When do you think that this cartoon was drawn?

Click here to find out.

Everyone has been warned again and again about all of this….

gah!

The Morgan Fascist Coup Plot and How FDR Defeated It

by L. Wolfe
Introduction

Some 12 years ago, this news service published a report on the 1930s fascist coup plot against the Franklin D. Roosevelt government, led by a Morgan-centered cabal of powerful financial interests; the coup would have replaced FDR with a puppet government whose policies would be controlled by a cabal of wealthy financial plutocrats. As the report made clear, the intention of the conspirators was to use the anarchy and chaos produced by the coup, to eliminate for all time the threat to their power represented by the U.S. Presidency and U.S. Constitution.

Today, we are faced with the same intention by the heirs of that cabal of fascist bankers, who now control most of the Executive branch of the U.S. government and who have, through their agents such as Felix Rohatyn, attempted to emasculate the Democratic opposition. They now seek to impose a fascist government that Democratic leader Lyndon LaRouche has warned would be “Schacht without Hitler”—a brutal austerity government without the overt “messy” characteristics of the Hitler regime.[1]

In the intervening dozen years, our research has more accurately located the Morgan coup plot as part of the broader push for a fascist world order, as promoted by the Nazi-supporting, Synarchist networks of this cabal. The destruction of the U.S. constitutional system was a critical feature of this push for fascism.

Their efforts came close to succeeding and might have, had it not been for the courage of America’s then-most decorated officer, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, and the extraordinary political leadership of FDR himself. While Butler exposed the plot, FDR and his allies waged war against the power of the private investment banks that sponsored fascism at home and abroad, seeking to curb their power, and placing the sovereign power of the U.S. government and Constitution over them. In asserting that all economic policy must serve the constitutionally mandated principle of the General Welfare, FDR put the nation on a pathway out of the chaos and pessimism that served as the breeding grounds for fascist coup plotters. while laying the economic and moral foundation for the direct military battle with the bankers’ fascist golem in Europe in World War II.

The story of this plot was front-page news in even such establishment papers as the New York Times, as it occurred. However, since the death of Roosevelt in 1945, the Synarchists were successful in all but wiping it from the pages of history and common memory. Following the publication of our report, and especially in the recent three years, as the world plunges towards economic collapse and financial chaos worse than the Great Depression, and with it, a new bankers’ drive for fascist dictatorship, there has been a renewed interest in at least some aspects of the plot. PBS, for example, produced a documentary on it, and there are at least two new books in the offing.[2]

We present here an edited and updated version of our 1994 report as an urgent matter of interest to those who must once again rise to fight the renewed fascist threat, so that they might know their true enemies and what they are capable of […]

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3332morgan_coup_plot.html

BBQ says it’s true, so it may be.

Infowars report it, so for sure its true.

and as for ‘what they are capable of’ we all know that the mythical ‘911’ is what they are capable of and what they actually did.

And finally…

I always knew it! :

What’s that you say, you don’t know who the ‘man’ on the left is?

Shame on you!

Freedom, not climate, is at risk

Vaclav Klaus
Friday June 15, 2007

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

• As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
• Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
• Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
• Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
• Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
• Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
• Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
• Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

Financial Times

Mr. Nimmho as an article about the Climate Change Hoax that has everyone without ‘O’ Level physics whipped into a frenzy.

Emissions need to be cut to zero, if only to save us and every other mammal from having to inhale them, and to stop everyone being enslaved to the gas pumps and their owners. That alone is a reason to do something right now, but what is emerging from this Climate Change environmentalism hysteria is a framework within which everything is rationed and I mean EVERYTHING. People will accept it as necessary because they will have swallowed the lie about Climate Change, and will be hysterical with fear, just as they were made to be afraid of OBL. The OBL hoax is now over, and now they have an even better bogey man; one that cannot be so easily put out of mind.

Think about it. If everyone is convinced that every act of consumption has to be rationed, we will all have to be issued with ration books, or their modern equivalent, ID cards linked to centralized databases, where everything you consume is recorded so that you do not exceed your ‘carbon footprint’, ‘plastic footprint’ etc etc.

They are going to substitute the cause of ‘security’ for the environment as the reason why you should give up all of your rights. Street cameras will be there to monitor criminal flytippers of garbage and not terrorists.

David Milibland has brazenly let the cat out of the bag on this one, laying out the plans well in advance, presumably so that they can claim that they have been ‘open’ about this all along.

This brings me to the reason why I am posting this. If you are old enough, you will remember ‘The Energy Crisis’ of the 1970s when hysteria was whipped up about oil. It seems that we are in the middle of a dusting off and replaying of this ‘Energy Crisis’ scenario, revamped for a new generation; one that is not old enough to remember the first, and one which is significantly intellectually and morally inferior to the one that fought off the first attempt.

Read about it yourself.

A good piece is here. Infowars has an old article about this that perhaps even they have forgotten about.

The fact of the matter is this.

Wether or not Climate Change is happening, the answer is not to control people, but to control the very small number of huge businesses that cause all the pollution. For example, the outlawing of the combustion engine as it is now, will begin the process of getting the fumes out of our air, but of course, that means radically altering one of the worlds biggest and most powerful businesses and lobbying groups, and they won’t stand for it.

You never (until very recently) hear calls for the banning of energy sapping technologies, and it is only now, way late in the game that the incandescent light bulb has been put on the chopping block; that extremely beautiful but wasteful thing that every schoolboy knows is a farcically wasteful technology.

Billions are being spent on war, when that money should be spent on refurbishing and replacing the electricity distribution system so that it is more efficient. I could go on, but really its just too obvious. This is really about a pretext for exerting control on the individual down to the level of garbage. Of course, no one says that the companies that package food like this should be forbidden from doing so, thus in a single motion reducing the amount of garbage out there. And how about the utterly loathsome plastic ‘carrier bags’ that plague Britain? Those symbols of poverty should be outlawed immediately. Americans have used paper shopping bags for generations recyclable, don’t suffocate anyone…I mean, really its so obvious.

Like many people, I am not buying into any of this bullshit. I already hate cars and the oil business and all the people associated with it. I hate the fumes, the noise and the brutish culture that surrounds cars, especially in the UK.

I don’t trust any of the people who are delivering this message. They are far too keen to control the population and not the polluters. Their motives are suspect. These are the same narrow minded, imagination-less dorks who claimed that meteors do not come from space, and that man would never land on the moon. And those are the ‘scientists’. I wont even go there on the thick as shit pop-stars and celebrities that are riding along on this roller-coaster of lies. I wonder how many of these morons would go for forced sterilization to protect the environment from overpopulation?

Mr Nimmo ends his post thusly:

No doubt most of us here in America will “take climate change seriously” after we are crowded into Malthusian “sustainable” ghettoes resembling something out the dystopian science fiction film Soylent Green.

Have you seen ‘Soylent Green’? You really should look at it. If you have ever been to an overpopulated city in a ‘Third World’ country, you will recognize some of the scenes. It’s not pretty.

What was so great about America was that it produced work like Soylent Green, but also inspired everyone with dreams of escaping earth entirely. It was seen as absolutely inevitable that we would colonize space; we all expected it, and were ready to line up for it.

All these dreams, all the imagination is missing from the words of the people screaming about Climate Change. And that, to me is the saddest thing of all.

8 results for: sedition

se·di·tion      /s??d???n/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-dish–uhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation –noun < ="luna-Ent"> =”dn” 1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

[Origin: 1325–75; < L séditi?n– (s. of séditi?), equiv. to séd- se- + -iti?n- a going (it(us), ptp. of ?re to go + -i?n- -ion); r. ME sedicioun < AF < L, as above] —Synonyms 1. insurrection, mutiny. See treason.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Dictionary.com

Naomi Wolf was born in 1962.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree – domestically – as many other nations.

Only the weak minded and people who never watched Star Trek re-runs have a hard time ‘considering’ this. This person is of the exact age she needed to be to have this built in apprehension. Also, the American Constitution and its founding fathers designed the country SPECIFICALLY to stop the emergence of tyranny; every REAL american understands that ALL government, ESPECIALLY your own is capable of turning to tyranny. Americans of her generation were taught about this ever-present danger in great clarity; everyone who did ‘social studies’ class was given lessons in this, in healthy distrust of government. it is bewildering that an american of that age can even say this.

Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government

You did, and you forgot!

– the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens’ ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors – we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled.

It is only finally outsourced when you have no guns. In the UK until recently, access to the text of the law was restricted to lawyers….but I digress.

Because we don’t learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of “homeland” security – remember who else was keen on the word “homeland” – didn’t raise the alarm bells it might have.

It rang alarm bells ALL OVER THE INTERNETS YOU NUTCASE.

Where were you when your country was hiring ex Stasi nastyman Markus Wolf to help design programs at the ominously named ‘Homeland Security‘?

This essay is too little too late…more on that down below.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable – as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.

AND THEN DO WHAT?

We need to look at history and face the “what ifs”. For if we keep going down this road, the “end of America” could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before – and this is the way it is now.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … is the definition of tyranny,” wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.

Guardian

YES you need to look at history.
NO there are no ‘what ifs’ to face, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED YOU NUMBSKULL.
NO You are already at the end of the road.
NO if you are feeling this ONLY NOW you must have been living under a rock at the bottom of this hole.

And finally

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!

You need to stand your ground, fight for your nation take up your GUNS.

Taking up a BANNER against FASCISTS will achieve ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

You need to kick out the people who have ruined that country and put them on trial, and then cleanse the legislation of all anti-american laws.

Also, because there are millions of pig ignorant fascist facilitators in your midsts, who will follow anyone as long as they can have beer, and some who will actively fight you to keep their illusions and [burst_into_song]fascist baby utopia[/burst_into_song] illusions you are OBLIGED to TAKE what is rightfully yours, just like the founding fathers did.

They specifically ensured that you should have access to guns for PRECISELY THIS PURPOSE.

GUNS, not BANNERS.

There are MANY people who are WAY ahead of you Naomi, and its a good thing that you are finally waking up, but honestly, you and your type are and have been PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Adam Curtis, who made the documentaries ‘The Power of Nightmares‘ and ‘Century of the Self‘ has his new work broadcast by BBQ2: ‘The Trap’. This first installment is up to his usual high standards.

Its thesis is fascinating, and is similar to ‘Century of the Self’; a clutch of academics come up with ways of explaining the world that can be applied directly to human affairs, inagination-less politicians read their works, become enamored by them, implement them, and the side effects are entirely negative.

In this installment, the academic is John Nash, (who the insightful Mimi Majick immediately identified as being Autistic), whose work at The Rand Corporation and his “Nash Equilibrium” equations helped form the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Please watch this installment for the background.

Curtis explains clearly how the “Nash Equilibrium” works, and my first thoughts were these:

Equilibrium is a state that can be found at a large number of points in a dynamic system. Some we want, and some we do not want. If M.A.D. were carried out, we would reach equilibrium where no one had nuclear weapons and the threat would be over. There could be described as the equilibrium of unburied death. But that is just one possible outcome, one possible point of equilibrium, out of a near infinite number of possibilities.

We are all familiar with coupled pendulums, and multiple magnet toys. These dynamic systems take a very few elements running on simple rules which when coupled together, create a system that is impossible to predict, yet which operates within a gamut that can be unambiguously written out and expressed as a formula.

Human beings, when they are left to their own devices will interact in the same way and out of this will emerge a dynamic system. We can loosely predict the states generated by the result of huge human populations interacting as individuals, and we can cause changes in the states of these populations by increasing or decreasing inputs like V.A.T., propaganda or legislation.

Think of a stream of water coming out of tap. We have all played around with them. the shape of the falling water is constant when the speed of the water is not varied and the slightest increase or decrease can change it from drips a braided stream a spluttering gush or any one of an infinite number of variations in between. The point is that there is no one way to achieve any particular state of equilibrium, and we have to strive for an equilibrium that is desirable, not undesirable.

Nash did work that expressed in a formula how people could always make an optimum decision when they are interacting in an adversarial game. His theories work from the position that people are selfish, that they are adversarial, suspicious of each other trying to ‘figure out’ what their fellow man is going to do at any time, by nature. This is where Mimi Majick chimed in with, “That guy is AUTISTIC!“.

If Nash is autistic (at the very least, the documentary says that he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia when he did his award winning work) then it would make perfect sense that this is how he saw other people; sufferers of Autism cannot put themselves into the minds of other people; they cannot read other people’s faces or emotions; they live in a confusing world where other people’s behavior cannot be predicted. It is a frustrating world for them, and the have to devise their own strategies and rules of thumb to get along in situations that we all take for granted.

Nash, being a gifted mathematician will have applied his powerful skills to this ‘problem’, as it would have been very troubling to him that for all his life he could never read the emotional states and more importantly, the intentions, of other people.

The implications of this are frightening. Following Nash’s work was wrong not only because there are an infinite number of points of equilibrium in human interactions that are all possible (and more preferable), but because policy has been built around the affliction of an Autistic man, whose world view is totally abnormal and in fact, inhuman.

I can give two examples of humans reaching mutually beneficial equilibrium through the opposite of Nash’s distorted world view of inherent human distrust and selfishness.

The first is amongst the rough diamond dealers in Antwerp. Orthodox Jews in Antwerp can do diamond deals worth any amount of money and pay with slips of paper in exchange for goods. These ‘IOUs’ are as good as money. They all trust each other totally. This community has less friction than communities where there is distrust; you can do a deal anywhere and with confidence. You don’t have to run security checks or any of the high friction malarky that distrustful communities and relationships are burdened with. Everyone trusts each other, everyone makes a profit. No one is cheated. The community is in equilibrium, and the only way it can work is if everyone trusts each other.

The other example is that of Free Software and Open Source Software. In these software communities, everyone is generous and not selfish. We have all seen (and you are reading this on the results of) this approach. It has literally changed the world, for the better, and we are moving toward an equilibrium state where everyone has free software, all are benefitting, and anyone can make money off of the free software.

Imagine if Eric S Raymond worked for The Rand Corporation, and instead of the literally sick and abnormal world view of Nash, we had a variation of The Cathedral and the Bazar as the starting point for the position that we are in now. I think we would all be better off.

Perhaps in the future we will see a documentary describing how little know men like Richard Stallman implemented radical ideas that spread throughout society, changing it for the better.

I’m looking forward to the other parts of this documentary.

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Bush-Cheney regime is America’s first neoconservative regime. In a few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, and the remains of America’s moral reputation along with the infrastructures of two Muslim countries and countless thousands of Islamic civilians. Plans have been prepared, and forces moved into place, for an attack on a third Islamic country, Iran, and perhaps Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as well.

This extraordinary aggressiveness toward the US Constitution, international law, and the Islamic world is the work, not of a vast movement, but of a handful of ideologues—principally Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Philip Zelikow, and Attorney General Gonzales. These are the main operatives who have controlled policy. They have been supported by their media shills at the Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News, New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by “scholars” in assorted think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.

The entirety of their success in miring the United States in what could become permanent conflict in the Middle East is based on the power of propaganda and the big lie.

Initially, the 9/11 attack was blamed on Osama bin Laden, but after an American puppet was installed in Afghanistan, the blame for 9/11 was shifted to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who was said to have weapons of mass destruction that would be used against America. The regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to tell the lie to the UN that the Bush-Cheney regime had conclusive proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Having conned the UN, Congress, and the American people, the regime invaded Iraq under totally false pretenses and with totally false expectations. The regime’s occupation of Iraq has failed in a military sense, but the neoconservatives are turning their failure into a strategic advantage. At the beginning of this year President Bush began blaming Iran for America’s embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq.

Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi’ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi’ite. Bush’s accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.

On the basis of this absurd accusation—a pure invention—Bush has ordered a heavy concentration of aircraft carrier attack forces off Iran’s coast, and he has moved US attack planes to Turkish bases and other US bases in countries contingent to Iran.

In testimony before Congress on February 1 of this year, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said that he expected the regime to orchestrate a “head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.” He said a plausible scenario was “a terrorist act blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran.” He said that the neoconservative propaganda machine was already articulating a “mythical historical narrative” for widening their war against Islam. [Testimony in PDF]

Why is the US spending one trillion dollars on wars, the reasons for which are patently false. What is going on?

There are several parts to the answer. Like their forebears among the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks of the communist revolution, and the National Socialists of Hitler’s revolution, neoconservatives believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the right to impose hegemony on the rest of the world. Neoconservative conquests began in the Middle East because oil and Israel, with which neocons are closely allied, are both in the Middle East.

[…]

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070228_lost.htm

Like I have said before, if any country can turn around from a situtation like this, the usa can. It will however, cost nothing less than trillions of dollars in reparations and literally, the heads of the conspirators listed above.

Nothing less will set the balance right, and even that may not be enough.

Introduction

On February 18, 2007, the BBC broadcasted an hour-long episode which it claimed would examine and answer the questions of the 9-11 truth movement. However, both the episode and the written Q&A turned out to be attacks on the skeptics rather than a true investigation. The public was presented with a heavily controlled and edited discussion, which was rigged in favour of the official story. Worse yet, propaganda techniques were used to portray the opponents of the official story unfairly. Techniques included: manipulative camerawork, personal attacks and a show which focussed on only the weakest evidence presented by the opponents of the official story.

The aim of this article is to address the inaccurate rebuttals offered by the BBC, as well as to analyse the propaganda techniques and reiterate the questions that the BBC failed to address.

[…]

http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/

I saw this programme; it was truly bad, in every possible way.

The programme makers must live in a paralel universe, where there is no internet.

This programme will bring more shame on the BBQ; more people have watched ‘Lose Change’ and Terrorstorm than will ever watch a BBQ propaganda piece.

The shit-storm has already begun, and the programme makers are all running for cover no doubt.

Idiots.

Now listen to the person who made this atrocity get grilled by Alex Jones.

Contact: Ilona, Urban, Blakeley – Press Secretary to Aaron Russo
Company: All Your Freedoms, Inc.

Website: http://www.freedomtofascism.com

Winner of numerous Awards, Aaron Russo, announces documentary milestone:

“America: Freedom To Fascism” a groundbreaking non-partisan political documentary jumps overnight to #1 on “Google Video United Kingdom” and #4 on “Google Video Worldwide”.

“America: Freedom to Fascism”, the Grassroots-driven, underground documentary by Writer/Director/Producer, Aaron Russo is a full length feature film with a 5 star “highest rating” on Google Video.

Overnight, the film jumped in rank to #4 on Google Worldwide and to #1 on Google United Kingdom. As of the morning of February 5, 2007 “America: Freedom to Fascism” has been viewed a total of 1,522,097 times since it was first uploaded to Google on October 20, 2006.

Mr. Russo is gratified with the public success of the film despite the fact it has not received a single review from any mainstream television or major media organization.

The American people are to be congratulated for waking up to the fact their Government has shirked its responsibility to coin money, and instead handed it over to a private banking cartel, the Federal Reserve, which charges the government interest on the paper they print.

This fact explains the American government’s burdensome debt which falls squarely on the shoulders of every working American. Yet no Politician is addressing this issue.

Mr. Russo’s previous films have received 6 Academy Award nominations, and he personally has won an Emmy, Tony, Grammy, Golden Globe and an NAACP Image Award for Best Film of the Year; AND is credited with the all-time classics: The Rose with Bette Midler and Trading Places with Eddie Murphy.

The amazing success of this film illustrates the power of the internet and grassroots word of mouth activism.
This compelling documentary has captivated grassroots audiences worldwide since its Fall theatrical and internet release.

“America: Freedom to Fascism” chronicles the history of the Federal Reserve System, the resultant income tax, and leads the viewer into the imminent future of our soon-to-be controlled, way of life. Russo has brilliantly written a documentary about a seemingly “dry” topic and turned it into a riveting masterpiece. This is one history lesson you’re not likely to forget anytime soon.

Russo affirms, “The People are ready for this. They know something isn’t right, and this explains it all. They are hungry for this information”. People want the truth. Aaron is ready, able and willing to deliver it. Perhaps Mr. Russo is on to something.

I look at this whole ordeal as not something funny as some people have made it out to be. To me it is mighty serious and since I evidently did observe something that at least Mr. John Doe on the street corner or Pete Andrews on the ranch has never heard about, is no reason that it does not exist. Even though I openly invited an investigation by the Army and the FBI as to the authenticity of my story or a mental or a physical examination as to my capabilities, I have received no interest from these two important protective forces of our country; I will go so far as to assume that any report I gave to the United and Associated Press and over the radio on two different occasions which apparently set the nation buzzing, if our Military intelligence was not aware of what I observed, they would be the very first people that I could expect as visitors […]

Read the rest of this entry »

Secret Cabinet memo admits Iraq is fuelling UK terror

Tony Blair’s claim that there is no link between Britain’s foreign policy and terrorist attacks in this country is blown apart by a secret cabinet memo revealed today.

Ummm we and every other person on the planet already knew this.

A classified paper written by senior Downing Street officials says that everything Britain does overseas for the next decade must have the ultimate aim of reducing “terror activity, especially that in or directed against the UK”.

The memo, circulated in recent weeks to ministers and security chiefs and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, outlines an extraordinary “wish list” of how the Government would like world troublespots to look in 10 years’ time. It also signals a drive to reduce Britain’s military commitments around the globe.

It admits that, in an ideal world, “the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile” – effectively accepting the argument that Britain’s military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has served as a recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorist groups. Publicly, Mr Blair has resisted this line fiercely. During his final speech as leader to Labour’s annual conference last month, he described such claims as “enemy propaganda”.

His cabinet allies have supported his position. Earlier this year, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: “I think it is a dreadful misjudgment if we believe the foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorist activity, if we do not have a foreign policy with which the terrorists happen to agree.”

But the memo leaves no doubt that all foreign policy must be driven by the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain. It demands a “significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity”.

In other words, KNOCK IT OFF, COME BACK HOME and DONT EVER GO BACK.

After a decade, Iraq must have “stable central and local government, accepted by all sectarian groups”. Afghanistan must be “stable, democratic, with all territory under central government control”.

You guys just don’t get it do you?

WHY should Iraq have a central government? ‘What does this have to do with Richmond?’ is the test that you need to apply to every one of these pronouncements. Why should Britain have a say about anything that happens in Iraq? That is what caused this problem in the first place. You are all living on tenter hooks, paranoid, disrupted, humiliated and scorned…and for what? For precisely nothing, since these people have their own ideas about what is right and what is wrong, and they will live by those ways or die and take you with them. They resist living in ‘democracy’ in the same way that we would all resist living under pure Sharia; to the death. Only the most blinkered and uneducated buffoons can not see this.

Similarly, why on earth should Afghanistan be a centrally controlled democratic government? Who are you to make that judgement? You making these proclamations and then acting on them are the sole cause of everyone hating the UK second only to the USA. For the thousandth time, will you KNOCK IT OFF. What those people do has absolutely NOTHING to do with Richmond. You have no right to demand that they live in a democracy. You have no right to dictate anything to anyone. If you DO believe that you have the right to shape the destiny of hundreds of millions of people in other lands, then take the consequences, and don’t whine like babies when people are lining up to slaughter you.

Israel must have “secure borders” and live in “peaceful co-existence” with its Arab neighbours,

sure, but thats up to THEM isn’t it?

while Iran must have a “representative, tolerant government … no nuclear weapons” and “no sponsorship of terrorism”.

There you go again.

The whole reason why there is an Islamic Republic in Iran is because YOU DISMANTLED THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT that was running there. What the Iranians have now is the government that they want. What happens in Iran is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The Iranian government doesn’t ‘sponsor terrorism’. The entire cause of ‘terrorism’ is USUKs interference in other people’s countries. Look at this documentary to find out just how IGNORANT Bliar and Bu$h are; the killer part is where the presenter recounts the event where Bu$h took some Shias and Sunnis to the Super Bowl. They talked. Somehow, the discussion came round to Islam, and someone mentioned that Sunnis and Shias sometimes….’don’t get along’, whereupon The Great Satan said, “You mean that there is more than one kind of muslim?”.

You cant make stuff like this up.

A similar story is recounted about Bliar. These people, these ignorant animals have the gall to tell Iran how to run its affairs? It beggars belief.

The document concludes: “If all or most of the above were in place, threats from other sources of Islamic terrorism (eg Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria) would be manageable or on the way to resolution. Any remaining deployments of the British armed forces should be seen as contributing to international stability and security.”

Indonesia, The Philippines, Nigeria? listing these countries shows that the person who wrote this memo is as ignorant as Bu$h and Bliar. No muslim in any of these countries gives a damn about the UK, and they would be more than happy to never have any hatred towards anyone. If you however, decide to land troops in their countries, try and stage coups there, stir up trouble and make a nuisance of yourself, you are guaranteed to face fierce resistance. This part of the memo shows that they know nothing and have learned nothing, not even from recent history…and by recent I mean the last five years. There is no problem between Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria and the UK. My advice to you you JACKASSES is not to start one!

A Downing Street spokesman declined to comment on the memo. However, in an interview, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, played down suggestions that large numbers of British troops may soon be coming home from Iraq. “I think you’re perhaps a little impatient to see a huge change, which I don’t think we are yet in,” she said.

She acknowledged, how-ever, that Britain and America had failed, before going to war, to predict that “there were huge pent-up hatreds and resentments in Iraq which exploded once Saddam Hussein was deposed”.

[…]

Telegraph

You fail again and again. You know nothing about Indonesia, The Philippines, Nigeria and anywhere other than Richmond Upon Thames. Nothing wrong with that; just make sure that you NEVER interfere with any of these countries and how they are run. As soon as you try to interfere, you cause disaster. You always have caused disaster, and always will cause disaster. Solve your own problems, mind your own business and all the ‘terrorism’ will melt away. If you do not, it will be ramped up and your precious ‘democracy’ which you have already partially dismantled, will be utterly destroyed by your own hand.

No one wants your ‘help’ and no one needs your advice. Every educated person can see that you are amongst the biggest hypocrites ever to walk the face of this earth. The British people on an interpersonal basis are the best ambassadors for the UK, because they are decent, peace loving people, and amongst the most tolerant, creative and intelligent in the entire world. The same cannot be said about HMG sadly, and its brief should be confined to garbage collection; that way, no one gets hurt.

Anyone who mentions Iran, who says its ‘intolerant’ who creates and transmits bogus documentaries about, sharia, veiled women blah blah blah; these people are traitors and warmongers and liars and are completely insane.

Enough is enough. Britain has alot of healing to do, and the sooner it starts the sooner Britain will start to look like the place we all loved. The first step is the purging of the war criminals and their bogus anti-democratic legislation.

But thats another blog post!

PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN

(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes. They are arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order. Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military attack on Iran).

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military attack in Iran a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Iranian reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Iranians of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to attack if Iranian response justifies.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around The Persian Gulf to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Iranian forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Iranians in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on Iraq.

(3) Capture Iranian (friendly) saboteurs inside Iraq.

(4) Start riots in Tehran (friendly Iranians).

(5) Blow up ammunition inside Umm Qasr; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft in Iraq airport (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells into Iraqi Mosques. Some damage to Mosques.

(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Bagdad.

(9) Capture militia group which storms Basra.

(10) Sabotage ships in harbors; large fires — napthalene.

(11) Sink ships near harbor entrances. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements and Nuclear installations which ‘threaten Israel’.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in the vicinity of Doha and blame Iran.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Persian Gulf. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Iranian attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Iranian planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was under attack. The nearness to Kuwait or Bahrain would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Islamist Iranian terror campaign in the Abu Dhabi area, in other Gulf cities and even in Riyadh.

The terror campaign could be pointed at Iranian refugees seeking haven in the U.A.E.. We could sink a boatload of Iranians enroute to Abu Dhabi (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Iranian refugees in the U.A.E even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Iranian agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Iranian involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

5. A “Iranian-based, Ahmednejad-supported” filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Gulf nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Ahmednejad is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against the USA in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, and Lebanon at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Iraqi Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. “Iranian” Saegheh Fighter Jet aircraft could make raids at night. Iranian incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with “Iranian” messages to the Al Qaeda in Iraq and “Iranian” shipments of arms which could be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

6. Use of F-5 aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by F-5 type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-5 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Iranian Saegheh, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in modifying and deploying an out of service F-5 aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the Saegheh could be produced from US resources in about three months.

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Iran. Concurrently, genuine defections of Iranian civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Iranian aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the anywhere to U.A.E, Iraq, Kuwait or Quatar. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross near Iran. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at an Iraq AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Iraq theatre. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Baghdad. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at the Iraq AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When near Iran the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Iranian Saegheh aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Persian Gulf to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Islamic Iranian Saeghehs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-16 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Iraqi AFB to the vicinity of Iran. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Iraq. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Iranian coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Iranian Saeghehs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Iranian coast this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by Saeghehs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base in Iraq. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-16 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Iranian coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

[…]

PDF of this dastardly plan

Now we know what to look for. Of course, we also have the alternative plans not included in this document, that involve ‘gaming’ the United Nations. I will leave it to you to figure out how that works.

The Bush administration had to empty its secret prisons and transfer terror suspects to the military-run detention centre at Guantánamo this month in part because CIA interrogators had refused to carry out further interrogations and run the secret facilities, according to former CIA officials and people close to the programme.

The former officials said the CIA interrogators’ refusal was a factor in forcing the Bush administration to act earlier than it might have wished.

When Mr Bush announced the suspension of the secret prison programme in a speech before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, some analysts thought he was trying to gain political momentum before the November midterm congressional elections.

The administration publicly explained its decision in light of the legal uncertainty surrounding permissible interrogation techniques following the June Supreme Court ruling that all terrorist suspects in detention were entitled to protection under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions.

But the former CIA officials said Mr Bush’s hand was forced because interrogators had refused to continue their work until the legal situation was clarified because they were concerned they could be prosecuted for using illegal techniques. One intelligence source also said the CIA had refused to keep the secret prisons going.

Senior officials and Mr Bush himself have come close to admitting this by saying CIA interrogators sought legal clarity. But no official has confirmed on the record how and when the secret programme actually came to an end.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, who was interviewed by Fox News on Sunday, said in response to a question of whether CIA interrogators had refused to work: “I think the way I would answer you in regard to that question is that there’s been precious little activity of that kind for a number of months now, and certainly since the Supreme Court decision.”

In an interview with the Financial Times, John Bellinger, legal adviser to the state department, went further, saying there had been “very little operational activity” on CIA interrogations since the passage last December of a bill proposed by Senator John McCain outlawing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Mr Bellinger said the secret prisons remained empty for the moment. But he defended the US position that use of such prisons did not contravene international conventions as some in Europe have argued. He also said that, theoretically, the Pentagon as well as the CIA had the legal right to run such facilities. The CIA declined to comment.

Key figures among the 14 prisoners transferred to Guantánamo, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had been held in secret centres for three years or more. […]

Financial Times

“You do not know these men. You may have looked at them, but you did not see them. They are the wind that blows newspapers down a gutter on a windy night… and sweeps the gutter clean.”

If only….

The truth is, these CIA torturers KNEW that they could be sacrificed to placate the international community should the whole facade fall to pieces. Bush would get away with ordering the war crimes because all presidents give unconditional pardons to their predecessors. Someone would have to pay, and that would be the people who did the dirty work.

This means that they (the CIA) believe that it is possible that everything can change and that civilization can indeed re-assert itself and that the USA will be made to back down.

They are frightened.

We can win!

Reading about John Reid’s visit to Waltham Forest, and it’s ‘critical reception’ I couldn’t help but think of other authoritarian scum, ahem, political figures who have gone to ‘immigrant areas’ in East London.

The Battle of Cable Street or Cable Street Riot took place on Sunday October 4, 1936 in Cable Street in the East End of London. It was a clash between the police, overseeing a lawful march by the British Union of Fascists, on one side and anti-fascists including local Jewish, socialist, and communist groups on the other. The majority of both marchers and counter-protesters travelled into the area for this purpose.

In spite of the East End at that time having a large Jewish population, and the anti-Semitic nature of the B.U.F., the government refused to ban the march.

The anti-fascist groups erected roadblocks in an attempt to prevent the march from taking place. Although the police attempted to clear the road to permit the march to proceed, after a series of running battles between the police and anti-fascist demonstrators, the march did not take place, and the B.U.F. marchers were dispersed towards Hyde Park instead.

(Wikipedia)

Some memories:

Solley Kaye

[…]

The fascists had their strongholds in places like Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, South Hackney, parts of Poplar, all of which were on the edge of Stepney where the large Jewish population lived. So that they could involve people on the basis of envy fear, or whatever, by saying “OVER THERE the Jews, they’ve got your houses, OVER THERE the Jews, they’ve got your jobs.” Even though we were living in bloody poverty with bugs crawling all over us in the night.

[…]

Charlie Goodman

Charlie Goodman’s arrest on 4 October 1936 was notable for two things – the sheer brutality of the police and the guts of this 16 year-old kid who faced up to them.

At one point in the battle at Gardiner’s Corner, when after literally hours of police charges the crowd retreated a bit, Charlie climbed up a lamp post and shouted at the top of his voice: “Don’t be yellow bellies, forward, we are winning”. The police eventually caught up with him in Commercial Road and he was clubbed, punched and kicked all the way to Leman Street police station. (Things have not changed much. How many Asians have suffered similarly at that police station in the last 15 years?)

[…]

“The names change, the streets are the Same, and so are the problems. The glorious struggle of 1936 must be remembered today.”

There will be the 70th anniversary events on the 8th October. What would be an appropriate way to remember it?

Here it is. Recorded and transmitted July 11th 2002. Someone emailed me asking about Monster Music, and so I have dug this up, the 11th Monster music show, commissioned by THESE Records for their Bermuda Triangle program.

Enjoy.

British Army expert casts doubt on ‘liquid explosives’ threat, Al Qaeda network in UK Identified

Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer, has suggested that the police and government story about the “terror plot” revealed on 10th August was part of a “pattern of lies and deceit.”

British and American government officials have described the operation which resulting in the arrest of 24 mostly British Muslim suspects, as a resounding success. Thirteen of the suspects have been charged, and two released without charges.

According to security sources, the terror suspects were planning to board up to ten civilian airliners and detonate highly volatile liquid explosives on the planes in a spectacular terrorist operation. The liquid explosives — either TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide), DADP (diacetone diperoxide) or the less sensitive HMTD (hexamethylene triperoxide diamine) — were reportedly to be made on board the planes by mixing sports drinks with a peroxide-based household gel and then be detonated using an MP3 player or mobile phone.

But Lt. Col. Wylde, who was awarded the Queen’s Gallantry Medal for his command of the Belfast Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in 1974, described this scenario as a “fiction.” Creating liquid explosives is a “highly dangerous and sophisticated task,” he states, one that requires not only significant chemical expertise but also appropriate equipment.

Terror plot scenario “untenable”

“The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable,” said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst.

After working as a bomb defuser in Northern Ireland, Lt. Col. Wylde became a senior officer in British Army Intelligence in 1977. During the Cold War, he collected intelligence as part of an undercover East German “liaison unit,” then went on to work in the Ministry of Defense to review its communications systems.

“So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Not Al Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure,” Wylde stated.

“This story has been blown out of all proportion. The liquids would need to be carefully distilled at freezing temperatures to extract the required chemicals, which are very difficult to obtain in the purities needed.”

Once the fluids have been extracted, the process of mixing them produces significant amounts of heat and vile fumes. “The resulting liquid then needs some hours at room temperature for the white crystals that are the explosive to develop.” The whole process, which can take between 12 and 36 hours, is “very dangerous, even in a lab, and can lead to premature detonation,” said Lt. Col. Wylde.

If there was a conspiracy, he added, “it did not involve manufacturing the explosives in the loo,” as this simply “could not have worked.” The process would be quickly and easily detected. The fumes of the chemicals in the toilet “would be smelt by anybody in the area.” They would also inevitably “cause the alarms in the toilet and in the air change system in the aircraft to be triggered. The pilot has the ability to dump all the air from an aircraft as a fire-fighting measure, leaving people to use oxygen masks. All this means the planned attack would be detected long before the queues outside the loo had grown to enormous lengths.”

Government silent on detonators

Even if it was possible for the explosive to have been made on the aircraft, a detonator, probably made from TATP, would be needed to set it off. “It is very dangerous and risky to the individual,” Wylde said. “As the quantity involved would be small this would injure the would-be suicide bomber but not endanger the aircraft, thus defeating the object of bringing down an aircraft.”

Despite the implausibility of this scenario, it has been used to justify wide-ranging new security measures that threaten to permanently curtail civil liberties and to suspend sections of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act of 1998. “Why were the public delicately informed of an alleged conspiracy which the authorities knew, or should have known, could not have worked?” asked Lt. Col. Wylde.

“This is not a new problem,” he added, noting that ‘shoe-bomber’ Richard Reid had attempted to use this type of explosive on a plane in December 2001. “If this threat is real, what has been done to develop explosive test kits capable of detecting peroxide based explosives?” asked Wylde. “These are the real issues about protecting the public that have not been publicised. Instead we are going to get demands for more internment without trial.”

Lt. Col. Wylde also raised questions about the criminal investigation into the 7th July terrorist attacks in London last year. He noted that police and government sources have maintained “total silence” about the detonation devices used in the bombs on the London Underground and the bus at Tavistock Square. “Whatever the nature of the primary explosive materials, even if it was home-made TATP, the detonator that must be used to trigger an explosion is an extremely dangerous device to make, requiring a high level of expertise that cannot be simply self-taught or picked-up over the internet,” Wylde stated.

The government’s silence on the detonation device used in the attacks is “disturbing,” he said, as the creation of the devices requires the involvement of trained explosives experts. Wylde speculated that such individuals would have to be present either inside the country or outside, perhaps in Eastern Europe, where they would be active participants in an international supply-chain to UK operatives. “In either case, we are talking about something far more dangerous than home-grown radicals here. “

[…]

Raw Story

Yes indeed. My emphasis.

What we are talking about that is ‘far more dangerous’ is a cabal of Murderers who have taken control of this country by stealth. These animals will go to any length to bring about their Soviet on Steroid UK, with its planned radical dehumanizing slave grid, all pervasive CCTV (now with bullhorns) and everything else that is monstrous, inhuman and un-British.

So the question is Mr. Wylde…

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Are you going to get some of your armed buddies and stage a coup? Are you going to make a citizens arrest? Are you going to have a cup of tea and write a letter to ‘The Times’?

Its all very well saying that the whole thing stinks; welcome to the club, we all know it stank to high heaven the day they announced it. We knew that they had been watching these morons for over a year, we knew that subhuman John Reid’s announcement was a stage managed piece of bullshit….we are WAY ahead of you. What are you, personally, going to DO about this problem. You undoubtedly know where this problem is coming from, with great precision; what are you and the other people who have responsibility for keeping Britain Britain going to do about this? What will it take for you to finally act? What sort of outrage do they have to commit before you say, “enough is enough”?

Clearly British citizens being murdered on busses by these evil creatures is not enough to stir you away from your tea. The wholesale cynical and diabolical erasure of every hard fought right of the British is not enough to motivate you to action, so I wonder…

JUST WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GET YOU OFF OF YOUR ARSE?

The British army is all over the world minding other people’s business, causing this great place to be the third most despised country in the world. While you all follow orders like sheep, the Britain you are meant to be protecting is being MURDERED in your absence.

You aren’t very SMART are you?