Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Sunday, 18 August 2013

Reflections & Warnings - An Interview with Aaron Russo (FULL)

From YouTube:
Description:

In an historic final interview, filmmaker and music promoter Aaron Russo goes in depth on the insider-knowledge given to him by a member of the Rockefeller family. Russo was told (prior to 9/11) of plans to stage terror attacks, invade foreign nations, and kickstart a high-tech police state control grid that would track the populations' every move with implantable R.F.I.D. microchips.

This information-packed presentation is filled with never-before seen footage. Throughout the film, Alex Jones breaks down the latest activities of the New World Order and how it ties into what Russo predicted. Aaron explains how the elite created the women's liberation movement to break up the family and tax working women. Russo breaks down the deception of democracy — which is nothing more than mob rule guaranteed to produce tyranny. Russo also exposes the IRS & Federal Reserve. He blasts the unconstitutional and predatory institutions that have crippled the American Republic and crushed the people with bogus taxes, inflation and loss of privacy. Russo explains that he himself was persecuted in the late 80s by a criminal retroactive tax scheme that attempted to levy new taxes on years already passed. As night falls on the Republic, Aaron Russo delivers a powerful call for the forces of liberty to rise and crush tyranny. Only then can the Republic be restored.

Thursday, 1 August 2013

Jesse Ventura reveals who shot Kennedy...





Jesse Ventura pushing the boundaries of mainstream TV in the US to their limits.

Thursday, 6 June 2013

Bilderberg 2013 - Report from the Mail


Who are the billionaires and politicians arriving for secretive conference at Watford hotel and what do they do there?

From the Mail:

• Attendees thought to include politicians, top business executives and royalty

• Delegates were heckled by protesters as they arrived for four-day meeting

• MP Michael Meacher describes delegates as the ‘real top brass of Western finance capitalism’

• Massive police operation could cost British taxpayer around £2million

• Conspiracy theorists claim leaders use event to plot world domination

• Bilderberg researcher: ‘There are villains there who are basically trying to organise government’

• Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Eric Schmidt of Google will both be attending

• List of 140 politicians, academics and businessmen only includes 14 women

Delegates for a private conference of top politicians and businesspeople from around the world have started to arrive at a luxury country hotel.

Several cars with blacked-out windows entered the gates of the Grove Hotel, near Watford, in Hertfordshire, this morning for the secretive meeting of the Bilderberg Group.

It is thought billionaire executives from multinational companies such as Amazon and Google, high-ranking political figures including Chancellor George Osborne, and even members of royal families are among the 130 or so attendees.

Famous for being shrouded in secrecy, the Bilderberg conference is taking place in Britain for the first time since 1998 and conspiracy theorists believe this is where leaders plot world domination.

Continued:

Bilderberg 2013 - List of Attendees


From the Telegraph -
 although it should be noted that others do attend who do not wish to be included in the official list - these usually consist of high ranking politicians.

Chairman: Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO, AXA Group

Paul M. Achleitner, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG

Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the Board, Zurich Insurance Group Ltd

Marcus Agius, Former Chairman, Barclays plc

Helen Alexander, Chairman, UBM plc

Roger C. Altman, Executive Chairman, Evercore Partners

Matti Apunen, Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA

Susan Athey, Professor of Economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business

Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, Columnist, Milliyet Newspaper

Ali Babacan, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs

Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA

Nicolas Barré, Managing Editor, Les Echos

José Manuel Barroso, President, European Commission

Nicolas Baverez, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Olivier de Bavinchove, Commander, Eurocorps

John Bell, Regius Professor of Medicine, University of Oxford

Franco Bernabè, Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia S.p.A.

Jeff Bezos, Founder and CEO, Amazon.com

Carl Bildt, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs

Anders Borg, Swedish Minister for Finance

Jean François van Boxmeer, CEO, Heineken

Svein Richard Brandtzæg, President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA

Oscar Bronner, Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt

Peter Carrington, Former Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings

Juan Luis Cebrián, Executive Chairman, Grupo PRISA

Edmund Clark, President and CEO, TD Bank Group

Kenneth Clarke, Cabinet Minister

Bjarne Corydon, Danish Minister of Finance

Sherard Cowper-Coles, Business Development Director, International, BAE Systems plc

Enrico Cucchiani, CEO, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA

Etienne Davignon, Belgian Minister of State; Former Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings

Ian Davis, Senior Partner Emeritus, McKinsey & Company

Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, Director and Leon Levy Professor, Institute for Advanced Study

Haluk Dinçer, President, Retail and Insurance Group, Sabancı Holding A.S.

Robert Dudley, Group Chief Executive, BP plc

Nicholas N. Eberstadt, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy, American Enterprise Institute

Espen Barth Eide, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs

Börje Ekholm, President and CEO, Investor AB

Thomas Enders, CEO, EADS

J. Michael Evans, Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs & Co.

Ulrik Federspiel, Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S

Martin S.Feldstein, Professor of Economics, Harvard University; President Emeritus, NBER

François Fillon, Former French Prime Minister

Mark C. Fishman, President, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research

Douglas J. Flint, Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc

Paul Gallagher, Senior Counsel

Timothy F Geithner, Former Secretary of the Treasury

Michael Gfoeller, US Political Consultant

Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company

Ulrich Grillo, CEO, Grillo-Werke AG

Lilli Gruber, Journalist - Anchorwoman, La 7 TV

Luis de Guindos, Spanish Minister of Economy and Competitiveness

Stuart Gulliver, Group Chief Executive, HSBC Holdings plc

Felix Gutzwiller, Member of the Swiss Council of States

Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings

Olli Heinonen, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School of Government

Simon Henry, CFO, Royal Dutch Shell plc

Paul Hermelin, Chairman and CEO, Capgemini Group

Pablo Isla, Chairman and CEO, Inditex Group

Kenneth M. Jacobs, Chairman and CEO, Lazard

James A. Johnson, Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners

Thomas J. Jordan, Chairman of the Governing Board, Swiss National Bank

Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Managing Director, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC

Robert D. Kaplan, Chief Geopolitical Analyst, Stratfor

Alex Karp, Founder and CEO, Palantir Technologies

John Kerr, Independent Member, House of Lords

Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.

Klaus Kleinfeld, Chairman and CEO, Alcoa

Klaas H.W. Knot, President, De Nederlandsche Bank

Mustafa V Koç,. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.

Roland Koch, CEO, Bilfinger SE

Henry R. Kravis, Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson Institute

André Kudelski, Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group

Ulysses Kyriacopoulos, Chairman, S&B Industrial Minerals S.A.

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund

J. Kurt Lauk, Chairman of the Economic Council to the CDU, Berlin

Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School

Thomas Leysen, Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group

Christian Lindner, Party Leader, Free Democratic Party (FDP NRW)

Stefan Löfven, Party Leader, Social Democratic Party (SAP)

Peter Löscher, President and CEO, Siemens AG

Peter Mandelson, Chairman, Global Counsel; Chairman, Lazard International

Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Frank McKenna, Chair, Brookfield Asset Management

John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

Thierry de Montbrial, President, French Institute for International Relations

Mario Monti, Former Italian Prime Minister

Craig J. Mundie, Senior Advisor to the CEO, Microsoft Corporation

Alberto Nagel, CEO, Mediobanca

H.R.H. Princess Beatrix of The Netherlands

Andrew Y.Ng, Co-Founder, Coursera

Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc

David Omand, Visiting Professor, King's College London

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer

Emanuele Ottolenghi, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Soli Özel, Senior Lecturer, Kadir Has University; Columnist, Habertürk Newspaper

Alexis Papahelas, Executive Editor, Kathimerini Newspaper

Şafak Pavey, Turkish MP

Valérie Pécresse, French MP

Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

David H. Petraeus, General, U.S. Army (Retired)

Paulo Portas, Portugal Minister of State and Foreign Affairs

J. Robert S Prichard, Chair, Torys LLP

Viviane Reding, Vice President and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, European Commission

Heather M. Reisman, CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.

Hélène Rey, Professor of Economics, London Business School

Simon Robertson, Partner, Robertson Robey Associates LLP; Deputy Chairman, HSBC Holdings

Gianfelice Rocca, Chairman,Techint Group

Jacek Rostowski, Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister

Robert E. Rubin, Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury

Mark Rutte, Dutch Prime Minister

Andreas Schieder, Austrian State Secretary of Finance

Eric E. Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google Inc.

Rudolf Scholten, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG

António José Seguro, Secretary General, Portuguese Socialist Party

Jean-Dominique Senard, CEO, Michelin Group

Kristin Skogen Lund, Director General, Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter '66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University

Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, Goldman Sachs International

Martin Taylor, Former Chairman, Syngenta AG

Tidjane Thiam, Group CEO, Prudential plc

Peter A. Thiel, President, Thiel Capital

Baroness Williams (Clara Molden)

Craig B. Thompson, President and CEO, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Jakob Haldor Topsøe, Partner, AMBROX Capital A/S

Jutta Urpilainen, Finnish Minister of Finance

Daniel L. Vasella, Honorary Chairman, Novartis AG

Peter R. Voser, CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc

Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan Province, Canada

Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB

Kevin Warsh, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University

Galen G.Weston, Executive Chairman, Loblaw Companies Limited

Baroness Williams of Crosby, Member, House of Lords

Martin H. Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times

James D. Wolfensohn, Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company

David Wright, Vice Chairman, Barclays plc

Robert B. Zoellick, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Sunday, 2 June 2013

Bilderberg Meeting 2013 - Watford


Charlie Skelton of the Guardian reports on the Bilderberg Group meeting next week:

The week ahead: Bilderberg 2013 comes to … the Grove hotel, Watford

"The Bilderberg group’s meeting will receive greater scrutiny than usual as journalists and bloggers converge on Watford."

"On Thursday afternoon, a heady mix of politicians, bank bosses, billionaires, chief executives and European royalty will swoop up the elegant drive of the Grove hotel, north of Watford, to begin the annual Bilderberg conference.

It’s a remarkable spectacle – one of nature’s wonders – and the most exciting thing to happen to Watford since that roundabout on the A412 got traffic lights. The area round the hotel is in lockdown: locals are having to show their passports to get to their homes. It’s exciting too for the delegates. The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell will hop from his limo, delighted to be spending three solid days in policy talks with the head of HSBC, the president of Dow Chemical, his favourite European finance ministers and US intelligence chiefs. The conference is the highlight of every plutocrat’s year and has been since 1954. The only time Bilderberg skipped a year was 1976, after the group’s founding chairman, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, was caught taking bribes from Lockheed Martin."


Continued:

Saturday, 16 March 2013

Jesse Ventura 9/11 Truth Article Removed By The Huffington Post


This video from YouTube has proven difficult to post - its audio also sounds muffled in parts.

It does seem remarkable that in early 2013 "more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11" - but was not reported in the media. This YouTube video concerns the debate between these architects and Dr Judy Wood on how the buildings were brought down - not whether or not they were brought down by planes crashing into them - that option is rejected by both sides. The "Show more' from YouTube reads as follows:

Full Transcript here:

http://www.venturadebates.com/1066/je...

The Huffington Post removed Jesse Ventura's article titled "What Really Happened On September 11th?" Below is the statement where the article once existed. This video is the narration of the article. It deal mainly with the Architects and Engineers who have raised questions over 9/11. It does not get into the political nuances. Enjoy!

Editor's Note: "The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories -- including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post."

Originally Published March 10, 2010 and removed by The Huffington Post

By: Jesse Ventura

You didn't see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

That's right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy -- because they don't buy the government's version of events.

They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible -- or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this:

"The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction." He's especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in "pure free-fall acceleration" that afternoon -- even though it was never hit by an aircraft.

This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies , published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:

Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed.

Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.

Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage.

So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don't claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy's underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a "gravity driven collapse" without demolition charges defies the laws of physics.

These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there's the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn't have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry.

It didn't mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We're talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive.

Thursday, 7 March 2013

Bilderberg Group: The Secret Rulers of the World

From YouTube:

"In 1954, the most powerful men in the world met for the first time under the auspices of the Dutch royal crown and the Rockefeller family at the luxurious Hotel Bilderberg in the small Dutch town of Oosterbeek. For an entire weekend, they debated the future of the world. 'When it was over, they decided to meet once every year to exchange ideas and analyze international affairs. They named themselves the Bilderberg Group. Since then, they have gathered yearly in a luxurious hotel somewhere in the world to try to decide the future of humanity."

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks


From the Guardian - anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science.

"Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives."

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

The Most Elite of the Global Elite - or is Google Replacing Them?

Puppet Masters – World’s Only Trillionaires



Rothschild Family Conspiracy Documentary Puppet Masters, The Worlds only Trillionaires

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” ~ Rothschild.

Sunday, 20 January 2013

Goldman bankers get rich betting on food prices as millions starve


A valuable article in the Independent highlighting the cold and ruthless attitude of bankers towards those who are most vulnerable. Not surprising given the industries history – but worth being reminded so that their propaganda in the MSM might have less chance of having its desired effect!

Bank criticised for making £250m after destructive spikes in global food market
"Goldman Sachs made more than a quarter of a billion pounds last year by speculating on food staples, reigniting the controversy over banks profiting from the global food crisis.

Less than a week after the Bank of England Governor, Sir Mervyn King, slapped Goldman Sachs on the wrist for attempting to save its UK employees millions of pounds in tax by delaying bonus payments, the investment bank faces fresh accusations that it is contributing to rising food prices.”


Monday, 14 January 2013

Where is Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry report?


Channel 4 News asks why the Chilcot inquiry has not delivered its report so long after it was set up. Governments are simply too able to control the progress of such inquires if they do not wish for truth to be available to the electorate.

Another clear need for some form of Direct Democracy which gives the people the power to know what its government is up to – when they want to know. However, this case does make a mockery of any pretended advantage of Coalition government.

The Liberal Democrats voted against the Iraq war – if coalitions were of any value – they would have refused to support any of the Tory’s policies until the report was published – or at least given a deadline.

From C4 News:

“Where is the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, four and a half years after it was established and two months short of the tenth anniversary of the invasion?

A million words in, the inquiry team has been withered by illness and exhaustion, not a little of which has been caused by the intransigence of the political machine to regurgitate the papers of the time.

The resistance to its completion and publication are reportedly the political classes who supported and led the war effort – the very people most likely to be targeted by the inquiry findings. The fear is that the delays will become so protracted that the next election (2015) will be permitted to become yet another delaying force.”

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

But why pick on mothers who stay at home?


Of all the heartless and mindless policies that the Coalition has introduced, perhaps that of encouraging mothers to return to work before their children have started school is the most heartless and mindless.

It seems as if there is a deliberate plan by the Coalition to separate children from their mothers to undermine family life – which will also create insecurity and sometimes trauma within the children separated from their mothers at such an early age.

Coupled to this, with high unemployment amongst the young, mothers giving up work whilst their children are so vulnerable would provide work opportunities for many of these individuals who lives must seem to hold no future.

It was surprising but good to learn that even Margaret Thatcher shared this view from this article in the Mail:

“When my two sons were pre-school age, my husband and I had dinner with Margaret Thatcher. She had only recently left office and I recall feeling slightly shamefaced when she asked me what I did.

‘Actually I don’t do very much – although I am thinking of going back to work,’ I hazarded, not wishing to admit to the world’s most powerful and pre-eminent woman that I had actually made a considered decision to relinquish my career in order to stay at home and raise my children.

I imagined the former prime minister would be unimpressed; actually she applauded me. ‘My dear, you should not rush back to work. It just isn’t worth it. Your children need you.’

To this day, I recall feeling at once grateful that I did not have to embark on an exercise in self-justification, and pleased that a woman of such formidable political standing should recognise the value of my role as a stay-at-home mum.”

Monday, 7 January 2013

Cameron to stay until 2020!


David Cameron’s announcement at the weekend that he wants to stay Prime Minister until 2020 was probably more a veiled message to UKIP and its supporters that ‘if you think I am going to change my mind on Europe or disappear before the next election – you are mistaken’. This of course leaves the ex Tory supporters, who intend to support UKIP, in something of a quandary as they will be aware that by voting UKIP – they will, almost certainly, put Labour into office after the next General Election.

Having watched ‘The Iron Lady’ on Sunday [for the first time], it is difficult not to be struck by how Blair, Brown and now Cameron have wanted to take on the role of determined and resolute leader in the cause of ‘much needed reforms’. If the film is to have any impact, surely it should be that any reforms have to be with the agreement of the people [democracy is after all defined as ‘the will of the people’] and not regardless of public opinion.

If any warning were needed, beyond the danger of creating deep and lasting damage to the nation as Thatcher’s ‘free market’ policies have, there is the very real likelihood of long-term anguish and dislike, once out of office, as a result of forcing unwanted policies on the people – this clearly was the case for Thatcher and seems to have been the case for Blair and probably Brown. The lesson is that a reforming policy is likely to be a mistake if it does not have the general support of the people.

The temptation for a newly elected Prime Minister, particularly if their party has been out of office for some time, is to force through what they believe to be ‘necessary reforms’ – often reversing the policies of the previous administration. Since it is possible that the next election will not be won – great haste appears an imperative. Unfortunately, as we are seeing presently, this is very likely to result in poorly thought through legislation being passed.

This zigzagging of overall policy is harmful to the nation – because it creates bad laws – disregarding the cost of regularly enacting policies that are soon to be repealed. Far better to have an arbiter to approve any new laws that are to be passed – and the only group with the ultimate right to perform this role is the people themselves. Some form of Direct Democracy is becoming essential if the UK is to find its way through the current difficult and dangerous time in our history.


See also: There is no way back for representative democracy in its present form.

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Will 2013 be the year we are promised a referendum on the EU?


In the last poll of 2012 the Observer showed Labour on 39%, the Conservatives 29%, Liberal Democrats 8% and UKIP maintaining their third position with 15%.

In his end of year address, Cameron carefully avoided any reference to the EU, which is somewhat surprising since it is the key issue for the Tories – the one that determines whether the Party can make any kind of challenge to Labour at the next General Election.

UKIP’s continuing popularity, if only as a party of protest, has caused Cameron his greatest dilemma and he has seemed, in his most recent appearances, to be a man struggling to cling on to his position.

It is quite clear that if he gave an unconditional promise to include an ‘in/out’ referendum in the Party’s manifesto for the 2015 election, UKIP’s stated primary aim would be served by the Tories and Cameron could feel confident that those Tory voters who have defected to UKIP would return to the Party thereby giving them a chance of beating Labour in 2015.

Unfortunately, for the prime minister, he cannot do this because the Tory’s biggest backers, the large corporations, want the UK as a full member of the EU as evidenced by the CBI Director-General, John Cridland, New Year message – in which he said “it was vital the UK remained at the EU table banging the drum for its national interest – shaping the agenda on Single Market reform; on climate change; protecting the financial services industry; and promoting new trade agreements.”

This helps to explain Cameron’s dithering on this issue. Since taking office his, or rather George Osborne’s, strategy has been to put the greatest pressure on the people, by implementing harsh austerity measures and continuing to allow high immigration so that they are prepared to work harder and longer for little or no extra pay.

Through these policies the aim is to create the best conditions possible for both British and overseas global corporations to locate the HQ for their European operations here. Lowing rates of corporation tax and allowing some of the largest corporations to pay little or no tax adds to the attraction of the UK.

Unless the UK is influential within the EU – these corporations will not choose to set up or stay here. So Cameron hopes he will able to do a deal with the other EU members whereby some political powers are returned to the UK, to pacify the voters who want to leave the EU, but still remain influential in Europe. Presently this seems a circle that cannot be squared and it is little wonder that he is avoiding the subject at all costs.

Since the UK buys significantly more from the EU than they from us and that we pay one of the largest contributions towards the EU’s running costs – it is possible that Cameron will be able to strike some kind of deal to return powers for they will not want us to leave. There seems little doubt that his much heralded speech on the issue is being delayed in the hope that he will be able to make an announcement at that time of, at least, the outline of such a deal.

If Cameron can achieve this, there is some hope that he could win a referendum on the offer because the extent to which the British people want to leave the EU, judging by recent polls, is not overwhelming – however, he will want to hold that referendum as a stand alone issue, not incorporated with one asking if we should leave entirely as this must be avoided at all costs! This probably will be suggested as the next step – should the ‘reclaimed powers’ referendum result in a ‘No’.

Although there may be some hope of light at the end of the tunnel for the Tories, against this complex backdrop is the fact that even with the above offer – not enough UKIP voters may not return to the Party to enable them to win the General Election. For those who wish for the UK to withdraw from the EU entirely – this would be a dangerous situation for if Labour do win, they are unlikely to be under the same pressure to hold a referendum and they will continue their policy of ‘being at the heart of the EU’ and seek to find ways to bind us indefinitely, through entangling us in as many new projects as possible.

Whatever the outcome, one thing is for sure – that whoever wins the next election – the policies introduced on the EU and other matters will not be for the benefit of the people, but for the global corporations whose interests the main parties serve.

The Union of Deceit


In a damning article for the Mail, Christopher Booker traces back the roots of the UK’s membership of the EU showing how, from the outset, the intention was to deceive the people about the true goal – until it was too late to escape. We are now seeing the last acts of this deception being played out and we will see, over the next few years, whether the British people are able to escape the trap set so many years ago.

When the “Common Market” was proposed, then eventually joined in 1973, it was done so on the basis of beneficial trading agreements with the rest of Europe. Apart from joining the single currency, Britain has accepted all constitutional evolutions and signed all the treaties necessary to stay a member the Union. We have now reached the point where the main parties, each of whom wants us to stay part of the single market, have to negotiate these final stages without allowing an ‘in/out’ referendum to be held.

Presently, Cameron is focusing his rhetoric on establishing a ‘looser relationship’ as a result of UKIP’s recent rapid rise in the polls and how this will be tackled will be revealed in his speech on the subject later this month.

Christopher Booker and Richard North had researched the story of the ‘European Project’ for their book The Great Deception, which was published ten years ago, and unearthed cabinet documents clarifying that Macmillion’s cabinet knew the full intentions of the apparently gold-tinted Common Market, (established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957) and during a cabinet meeting in 1961, formally agreed that the ‘grand plan’ must be concealed from the British public. This showed that Edward Heath was fully aware of the aim of ‘the project’, that of Europe becoming ultimately a Superstate, when he presented the Common Market as an economy-boosting unification of trading in 1973 – as Heath was Macmillan’s ‘Europe Minister’ at the time.

The ‘grand plan’ was conceived originally by Frenchman Jean Monnet, a senior League of Nations official who dreamt up ‘The United States of Europe’ in the 1920’s – no doubt as a response to WW1. Understanding that his audacious vision could never be implemented in one fell swoop, it should be introduced therefore as an innocent trading agreement that is always secretly seeking ‘ever closer union’.

With every new treaty, such as it was originally planned, Britain relinquishes ever more powers to the clandestine nucleus in Brussels. Once transferred, the ‘sacred principle’ was that they could never be given back. No wonder Macmillan was concerned with ‘considerable’ problems the true political objectives of the Treaty of Rome would bring, so that he insisted that it was vital to emphasise only the economic advantages.

After two failed attempts, Heath applied for a third time for Britain to join the Common Market, doing so immediately after he was elected in 1970. No sooner had the negotiations begun, Heath was made aware of the discussions on Brussel’s next steps toward ‘full integration’. Instead of informing the British public of the future implications of joining the Common Market, Heath whispered into Europe’s ear, appealing for silence – he did not want to scare the British public away.

Heath continued to pretend that the Common Market was no more than a trading arrangement, and publicly announced that fears about losing sovereignty and independence were ‘unjustified’. Two years earlier, however, he and a Senior Foreign Office official wrote a paper called ‘sovereignty’ which, according to Booker, “spelled out” how it would be decades before the public would be aware of how much “power to govern” they’d lost, by which time it would be too late.

Indeed, by 1986 came the ‘Single European Act’ that, under Thatcher, handed over new legislative powers including those pertaining to the environment such as rubbish collections and wind-turbines which have, to put it mildly, been of limited success, or more strongly, disastrous and useless.

Although Thatcher, after acknowledging the Common Market as something quite different to that which she had previously supported, rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1990, which would have surrendered the pound in exchange for the euro and allowed Brussels to dictate and design Britain’s ‘social chapter’ – she was soon disposed of for Major to sign the treaty, albeit with single currency and ‘social chapter’ opt-outs.

But Britain has indeed been integrated into the EU’s ‘social chapter’ by more stealthier means – being sneaked in under the banner or ‘health and safety’.

Once Tony Blair came to power in 1997 he pushed for still ‘closer union’. After early political skirmishing and sabotaged treaties that intended to create a ‘Constitution for Europe’, Gordon Brown surrendered further sovereignty by signing the Lisbon Treaty, which brought in the farcical Court of Human Rights.

And now, so entrenched and suffocated by the EU Britain has become, it’s politician’s make vague and non-committal comments about ‘looser’ ties with the EU, while the Eurocrats themselves prescribe ‘more Europe’ to deal with the maladies Europe itself has caused. So powerful and overgrown has the tumorous European Union become that David Cameron, despite a majority wanting at least a referendum on Europe, still refuses the public their say, frequently remarking that he thinks: ‘the public don’t want to leave the EU.’

The ‘grand plan’ was conceived by one man; nurtured and watered with cunning and trickery, implemented successfully by neglecting it’s truthful directive and signed up to on the basis of deception and blatant lies. Britons need to wake up to deceitful premises of the EU and, one hopes, disprove the principle: ‘that once powers are given up to Brussels, they can not be returned.’

George Bush Senior's NWO Speech


Bush senior's NWO speech from 1991:





Commentators claim that Bush's New World Order is being planned and executed - and that this will take the form of a world government principally under the control of the global corporations - mostly from the US.

Using this route - democracy will be able to be bypassed almost entirely and a global feudalism established.