SSDI record recorded Lanza’s birth date as 22nd April 1992 which has been confirmed and his birth place of Exeter, New Hampshire, has also been confirmed. Yet that same record definitely records Adam Lanza’s date of death as 13th December 2012.

Stuter even sent what she had discovered to a local news station, along with a note stating, “Maybe you can unravel the mystery of how it is possible that Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter when SSDI records show his death date as December 13, 2012, the day before Sandy Hook occurred.”

As a mainstream media source, should they not be curious about how Adam Lanza could possibly be the shooter when he died the day before Sandy Hook occurred. However, the local news station, a CBS affiliate, was not interested. Obviously truth, honesty and accuracy is unimportant in journalism and also obviously, the agenda is far more important. QED.

And one would think, if the death date was found to be in error, that his record would have either been withdrawn or corrected. Neither has happened.

So, we know, from the SSDI records, that Nancy Lanza died on 14th December 2012, and of course, the fact that we now know that Adam Lanza died on the 13th December and not the 14th, brings everything we have been told, by the mainstream media, law enforcement, and the medical examiner, regarding Sandy Hook and the deaths of Adam and Nancy Lanza, into question.

So how did Adam Lanza really die? Was he murdered, if so, by whom? How did Nancy Lanza really die? Was she murdered, if so, by whom? Certainly not by Adam it would appear – unless he was resurrected briefly, the following day.

Initially, we were told that the ‘shooter’ carried out his mission with two pistols and that the Bushmaster .223 was later found in the car supposedly belonging to Nancy Lanza. (Point 2, above) then the medical examiner claimed that all the deaths were caused by the ‘long rifle,’ the Bushmaster .223 and this was when law enforcement changed their story to the Bushmaster .223 being used in the killings and ‘a shotgun’ being the gun found in the car.

How could an experienced law-enforcement person possibly have mistaken a shotgun for a rifle and also have mistaken a rifle for a pistol?

Who was the man, wearing camouflage, chased in the woods behind the school, arrested, and taken away, yet never mentioned again?

Who did the guns really belong to? Were they stolen from the Lanza house? Were they really registered to Nancy Lanza?

Who did the car, found parked close to the school, really, belong to? Was it stolen from the Lanza residence by the individual who killed Nancy Lanza or was the car not even registered to Nancy Lanza but to someone else?

Is there any connection between the deaths of Adam and Nancy Lanza and the deaths at Sandy Hook? Or were these three incidents actually not connected at all?

With whom did Principal Dawn Hochsprung really meet face to face? Who really killed her, five other adults, and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary on that day? How many shooters were actually involved? How many guns were really used? The children described the shooter as dressed completely in black including a black head covering. Would children, given the panic, be able to identify more than one shooter if they did not see them together and all shooters were dressed the same?

3. Emergency protocols were not followed. There is no evidence of any frantic effort to save lives or to remove bodies to hospitals. Instead, the scene outside the school looked calm and completely bloodless, with police and other personnel milling around casually and a great shortage of dead or injured victims. One researcher decided to call Lt. Paul Vance to ask who cleaned up the blood, which would have been considered to be a bio-hazard, and received the reply, “What blood?”

Sandy Hook Fire Chief Bill Halstead was ready to help the victims but saw only two wounded people. A few survivors were reportedly taken to the hospital, but, oddly, these people were never interviewed and there were no ‘first-hand accounts’ that proved anyone was killed or injured. Nonetheless, according to Lt. Vance, eighteen children were pronounced dead at the scene, two children were removed to an ‘area hospital’ and were pronounced dead at the hospital, and seven adults were pronounced dead at the scene, including the shooter.

No emergency vehicles were present at the school or even lined-up outside for a rescue attempt, the parking area was filled with parked cars, police cars and media vehicles. Such rescue activity as did occur was centred, not on the school premises, but at the nearby fire station. Emergency vehicles there were jammed together impeding access to the school, in case anyone might have been considering a rescue of any kind. The scene at the fire station was very strange and there is a video on YouTube™, which shows people milling around and circling through the building, walking out of one door and into another, round and round again, to give the impression of lots of people and lots of action.

4. Drill protocols were followed instead. We are now living in a security state, and the school system is among its ‘beneficiaries.’ While we used to have an occasional ‘fire drills’ from time to time, there are now ‘lockdown drills,’ implemented by school districts. Private, for-profit security firms, now conduct ‘crisis preparedness assessments,’ all at the tax-payer’s expense.

According to protocol, everyone at the drill must check-in, identification badges are issued to personnel and observers, and drinking water and toilet facilities are available. Personnel include the director, staff, controllers, evaluators, actors, media personnel and agency employees, both in uniforms and civilian clothes. This protocol appears to have been followed at Sandy Hook, where many participants wore ID badges on lanyards, a huge check-in sign is visible in the background of some photographs at the scene and even temporary, portable toilet facilities are there.

The Sandy Hook ‘shooting’ appears to have been an exercise run by FEMA to coordinate federal, state and local emergency response teams in the case of a mass-casualty event. As such, it would have utilised ‘crisis actors’ and media partners to simulate a tragedy in order to train participants, and also in order to observe the reaction of the citizenry.

5. There was foreknowledge of the event. The Connecticut state emergency system was taken over long before the ‘massacre’ occurred, with a frequency change implemented five hours in advance of the ‘shooting.’ Normal police dispatch protocol, using the Alpha Phonetic System for communications between officers and dispatchers, was replaced with staged transmissions by non-trained personnel.

In addition, tweets about the shooting began before it actually occurred, a tribute was apparently uploaded one month before the event, and web pages honouring the victims, including a Facebook page, R.I.P. Victoria Soto, were established before they had actually ‘died.’

6. There were many contradictory reports about the weapons. According to initial reports in the media, especially NBC, weapons used in the shooting included four handguns recovered at the scene, the only guns taken into the school. Then an AR-15 was said to have been found in the trunk of Lanza’s car. Then it was reported that Lanza may have carried only two handguns and that a rifle was also found in the school.

Wayne Carver, the Medical Examiner, said that all the victims were shot with the “long weapon.” Lt. Paul Vance then said that a Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapon with high capacity magazines was used, “most of the time” and that Lanza was carrying “many high-capacity clips” for the weapon.

In January 2013, Connecticut state police released a statement indicating that they had found three guns inside the school, a Bushmaster .223 calibre semi-automatic rifle with high capacity 30 round clips, a Glock 10-mm handgun and a Sig-Sauer P226 9-mm handgun. They said that they had also found an Izhmash Canta-12, 12-gauge shotgun in Lanza’s car. This shotgun was also shown in a video aired on the night of 14th December 2013 by NBC. An evidence collection team and a policeman allegedly found the gun in Lanza’s car, and contrary to police procedure, the policeman handled the gun without gloves and ejected the ammunition on the spot. Some claimed to have seen two long guns in the car in the NBC video, both the 12-gauge shotgun and the Bushmaster rifle.

Lt. Vance then asserted that Lanza had killed all his victims with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle. Regarding the confusion, Vance told reporters, “It’s all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to muddy up the waters.” Perhaps the ‘star prize for fantastical reporting,’ though should have gone to Fox News however, which announced that a “12-gauge shotgun along with two magazines containing 70 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun rounds had been found in the glove compartment” of the car. Yes, they did say, “the glove compartment.”

7. Key participants displayed inappropriate behaviour. There are many bizarre media reports and interviews of those associated with the ‘shooting.’ Here are some examples…

Medical Examiner Wayne Carver’s surreal press conference is one of the most strange of all the media offerings. Widely available on YouTube™, this event shows this public official, clowning and acting outlandishly, grinning strangely, making irrelevant comments, and basically appearing unknowledgeable and unprofessional.

Perhaps the most infamous press conference is that of Robbie Parker, the alleged father of victim Emilie Parker, speaking on a CNN report of 15th December 2012. He chuckles as he walks up to the camera, then settles ‘into character’ by hyperventilating, and finally feigns distress as he talks about his daughter and about the fund set up to help raise money ‘for Emilie.’ The father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook ‘victim’ Emilie, Parker somehow managed to make a split-second transition from laughing and joking to a grim, sombre face, barely able to speak without breaking down melodramatically in tears. His decidedly odd behaviour led researchers to wonder if he, like the other alleged parents of Sandy Hook child victims, may actually have been crisis actors. These sceptics are symptomatic of just how profound Americans’ distrust of and alienation from government, has become.

In addition to Robbie and Alissa Parker, other parents and family members took their shift in the spotlight, including (but not limited to) Mark and Jackie Barden, Jimmy Greene and Nelba Marquez-Greene, Ian and Nicole Hockley, Neil Heslin (alleged father of Jesse Lewis,) Chris and Lynn McDonnell, Veronique Pozner, Carlee Soto, and David and Francine Wheeler. Anderson Cooper was the interviewer in two notable instances. His conversation with the McDonnells and an interview with Veronique Pozner, was remarkable for its green-screen effects such as Anderson’s disappearing nose.

Numerous reports offered detailed and totally fictitious information, some of which was later abandoned in favour of more tenable stories.

On the evening of 14th December 14, a USA Today reporter said she had spoken with the school nurse, Sally Cox, whom she had met on the street. The nurse told her that the gunman had come into her office… “They met eyes, she jumped under her desk,” and he walked out. The nurse said that the gunman was the son of the kindergarten teacher, who was known to her and “an absolutely loving person.” It later transpired that Nancy Lanza had never been a kindergarten teacher at all, and that neither she nor Adam had any connection to Sandy Hook school whatsoever.

In an embarrassing fiction, ‘The Newtown Bee’ reported that Dawn Hochsprung, the Sandy Hook school principal, told the paper that “a masked man had entered the school with a rifle and started shooting.” Of course, Dawn Hochsprung was allegedly killed by Adam Lanza and so could not easily have provided this statement. In fact, Dawn was said to have acted heroically, dying while lunging at the gunman, although it is puzzling who may have witnessed and reported this act of heroism.

Gene Rosen is one of the most prolific of the Sandy Hook ‘media stars,’ giving animated and conflicting statements to a series of reporters (in both English and Spanish.) Portrayed strongly as a ‘good Samaritan’ by the mainstream media, Gene supposedly consoled six children who ran away from the school, rode to his house on a school bus, sat down on his lawn and proceeded to cry and tell him that their teacher, Miss Soto, was dead. Strangely, Rosen took the children inside and gave them some toys to play with, instead of calling 911 as any ‘normal’ person would have done.

The Gene Rosen videos are important for the official narrative, in that they corroborate many of its details, the staccato gunfire of a semi-automatic weapon and hearsay evidence from the children. These incriminating videos are extremely supportive of the assertion that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, from start to finish. The controlled news media presented Gene Rosen to the world as a retired ‘psychologist,’ pet-sitter, and all-round good guy. But when Rosen was accused of being a crisis actor and a bad one at that, the media immediately went into attack mode against the ‘conspiracy theorists,’ whilst continuing to hide his involvement with acting, television production, and broadcasting.

Indeed, it was Rosen’s poor acting skills that had the internet abuzz, even helping to convince those that would never suspect a hoax theory, that there was ‘something wrong’ with the whole Sandy Hook story.

As with 9/11, and so many other false flags, including Sandy Hook, crisis actors were used extensively, to sell the myth of an horrific event. Crisis acting is actually a thriving business that is always looking for new talent. Would you believe that there is even a company called ‘Crisis Actors,’ located in Denver, Colorado? Crisis Actors describe themselves as ‘trained players and actors making it real,’ by “Helping schools and first responders create realistic drills, full-scale exercises, high-fidelity simulations, and interactive 3D films.” There are several other such companies, some of whom even place recruitment advertisements on Craigslist.

Not only are professional ‘crisis actors’ used in government drills and mass trauma events, some of them are actual amputees. There is a company named ‘Amputees in Action,’ which describes itself as… “a unique agency, working independently to provide the UK’s largest directory of trained professional amputee actors for the film and screen industries and for emergency and military services training simulations, both home and abroad… Our personnel use their personal trauma experiences to enable graphic realism that is second to none, and our team of special effects (SFX) make-up, moulage and prosthetic artists use cutting edge technology to enhance and extend the appearance and function of limb-loss scenarios. Most of our personnel have lost limbs as a direct result of a trauma incident, and are able to bring their experiences to your simulation with unique insight and acting in the field, remaining in character throughout. Our SFX experts enhance the amputee experience, replicating injuries beyond leg and arm injuries. We also recreate traumas like head and facial wounds, eviscerated abdomens and groin wounds.”

No doubt judging from all the engineered wars and mayhem around the world, they have no shortage of amputees available.

Photos at the scene and of victims look staged or fake. The only photograph available of any children being evacuated from the school was apparently taken earlier that year during a drill (no coats, plenty of smiling faces.) Shannon Hicks, a photographer for The Newtown Bee, took the photo and claims to have taken many others of the event, which have conveniently not been released. Hicks reportedly took this photo ‘as an associate editor’ and then, when another editor arrived, ‘changed into her firefighting gear and tried to help.’ What a versatile lady. However, perhaps more insidious are the photographs of the children who allegedly died at Sandy Hook, many of which are concoctions, all neatly but unprofessionally ‘doctored,’ using ‘photoshopping.’ Some of the most problematic involve the Parker family, with Emilie’s red-and-black dress supposedly worn by her younger sister for the visit with Obama.

The photograph of Victoria Soto’s class of students (above) has been shown to be an elaborate composite and many individual images of the children released to the media are strange, some look ‘dated’ and may well be older photos. In a particularly clumsy slip-up, a photo of a real child, Lily Gaubert who is alive and well, was promoted in the media as an image of Allison Wyatt an alleged victim. Even more damning however was the recent meticulous research that uncovered a convincing YouTube™ video identifying eight alleged Sandy Hook victims and six of their brothers singing in the Newtown children’s choir at the 2013 Super Bowl.

And, one more victim has been identified since the original video, making a total of 15 out of the 21 children in the choir who were from the Sandy Hook ‘families.’ The newly recognised ‘victims’ are all older than they appear in their photos, giving credence to the theory that the children’s photographs were older, outdated images from when they were much younger. But the Newtown children, whoever they are, seem quite happy to be singing at the Super Bowl, smiling and running across the field after the event and showing no sign of the trauma they had suffered less than two months prior.

According to an article on Intelhub, the CNN footage of police officers running in the car parking area of the Sandy Hook school, was actually taken at St. Rose of Lima School, fourteen miles away, during a drill. “It is unconfirmed at this time if the footage is from a previously filmed drill or an actual real-time drill that was taking place simultaneously with the reported shooting” at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Once again, none of the Sandy Hook story adds up to it being a real event.

The crime scene was completely destroyed. As with Ground Zero after 9/11, Sandy Hook Elementary and all the evidence was almost immediately, completely obliterated. $49.3m in state funds were allocated for the demolition and rebuilding of Sandy Hook school, and this from a state with a projected budget deficit of $1.1 billion for the year. This would never have been tolerated if an actual crime had been committed, at least one that was meant to be investigated.

Employees who worked on the project were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. They were not only prohibited from removing anything from the site, but they were forbidden from discussing publicly anything they may have observed or not observed during the demolition, such as an absence of bullet marks on the walls or blood on the floor of the classrooms.

“We want to be absolutely certain to do everything we can to protect the privacy of the families and the Sandy Hook community. We’re going to every possible length to eliminate any possibility that any artifacts from the building would be taken from the campus and … end up on eBay,” said a spokesperson. How very considerate of them.

No litigation. What are the odds, in today’s litigious society, of 26 victimised families ALL deciding NOT to sue a multi-millionaire who would appear to be an easy target?

Peter Lanza is a rich man and whether you believe he is responsible for the actions of his son, or not, there is no denying that the man is extremely wealthy. But the General Electric financial executive, who makes over a million dollars a year helping his company evade taxes, has so far not been sued by his son’s ‘victims.’

It would seem that there is some precedent for suing the parents of shooters and this is the reason why Lanza is an ‘easy target.’ As soon as the dust began to clear on the Columbine lawsuits, ABC reported that… “Most of the families of the victims in the Columbine massacre two years ago today settled their lawsuits against the parents of the gunmen. Thirty of the 36 families whose relatives were either killed or injured by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris in the April 20, 1999, school shooting agreed to participate in a settlement for a total of $1.56 million, according to Stephen Wahlberg, who led the families’ attorneys in the case. A judge will determine how the money is distributed. Six of the families whose children were killed in the shootings opted not to settle. They are still pursuing suits against the Klebolds and Harris’, lawyers said.”

Do you not think that an attorney might advise a victim’s family to sue based on the precedent of the Columbine litigation alone?

Looking at three similar tragedies, it would seem that the lack of legal actions in the wake of Sandy Hook, are certainly an anomaly. It proves nothing in and of itself of course but it is another in a long line of Sandy Hook anomalies. The arguments against the conspiracy and/or cover-up have become weaker with time. No longer can many people deny the oddities. It is impossible for example to simply explain away things like Associated Press using pre-dated photos that were taken days, weeks, months and even years before the tragedy took place.

Cui bono (who benefits)? The Sandy Hook School Support Fund has raised approximately $12m to date and distributed it to the Newtown-Sandy Hook Community Foundation, overseen by the Zionist Ken Feinberg, “a victim compensation master with a national reputation,” according to ‘United Way, Western Connecticut.’ Is it not amazing that Ken Feinberg is always in charge of paying compensation for disasters, the 9/11 attacks, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Boston marathon, Agent Orange, the Holocaust, the BP Oil Spill, the Banker Bailout Scandal and the Zapruder film, amongst other litigation?

The estimated pay-out was $281,000 to each of the victims’ families, who have raised additional funds from their own websites, some of which were apparently advertised on the web in advance of the shooting. At present, all of the victims, both children and adults, have memorial funds that are still currently accumulating money. The ‘Sandy Hook Promise,’ which actively solicits money for family members and others ‘impacted by this tragedy,’ as well as for lobbying for ‘mental wellness and gun safety,’ currently boasts over 300,000 people who have made the ‘Sandy Hook Promise’ to turn the ‘tragedy into a moment of transformation.’

In addition, the US Department of Education has awarded a total of $3.2m to the Newtown Public School District to help with ‘ongoing recovery efforts’ following the shooting. This ‘hush money’ is guaranteed to keep the lid on things for now. And the families have also appeared on television and in print, lobbying for gun control. By now, their individual stories are known to almost everyone in America.

Efforts to increase security in schools, and even arm teachers, are underway. The New York Times reported that around 1,500 state gun bills have been introduced since the time of the shooting, and 109 have become law. However, nearly two-thirds of these laws ease legal restrictions and support the rights of gun owners. This is no doubt an unintentional consequence of an intentional plan.

Both the gun industry and the already immense and rapidly growing ‘security industry’ have also benefitted from the Sandy Hook ‘shooting.’ The emergence of the Department of Homeland Security as a major threat to democracy cannot go without comment. Even though a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Intelligence released a report on 3rd October 2012, confirming that the DHS acquired more than 2 billion rounds of .40 calibre hollow-point ammunition, Sandy Hook appears to be part of a complex and evolving scenario, beginning with 9/11, to establish an enhanced Police State.

The men behind the curtain will end the conflict at a time of their choosing in order to usher in their New World Order complete with a new global fiat currency, a supranational military force, complete authoritarian control and a justice system which deals decisively and brutally with all dissenters.

In short, all who speak out against that which is planned, will actively contribute to their own demise. As with most societies which are being led to their destruction, there is a very predictable course of events. A series of false flag events are initiated in order to usher in complete governmental control and martial law under which all opposition is not just silenced, but eliminated. And martial law usually precedes a war in which the citizens are forced to participate.

Any discussion, on when false-flag events or other engineered catastrophes are likely to occur, is supposition to some degree. However, there is enough historical precedent for this, to accurately predict that these coming events will follow a very narrow path of possibilities. The following represent the most likely candidates for the coming cataclysms as a prelude to martial law.

Currency Collapse by Cyber Attack. Disaster preparation is largely a spectator sport in that most of us enjoy watching others participate in it while we wonder if the day will ever arrive when we will need to begin to store food, water, guns and bullets. In autumn 2014, DHS and FEMA participated in a series of cyber security drills in which the banks fell victim to a cyber-attack and all banking records were destroyed. If you cannot prove how many computer digits you have in the bank, then you will own none of those said computer digits. We may well attempt to present paper records to prove our case, but the banks and the government will dismiss our paperwork as fraudulent or lacking in proof that the money was not spent in-between the time of the paper bank statement and the cyber-attack.

In short, if you have money in the bank, at the time of the collapse, you will effectively own nothing. You will have no way to pay your rent, mortgage or buy food and will be completely at the mercy of the state. Famine and starvation will rapidly result with hordes of armed looters moving from house to house seeking food. The need for martial law will be immediate and if you choose to eat, you will be forced into a ‘community centre’ where you will be promised food and a bed. This is the method by which most people will be ‘rounded-up.’ A currency collapse set in motion by a false flag, cyber-attack upon the banks is my number one choice as to the nature of how society will be dismantled.

Currency Collapse Caused by a Stock Market Crash. This type of ‘crash’ would be even more simple to engineer, as the banksters could simply simultaneously pull their money out of the market, as they did in 1929, and the overinflated market would sink like a lead balloon. A stock market collapse would destroy the banks, thanks to the repeal of the ‘Glass Steagall Act,’ which prevented borrowing in order to enter the market. The related housing market would also collapse, credit would quickly disappear and grocery chains and farmers alike would no longer be able to ship food and all would go bankrupt. Food would begin to rot on the farms, resulting in famine, along with the accompanying social chaos. The need to put the country under martial law for the protection of the citizens would then be welcomed. What was it that Kissinger said about controlling food and to control the people? Currency collapse caused by a stock market collapse is the second choice.

The ‘Terrible Twins’

Polls from all around the world consistently show that Israel and the US are regarded as the two greatest threats to peace and to life on earth. Yet, these two utterly ‘lawless’ out-of-control governments pretend to be among the world’s greatest democracies. Neither government accepts any accountability whatsoever to international law, to human rights groups, to the UN, to the Geneva Conventions, or to their own statutory laws. The US and Israel are without doubt ‘rogue’ governments, throwbacks to the Maoist and Stalinist eras.

All post-World War II wars have originated in Washington and/or Tel Aviv. No other countries have such imperial, expansionist ambitions. The Chinese government has not seized Taiwan, which China could do if it so chooses and the Russian government has not seized former constituent parts of Russia, such as Georgia, which, provoked by Washington to launch an attack, was instantly overwhelmed by the Russian Army. Putin could have executed the US’s Georgian puppet and reincorporated Georgia into Russia, where it resided for several centuries and where many believe it really belongs – but he did not.

It is also a fact that these two originators of wars constantly claim to be the victims of aggression, yet it is Israel that has a nuclear arsenal that is illegal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable. It is the US that has drafted a war plan based on nuclear first strikes. The rest of the world is correct to view these two rogue, unaccountable governments as direct threats to life on earth.

The staggering amounts of funding for all this political intrigue and naked aggression, derives from the mega-rich individuals, banks and corporations controlled by Rothschild Zionism. Obama’s largest corporate donor was Goldman Sachs – the organisation fundamentally responsible for the engineered, global economic crash. The global banking system was purposely crashed by Rothschild Zionists like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke at the Rothschild Zionist-created US Federal Reserve and by Rothschild Zionist Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, in league with Rothschild Zionist Timothy Geithner whom Obama named as his Treasury Secretary to sort out the problem that these people had created in the first instance.

It was Rothschild Zionists who were behind the NATO-sanctioned mass-murder, destruction and theft of the countries of Iraq and Libya and all their assets, aided and abetted by the British Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and David Cameron (Rothschild Zionists) and French President, Nicolas Sarkozy (Rothschild Zionist.)

Rothschild Zionists such as George Soros, bankroll front organisations like the Open Society Institute and the International Crisis Group to destabilise target countries from within, using agent provocateurs to trigger ‘peoples’ revolutions after which, Rothschild Zionist puppets assume power.

Evgeny Morozov, a former fellow of the George Soros Open Society Institute, recently appealed to Google and other search engines to issue ‘warnings’ about websites that contain ‘conspiracy theories,’ including the truth that ‘climate change’ is not caused by human activities. Rothschild Zionist, Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also called for ‘conspiracy theories’ to be banned. Running scared eh?

Soros has warned of coming violent riots, financial collapse and government clampdowns because he knows that this is the Rothschild Zionist agenda anyway. Soros is often referred-to as a financial speculator, but since when does the word ‘speculator’ refer to someone who knows what is coming and bets that it will happen?

It is also the Rothschild Zionists who were the architects of political correctness, chemically-infected food and water, Internet censorship, the list is endless. Political correctness is the new censorship, it is intolerance disguised as tolerance. Originally emanating from the Stalin era of the Soviet Union and later embraced by the Rockefeller-funded ‘Frankfurt School,’ it is part of the broader NWO agenda of cultural Marxism aimed at surreptitiously eroding freedoms. It operates on the premise that if people are offended, insulted or even irritated by certain words or language, then they have the ‘right’ to ask the State to outlaw that language.

“Political correctness presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules … I’m not sure silencing people, or forcing them to alter their speech, is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.” George Carlin

It is certainly the case that political correctness works by using guilt and shame to restrict us to using certain words or phrases, and not using certain others, often against common-sense and reality, with a verbal ‘sleight of hand.’ It is a subtle way of forcing people to police themselves, and to control the spectrum of allowable thought and speech. It should be exposed as such and resisted by all freedom-loving people.

Another oft-used defence mechanism is to condemn anyone who points out the ‘elephant in the room,’ as ‘anti-Semitic,’ a phrase which actually means anti-Arab, but that is quite another story. And now they are spoiling for a war with Iran that is designed to lead to a Third World War involving NATO and its members in conflict with Russia and China. How much more are we going to take? Do we have to wait until the world is nothing but a smouldering nuclear wasteland? Of course by then it will all be too late.

The Rothschild Zionist banksters’ strategy for an attack on Iran is straight from the blueprint already successfully applied to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and long underway in Syria. Find or create an excuse to demonise the current regime, enforce an interim period of sanctions to weaken their resolve and then send ‘the boys’ in. Once sanctions have been instigated, then we know it is only one small step from the ‘button being pressed’ and we are now at this stage in Iran, with the Western oil embargo and other sanctions imposed that will harm the desperate economies of the West as well as that of Iran. But this is a ‘bonus’ for the Rothschild Zionists who crashed the global economy in 2008 and plan to do so again with even greater consequences to provide a Problem-Reaction-Solution to a new, and even more controlled, structure of world finance based on a World Central Bank. And if a conflict with Iran leads to the blockading of the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow passage and key oil-tanker route between Iran and the United Arab Emirates/Oman, the effect on global oil prices and the economy in general would be catastrophic.

The entire propaganda attack against Iran is based on the unproven mass-media claims that Iran is developing a nuclear capability – whilst they remain totally silent about the vast nuclear stockpile at Dimona, in Israel. Iran has not attacked anyone for 200 years and has one of the lowest military budgets in the Middle East, whereas Israel is the most ‘trigger-happy’ country on Earth with one of the world’s best equipped militaries – largely thanks to the US taxpayer. The US spends trillions of dollars to fight wars for Israel, while 47 million Americans are at poverty level. Over 42 million are without health insurance, unquantifiable millions remain unemployed (do not believe the unemployment statistics,) and tens of millions have no prospect of retiring before the age of seventy.

By now, it should be apparent that it does not matter who is ‘in office.’ The faces change but the game remains the same, the world over. Obama promised to remove troops from Iraq immediately, then he said he would do so in six months after taking office. Then he said two years but instead, he sent more troops, ordered bombings which killed thousands of innocent women and children and was therefore awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Before World War III can be fought using Syria and Iran as an excuse, the people must be subjugated totally, because no rational person would agree to participate in a nuclear war. The sides are drawn and the relative strengths of each side are established. Each side is currently jockeying for position as they attempt to manoeuvre the other side into their battleground of choice. In short, the world is poised to begin a conflict which will destroy economies, devastate entire regions of the world and it will in all likelihood, kill millions if not billions of innocent people, whose only hopes and desires are to be left in peace and to live their lives in comfort.

Cancer, Disease and Vaccinations – the ‘Big Pharma’ scam

If war alone, does not already kill and injure enough people to sate the banksters’ blood lust, then consider this…

Suppose you learned that one single cause, each year, kills more than one million people in the western world? Would you not think that we would at least hear about it? Would public health agencies not make a huge fuss about it? Would they not regard it as an epidemic and/or declare ‘war’ on it, as they have with cancer and other diseases? After all, there are supposedly a mere handful of Ebola cases, and the media are in a virtual ‘state of panic’ about it, or so it would seem.

Imagine if there were one million deaths each year from Ebola, and the medical authorities were certain that next year, and the year after that, and every year there would be one million more. Can you even begin to conceive the reaction at every level of society; the panic, the media fear-mongering, the attacks against institutions tasked with preventing such a cataclysm, the collapse of the stock market and the healthcare system, the predictions that the end of the world was nigh?

On the 26th July 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield’s review, ‘Is US health really the best in the world?’ In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that…

“The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year, there are 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs and 119,000 deaths per year from hospital errors.”

Extrapolated across the first world, this equates to more than one million deaths per year as a result of medical ignorance and negligence. Some other independent researchers claim that those figures are actually much higher, but let us for now focus on Dr. Starfield’s work, as no mainstream medical or government official was able to challenge her figures, her credentials or the credentials of the journal that published her findings.

Yes, there were stories in the press at the time, but the coverage was minimal and it soon faded away. And none of the mainstream coverage performed any obvious extrapolations. The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs safe and effective before they are released for public use. In fact, they readily admit the human deaths and injuries caused by allopathic (pharmaceutical) drugs, but admit no responsibility for it. None at all.

Dr. Barbara Starfield, who is a paediatrician, professor and health services researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and whose work in the field of primary care and health policy brought her international acclaim, was interviewed by e-mail in 2009, by Jon Rappoport of Activist Post. Here are some excerpts from that interview…

BS: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world.’

JR: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

BS: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency.)

JR: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the devastating effects of the US medical system?

BS: No.

JR: Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

BS: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews of its new drugs, which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large [body of] literature on this.

JR: Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

BS: They are an indictment of the US health care industry, insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, it is a general problem of our society, which clearly unbalances democracy.

JR: Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

BS: Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. Again, there is a large literature about this, mostly unrecognised by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.

JR: Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

BS: Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint, ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

JR: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

BS: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates of death than I calculated.

JR: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

BS: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers!’

JR: Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

BS: I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

“The medical establishment works closely with the drug multinationals whose main objective is profits, and whose worst nightmare would be an epidemic of good health. Lots of drugs MUST be sold. In order to achieve this, anything goes: lies, fraud, and kickbacks. Doctors are the principal salespeople of the drug companies... They are rewarded with research grants, gifts, and lavish perks. The principal buyers are the public – from infants to the elderly – who MUST be thoroughly medicated and vaccinated...at any cost! Why do the authorities forbid alternative medicine? Because they are serving the industry, and the industry cannot make money with herbs, vitamins, and homeopathy. They cannot patent natural remedies. That is why they push synthetics. They control medicine, and that is why they are able to tell medical schools what they can and cannot teach. They have their own sets of laws, and they force people into them. That is a mafia. This sensational exposé also uncovers the truth behind vaccines, AIDS, cancer, the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, and more.” Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.

Over the last eighty years, organised medical groups and pharmaceutical companies, using lawyers, bribes, lobbyists, insurance companies and the strong arm of the FDA, have been very busy. They have corrupted elected officials to pass laws in order to remove competition. They have crushed natural Doctors, natural medicine, and self-help and their ultimate goal is to monopolise health care and make us dependent on medical doctors and pharmaceutical drugs. There are more and more laws restricting our rights and many healing herbs, foods and even nutrients are now ‘illegal.’ Natural health professionals that flourished a few decades ago are now barred from practicing and natural Doctors, holistic healers, health food store owners and even family members of the sick have been arrested and jailed for using natural remedies. Big Pharma companies always put profits before patients.

Prior to World War I, allopathic Medicine and homeopathic medicine were on an equal footing and both were considered valuable in their own right. But then, in the 1920s, the Rockefellers began to buy up patents on pharmaceuticals and to fund medical schools. The formation of the American Medical Association and a media blitz attacking homeopathic medical doctors as ‘quacks,’ effectively marginalised the safe and natural remedies that could not be patented and therefore offered less profit potential. The reach of what is now known as Big Pharma, now extends to all pharmaceutical corporations, all medical schools, all health insurance companies, the BMA, AMA, NIH, CDC, and the World Health Organisation. The FDA routinely approves dangerous and barely-tested drugs whilst persecuting alternative medical clinics and manufacturers of safe and natural dietary supplements, whilst simultaneously failing to regulate criminal assaults on the public health by Monsanto, the GMO industry, and the pesticide industry.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating pharmaceutical drugs, dietary supplements, cosmetics ingredients, and livestock and agriculture operations. Unfortunately however, the most profitable industries in the world (Big Pharma and huge Biotech firms such as Monsanto and Syngenta) have now hijacked the agency and are busy setting policies that benefit themselves. Poachers turned gamekeepers, if you will.

Big Pharma directs the FDA to approve unsafe and ineffective drugs, generally by falsifying data in clinical trials. Big Pharma also directs the FDA to attack, often literally, any competition including doctors successful with alternative cancer treatments, manufacturers of dietary supplements that are safe and natural alternatives to dangerous pharmaceuticals, and any manufacturer of a food or dietary supplement that advertises any health claims whatsoever. Cherry and walnut growers were sued by the FDA and forced to remove accurate health claims from their marketing materials.

Big Agra wages a continual battle against the organic and natural foods industry on many fronts, and is lobbying the FDA to bastardise organic standards by allowing ingredients that no-one intending to eat organic food only, would eat if they knew those ingredients were in that food item. This allows them to legally label as ‘organic,’ many lower-grade products, and also creates unfair competition against truly organic farms and brands that are using higher-quality production techniques and fewer toxic ingredients.

And then there are the chemical and biotech companies, manufacturers of GMOs and the pesticides that go with them. These companies lobbied heavily for deregulation of their industry, specifically the reduction of ‘bureaucratic hurdles,’ such as FDA and USDA requirements for health and environmental safety testing. Most of their products would never have been approved by the FDA if approval were actually based on long-term safety studies.

They who control the use of words and numbers, can make trillions of dollars, and are able to hide scandals that would otherwise mean disgrace or prison. And nowhere is this more evident than in the criminal activities of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC.)

The name of that agency should really be, Centers for Disease Information Control because that is all they actually do. They are merely a tax-funded PR front for the medical cartel, a 24/7 psy-op, that manipulates words and numbers to present fictional images to the public. Following his research on fake vaccine science since 1988, Jon Rappoport thought he had seen it all. Huge falsehoods about vaccines creating immunity, suppressed information about toxic ingredients, the absence of proper controlled studies proving vaccines are safe and effective, but Peter Doshi, PhD., writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal,)revealed a whole new aberration, based on the revelation that most ‘flu’ is not actually influenza.

As Doshi stated, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients and tested in labs, however, only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus. Meaning that most people who are diagnosed by doctors with flu have no flu virus in their bodies, so they do not have ‘flu.’ Therefore, even assuming that the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it could not possibly prevent all those ‘flu cases’ that are not flu cases in the first place. So the vaccine cannot possibly work as it is not designed to prevent ‘fake’ flu.

“But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that ‘flu’ and ‘influenza’ are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realise that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.” Peter Doshi, BMJ review, ‘Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease’

Actually, most flu cases are ‘bacteria,’ ‘fungal,’ ‘pollution’ or ‘tainted food’ cases, but they are certainly not the flu. It is no surprise therefore that so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ do not work. For most flus, they cannot possibly work because most diagnosed cases of the flu are not flu at all.

So, if you are a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you are being deceived. Doshi has already pointed-out the wordplay distinction between ‘flu’ and ‘influenza,’ but let’s simplify it further and say that ‘most of the time,’ diagnosed flu is not flu. Period.

In an ethical world, medical researchers, doctors and medical bureaucrats would simply ‘blow the whistle.’ They would no doubt say, “We are diagnosing huge numbers of people with the flu, but that turns out to be a meaningless term, because they do not have the influenza virus. So they cannot have the flu. These fake ‘flu cases’ couldn’t have benefited from any flu vaccine at all, because the patients don’t have the flu.”

However we have no whistle-blowing. Too much money and too many reputations are riding on everyone ‘in the know’ ignoring the obvious truth. With an ongoing blizzard of psy-op-marketing, people accept ‘flu’ and react emotionally to the propaganda about it and another aspect of that propaganda is delivered in order to frighten us into accepting a flu vaccination. The CDC persistently claims that, ‘every year in the US, 36,000 people die of the flu.’ This is a ‘vital’ statistic for the CDC. They need to promote it. They need to convince the population that seasonal flu is dangerous and Joe and Josie Public do not realise that it is a gross lie, a manufactured delusion that bears no resemblance to reality. Because of course, ‘they would not lie to us, would they?’

In December 2005, the BMJ online, published another shocking report by Peter Doshi, which spelled out the delusion, and created tremors throughout the hallowed halls of the CDC. Here is a quote from Doshi’s report…

“According to CDC statistics, ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001, 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified…

Between 1979 and 2001, CDC data show an average of 1348 flu deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).”

This death toll is obviously far lower than the CDC’s ‘official’ 36,000 figure. However, once the sensible condition, that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, is applied, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further. In other words, the official figures are nothing but propaganda and hype, designed to sell vaccines.

Twisting words and numbers and painting false pictures is the CDC’s job. Remember that the CDC is organised under the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a cabinet post in the executive branch. So everything that the CDC does, every psy-op it launches and maintains, is ultimately at the behest of the President, or more precisely – the banksters.

Would you be surprised to learn that in the 1930s, someone invented an electronic device that would destroy ALL pathogens, bacteria, and even viruses with no toxic side effects? This invention could also destroy cancer cells by altering the cancer’s cellular environment using an electronic or ultra-sonic beam? The brilliant medical doctor and researcher who invented and perfected this device bore an unusual name, Royal Raymond Rife, but his associates and colleagues knew him simply as Roy Rife.

The original Rife machine, based on a naval radio frequency oscillator, evolved into the ‘Rife Ray Tube.’ It was the basis of Rife technology that underwent many successful trials and experiments when it was developed in the 1930s. You would expect that further research into Rife’s findings would have been enthusiastically supported and propagated further for the welfare of all… and indeed it was… at first.

Rife left the US immediately following his medical education and trained for six years at the Carl Zeiss Optical Company in Germany. The unique and complex microscope he developed used different mediums for bending light to those of ‘normal’ optics used prior to his invention, which he called the ‘Universal Microscope.’ That achievement alone brought him fame in the inner circles of the scientific community.

However it was the technology that he subsequently developed that proved to be his career-defining achievement, a machine that could actually cure all known diseases. Although this sounds like something from a cheap science-fiction novel, it is nevertheless absolutely true. The technology utilised something known as ‘vibrational reciprocity’ and the simplest analogy to it may be a singer who can shatter a wine glass by hitting and sustaining the right note or someone striking a tuning fork held next to another of the same pitch that is not struck, but vibrates and mimics the tone. These are visible examples of vibrational reciprocity in the sonic range and from this basic understanding, Rife developed what he called ‘resonance therapy.’

He discovered that minuscule pathogens each possessed a unique energy frequency beyond the sonic range that, if stimulated, would cause the pathogen to implode or explode. Rife referred to this as the Mortal Oscillatory Resonance or MOR. This is within the arena of ‘energetic healing,’ yet using specific technology to physically attack the pathogens. With another microscope of his own invention, Rife was able to observe and record the MOR of many pathogens and instead of dealing with the vibrational field of the patient, or the patient’s chi energy, he used high frequency energies created by his machine to alter both the pathogens and their environments. The difference between Rife’s ‘Ray Beam’ and common radiation therapy was that only those specific MOR frequencies of targeted micro-organisms were affected by his machine. All other cells were left unharmed and this was the whole essence of Rife’s technology.

By 1932, after several years of designing and building cutting edge microscopes, Rife had constructed the largest and most powerful yet, magnifying organisms by 60,000 times. With his two foot tall, 200 pound microscope, Rife could finally see live viruses.

He and his colleagues documented precise radio-frequencies which would ‘devitalise’ cell mutations and various pathogens and he was winning battles against several popular diseases of the period, not just cancer. In tests using bacillus coli, Rife watched the bacteria die right before his eyes. One major problem however was that the lamps and the microscopes were very expensive and difficult to build, so a mere handful were not exactly going to have a huge impact on cancer, overnight. Still, Rife patented the high intensity lamp in 1929 and hired an engineer to set-up an organisation which could mass produce them.

However, Rife was already beginning to be resented by Big Pharma and western medicine elitists in the medical community. But nevertheless he was now fully committed to his important research and employed more than a dozen scientists, including Dr. Arthur Kendall, Director of Medical Research at ‘Northwestern University,’ who would join him in his research.

In 1931: Doctors from around the country joined Rife and his work including Dr. Alvin G. Frood, President of the American Association of Pathologists.
In 1931: The L.A. Times announced that Rife could now directly observe living bacterium and viruses.
In 1932: Kendall spoke at the Association of American Physicians at Johns Hopkins University, describing the preliminary successes with Rife’s method. The director of the Rockefeller Institute and his cohorts however, vowed not to support Kendall and Rife, and even openly attacked and insulted Kendall in front of his audience.
In 1933: Rife isolated a filterable virus of carcinoma and succeeded in destroying the typhus bacteria, the herpes virus, and even had breakthroughs on the polio virus.
In 1935: Rife built a much smaller microscope that could be mass produced.

But the tide slowly began to turn against Rife and his genius. For every supporter there were many others whose lucrative careers were being threatened by anything outside of the accepted medical establishment paradigm. Dr. Thomas Rivers of the Rockefeller Institute was one of the first to attack, and he was soon joined by Dr. Hans Zinser, a Harvard Medical School microbiologist. They declared Rife’s theories and techniques as worthless and naturally, many others in the habit of obedience to authority and who saw Rife’s inventions as a grave threat to their livelihoods, joined in.

Around 1936, Rife realised that he needed to form an independent company to produce machines that were much more ‘manageable’ than the large monstrosity in his lab and so he contracted with an individual who understood his invention, and who demonstrated the ability to package Rife’s devices more compactly, whilst maintaining their efficiency. That man was Philip Hoyland, an electronics engineer. So, Rife, Hoyland, and two other associates formed the Beam Ray Corporation with the idea of manufacturing and distributing the machines to clinicians and physicians.

But Roy Rife had reckoned without the power and influence of the evil, corrupt banksters’ lackey named Morris Fishbein, who ran their ‘prestigious’ American Medical Association (AMA) from 1924-1954. Fishbein had been particularly successful at the controlling and wilfully suppressing of natural cures for cancer by using money, coercion, and the power of the AMA ‘seal of approval.’ And just as he had done to others who had devised natural cancer cures, Fishbein, the notorious alternative cancer cure hit-man made a move to possess and control Rife’s technology on behalf of the all-powerful AMA.

So, in 1937, the AMA indicted Rife for ‘fraudulent medical practices’ and in 1938 Fishbein decided that if he could not commandeer Rife’s operation, that instead he would destroy it. This was Fishbein’s modus operandus with others who had devised alternative cancer cures, but would not allow him to virtually steal them away and suppress them. He used his Machiavellian power to ban doctors from using Rife technology and even confiscated equipment. In fact the AMA visited all doctors involved with Rife and warned them that… “Those who do not stop using the Frequency Instruments, will lose their medical licence.”

Doctors immediately relinquished their Rife Machines for fear of indictment and the AMA paid Kendall more than $200,000 (around $5 million today) to stop working on cancer cures and retire from the medical profession. He accepted this pay-out – indeed who among us would not have done so?

Fishbein then bribed Hoyland with $10,000 to file a suit against Rife in order to obtain the company for himself and include a Fishbein agent on the board of directors whilst excluding Rife from his own company. $10,000 then, equates to a quarter of a million today. However, although Rife counter-sued and won in 1939, the stress caused by all the betrayal and litigation took a severe physical, emotional and financial toll on the normally passive scientist, and he began drinking heavily.

In 1944, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, published a detailed article about Rife in their national journal, focusing on his microscope and how he was able to destroy disease-causing pathogens but shortly afterwards Dr. Kendall died of ‘unknown causes.’ However, a small circle of doctors in California continued using Rife technology, despite the AMA pressure, mainly thanks to the protection of a politically powerful medical person, Dr. Milbank Johnson who was a long-time Rife supporter.

Johnson was about to report all of Rife’s findings to the AMA the very next day, when he died under suspicious circumstances, mere hours before a press conference where he was to announce to the world that Rife’s electronic therapy had cured every patient (16 out of 16) in a medical study supervised by the University of Southern California. First thought to be accidental death, the poison was discovered several years later by federal investigators when Dr. Johnson’s body was exhumed.

All of Rife’s records were then subsequently destroyed, including many of the documents from the USC clinical trials he had held, which disappeared completely. His equipment was illegally confiscated, laboratories were destroyed, one doctor was harassed to the point of leaving the profession, and another even committed suicide. The wife of another doctor had a nervous breakdown, forcing her to receive shock therapy during her two months in a mental hospital. The ‘Medical mafia’ is a very apt and appropriate term.

Roy Rife was not yet quite finished, he made yet another attempt at manufacturing and distributing his Ray Beam device with the technology for using them correctly. He partnered with an engineer named John Crane, who had encouraged his continuance. After Rife’s exodus to Mexico, John Crane still continued in his attempts to bring Rife’s technology to public awareness whilst simultaneously railing against the medical establishment’s illegal suppression of his constitutional rights. He was eventually criminally indicted and tried on charges involving practicing medicine without a licence.

The trial jury was screened to eliminate all those with any medical knowledge, especially alternative healing, whilst retaining an AMA doctor as the jury foreman. Even Rife submitted a deposition from Mexico to support Crane’s defence, but it was not even admitted. Talk about rigging a trial! Crane was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment but two of the three counts against him were overturned later, and he was released from prison after serving 3 years and 1 month. Yet even after his release from prison, Crane continued his work underground and compiled and produced a 1000 page manual on the design and use of the Rife machine, and thanks to John Crane’s persistence, Rife’s ray beam technology managed to stay alive, but only on life support. Rife finally died in Mexico in 1971 at the age of 83.

In 1986, Barry Lynes, author of ‘The Cancer Cure That Worked: 50 Years of Suppression,’ a book that chronicles Royal Raymond Rife’s life and work, submitted an article to every member of the US Congress and the staff and students of George Washington University’s medical school as a last gasp effort to openly continue Rife’s important work. You will however, be totally unsurprised to find dear reader, that not even one single response, was forthcoming.

Currently, the ‘life support system’ for Rife’s work is a scattered group of technically-oriented individuals and holistic and allopathic doctors, connected by Internet and scattered throughout the world. They are, as best as they are able, maintaining Rife’s technology and even using it, in the hopes that someday it will be further developed and used for the benefit of all humanity. We can but live in hope.

Cancer – the truth

Did you know that the true 5-year cure rate of conventional cancer treatments is actually, about 2.1%? This statistic is taken from the Journal of Oncology in 2004, but the ‘cure rate’ has changed hardly at all since then. In fact, they hide their true cure rate by using clever terminology, such as by using the term ‘response,’ which has no meaning as far as actual survival is concerned.

You should also be aware that cancers such as…

Bladder

Kidney

Melanoma

Multiple Myeloma

Pancreas

Prostate

Soft tissue sarcoma

Unknown primary site

…all have a 0% success rate using chemotherapy treatment and in addition the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is also 0%. And even though the medical profession knows it is 0%, they still opt to poison people in this way.

It has also recently been discovered that about 27% of people diagnosed with cancer, who do nothing at all, are spontaneously healed anyway. That is correct, more than one quarter of people who do absolutely nothing; no chemotherapy, no radiation, no orthodox or even alternative methods, cure themselves of cancer. So given the current modern medical cure rate of 2%, chemotherapy and radiation is killing off the 25% of people that would have otherwise survived by doing absolutely nothing.

The stark fact is that If you simply choose to grab yourself a snack and sit down to watch your favourite TV show, you will have a 1250% HIGHER chance of surviving cancer, than if you visit your doctor and commence a traditional allopathic cure.

Treating cancer is BIG business – in fact, it is a $300bn a year business, yet 98% of conventional cancer treatments not only FAIL miserably, but are also almost guaranteed to make cancer patients sicker. And what is worse, the ‘medical mafia’ is suppressing many natural cancer cures that could help millions of sufferers live cancer free with no dependence on radiation, surgery and chemotherapy, as we saw above with the Rife saga.

The so-called treatment of cancer in the western world is one of the most egregious crimes in medical history – and that is up against some very stiff competition for that particular ‘honour,’ trust me. Enough is more than enough. Would you like to know the truth about the criminality of the oncology and cancer ‘business’ and about the sheer evils of chemotherapy and conventional cancer treatments? OK, good – let me begin…

Chemotherapy kills far more than cancer cells. Did you know that in a recent survey of oncologists (cancer specialists) a huge 91% said that they would refuse chemotherapy if they or a family member had cancer? This fact alone brings us closer to the truth that chemotherapy kills and they know it. However, conventional oncologists are not only allowing this to happen, but they are also bullying many patients into chemotherapy and surgery immediately following their diagnoses.

Thirteen drugs are used in chemotherapy and their listed, consequent side effects are somewhat lacking in reassurance as to the drug’s benevolence. These include… destruction of the immune system, leukopenia, haemorrhage, gonadal suppression, bone marrow depression, phlebosclerosis (hardening of the veins,) severe cellulites, blistering, tissue necrosis (death,) fever, chills, nausea, prolonged vomiting, partial or total hair loss, lethargy, disorientation, ataxis (inability to coordinate muscle movements, dysarthria (impaired speech,) anorexia, enteritis, stomatitis, erythema, (morbid redness of the skin,) anaemia, liver failure, kidney failure, cancer, and death.

For decades there has been a great deal of controversy within the medical community over what kind of medical treatment is most efficacious in treating cancer. The latest findings reveal that all conventional medical treatment for cancer is extremely stringent. The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, made a study lasting 25 years of the lifespan of cancer patients, and concluded that untreated patients do not die sooner than patients receiving orthodox treatment, (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy,) and in many cases they lived longer. After almost 40 years as a cancer researcher, Dr. Jones found for example that survival in breast cancer is four times longer without conventional treatment. He stated that… “People who refused treatment lived for an average of twelve and a half years. Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived on an average of only three years.” It is important to note that no refutations of Dr. Jones work have appeared, while on the other hand, his studies have been supported by other researchers, as a search of the Science Citation Index reveals.

Even the Journal of the American Medical Association took note of the phenomenon, in its diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, by Dr. Maurice Fox, a biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On the basis of studies carried out at the Harvard School of Public health, Dr. Fox found, among other things, that… “Those who refused medical procedures had a lower mortality rate than those who submitted.”

But why would that large percentage of oncologists – the ones urging so many patients to have chemotherapy – refuse to have it themselves? Because they know it is not just ineffective, but extremely toxic. Regardless of this fact, 75% of cancer patients are directed to receive chemotherapy. If you are not shocked enough yet, a rigorous review of chemotherapy revealed that it fails for 98% of people. And when chemotherapy was tested against no treatment, no treatment at all, was the better option.

In a German study of women over age 80 with breast cancer, those who received no treatment lived eleven months longer on average than those who received conventional cancer treatments. A 14-year study by two oncologists in Australia reported in the film, ‘A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies,’ that conventional treatment such as chemotherapy for all major cancers is totally ineffective -- far below a 10% success rate.

Chemotherapy is a barbaric and pointless procedure. It attacks and kills not just cancer, but also all the living, healthy cells in the body and completely cripples the body’s immune system. Whilst this extreme treatment has been declared effective, in many cases it is hard to tell which the supposed ‘therapy’ will kill first, the cancer – or the patient. In fact, the truth is that most people who die from cancer, actually die from its treatmenttreatments.

And mammograms also do more harm than good. The $4bn-a-year mammogram industry urges women to rely on these x-ray tests to ‘protect’ their health. However, what they do not say is that mammograms are a highly unnecessary and even harmful form of preventative care. In fact, mammograms harm ten women for every one the procedure helps. A study by researchers from the Cochrane Center in Demark reviewed both the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programmes on 500,000 women. For every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but ten would be harmed. This is because mammograms can actually INCREASE a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer by as much as 3% a year by irradiating the breast cells and thereby triggering cancer.

Modern cancer treatments are the ‘dark ages’ of medicine. In the documentary, ‘Cancer is Curable,’ one alternative cancer treatment expert said that someday people will look back and wonder “…what kind of Neanderthals we were,” for practicing surgery, radiation and chemotherapy (or cut, burn and poison.) He also called the conventional approach to cancer treatment, “medieval.”

Statistics show that there is no proof that preventive mastectomy -- removal of the whole breast – extends the life of breast cancer patients, yet oncologists happily proceed with it anyway. Preventative mastectomies are pointless procedures, and many patients are led to believe they have cancer, due to ‘false positive’ cancer screenings which results in them being pressured into having breasts removed for no reason whatsoever. And women undergoing these treatments are often scarred for life, mentally as well as physically.

CT scans are a common testing procedure for most cancer types, but the irony is that CT scan radiation is highly dangerous and actually has itself been shown to cause a substantial amount of cancer. A recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the radiation from current CT-scan use (estimated at more than 62 million CT scans per year in the US, alone) may cause as many as 1 in 50 future cases of cancer. This should not be taken lightly. Radiation from medical devices is a huge, under-estimated and even ignored contribution to the growing incidence of breast, and other forms of cancer.

According to an article in Time Health, other studies prove that doctors are performing too many unwarranted CT scans, exposing a countless amount of patients to cancer-causing radiation. Many mammograms are also mis-calibrated, so they end up churning out far too much radiation to be regarded as safe. If a woman begins getting routine mammograms at age 40, then by age 60 it is almost certain she will have breast cancer.

So it is no wonder that so many women contract this form of cancer – they begin getting frequent screenings starting in middle age at the urging of doctors everywhere, at the behest of course of Big Pharma, in whose interests it all is. The health and cancer industries know about the connection between CT scan radiation and mammograms and cancer statistics, yet they keep pushing patients into these ‘preventive’ procedures. The outrageous truth is that frequent mammograms purposely bring repeat business to the grossly corrupt cancer industry by creating the very problem that they purport to prevent.

Drug companies pay oncologists to promote expensive yet ineffective and toxic cancer drugs. Most oncologists do not make their money by treating patients, but by selling cancer drugs. In fact, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, as much as 75% of the average oncologist’s earnings come from selling chemotherapy drugs, all at a substantially inflated price.

Pharmaceutical companies not only hire charismatic people to charm doctors, exaggerate drug benefits and underplay side effects, but they also pay oncologists kickbacks to push their drugs. For example, Astra Zeneca, had to pay $280 million in civil penalties and $63 million in criminal penalties to the US government after it paid kickbacks to doctors for promoting its prostate cancer drug. Some oncologists not only bully patients into taking the destructive route of chemotherapy, toxic drugs and surgery, but they also omit to tell their patients the whole truth about the danger of these treatments, or other available options, cancer survival statistics, and much more.

There are a ridiculous number of false positives in cancer screenings. Among 1,087 individuals participating in a cancer screening trial who received a battery of tests for prostate, ovarian, colorectal and lung cancer, 43% had at least one false positive test result, according to a study published in an issue of ‘Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.’ In other words, almost half of those tested!

The lesson from all this, is that cancer ‘cover-ups’ and myths are just a few basic examples of how corrupt and dishonest the cancer industry really is. This especially pertains to oncologists, who are treating patients regardless of the disturbing truth about the procedures, testing and treatment processes they so frequently push upon their patients. Whilst not all oncologists should be placed into the same category, a large majority of these ‘criminal’ doctors should be held accountable and properly punished for the needless misery they are inflicting upon thousands of cancer sufferers. If you know anyone who is being pushed into chemotherapy and other deadly and unnecessary ‘treatments,’ share the truth with them today and you could save a life.

But the good news is that there is a general trend of awareness of the truth about cancer treatment and people educating themselves on the power of whole food nutrition and supplements. They are choosing doctors that educate and heal, rather than bully them into surgery and chemotherapy. The staggering documentary Cancer is Curable, mentioned earlier interviews doctors who tell how patients are often pressured by conventional oncologists who sometimes rush them onto the operating table the day after their diagnosis, without having their other choices explained to them.

On 10th July 2010 the Seattle Times carried the story of Sue Crump, a veteran pharmacist of twenty years who spent much of her time dispensing chemotherapy drugs. Sue died of pancreatic cancer, and one of her dying wishes was that the truth would be told about how her, “on-the-job exposure” to toxic chemotherapy drugs caused her own cancer. The truth is that maybe not surprisingly, one of the stated side-effects of chemotherapy drugs is that they actually CAUSE cancer.

Dr. Glenn Warner, who died in 2000, was one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in the US. He however, used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. On the treatment of cancer he said that…

“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”

And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, a French cancer specialist, “If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”

“Establishment medicine, with little or no evidence to support their barbaric use of these highly toxic drugs, continues to make fortunes while their patients spend their last days vomiting, debilitated, bald-headed and without dignity.” Dr. Robert E. Willner MD., Ph.D

Cancer Research

Cancer research charities throughout the world today, only ever undertake research that involves chemotherapy, radiotherapy and invasive surgery. If their ‘treatments’ do not involve butchery, poisoning or radiating your body to such an extent that your immune system becomes shattered and healthy cells are destroyed along with the cancerous ones, then they are not interested. Sometimes this destructive course will lead to an apparent ‘cure’ but this is often very short-lived as the disease returns to destroy what little is left of a devastated immune system, killing the patient long-term anyway but without that person’s death appearing in the statistics of ‘cancer victims’.

The myriad of charities and research institutions that make up the ‘cancer research Industry’ exist only to support the profits of the criminal, bankster-controlled pharmaceutical industries. In fact billions of pounds worldwide are siphoned from us, the poor deluded masses, into the coffers of the already mega-rich through highly persuasive, guilt-enhancing and fear-mongering advertising techniques as the controlled global media report one false breakthrough after another with monotonous regularity. The simple truth is that as stated above, there are cures for cancer but we are not allowed to know about them.

Indeed there is very impressive, certifiable evidence from former cancer patients who, having exclusively used ‘outlawed’ treatments, have won their battles against cancer successfully with no side-effects whatsoever. The question we must therefore ask ourselves is, why do the cancer research charities not spend our donations testing the efficacy of all possible cures and not just ones that fulfil their own twisted agendas?

The answer to this question is fairly obvious really. There are no mega-profits to be made out of ill health by promoting so-called ‘alternative’ or natural medicine and therefore it follows that in conventional medical research, there is no ‘level playing-field’ for those who wish to explore the efficacy and effectiveness of these apparently safe and proven treatments. Unfortunately the bankster-Elite are completely in control of our medical profession, from medical education through to the highest-paid consultants, meaning in effect that even the majority, well-meaning, decent doctors and scientists are dictated-to by a system they do not fully understand and which they blindly serve without realising how often they are being deceived.

Cancer research charities are in effect, a complete and utter sham and a means by which huge sums of money are ‘stolen’ every year from the people that they purport to be there to serve. In addition they are not afraid of or averse to using extreme emotional blackmail along with huge, influential media-backed money raising activities with such grand titles as ‘Breast Cancer Awareness Day,’ for example. A strong case could easily be made against them for causing appalling and unnecessary harm to people’s, health, wealth and happiness.

Their experts in cancer care may only advise patients to look at alternative therapies in order to help mitigate the dangerous and unpleasant side-effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy and on no account are they allowed to view them as a way of curing and beating the cancer itself.

The Depopulation Agenda

The banksters indeed control everything we need to survive, we are completely at their mercy. To them we are cattle to be used as they wish, but they now believe that the herd has to be culled, as we are growing too numerous for them to easily manage or control. They are carrying-out this task with depopulation programmes through vaccines, and manufactured diseases and viruses. National Security Study Memorandum [NSSM] 200, made depopulation in foreign developing countries a strategic national security priority of the United States government. It outlined what was to become a strategy to promote fertility control under the rubric ‘family planning.’

While the global elite construct vast, secure underground bunkers, eat ‘true’ organic food and not the fake stuff foisted upon us, and hoard seeds in Arctic vaults, the global poor are being slowly starved thanks to high commodity prices, and poisoned with genetically modified (GMO) foods. Austerity measures are being imposed on all the nations of the world, weather events grow more deadly and brush fires more frequent. And so the depopulation campaign of the inbred banksters is accelerating apace.

In 1961, Kennedy Administration officials, McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara and Dean Rusk, all CFR and Bilderberger members, led a study group which looked into ‘the problem of peace.’ The group met at Iron Mountain, a huge underground, corporate nuclear shelter near Hudson, New York, where the CFR ‘think tank,’ The Hudson Institute is located. The bunker contains offices in case of a nuclear attack for Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and JP Morgan Chase. A copy of the group’s discussions, known as the Report from Iron Mountain, was leaked by a participant and published in 1967 by Dial Press.

The report’s authors apparently regarded ongoing wars as both necessary and desirable, stating that…

“War itself is the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organisation conflict or conspire, the principal organising force…the essential economic stabiliser of modern societies.” The group also seemed concerned that through, “…ambiguous leadership, the ruling administrative class may lose its ability to rationalise a desired war, leading to the actual disestablishment of military institutions… The war system cannot responsibly be allowed to disappear until we know exactly what we plan to put in its place… The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power… The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. War has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary classes.”

Historian Howard Zinn also described this conundrum when he wrote… “American capitalism needed international rivalry – and periodic war – to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements.”

The Iron Mountain group was not the first to promote the ‘virtues’ of war. In 1909, the trustees of the Andrew Carnegie Foundation for International Peace (how Orwellian,) met to discuss pre-WWI American life. Many of the participants were members of Skull and Bones. They concluded that… “There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people… How do we involve the United States in a war?”

The Report from Iron Mountain went on to propose a ‘proper role’ for those of the lower classes, crediting military institutions with providing “…antisocial elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. The younger and more dangerous of these hostile social groupings have been kept under control by the Selective Service System... A possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political process, of slavery… The development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace.” Lovely people, these banksters.

Although enamoured with the idea of ‘slavery,’ the group also listed as other socioeconomic substitutions for war; an open-ended space programme aimed at unreachable targets, an omnipresent global police and peacekeeping force, massive global environmental pollution which would require a large labour pool to clean-up, socially-oriented blood sports [Hunger Games?] and a comprehensive eugenics programme.

Microsoft founder and multi-billionaire, Bill Gates, recently proposed a less public agenda of his ‘philanthropy,’ …population reduction, otherwise known as ‘eugenics.’ Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Long Beach, California TED2010 Conference. In his speech, Gates stated unequivocally that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth and when Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority. In January 2010 at the elite Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10bn over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world. How nice of him.

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent. But there we still see an increase of about 1.3 billion.” Bill Gates, eugenicist and banksters’ ‘gofer.’

What more proof do we need that vaccines are being actively used for de-population?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunisation) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and Big Pharma. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.

This appears on the surface to be a noble, philanthropic goal. But the problem is, that the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught dumping dangerous, or proven harmful, vaccines onto unwitting Third World populations when they cannot use the vaccines in the West. Some organisations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations programme is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death. I could not possibly comment.

In the aftermath of the most recent, ridiculous, non-existent ‘pandemic’ of a global H1N1 swine flu, first world countries were left with hundreds of millions of doses of untested vaccines. They decided to conveniently dispose of these, by handing them over to the WHO which in turn ‘donated them’ to selected ‘poor’ countries – a grand total of at almost 200 million doses.

“Why do they give the vaccines to the developing countries at all? The pandemic has been called-off in most parts of the world. The greatest threat in poor countries right now is heart and circulatory diseases while the virus figures at the bottom of the list. What is the medical reason for donating 180 million doses?” Dr. Thomas Jefferson of the Cochrane Research Center in Rome.

The Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers never mention the enormous health damage accruing from infant vaccination, including autism and numerous neuro-muscular deformities that have been traced back to the toxic adjuvants and preservatives used in most vaccines. Many vaccines contain Thimerasol, a compound containing 50% mercury, a deadly poison, used as a preservative. In July 1999 the US’ National Vaccine Information Center declared in a press release that, “The cumulative effects of ingesting mercury can cause brain damage.” In the same month, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted the public about the possible health effects associated with Thimerasol-containing vaccines. They strongly recommended that Thimerasol be removed from vaccines as soon as possible.

However, this has never happened. We are still ‘happily’ and blindly injecting all our new-born with multiple doses of this filth, all to the huge financial benefit of the banksters’ Big Pharma of course.

But, in addition to promoting technology that could destroy mankind, the banksters are equally adept at suppressing technology that would benefit us. We have already seen an example of this earlier, The Rife machine, but here are some other examples of…

Suppressed Technologies

As I have clearly shown throughout this indictment of the banksters, anyone or anything that stands in the way of their evil plans for power and profit, is either marginalised or ruthlessly eliminated. So many inventions that could have benefitted mankind, whether it be the cheap, abundant energy of Nikola Tesla, or an idea to make cars much more fuel efficient, are obviously not what the banksters and their friends in Big Oil, would wish to see in the ‘marketplace.’ The banksters do not believe in competition, they much prefer a nice, lucrative monopoly.

For a group who is apparently ‘concerned’ about the over-use of ‘fossil fuels’ and their effect on the environment in the form of CO2 emissions, the banksters seem remarkably reticent to allow anything to market, that dramatically reduces oil and petroleum consumption – or even replaces it altogether. Take for example, the case of Stan Meyers…

Water can be broken down into its constituent parts of hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. Mainstream science however, claims that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only in the worst case scenario. When water is bombarded with its own molecular resonant frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyers, it collapses into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Also, using different electrolytes (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) improves the efficiency of the process, dramatically. It is also known that certain geometric structures and surface textures are more effective than others. The implication of this is that unlimited amounts of hydrogen fuel can be made to drive engines, in cars specifically, for simply the cost of water. Even more amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman in 1957 that spontaneously breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical changes in the metal itself. This in effect means that this special metal alloy can make hydrogen from water free of cost, forever.

Stan Meyers, the un-heralded American inventor of a working, patented vehicle that ran only on normal, household water, was allegedly murdered by poisoning in the late 1990s after successfully demonstrating his prototype which was capable of 100mph+. He had been the subject of harassment and threats by bankster ‘Big Oil’ interests and his death was perhaps the not too surprising culmination of his refusal to cease the project.

The British Advanced Energy Institute reported that… “We recently sent a delegation to witness Stan’s work, to really evaluate it, and came back saying ‘this is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century.’”

Stanley Meyer was sued by his potential investors, the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Defense. It was determined that his device was ‘nothing revolutionary’ and ‘simply uses the process of electrolysis.’ His claims were determined fraudulent, and his technology was dismissed as unworkable, despite years of testing and demonstrations that proved the contrary. However, Meyer persisted with his research and development and so in 1998, Stanley was murdered. He and his brother Stephen met two men at a restaurant who claimed to be ‘potential investors.’ After drinking a sip of cranberry juice, Stanley grabbed his neck and ran outside, where he was violently sick. Stephen recalled, “I ran outside and asked him, ‘What’s wrong?’ He said, ‘They poisoned me,’ and that was his dying declaration.”

The following day Stephen tracked down the two men… “I told them that Stan had died and they never said a word, absolutely nothing, no condolences, no questions, nothing.” Then a week after his death, the FBI arrived at Stanley’s home and confiscated his car and all his research equipment.

So what is happening today regarding Meyers’ great invention? Absolutely nothing. The patent still exists and is available to view on the Internet, so therefore the technology, or at least the wherewithal to recreate the technology, still exists. So why is this invention not being manufactured today? Simply because it would solve all the world’s energy problems instantly and almost literally overnight, eliminate oil as an essential fuel and as we now know, that is not how politics and commerce works. It is always money that rules and common sense or benefits to the masses are not the determining factors.

Whose purposes are served by this action and what forces are impeding the availability of free-energy?

As we know, in the western world there is a money-monopoly in place. This money-monopoly is solely in the hands of a small number of privately-owned banks, and these banks are owned by the wealthiest families in the world, the bankster-Elite bloodlines. Their future plan is to eventually control 100% of all of the capital resources of the world, and thereby control everyone’s lives through the availability (or non-availability) of all goods and services. Therefore an independent free energy device within the reach of every person in the world would ruin this plan for world domination of the money supply, permanently.

Currently, a nation’s economy can be either retarded or enhanced by the lowering or raising of interest rates, but if an independent source of capital, via free energy, were present in the economy and any business or person could raise more capital without borrowing it from a bank, this centralised strangulation of interest rates would simply not have the same effect. Free energy technology changes the value of money, simply put. The banksters do not want any competition, they understandably wish to maintain their current monopoly control of the money supply and so for them, free energy technology is not just something to suppress; it must be permanently deleted from history, if at all possible.

Their motivations, as discussed throughout this book are their imagined ‘divine right’ to rule us all, greed and their insatiable need to control everything except themselves. The weapons they have used to enforce the permanent suppression of technology beneficial to mankind include intimidation, ‘expert’ debunkers, the covert buying-up and destruction of competitive technology, and often murder or attempted murder of the inventors, character assassination, arson and a wide variety of financial incentives and disincentives to manipulate its advocates. They have also promoted and supported the general acceptance of a scientific principle that states that free energy is impossible, via Newton’s laws of thermodynamics.

Most national governments have discovered, by trial and error that the only foreign policy that really works, over time, is a policy of ‘tit for tat.’ What this really means to us all is that governments treat others the way that they themselves are being treated. There is a constant jockeying for position and influence in world affairs and the strongest party wins. In economics, it is apparent that, ‘The one with all the gold makes all the rules.’ So it is with politics also, but its appearance is more Darwinian. It is simply the survival of the fittest. However, in politics the fittest has come to mean the strongest party who is also willing to fight the dirtiest. Absolutely every means available is used to maintain an advantage over the adversary and everyone else is the adversary regardless of whether they are considered friend or foe. This includes outrageous psychological posturing, lying, cheating, spying, stealing, the assassination of world leaders, proxy wars, alliances and shifting alliances, treaties, foreign aid and the presence of military forces wherever possible.

Like it or not, this is the psychological and actual arena that national governments operate within. No national government will do anything that simply gives an adversary an advantage for free, it is national suicide. An activity by any individual, inside or outside the country that is interpreted as giving an adversary an edge or advantage will be deemed a threat to ‘national security’.

So therefore, free energy technology is a national government’s worst nightmare. Openly acknowledged, free energy technology sparks an unlimited ‘arms race’ by all governments in a final attempt to gain absolute advantage and domination. For example would Japan not feel intimidated if China had free energy? And would Israel sit by quietly as Iran acquired free energy? Unlimited energy available in the current state of affairs on this planet would lead to an inevitable reshuffling of the balance of power. This could become an all-out war to prevent the ‘other’ from having the advantage of unlimited wealth and power. Everybody will covet it and at the same time, want to prevent everyone else from getting it.

There is also the credible argument that governments will suppress alternate technology for the reason of preserving income streams derived from taxing energy sources currently in use. Their weapons include the preventing of the issuance of patents based on national security grounds, the legal and illegal harassment of inventors with criminal charges, tax audits, threats, phone-taps, arrest, arson, theft of property during shipment and a host of other intimidations which make the business of building and marketing a free energy technology practically impossible.

The appearance of free energy technology in the public domain would represent the dawning of a truly civilised age. It would be an epochal event in human history and no one individual would take credit for it. No-one can become rich on it, no-one can rule the world with it; it is simply a gift from the ‘gods.’ The world as it is currently ordered cannot have free energy technology without being totally transformed by it into something else, and this could unfortunately, never be allowed to happen.

‘Awakenings’

Imagine waking-up tomorrow morning and realising that everything you had previously thought to be true, was just a cruel deception? A deception deliberately created by people that stood to profit from your ignorance. Not just in one small area, but in every facet of your existence. Would you want to know – or would you still be content with the life you had before you discovered the truth? Could you count to ten and then continue as though nothing had ever happened?

Further imagine that you could now recognise the ways in which you had been deceived and the way that all those who came before you, down the long centuries, had also been made to believe gross lies and deceptions? How valuable would the truth become? Would it make you change your habits, your routines or the way you think or speak? Would it have a huge impact upon you or would you simply brush it all off and carry on, ‘business as usual?’

Now imagine that if after awakening, you decided to respond to that truth and began studying ‘real’ history and world events and discovered that events were no longer random as they had previously appeared, but contained a pattern and a sequence? What if that sequence was repeating? What if while studying these events they began to seem familiar? Welcome to the world of your author…

Maybe you are now awakening and have reached a kind of epiphany and recognise that there is something ‘wrong’ with the world, but you cannot quite tell exactly what it is. Instinctively, you will seek-out others for guidance and latch onto those who possess either hidden knowledge or seem to be a little wiser than yourself.

The truth is like an onion, it has many layers. There is always another layer of truth below, waiting to be exposed by us, ready to be revealed to everyone on the planet. No exceptions.

The outer layer is apparent to the largest number of people... This layer is the mainstream media. Everything from the news on TV or radio to the populist newspapers is ‘mainstream news.’ In addition, most books, trade journals and magazines are part of the mainstream. No book published by the large, mainstream publishing houses will ever tell the real truth, due to the publishers’ roles as ‘gatekeepers.’

The next layer of the onion is the alternative media. This layer often gives us the false impression that it is challenging the distortions and outright lies of the mainstream. But unfortunately, even the alternative media, has been heavily infiltrated and infected by the banksters and their many lying agents of disinformation, acting as ‘controlled opposition’ to the mainstream-Zionist media.

The sad truth is that most people never get past the first layer of the onion. Life’s artificial reality is instilled into them from womb to tomb and they truly live and die in a ‘dream-world.’ But for those that are willing and able to wake-up from this highly restrictive dream-world and see the light of truth, there is unfortunately, a price to pay. A price that for some is just too much. Truth-seekers are indeed scorned and ridiculed by the rest of ‘society’ and even to simply question any ‘official story,’ is to be tagged as a crackpot, a weirdo or a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ demonising those who merely choose not to believe the mainstream lies. And unfortunately, that is an extremely uncomfortable position for most of us.

However, please do not be deterred by this, because by undertaking your own research and over time, by checking and re-checking the facts, by recognising the bias of the mainstream, you will learn to tell the difference between truth and lies, and you will be able to counter the ridicule and find inner strength to spread the word of truth yourself.

Insults and name-calling are VERY powerful weapons against those seeking truth. Most people are easily intimidated and immediately return to their ‘dream-world,’ whereas some are able to shrug-off the verbal attacks and forge on regardless. Unfortunately, there is a perception that we are all alone in our pursuit of the real truth about life. But this is not so. There are literally millions of people all around the world who once felt that way, but are now part of supportive groups and who are now able to find solace and encouragement in the presence of like-minded others.

Awakening brings a burning desire to track down ‘gurus’ and ‘experts’ in the truth movement, to help guide us and speed-up our pursuit of truth. And unfortunately, those that are deceiving us know this, so they provide us with ‘experts’ and ‘gurus’ of their own, whose agenda is to take us down the wrong paths. These people are often referred-to as ‘controlled opposition,’ but are now also more commonly known as ‘agents of dis-information.’ The false information they impart may well fit perfectly into our now-comfortable ‘information gap,’ and we may then immediately ‘latch-onto’ our new ‘hero’ and ultimately become their loyal follower. However, this will inevitably lead us away from and not towards, the truth.

Agents of Disinformation

So who exactly can we trust? The answer is simply, hardly anyone – with several notable exceptions, notwithstanding. This sounds incredibly depressing, but please let me reassure you that travelling the road of truth alone can actually be very inspiring – even liberating. And it will ultimately lead to your association with many like-minded people.

6474488_orig

What many find confusing, is the exact nature of the phenomenon of ‘controlled opposition,’ which is comprised of ‘useful idiots’ in the service of the manipulative powers-that-be. This phenomenon is well-known, even appearing in mainstream history sources and is often quoted by media venues which proclaim to be alternative, i.e., auxiliary to the bankster / corporate establishment, and yet are themselves, controlled opposition.

Every controlled opposition personality provides ‘some’ truth and this is how they ‘hook’ their victims. With time and experience comes an ability to discern the truth from lies and eventually you will actually be able to use these ‘nuggets of truth’ to expand your own investigations.

One sign of controlled opposition is a viewpoint or alleged event that is easily, immediately promoted to a platform of millions. ‘Real’ truthers spend years trying to spread the word, most of them failing to get even as few as 500 views on a YouTube™ video over the course of many years… But controlled opposition receives plenty of exposure… immediately. For example, it is not unusual for them to have a YouTube™ video that has a million views in mere days. This is an impossibility for real truthers, with no ties to intelligence agencies.

Probably the best example of an alternative media-controlled opposition, is without doubt it’s most charismatic and vocal spokesman...

Alex Jones is an American radio host and documentary filmmaker. His nationally syndicated talk show, The Alex Jones Show, airs on over sixty AM, FM, and short wave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large internet-based audience. He also controls the Infowars website. Alex Jones is constantly referred to as a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ by mainstream media outlets.

That the banksters put Alex Jones in place to be the ‘leader’ and ‘symbol’ of the alternative media, is beyond doubt. He is far too visible, vocal and prominent, which really gives the whole game away. Genuine truth seekers and patriots, would never, ever be allowed his kind of exposure and even if they somehow managed it against all the odds, they would soon be silenced – one way or another.

Alex Jones repeatedly attacks the idea that TV ‘fakery’ was used on 9/11, yet it has become obvious to serious investigators that no planes were used in the attack. Is Alex Jones slow to catch-on, or is he deliberately covering up evidence that links the mainstream media to 9/11? Indeed, Alex Jones would appear to have a clear motive for the cover up of the media’s complicity in 9/11. His network, GCN Live, has close ties to ABC News and in fact, ABC provides satellite broadcasting services for ‘The Alex Jones Show.’ Some say that this is only a business deal, and is not very important… but think about it… why would part of the bankster-controlled media, provide satellites to a network that exposes them? They would not.

Jones’ agenda is actually to distract us from the scrutinisation of the most significant group in the bankster network... the Zionists. Several other people have exposed Jones as Zionist-controlled false opposition, but nevertheless, many people new to the truth movement are being duped by this charlatan. Jones’ allegiance to Zionism, neatly explains why he never targets Zionism or the racist, Zionist rogue state of Israel in his notorious rants. This may well stem from the fact that his wife is Jewish, which makes his two children Jewish under Talmudic law and eligible for the Israeli Law of Return. Even as a CIA/Mossad controlled asset, Jones does present a great deal of truth, albeit mixed with much dis-information, outright lies and propaganda. Propaganda is similar to rat poison in that 99% of it is tasty and wholesome, the purpose of which is to disguise the remaining 1% that will kill you. It is this tactic which ‘muddies the waters,’ and steers people from the truth.

Jones even had the audacity to claim on his show that… “Arabs control Hollywood and the world stock markets,” a statement that is truly laughable. He also claims that the NWO conspiracy is led by a group of elites from all races, with no particular racial group wielding disproportionate influence in the agenda. This concept of a shadowy and unidentifiable enemy then leaves truth seekers bewildered, frustrated, and hopeless of ultimately defeating and ultimately bringing the criminals to justice. In order to defeat any enemy, they must obviously, firstly be identified.

Maintaining the Holocaust™ fraud is key to the Zionist conspiracy for world domination, as it acts to protect Zionists as a group from opposition, and demonises the ideal of white nationalism (the main opposition to the Zionist agenda) in general by association with the mythical ‘monstrous evil’ of the Nazis. However, Jones strongly supports and promotes the idea that the German Nazis deliberately targeted Jews for extermination and genocide.

Of course, this all makes sense when you consider the logic of the banksters, in setting-up and promoting a false opposition ‘leader’ in order to neutralise and control opposition to their agenda, by leading the gullible away from the real truth. Alex Jones is the most high-profile member of the ‘truth movement,’ is promoted by establishment television networks, and has a nationally syndicated radio show that reaches millions. If Jones were really a threat to the agenda, would be really be allowed to speak to millions of people? Would they have not ‘pulled the plug’ on his radio show long ago, if he were a threat? In fact the quickest way to have his show taken off air would be to start talking about undue Jewish influence and power and expose the Holocaust hoax. ‘If you want to know where the true power lies, ask whom you are not allowed to criticise.’

Jones often acknowledges that non-white immigration is being used as a weapon to weaken the Caucasian nations, but this is too obvious to deny, especially with an audience of largely conservative, white people that make-up the patriot movement. Yet he often denounces those brave white people who argue for white nationalism. Why? Because attacking and destroying strong ‘white’ nations is a primary facet of the Zionist agenda for world conquest. It is the western, ‘white’ populations whom the Zionists have correctly identified as their greatest threat

Unfortunately, the conclusion has to be drawn that the Zionists’ ‘in-your-face’ attack dog, Alex Jones is the absolute ultimate in dis-information agents.

Another prominent, controversial figure is David Icke, who courts criticism, but at the same time does much valuable work, exposing the banksters and their financial strategy for the creation of a single, global slave state. He mixes verifiable evidence exposing the international enemy, with spiritual material which cannot be criticised other than according to the beliefs held by whoever examines them. But, he also appears to support the Zionist Shill and Holocaust™ promoter, Alex Jones. Anyone who purports to fight against the lies of the bankster-Establishment yet associates themselves with a known ‘gate-keeper’ and fear monger, should raise serious questions, in my view.

However, Icke was at the forefront of the campaign to expose the paedophiles in the BBC, Westminster, and Windsor family and his unrelenting assault upon the likes of former Prime Minister, Edward Heath, are truly praise-worthy. Likewise, Icke’s focus upon the Rothschild dynasty has certainly helped to highlight the economic tactics of those who would enslave us all. Indeed, by exposing the supremacist ideology of Rothschild Zionism, Icke has paved the way for the Jewish people to march in step with those who have no desire to see everyone outside the global elite, reduced to serfs of the banksters.

Totally dismissing Icke’s research would be to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water,’ and perhaps this is the purpose of the sprinkling of dubious esoterica into his otherwise useful material. Is he a gate-keeper, or does he genuinely believe that differences in the material realm do not matter? Icke’s ‘Universalism’ though, leads directly to an acceptance of Internationalism and if culture, nation, race, land, blood and soil etc., are meaningless, then what is there to fight against? If we are all One, and reality is a holographic illusion, then why bother to fight the common enemy at all? Indeed, would that not make our oppressors one with us, thus making resistance to their machinations, resistance to ourselves? For Icke to dismiss what makes us unique, yet simultaneously to argue against the globalist menace, is disingenuous and self-contradictory.

Icke’s persistent, ongoing characterisation of the ever-encroaching totalitarian state as ‘fascism,’ also arouses my suspicions somewhat. I have already provided the reader with a synopsis of the differences between fascism and communism/socialism and also constant references to the fact that the banksters are desirous of a socialist-communitarian future for us all – the New World Order. Icke must surely be aware of the differences, yet constantly promotes the idea that what we are currently experiencing and will continue to experience in the proposed NWO, is pure ‘fascism,’ not communism. We are being subtly deceived, I believe

Regardless of whether Icke’s intentions are benign or malicious, would the banksters plant leaders in the ‘resistance,’ knowing that they could thereby stifle any real dissent? Yes, of course they would. Maybe he is genuine but misguided, I certainly do hope so, although I remain unconvinced for now. But do we actually need leaders, as such? Surely, the less we rely on others the better and a led opposition is always susceptible to outside control and manipulation.

Acknowledgements,Thanks and Dedication

Foreword

So, why ‘Behind the Curtain?’

Introduction

Chapter 1

The Origins of Money and Banking

In the beginning . . .

The 18th Century

The 19th Century

The American Civil War 1861-65

Chapter 2

The Rise of the Banksters

The Dreyfus Affair

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The Banksters’ Secret Societies

Freemasonry

Chapter 3

The Bank that Robbed the World

The Mechanics of Bank and Mortgage Fraud

The Kingdom of the Banksters

Chapter 4

The Elite Money Power

The Knights Templar

Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution

The Round Table

Rockefeller. Money, Oil, Medical, Education, Think Tanks and Foundations.

Astor. Money, Drugs, Real Estate, Politics.

Russell. Money, Drugs, Skull and Bones.

Li. Money, Drugs, Politics and Vice

Bundy. Money, Politics

Onassis. Money, Oil, Drugs, Politics

Du Pont. Money, Chemicals, Politics

Kennedy. Money, Bootlegging, Movies, Politics

Reynolds. Money, Tobacco, Metals, Politics

Krupp. Money, Military, Steel, Chemicals, Politics

Rothschild. Money, Politics, Power-broking

Secret Societies

The Trilateral Commission

The JASON Society

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

The Bilderberg Group

Chapter 5

The British Royal Bankster Family

Royal Intrigue

The ‘Royal’ Jack the Ripper Murders

More Royal Misdemeanours

The Royally-sanctioned Murder of Princess Diana

Diana’s ancestry

One law for us, no laws for them . . .

Foreign Crimes during the reign of the current Monarch

Ireland, 1500-date

Chapter 6

Bankster War Crimes — World War I

World War I Begins in Earnest

The Intelligence Services

World War I profits

The Treaty of Versailles

Chapter 7

The Red, Zionist Menace

Communism — in the beginning

Communism — the Rise

Chapter 8

The Depths of Depression

Chapter 9

World War Two — The Problem

Chapter 10

World War Two – The Reaction

Pearl Harbor

The Fall of Singapore

The Battle of Midway

The Battle of Stalingrad

The Dieppe Raid

The Casablanca Conference

‘The Dambusters’ Raid

Hamburg Fire-Storms

The Allied Invasion of Southern Europe

The Bari Raid – A Chemical Warfare Cover-Up

The Slapton Sands Debacle

D-Day, 6th June 1944

The Banksters’ Bretton Woods Conference

Rockefeller.
Money, Oil, Medical, Education, Think Tanks and Foundations.