Sunday, April 14, 2013

The David Icke Newsletter, April 7th, 2013 MUSING ON A CRAZY WORLD ...... WHICH THINKS IT'S SANE

The David Icke Newsletter, April 7th, 2013
MUSING ON A CRAZY WORLD ...


... WHICH THINKS IT'S SANE
Hello all ...


It has been one of those weeks for me when a quote from Jiddu Krishnamurti, the Indian speaker and writer, came to mind many times: 'It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.'
But that is what I see all the time - people well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society and as the quote in the headline says: Insanity is a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
We have had a story running in Britain for the last week or so about a football manager called Paolo Di Canio. He is a former player in this country who went on to manage a lower-league club, Swindon Town. But then he was hired by Sunderland in the Premiership and suddenly what had not been a major problem and hardly ever mentioned became a national story.
Di Canio had made the fascist salute during a match when he played for Lazio in Italy and had described his political views in terms that he was 'a fascist, not a racist' in 2005. He has also said that Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was 'basically a very principled, ethical individual' who was 'deeply misunderstood'.


Now in my world, although I profoundly disagree with him, he has a right to those views so long as he doesn't force them and the consequences on anyone and there is absolutely no evidence of that. They are just his views and he's a football manager, not standing for Parliament or starting a political movement.
The media storm over Di Canio's appointment as manager of Sunderland in the North East of England was triggered by the resignation from the club in protest by non-executive vice-chairman David Miliband, the brother of Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition Labour Party.
There are very strained relations between brothers David and Ed because David thought that he was a certainty to be elected leader of the Labour Party until Ed joined the contest and won by a short head. Not that he had one; I mean the vote was close.

David Miliband, who has been the Member of Parliament for South Shields where so many are in dire economic straits, had been paid £125,000 for 15 days work by the nearby Sunderland Football Club (supported by the said struggling local people) which he had joined in 2011.This is the equivalent of £42,000 a week or more than £2 million a year and exceeded what top earners actually playing in the team were taking home.
This is shocking alone and given that he has earned a million pounds as an 'advisor' and through the political public speaking circuit since 2010 on top of his considerable parliamentary salary would it have been too much for him, as a leading member of the alleged 'party of the people', to have donated his Sunderland money, or even part of it, to a local food bank feeding his hungry constituents?
David Miliband resigned in protest at the views expressed eight years ago by Di Canio, a football player and manager who has done nothing to put what he believes into political practice. Miliband, the 'man of principle', wanted to make a statement (he is moving to America anyway) that he abhorred fascism - not least as a member of a Jewish Marxist family whose mother lived in mainland Europe during the Nazi era.
Yes, very principled. But wait. Isn't this the same David Miliband, a British Foreign Secretary and former close advisor to Tony Blair, who supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq which killed and maimed for life millions of civilians based on lies?; is this the same man who taped his mouth and sat on his hands in the face of the ever-unfolding genocide against Palestinians by Israel when as Foreign Secretary he could have loudly and continually condemned and exposed what is happening?
It surely is.

The same David Miliband who resigned very publicly in protest at the views some years ago of a football manager who, to my knowledge, has never voted to bomb and slaughter anyone. I may not agree with Di Canio's views, but I know which of the two has done most to put fascism into practice and who therefore is the greater danger to the world.
Miliband will not for a second see this gross hypocrisy because he is well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society. To him, his support for mass murder in faraway countries cannot be equated with fascism and nor can what Israel is doing daily to Palestinians.
His brain is firewalled from such connections, but when someone voices support for an officially-labelled fascist like Mussolini he can thrust his nose in the air in profound indignance. Being well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society means to equate bombing civilian targets with a legitimate action to advance the principles of the 'free world'. Profound sickness becomes their version of normal and rational.
If you are born into a madhouse and you grow up there knowing nothing else then the happenings in the madhouse become your version of normal. Tell someone in this situation that what is happening is madness and they will call you mad. This is how so many perceive world events and their daily lives.
The Miliband firewall is holding nicely as he embarks on his new job in America - one wonders if the Sunderland resignation would have been quite so immediate if he wasn't leaving the country anyway.
Miliband has just announced his resignation as a Member of Parliament to take up a richly-rewarded job - figures of close to half a million dollars a year have been mentioned - as head of the New York-based 'charity', International Rescue Committee (IRC)

This 'charity' ironically wrote to him in 2007 when he was British Foreign Secretary to complain at his government's 'very weak performance' in dealing with the refugee crisis in Iraq. The letter, also signed by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Refugee Council, said:
'We would urge you to work alongside your colleagues in the Home Office and the Department for International Development to push for a much more robust recognition of the UK's obligations to all persecuted Iraqis, both as an active party in Iraq and as a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention.'
Now the IRC have hired Miliband at great expense to run their vast worldwide operation. I have been writing charity as 'charity' in respect of International Rescue Committee because when you see the characters involved this, at the very least, is not going to be only a 'charity'.
The IRC board of overseers includes four former US Secretaries of State - Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice - plus former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Elie Wiesel, the Transylvanian-born Jewish-American writer, professor and political activist. IRC is also supported by corporate giants such as JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Pepsi, Intel and McKinsey and so on.


Rice and Powell ... they care so much.

Well, well. I am so glad that the 'charity' is in the hands of such life-long lovers of peace, fairness, children, the poor and oppressed. Phew. I mean, think if the personnel did not have their values.



Madeleine Albright is one of these campaigners for the right of life and health for all children. It was she who was asked when Secretary of State in the Bill Clinton administration if she felt that the half a million children who had died (more than in Hiroshima) because of her government's sanctions against Iraq were 'worth it'. She replied: '... we think the price is worth it.'
Here are Albright, Kissinger, Powell and Rice who have made decisions costing the lives of tens of millions since the 1970s when Kissinger was Secretary of States to Richard Nixon and they have together devastated the Near and Middle East, South East Asia and a shocking list of the poorest peoples on Earth.
These people are overseers of a global charity supposedly dedicated to helping the world's poor and oppressed? Expressions of evil like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan who have caused death, poverty and misery to untold multitudes by their manipulation of the financial system want to help the poor and needy?
As my mother used to say - 'I am not as green as I am cabbage looking.'


The IRC empire.

IRC operates in 40 countries with 14,000 employees in 270 diplomatic offices and 22 American cities. It boasts of its rapid response to 'humanitarian disasters' with an arrival time of within 72 hours. Having your feet on the ground first can be good for the victims, but also good for those who want to take control of the situation right from the start.
Getting on for half of IRC's funding comes from US government grants, 27 per cent from oversees governments, 11 per cent from the United Nations and the rest from private donations. Its income in 2010 is reported to have been $325,813,000.
IRC is government funded and so an arm of government, has major government representatives and politicians in its ranks, including now David Miliband, and gets to humanitarian disasters within 72 hours while working in countries all over the world. Is it any surprise that researchers have connected this operation to the CIA?
Author Eric Thomas Chester tells in Covert Network: Progressives, the International Rescue Committee, and the CIA how the IRC evolved from a small organisation of committed activists to a global operation functioning as one link in the CIA's covert network. It makes sense of the personnel, that's for sure.
Miliband will arrive in September to head an organisation with 'overseers' who, like himself, supported and/or manipulated invasions of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq which caused the very humanitarian disasters that the IRC says it is dedicated to addressing.
Insanity is a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
Talking of which ...

I have had Professor Richard Dawkins from Oxford University on my radar for a long time because of his blanket condemnation of anyone who promotes a version of reality that is different from his own and seeks to trash alternative ways of healing at every opportunity. You can see from the above quote where this chap is coming from.
Mainstream 'science' to Dawkins is the cutting edge of knowledge and so anything that challenges its dogmas must by definition be wrong. I have dubbed him Dogma Dawkins for this reason and he has presented a number of television programmes about what he calls 'pseudo-science' and alternative methods of healing with the goal of making them look silly.
He also struts around condemning religion while not seeing that he is the High Priest of his own religion of Scientism. His god is the mainstream science 'norm' and what is referred to as the 'scientific method' or 'evidence-based science'.
What religions do is ignore any evidence that challenges the belief-foundation of the religion and condemn anyone who does not believe its dogma as misguided, even an infidel or enemy of God.
The Dawkins quote 'you cannot be both sane and well-educated and disbelieve in evolution' is just another version of 'you cannot disbelieve in my version of God and go to heaven and be saved.' But this week another Dawkins quote took my eye and continues the theme of being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. A review of his book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, said:
'Dawkins believes in absolute reality. He does not believe that reality is malleable. Dawkins admits his understanding of quantum mechanics is foggy and so declines to delve very far into that topic.'
Let me get this straight. An Oxford 'professor' who attacks, ridicules and vilifies those who have a different version of reality to him believes in 'absolute reality' while at the same time saying that his 'understanding of quantum mechanics [which proves that it is not absolute] is foggy' and decline to delve very far into that topic.
You are kidding me. What is that if not pseudo-science? This is how left-brain prisoners sit in their perception cells while believing they are free-thinking and intelligent. How can you be an Oxford University professor and take the chair of Public Understanding of Science from1995 until 2008 and say that your understanding of quantum mechanics is foggy while dogmatically pontificating on the nature of reality?
Extraordinary.

If this were only his view, as with Paolo di Canio, there would not be a problem, but he is teaching young people and the next generation of scientists and he is held up as some sort of expert on what is and is not 'real'.
Dawkins has done tremendous damage over the years for the credibility of alternative almost everything although the tide is now fast turning against him and others of his ilk like Christopher French, Professor of psychology at Goldsmiths College, University of London. French is also the Editor-in-Chief of The Skeptic magazine in the UK which is the propaganda arm of the concrete mind.
These people have become well-adjusted to a pseudoscientific dogma that excludes even a discipline within its own ranks - quantum mechanics and the study of the sub-atomic world. Their flawed perception of the reality (it has to be flawed by the very definition of not including quantum revelations) is like an addiction to them.
They cannot conceive of anything else and this is what the Skeptic, or Septic, Society is really all about - defending a view of reality that excludes quantum physics. It is the very definition of pseudo-science and what they call the 'scientific method' or 'evidence-based science' is not all the possible evidence, but only that produced within the rigid parameters of what they decide is evidence.
They talk about repetition of (often rigged) results in scientific 'experiments', peer reviews and 'empirical evidence' but fail to see that this has parked them in a cul-de-sac when it comes to understanding reality and has delivered endless horrors upon human society including genetically-modified 'food', thalidomide and a stream of other health-destroying, mind-destroying drugs, vaccines, potions and poisons.

Nothing can be credible without encompassing the quantum realm because that is the information blueprint from which the holographic 'physical' world is projected and so anything that focuses only on the projection - the body as we see it - can only ever treat the symptom not the cause. Do you change a movie on the screen or on the DVD?
This Stone Age 'science' can also wreak mayhem within the body blueprint in the same way that your car engine would be a heap of junk if you gave someone clueless about mechanics a bag of tools and free reign to do what he liked - 'yes doctor, thank-you doctor, anything you say doctor.' This is why, through the 'scientific method', the biggest killer in the United States has become the treatment.
I see this all the time with the scientific (it says here) mainstream. They have to acknowledge that quantum physics exists because it, well, exists; but then they look the other way and crack on as before when without an understanding of the quantum world from which the 'real' world is decoded you cannot understand anything.
It is a form of addiction, but also an expression of fear. They know that if they encompassed quantum reality into specialist areas such as biology on which Dawkins claims to be an expert then everything would have to be re-evaluated and viewed in a completely different context - and people like Dawkins and French would have to admit they are wrong.
They don't want to do that and accept they have been misguided their entire academic careers and so they do what Dawkins does - ignore quantum reality altogether.


'I'll call Dawkins - he'll confirm it.'

This for me is such an extreme and clearly crazy way to explore the mysteries of reality that it becomes a form of insanity in the sense of the scale of self-delusion. It is a type of schizophrenia in that the mind shuts itself away in a compartment of perception to hold the line against information and evidence that would demolish the prevailing belief system.
But they think they are 'well-adjusted' in contrast to those who can see the madness whom they condemn as misguided and crazy. As I said earlier:
If you are born into a madhouse and you grow up there knowing nothing else then the happenings in the madhouse become your version of normal. Tell someone in this situation that what is happening is madness and they will call you mad.
I experienced this theme again this week when I was visited by a well-adjusted 'journalist' from the UK Sunday Times. I have refused to speak with the mainstream print media for many years because once you put one of these people between what you say and how it is reported you are almost certainly wasting your time in terms of accuracy.
I decided however to put my toe in the water again this week to see if anything had changed given what was happening with world events when I was approached by Rupert Murdoch's UK Sunday Times. I wasn't in the least bit optimistic, but I did so out of sheer curiosity and it soon became clear that nothing had changed whatsoever as they despatched a bloke to my home called William Storr.

You may have seen how much evidence that I present in all the books with a number totalling more than 600 pages and 350,000 words. The one I am close to finishing now will be more like 800 pages and 420,000 words with about 800 images. But of course as usual Storr had not bothered to read any of my books before coming to talk to me about them. Incredible but true.
When I challenged him on this point he said: 'But you have written so many'. Er, yes, and ... your point is? The reason I agreed to speak to the Sunday Times is they said they wanted to make it a major article written at length for their magazine, but Storr turns up to 'interview' an author, and one dealing in unique material, without reading a single word of any of his books and then proceeds to pontificate about them.
He demanded that I give him the 'evidence' (scientific method) verbally when my books are compiled from a massive tapestry of interconnected and mutually supporting information which is why they are so long and detailed.
When I did give him examples of sources he just waved them away as not relevant. At one point he stood and shouted at me: 'You have not given me one example of where you get your information from - come on give me one, give me one.'
I had just told him at length the story about Christine Fitzgerald, the long-time friend of Princess Diana, as an example of thousands of separate sources but that was dismissed as irrelevant. He decided that she hadn't literally meant reptiles when she mentioned the word, but you only have to read her direct quotes after this article to see that this is exactly what she meant.
Storr had not read even one of my books, never mind the quote, and so he didn't know what she had said but still felt that he had the right to make an informed judgement. I think they call it 'journalism'.

This was followed by 'you are just taking events that happen and making them fit your theory' while ignoring the rather relevant fact that I had predicted the events that he was talking about long before they actually happened.
He came out with the usual 'but you can't prove by the scientific method that reptilians exist' and I could quite as easily have been talking to Dogma 'my understanding of quantum mechanics is foggy' Dawkins or Christopher French. In terms of mentality I was.
French arrogantly dismissed the evidence in my books on a television programme once and when I asked him if he had read any of them he said 'No'. I asked him how he could then have any idea what I was saying and he replied: 'I read it in the papers'.
Storr tried to turn my views on science against me by pointing out that I had bottles of pills in the kitchen and I must have been taking drugs for my arthritis. I pointed out that I had never taken drugs for the arthritis at any time since it came at the age of 15 and that the bottles of 'pills' were all natural supplements. Silence.
I found him in the kitchen a few minutes later and whether he went there to check the pills I don't know, but he would have found that it was true.
The arrogance of ignorance is always shocking to behold and meeting Storr was a horrible and depressing experience to realise that the mainstream media is still going round and round in circles on the way to disappearing up its own backside amid coming state censorship to delete even the modicum of real journalism that still survives.
My toe was out of the water as fast as it went in terms of talking to the mainstream print media and, unless I know the person to be open-minded and fair, I will never speak to any of them again because it is a waste of my time.

The media in general is a collective version of being well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society and is to a large extent responsible for that sickness. Day after day it reports madness as sanity and lies as truth and sees people like Richard Dawkins as the arbiters of what is and isn't while anyone with another version of reality must be either a charlatan or a fruit cake.
People like William Storr would have believed, and indicated as much at one point, that basically if what I was saying is true then 'scientists' like Dawkins would know about it. Human society is not only profoundly sick, but profoundly stupid and the two are fundamentally connected.
The print media in terms of newspapers and magazines is fast losing circulation to the Internet and part of that is that it operates in a time-warp of irrelevance. People no longer want to be told that all is sane in a world they can increasingly see is madness.
They don't want the William Storrs sitting between what someone says and how Storr and his colleagues choose to report it when they can go straight to the source and make up their own mind, no middleman filter necessary.
Challenging and exposing a profoundly sick society via the systems of the profoundly sick society is always going to be marginally effective at best and I won't be doing so again with the print media unless circumstances and attitudes dramatically change.
The point to take away from all this? It is not you that is mad - it is the world that you live in. Human society is not only profoundly sick but profoundly stuHuman society



These are quotes from my books from Christine Fitzgerald. Christine was a confidant of Princess Diana for nine years and she told me in 1998 that BBC 'entertainer' Jimmy Savile was a paedophile, necrophiliac and a member of the royal family inner circle. All this has since been confirmed amid the revelations about Savile's record-breaking child abuse.
Christine was also one of many who have told me about the royal family being human-reptilian hybrids. This week the Sunday Times reporter, William Storr, explained away what she said about reptiles as being a metaphor and not literal even though he had not read what she said.
This is what Christine told me in 1998. Not talking literally? You have got to laugh, really ...

The Queen Mother ... now that's a serious piece of wizardry. The Queen Mother is a lot older than people think. To be honest, the Royal Family hasn't died for a long time, they have just metamorphosised. It's sort of cloning, but in a different way. They take pieces of flesh and rebuild the body from one little bit. Because it's lizard, because it's cold-blooded, it's much easier for them to do Frankenstein shit than it is for us. The different bodies are just different electrical vibrations and they have got that secret, they've got the secret of the micro-currents, it's so micro, so specific, these radio waves that actually create the bodies [holograms]. These are the energies I work with when I'm healing.
They know the vibration of life and because they are cold-blooded, they are reptiles, they have no wish to make the Earth the perfect harmony it could be, or to heal the Earth from the damage that's been done. The Earth's been attacked for zeons by different extraterrestrials. It's been like a football for so long. This place was a bus stop for many different aliens. All these aliens, they could cope with everything, including the noxious gases.
They're landing all the time and coming up from the bowels of the Earth. They looked like reptiles originally, but they look like us when they get out now through the electrical vibration, that life key I talked about [holographic manipulation]. They can manifest how they want to. All the real knowledge has been taken out and shredded and put back in another way. The Queen Mother is 'Chief Toad' of this part of Europe and they have people like her in each continent. Most people, the hangers on, don't know, you know, about the reptiles. They are just in awe of these people because they are so powerful.

Balmoral [the Queen's castle in Scotland] is a very, very nasty place. That's somewhere they want to dig underground. They will find reptile fossils, it goes back that far. Don't think of people like the Queen Mother and Queen Victoria, as different people. Think of them as the same person which after a while has had to replace their coat. When the flesh dies, that energy, while it's dying, will be immediately up someone else's jacksy [backside]. It's very vampire, worse than vampire. They are not going to come to you with hooked teeth and suck your blood. Fear is their food. They can actually take fear and manifest it into a tangible thing. The key is the vibrational current. At that vibrational current, they can manifest anything from anything. It's like a holographic image.
We are all minerals and water vibrating. This is all an illusion we are living in. That's the secret. You know when the monarchy's fallen, it's not the end of it. They will manifest in another form. The reptiles have never been defeated and this is the closest they have come to it ... (because 'the mental power of the people returning') ... But even though these reptilian ones are fuckers, they are sad, pathetic beasts really, while humanity is galloping towards light. They're just pathetic lumps of nastiness who aren't going to win. I can't talk about this everywhere because they would just go 'Christine, get a white coat, put it on backwards, get out'. But I want an end to the bullshit.
Yes, clearly metaphorical!

The David Icke Newsletter, April 14th, 2013 THE 'IRON LADY' WAS A PUPPET ON A STRING

The David Icke Newsletter, April 14th, 2013

THE 'IRON LADY' ...


... WAS A PUPPET ON A STRING
Hello all ...
I met a Canadian journalist when I was a national spokesman for the British Green Party who had just arrived from an interview with the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He was taken-aback by his experience and captured Thatcher in a single sentence: 'She's barely one-dimensional'.
The former prime minister died this week aged 87 and triggered the most extreme polarity of responses which ranged from her goddess-like status on the right-wing of her Conservative Party to spontaneous street parties celebrating her departure from the world.
These reactions were based on 'Thatcher did this' (very good) and 'Thatcher did that' (very bad); but my question is did Thatcher herself do anything of substance at all, or was her cold, compassionless and strident personality just the vehicle, the cover, for hidden forces to change the face of Britain and further afield? The key word as usual is Rothschild.
There are so many strands to bring together. I highlighted in my newsletter on January 13th the close relationship that the late Lord Victor Rothschild had with prime ministers such as Winston Churchill (Conservative), Edward Heath (Conservative), Harold Wilson (Labour) and Margaret Thatcher (Conservative).

Rothschild was the cement that held together a continuing policy theme through the war and post-war period until his death in 1990 - the year that Thatcher left office. He was the ringmaster and the common presence as governments came and went.
Victor Rothschild was Churchill's minder and handler (Churchill owed his career and finances to the Rothschilds) and unofficially ran British Intelligence for decades. It was this control of the security services - and thus the police - that allowed his friends and gofers like Prime Minister Edward Heath and Soviet spy and relative of the Queen Mother, Anthony Blunt, to abuse and murder children at will.
I detailed the background to this in the January newsletter and, at least in the case of Heath, his abuse and murder was done in association with BBC 'entertainer' Jimmy Savile, a close friend of the royal family and Margaret Thatcher. Savile, who died in 2011 aged 84, has since been exposed as a record-breaking paedophile, but the Establishment has covered up his child procurement for the rich and famous because of where, and to whom, it would lead.
Victor Rothschild's method of operation, as with the Rothschild cult in general, is to put people into political power with enormous secrets to hide and then they would do whatever he said in fear of exposure. Control of British Intelligence allowed him access to the secrets and gave him the power to keep them under wraps unless he decided otherwise.
Here you have the reason why British Intelligence knew about Savile's paedophile and child-procurement activities with regard to the royal family, Ted Heath and the Thatcher government and yet did nothing about it. Many have asked this question since the revelations about Savile, but the answer is quite simple.

To understand the background to Thatcher and the myth that 'she' changed the face of Britain you have to pick up the story decades earlier and follow a continuing plan through successive prime ministers of both major parties which was hidden by the illusion of 'changing' administrations and the meaningless rhetoric and image-making of the people involved.
They say that you need to follow the money to see what is going on and to a large extent that is true; but I have another method: follow the outcome. No matter what people say they stand for, no matter what they say in their written-for-them speeches, what is the outcome?
I could give many examples of this with regard to the Victor Rothschild years, but I will focus on one - the European Union - and others will come from that. First of all here are just some of the outcomes that the Rothschilds were seeking to impose from at least (and it is at least) the 19th century, never mind from the time of Churchill:
A centralised fascist/communist bureaucratic superstate known today as the European Union (achieved).

The selling of state assets to Rothschild-controlled corporations (achieved).

The deregulation of the banking and financial system on both sides of the Atlantic to allow Rothschild-controlled bankers like Goldman Sachs free reign to run riot (achieved).

To make people dependent on the state and then pull the plug leaving them destitute and in extremes of poverty (achieved).
Yes, all have been achieved and this has been done not by one prime minister or government but in stages by one after the other no matter if they were called Conservative or Labour. The common theme through them all - Rothschild.

Blair (Labour), Thatcher (Conservative), Heath (Conservative), Callaghan (Labour) and Major (Conservative) have been some of the puppets in 'power' in the post-war decades with the real power standing in the middle and the hidden power as usual nowhere to be seen.
I have detailed in the books how the Rothschild networks and frontmen were behind the creation of what has become the European Union along with the Rothschild subordinates, the Habsburgs. One of their gofers was the so-called 'Father of Europe' Jean Monnet who said in a letter to a friend in 1952:
Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.
Today's concentration of EU power over the entire continent in the hands of a few bureaucrats in Brussels was planned from the start and so was the allocation of specialisations for each country and the dismantling of their economic diversity to create economic dependency.
The war that devastated Europe had provided the symbolic blank sheet of paper on which to construct the new Rothschild Europe and the excuse to bring countries together in a 'Common Market' to 'stop war ever happening again'. But of course it hasn't stopped war. It has just changed its direction with Europe, through Britain, France and NATO, going to war with other people.
So these were the outcomes that the Rothschilds wanted and this is how they achieved them in Britain and elsewhere.

I remember as a kid often seeing Edward Heath on our black and white television pressing for Britain to join the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market well before he became Prime Minister in 1970. He led Britain's negotiations for entry from 1960 when he was Lord Privy Seal in the Harold Macmillan government and he signed the country into the EEC as Prime Minister on January 1st 1973.
What I didn't know until the 1990s was that through this period he was abusing and murdering children, often provided by Jimmy Savile, and that he was under the complete control of Lord Victor Rothschild who he made head of his Central Policy Review Staff which dictated his government's policies.
The secret EEC plan for national specialisation meant that industries not connected to a country's designated role had to be deleted by stealth. John Davies, Heath's Secretary of State for Industry, told the Conservative Party's 'Monday Club' group that Heath had agreed to run down Britain's manufacturing industry [including steel and the coal industries] and for London to become the money market of Europe.
Heath also secretly conceded British sovereignty of its territorial fishing waters and the EU Common Fisheries Policy has since demolished the British fishing industry in an island nation. Cabinet papers released in 2001 reveal that the government and civil servants agreed to hide what had been agreed:
'[Ministers believed] ... it vital not to get drawn into an explanation of what was going on or to admit what a disaster was in store for Britain's fishermen [who] in the wider context must be regarded as expendable.'
Sir Crispin Tickle, another of Heath's negotiators, has admitted that the Government covered up the full implications of membership and he said that the rule was 'Don't talk about this in public.' They were all lying to cover up what had been done. Heath was asked in a BBC interview decades later if he had known all along that Britain was signing up to a federal European state. He replied: 'Of course, yes'.
It is just that the public were never told that.
Heath signs Britain into the Common Market after secretly agreeing to run down the steel and coal industries and manufacturing in general. It would all happen - under Thatcher.
Edward Heath took on the coal miners in 1972 and 1974 when they went on strike over low pay. Coal stocks declined to the point where Heath introduced a three-day working week and lost the next election to another Victor Rothschild asset, the Labour leader Harold Wilson.
The plan was to destroy the coal industry as per European blueprint along with the trade union movement which brought together large numbers of people in common cause and blocked full-blown divide and rule. The original Labour Party was created by the trade unions in 1900 and was still heavily funded by them at the time of Harold Wilson and his successor as Prime Minister, James Callaghan.
If the trade unions were going to be targeted openly it could only be done by the anti-union Conservative Party which was now led in opposition by Margaret Thatcher who took over as leader from Heath in 1975. Thatcher was carefully selected on the grounds of personality and ease of manipulation.
Her personality and approach to life was honed by her father, a shopkeeper and local politician in Grantham, Lincolnshire. He was also a Christian preacher and brought up his daughter as a strict Methodist. This definition of a Methodist describes Margaret Thatcher very well:
One who is characterised by strict adherence to method; one who thinks or acts according to a fixed system or definite principles; one who is thoroughly versed in method.
Or, as the Canadian journalist put it: 'She's barely one-dimensional'.

David Cameron, the present Conservative Prime Minister, said that Thatcher was 'not a consensus politician but a conviction one' and that those convictions were 'linked profoundly with her upbringing and values'. He said that 'the clarity of these convictions was applied with great courage to the problems of the age.'
She sought to run the country like her dad ran his corner shop and this is what the Rothschilds wanted through the 1980s. She wanted everyone to be like she was because she couldn't see any other way. It was every man and woman for themselves and the end of a collectively-supporting society.
It was a time when greed and selfishness were considered virtues and if you weren't a 'winner' by these criteria then too bad.

This is the shop and property in Grantham today where Margaret Thatcher grew up and had her views and values set in stone for the rest of her life.
Thatcher was head-hunted to replace Heath in 1975 by a group of Conservative MPs led by Airey Neave, who was later assassinated in a bomb attack, and including Peter Morrison, the paedophile MP for Chester, who would remain in her inner circle until she stood down as Prime Minster in 1990. Morrison was one of the first to urge Thatcher to stand for the party leadership.
Soon Lord Alistair McAlpine of the McAlpine construction family, who has had his own paedophile allegation controversies, became Conservative Party Treasurer and close friend, confidant and in many ways Svengali. McAlpine, too, would be at her side right through to 1990.
Thatcher's qualities in terms of the Rothschild agenda were that she was very set (see concrete) in the way she saw the world, economics and British society, all of which came from her background in Grantham. She was extremely arrogant and stubborn and would not back down once she had decided what should be done.
This was vital because the Rothschild networks were about to take on great swathes of the British public as part of the transformation of British and American society and the global economic system. They chose Thatcher for Britain and Ronald Reagan for America.
Thatcher officially introduced the economics called Thatcherism while Reagan installed 'Reaganomics'. The 'two' systems were mirrors of each other because they came from the same source and useless 'opponents' were pitched against them at subsequent elections to ensure that they both stayed in office long enough to complete the job.

Thatcher was not a popular Conservative Party leader when she was opposing the government of Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan in the late 1970s and she would almost certainly not have won the 1979 General Election without the multiple strikes that crippled transport and public services and became known as 'The Winter of Discontent'.

With uncollected waste piling up in the streets and even bodies not being buried because of a gravediggers strike a monkey representing the Conservative Party could have won the General Election that year and Margaret Thatcher swept in on a landslide. The first woman leader of a British political party was now the first woman Prime Minister.
Well, in theory, because she did not run the government through the eyes of a woman, but through those of testosterone man, bullying and berating her way to enforce her will with no room for compromise. As she said herself: 'The lady's not for turning.'
Yes, and that's why she was perfect for what the Rothschilds now had planned.

Margaret Thatcher outside Downing Street after her election victory in 1979 with husband Denis who has been named by some of those saying they were abused as children.
Thatcher appointed her friend, Lord Victor Rothschild, as a 'security advisor' and put into practice the economic policies that became known as Thatcherism. These had been honed since 1974 by the Centre for Policy Studies, the think-tank that she co-founded with Sir Keith Joseph (Rothschild Zionist) and Alfred Sherman (Rothschild Zionist).
Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan came to power in the United States in 1980 just after Thatcher and his Reaganomics was the work of his economics advisor Milton Friedman (Rothschild Zionist), the American economist from the University of Chicago.
Thatcher named many Rothschild Zionists in her administration, way out of proportion to their number in the country. Among them were Keith Joseph from the Center for Policy Studies who became Industry Secretary, and Nigel Lawson, her Chancellor of the Exchequer. Industry and economics were the prime targets of 'Thatcherism' (Rothschildism).

There were also the Rothschild Zionists Lord (David) Young who became Secretary of State for Employment (unemployment as it turned out) and later industry Secretary; and Leon Brittan, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Home Secretary and another Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Brittan has also been the subject of paedophile allegations.

These key positions to the Rothschild plan for the United Kingdom were held by Rothschild Zionists under Thatcher to such an extent that the former Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said there were 'more old Estonians than old Etonians.' Thatcher was a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel and very close to Israel in general.

Her first Foreign Secretary up to the time of the Falklands War in 1982 was Lord Peter Carrington, a Rothschild and royal insider who went on to become Secretary General of NATO, chairman of the Rothschild Bilderberg Group and Chancellor of the Queen's 'Most Noble Order of the Garter' (yawn).

Carrington is also a close friend of Rothschild-Rockefeller agent Henry Kissinger and a co-founder of the notorious Kissinger Associates which produces Rothschild agents in government like Obama's first Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist).

Lord Carrington.

In short, Thatcher was surrounded by people who answered to the Rothschilds and she was so easy to manipulate because of her corner-shop naivety about the world which continued to see everything through the eyes of a Grantham grocer's daughter her entire life.

There was another theme that I picked up over the years, including my time as a spokesman for the Green Party while she was in power: you could get her to do anything so long as (a) it could be justified by her set-in-stone vision of the world and (b) you let her think that it was her idea.

Reagan was a not very bright dancing puppet with his strings held by his Vice-President Father George Bush on behalf of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Cowboy Reagan and Iron Lady Thatcher may have appeared to be in control of events, but that's the last thing they were and what a coincidence that both ended up with dementia soon after leaving office. In fact, Reagan's started while he was still in the White House.
They both promoted an economic system labelled 'monetarism' which is defined as 'a doctrine holding that changes in the money supply determine the direction of a nation's economy.' This is obvious in that the more 'money' there is in circulation the more is available to buy 'things' and so the more 'things' have to be made.
The question is how do you manage the money supply for the benefit of all? Thatcher and Reagan (the Rothschilds) decided to do it for the benefit of the few. There were tax cuts for the rich and cutbacks for the poor while support was withdrawn for state industries.
Thatcher sold state-owned council houses, but failed to replace them. Homeless and unemployment soared and those in poverty were told to 'get on their bike' and look for work that largely wasn't there.

British manufacturing and steel-making collapsed and Thatcher with characteristic coldness set about destroying the coal industry. She had learned from the experience of Heath and his three-day working week when coal stocks ran low during the strikes of the 1970s.
Thatcher gave the miners financial incentives to produce as much coal as possible until coal reserves were overflowing and then she began to announce the closure of pits. The miners went on strike in protest, but they had produced too much coal to impact on the economy and they marched back to work in the face of hunger and destitution after a year without wages.
The coal industry, like the steel industry, was dead and the trade unions had suffered a blow from which they have never recovered.
How interesting that Thatcher's reputation was to be vehemently opposed to the increasing power of the Rothschild European Community but her policies brought about the very changes to which Edward Heath had agreed when he negotiated entry - that is the dismantling of Britain's industrial and manufacturing base in favour of finance and 'service industries'.

I don't doubt that her opposition to increasing European Community power was very genuine, but she was manipulatable because she did not understand the forces at work around her or put two and two together. To her, there was the issue of the British economy and the issue of losing sovereignty to Europe when these were fundamentally connected.
Thatcher did exactly what was required with the financial free-for-all, too. Her so-called 'Big Bang' deregulation of the City of London financial centre opened the door to parasites like the Rothschild-controlled Goldman Sachs and a global economic system.
One financial commentator said this week of the Thatcher 'Big Bang': 'In 25 years, the UK's trade surplus in financial services increased two-and-a-half fold, and there is now no credible rival in Europe for the City's position.' The London Times said: 'Big Bang was a hugely significant reform that cemented the City of London's place as Europe's biggest financial centre.'

What was it that Heath agreed to do again when negotiating Britain's entry into the EEC? Rundown Britain's manufacturing base and focus on banking and other financial services as the UK's specialisation within a European superstate. To re-quote Heath's Secretary of State for Industry, John Davies, they had agreed to run down Britain's manufacturing industry and for London to become the money market of Europe.
Mission accomplished - thanks to 'anti-Europe' Thatcher.

While millions suffered in the Thatcher years others made vast fortunes thanks to her deregulation of the City of London.
Thatcher's philosophy, again gleaned from the corner shop, was that 'governments don't create wealth - businesses do.' Barely one-dimensional once again, but perfect for what the Rothschilds wanted because it led to a frenzy of privatisation which saw her, as former Prime Minister Harold MacMillan put it, 'selling the family silver'.
Among the Thatcher selloffs were parts of British Petroleum, now BP PLC, British Aerospace, Cable & Wireless, British Telecom, British Gas and Rolls-Royce and the company hired to do this was ... N M Rothschild.
The plan was promoted as giving the public the chance to buy shares for the first time and end the monopoly on ownership of the rich and privileged. But that was not the outcome as they well knew it wouldn't be. The public did indeed buy a lot of the shares at prices that the Rothschilds knew would increase immediately and see the public sell them quickly at a profit to the Rothschild networks - and so it was.
Now once state-owned industries are owned by many foreign companies and they are constantly increasing prices for basic necessities like power and water. Thatcher is said to have 'made Britain great again' but during her period in office from 1979 to 1990 Britain imported for the first time since the Industrial Revolution more manufactured goods than it exported and that has continued to this day.
So much of what Thatcher said did not sync with the outcome. She said that she was committed to the two-year grammar school system and opposed the single-tied comprehensive schools and yet during her period as Education Secretary the number of children in comprehensives rose from 32 per cent to 62 per cent.
With Thatcher, as with everyone, ignore the words and watch the outcome.

Thatcher and Reagan were the fronts and faces of the 1980s transformation, but not the instigators. She likely had no idea of the extent that she was manipulated because her ego would not allow the very thought to manifest. Reagan knew a lot more, but Father Bush was still the power in the White House.
They both played their role in the movie that was the end of the Soviet Union. They started out with the Cold War rhetoric about the dangers of Soviet invasion and the need for 'strong defence' (enough nuclear weapons to end the world many times over).
But then along came the Rothschild-Rockefeller stooge, Mikhail Gorbachev, and suddenly Thatcher was saying that he was 'a man I can do business with.' The Rothschilds had reached the stage where they needed the Soviet Union to be dismantled so its constituent parts could begin to be absorbed into the European Union and NATO and Gorbachev and his reception paved the way for that.

The real power behind Thatcher was revealed again by the speed in which she was removed by her own 'side' once she had outlived her welcome. Jim Tucker, the American journalist and long-time investigator of the Bilderberg Group, reported that the Bilderberg meeting in May 1989 on La Toja Island off Spain had decided that she had to go.
A prime reason for this was her opposition to further absorption of national sovereignty by the emerging European state and the Rothschilds were preparing to cross the Rubicon and create a fully-fledged European Union through the Maastricht Treaty (the Treaty on European Union) which was signed in 1992 by her successor, John Major.
Thatcher made a rare contribution in Parliament after her demise as Prime Minister in which she condemned the signing of the treaty and said that she would never have done it. Precisely, and that's why she had to go. Her usefulness to the agenda was over.
At the time that Tucker published his report in 1989 Thatcher still seemed impregnable, but soon the atmosphere changed with her worshipping press turning increasingly against her and her colleagues heading for the knife department. The year after Tucker's report about the Bilderberg decision Thatcher was gone, forced out of office in November 1990 by her own party over which she had apparently enjoyed total control.

Margaret Thatcher leaving Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister.
The Iron Lady was like all of her predecessors and successors in Downing Street - a pawn in a game that they largely do not understand. Some do more than others, but I doubt if Thatcher was one of those. She had the political, social and economic views that suited the Rothschild agenda in that period (the same with Reagan) and the never back down attitude that would ensure that the desired changes would happen.
But when another approach was needed - she was off. Iron Lady she was not except in her personal stubbornness.

The Thatcher years kicked-started a new era of economic, political and social policy as part of a long-planned agenda for global transformation, but she was a pawn in that game, not a queen. What has followed with her successors, John Major, Tony Blair, briefly Gordon Brown, and now David Cameron has been simply the continuation of what 'she' (the Rothschilds) instigated.
Their continued deregulation of the financial system started by Thatcher and in league with US presidents and Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve led us to the crash of 2008 and all that has followed. Through the years of these prime ministers and presidents the Orwellian state has constantly increased while its social policy and care for people in need has been whittled away to the point now where it hardly functions at all.
People remember the Thatcher assault on the society that she said did not exist because she was loud, open and upfront about it; but today under David Cameron (Rothschild Zionist) it is in many ways becoming worse than under Thatcher.
He doesn't face the scale of union opposition that Thatcher did because she cut their balls off and they have never been replaced. The current Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband (Rothschild Zionist) said this week that Thatcher had moved the centre ground of politics and for once he was right.
In Thatcher's day what she did was considered extreme, but now it has almost reached the point of political consensus if, once again, you ignore the words from all parties and watch for the outcome.

Ed Miliband (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat).
Spot the difference? Me neither.
The way that people have been so sharply divided in their view of Thatcher following her death this week is testament to the lack of understanding of the forces behind the 'us and them' party game. It is only when you see the common forces that span the decades and centuries that the truths behind the myths can be seen.
Thatcher, despite her reputation, was in fact just another here today and gone tomorrow politician whose views and attitudes happened to fit what the Rothschilds wanted to happen in the 1980s. Nothing changed in the game, even down to her paedophile-infested government and, like the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles, her personal friendship with child-procurer Jimmy Savile.
Party politics and political personalities hide the core truth that the Rothschilds do not want us to see: It is not that the game has to change - the game has to go.

Don't hate the Media

Week in Review: Preemptive Wars and Ponzi Schemes

Marikana lawyer Mpofu released from hospital after stabbing

Thursday, April 04, 2013

The one flaw that wipes out the crisis

link

Missing image: The important role of feedback in IPCC predictions

Carbon dioxide only causes 1.1°C of warming if it doubles. That’s according to the IPCC. Did you know?

The real game is water.

When you show up ...

Israel Assassination of Rachel Corrie: BBC Admits Failings in Reporting

Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence

The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

If I Did Not Know ...

Could Spain and Italy Be Next? Fears That Cyprus-Style Raid on Savings Accounts Will Be Used to Bail Out Struggling Economies

Education?

Work, Buy, Die, Slaves

Sarkozy Case Judge Gets Death Threat

Monsanto Protection Act

Researchers Develop Vaccine Jab for Newborn Babies Right Out of the Womb

Job Interview

If Our Troops ...

Syria: Democracy vs. Foreign Invasion. Who is Bashar Al Assad?

Horror in Israel: 30,000 Mossad spies exposed

Annunaki, Iraq & Pearl Harbor

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Monday, April 01, 2013

Augureye Express: GMO? ~ Oh HELL No !

Solar-powered plane to fly across US

Totalitarianism is the New Normal
And the normal person cheers this fascism on....

Another 'Elite' Paedophile Cover Up By Disgusting London Police Chiefs

Israel Sets Up Field Hospital in Golan to Treat Syrian Militants

Junk Food Addicted Rats

GMO's

Honoring Doug Christie

Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

Too right, Oscar

Any advance on disgusting, appalling and beyond words disgraceful?

Cameron's super-rich-kid missus bleats about her horror at innocent children's lives on a 'barefoot visit' to Syrian refugee camp to get public opinion to support another mass-bombing intervention by her war criminal husband

Israeli Forces Clash with Palestinian Protesters in West Bank

President Obama

Troops in Afghanistan