The unfolding deep geo-political agenda

It’s clever. It’s very clever. Any mention of the topics I often touch upon is brilliantly dismissed as conspiracy theory. Discussing these things is likely to win you the title of nutcase, or worse. So those who wish to retain their dignity and possibly their jobs (especially if they work in the media) make sure they aren’t seen to take these things seriously. For those of us who can now just about predict what the cabal is up to it is sad to watch the gullibility of the masses who are devouring soaps, X –factor and mainstream news. It seems that these things were discussed more openly a few decades ago:

Larry McDonald, US Congressman, spells out the Coming New World Order in 1983!

Was he ridiculed? Did he lose his seat? He died in a plane accident shortly afterwards. It’s definitely worth taking the time to view this footage.  (The audio quality is not 100% but listenable). 

Much of the globalist agenda is based on the assumption that the world cannot sustain the present population. The 20th June 2011 hearing of the US Helsinki Commission – Commission on Security & Cooperation in Europe really puts an end to this scare story. Yes, it is a two hour video  – but you can always tackle other jobs while you listen to it.  Actually, it’s a time saver.

Can’t listen to videos at the office? Well, here’s another revealing report from a one-time globalist that you can read in the coffee break. You don’t have a coffee break? Well, if you are a non-smoker just take a smoking break in lieu.

I’m happy to keep supplying the alternative stories. This stuff certainly won’t appear in the mainstream. However, the footage is undoubtedly real. Why don’t we get to hear about these things? They’re obviously not conspiracy theories. I would suggest they are genuine references to an unfolding deep geo-political agenda.

We need clued-up candidates or we need to help them wise-up.  It’s a challenge, I know. But we have to introduce them to the international issues. And if you don’t have a candidate who is capable of taking this in? If your chosen candidate doesn’t win? Keep asking questions.


We might have to educate our candidates

This term of government draws to a close. We learn that Mr Brown thinks Mr Earnshaw does understand the Justice Bill. Well, that’s fine then. I’m sure that reassurance has been helpful in changing public perception of the matter!

We learn that £10,000,000 was written off by the film industry (now I’m not an accountant but doesn’t that really mean that the £6,000,000 profit would work out at £4,000,000 loss if we didn’t write the £10 million off? Please feel free to correct me on that point if this is not the case). If we assume that my quick tally is correct then couldn’t we view the results of this department rather differently? But hang on – wouldn’t that be wonderful if we could all do the same? When the bank manager tells us that the repayment of the loan of money-that-never-existed has caused a £40 unplanned overdraft for which there will be a hefty charge, wouldn’t it be superb to simply explain that we have actually written off a £100 spend so we are now effectively £60 in credit. Is this how movie makers’ accounting works? Yes, I could get to like that.

The Freedom of Information Act has been progressed at the very last sitting. Yes, it was complicated, time-consuming, and they have to ensure that it is worded correctly and for this reason it has taken many years to get it this far. Why then was the Justice Bill, containing highly complex and lengthy draft legislation, intended to be passed asap? And in fact did move along quite swiftly at one point. Slight disparity there?

 But there you go, these things are not easy for the rest of us to fathom. Take the e-borders for instance. The intention is to erect a virtual Berlin Wall around the UK/Europe whatever. You know the kind of thing. Like the US has. Then people find themselves on the no-fly list and they’re grounded. No more holidays in Benidorm. What was that? Oh yes, I forgot – it’s to protect us. Well, anyway if this VBW or e-borders or whatever you call them are so necessary to protect us and keep people out then how come it doesn’t have to happen till years ahead? I guess terrorists will instinctively know that they shouldn’t try anything yet and will play fair until they are in place. Duh.

We see Greece in turmoil and it seems these people are being made to pay for others’ errors. Some believe that Greece, Ireland etc should never have been brought into the Eurozone because their economies weren’t suitable.  It does seem to have been imposed upon them and – yes just my cynical view again – I can’t help wondering if there was a carrot to go with the stick. Now the people of Greece are faced with more austerity measures, more loans to pay off and little hope in sight. The result is rioting.

We are told that the British high street will be looking very different shortly as a result of store closures and amalgamations resulting in fewer outlets – and fewer staff. They tell us that customers aren’t spending, they are holding on to their money. Well, just an opinion here, but I’m not sure that stocking up the savings account is the right move. Firstly, bankers don’t seem to do this. Secondly, what will happen to the Euro and what knock-on effects could this have on Sterling? Better to put money in property or gold and silver perhaps?

It seems safe to say that things aren’t so rosy and maybe that really is why we are seeing an apparent build up of the police state measures. If it crashes – which many commentators consider to be inevitable – then numerous countries will have to contend with irate populations. This is not a case of unnecessarily exaggerating the financial crisis  – the mainstream media has been doing an excellent job of that for some time, arguably resulting in potential customers holding on to their money leading to the inevitable high street decline.

Why not start discussing possible consequences now? Why not accept that there will be dramatic changes but better to be in control of them than to be controlled. The masses have been deceived by various governments and institutions (please refer to previous posts) and they continue to be controlled by those holding massive financial interests – but they are not in our interests. (Some interesting research into the entire system to follow in future posts). IMO we have been conned by various means. Let’s start behaving like adults and start asking questions and talking about what is really going on. We need MHKs with real calibre to achieve this. We may have to educate some candidates about the real issues.

“Private banks create money out of nothing”

Fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent. It inflates the money supply. It creates the boom-bust cycle. Through central banking, it transfers planning authority to bureaucrats with only an indirect stake in the outcome of their decisions.

A really concise explanation:

The heart of the modern monetary system is fractional reserve banking. This system is based on fraud. At the very heart of the modern economy is fraud – fraud on a gigantic scale.

So we are told that private banks create money out of nothing and then lend it to us with the addition of the interest they have created on top of the money that was made out of nothing. Wouldn’t we all like a money- making machine too?

We’ve been told that it is inherently fraudulent and that it inflates the money supply and creates the boom-bust cycle. There we go listening to all the financial experts holding forth about why we have a recession or crash or whatever, yet I have never heard anyone explain that it is quite simply the fact that private banks are creating money out of nothing that is the true cause of our problems. The rich get richer…

Presumably, most people would be incensed to discover this. Well, if it’s a fact there’s no point in wasting energy on anger. The question is: How do we change things? There are suggestions and it seems that many believe the answer would be to stop issuing money as debt. That simple. Some believe that things would function pretty much as before as far as the customer is concerned.  (Paragraph: How can we fix this?)

I’m sure many will tell us that this can’t be done. Well, it can’t be done if you wish to retain the same level of profit and you are unconcerned about the plight of the public. So we stay stumm? Well, if we keep doing what we’re doing we’ll keep getting what we’re getting. Maybe you just can’t bring yourself to react to this. Not even to disseminate the information? Well, then it’s a case of resigning ourselves to being the victims. OK. But please just remember the above while we go on to explore some other topics…..

Money issued as debt

Most of us are concerned about the financial situation. Following the bankers’ bailouts the rest of us have been confronted with cuts. The plight of the banks has ultimately led to financial constraints for the general public. That’s pretty irritating. But we are told that globally all central banks issue money as debt. This is so-called fiat money which has no intrinsic value – unlike gold-based currency.

A Member of the Chartered Institute of Bankers tells us that although we are told that the Bank of England is nationalized he feels the wording of documents is ambiguous and he further explains that the Bank of England Nominees Act of 1977 prevents disclosure of possible beneficiaries. We know that the Federal Bank in the US is not owned by the government. Private individuals hold shares in this and many commentators have stated that these individuals print the money out of thin air. There are innumerable references to this. Naturally this leads us to question the Bank of England but the details of the set-up have been obscured from view. 

Mark Cocking  goes on to explain how fractional reserve lending functions. Could it really be true that global banks are issuing loans based on non-existent money?

Can you believe that the City of London (the square mile) is not a part of the UK but exists in its own right and that the USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The City. This is what he tells us. He goes on to suggest that the Queen must ask for permission to enter and adds that we should  ’go away and research it and tell me I’m wrong.’

This may be stunning news for some. Others may have suspected something similar all along. However, he emphasises that we must be pro-active about this. He fears that when the public becomes aware of the situation there could be unrest – hence the police state controls being put into place. He reasons that the so-called ‘elite’ are aware of this scenario and fear massive reactions to the present situation which cannot be saved without changing the basis of the system. They know the game is up, so to speak.

Many commentators tell us that the problems cannot be rectified as things stand. It can be changed. Stop issuing money as debt, we are told. Some advocate the pursual of Austrian economics. Now that would beat the guys from the other side of the pond, wouldn’t it? The Isle of Man shows them what transparency is really about!

Cocking, Ron Paul (a long-standing US Congressman), Max Keiser and many others are repeating the same message. You may prefer to dismiss this as nonsense and return your attention to your lunchtime newspaper. Please research this further and if you are convinced then ask questions.  Question it all. Mrs Craine, Mr Bell,  please prove us wrong by supplying all the necessary evidence. What could be better than these theories being proved wrong? Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened yet.

If you are involved in the finance sector questioning the situation may be a tall order. But please check out the many reputable references to this situation and decide for yourself how long things can go on. We could be the finance centre with a real attraction. Simplified? Maybe. But we are told that  economies based on fiat currencies are by their nature finite whereas gold has retained its value over millenia. Are we just going to wait for the implosion and hope it doesn’t happen in our lifetime? We’ve seen one calamity in the last few years so why not give the banking system a good check out and put ourselves in better shape? If not we leave ourselves open to all possibilities while we have no insight into how things really work.

It’s not about pointing the finger  – although we could. This is about ditching the present situation and creating a stable, transparent economy basis. Some banks were ‘too big to fail’ but the US bailouts meant that many families lost their homes for no reason of their own. We need to know what is really going on. More to follow.


Revolution is defined as: overthrow of government by the governed; great change. This is what we need – great change. NB There is no mention there of violence or civil unrest. Peaceful revolution is what we need. Non-compliance. We don’t need to comply with everything that is presented to us. Stringent clauses? Just make it clear we don’t accept them. If we are being sold control under the guise of a supposed threat then let us see the evidence. Can’t be done, you say? There has to be secrecy in the interests of security? What about the sexed up documents that led to enormous loss of life in Iraq? No, obviously they couldn’t show the docs to the hoi poloi. We might just have realised that the claims were fallacious. Citizens can’t be entrusted with information. This can only be made available to the “infallible” politicians – who were unfortunately wrong.

Still at least the risk of losing British lives was reduced. Is that what we think? It’s ok to spend money we haven’t got on wars we shouldn’t start as long as the enemy is far removed from us and British civilians won’t be involved? Does that sound ethically sound? Let’s face it – criminals and idiots are found in every strata of society, including politics. Why do so many shrug their shoulders and assume there is nothing to be done about it? If we take no steps to change things then we are permitting the situation to continue. We are compliant and therefore complicit.

This is not about half-baked hippy hopes. It’s about an adult, realistic view of the world and with that comes the realisation that we have been seriously misled about so many, many things.  When we are informed we have possibilities for change.

Much much more to come….

What’s going on in the constabulary?

What’s going on? Peter Karran is questioning the court case that was recently dropped. There is mention of the defendant having relatives in the police force. Eddie Lowey is questioning the use of Pava spray and seeks information about the guidelines issued to police offices – and if guidelines are being followed. Meanwhile, Bill Henderson is concerned about methods of arrest, particularly when mental illness is involved and is also questioning if children’s needs are being considered when someone in the house is arrested. That is quite a lot of queries.

What is of concern is that these questions and the issues involved could drive a wedge between the public and the police. It is absolutely right to scrutinise what goes on. But are we seeing a change in policing tactics? There may be a change in circumstances of crime in general. We have no insight into that – other than the fact that we have been assured that the island has a very low crime rate and high detection rate. Based on that information it is difficult to understand why we are experiencing what appears to be a different trend. If tactics have changed that would be a pity. This kind of thing can drive a wedge between the police and the public. Why would anyone want to do that? Until now there has been a pretty good relationship and things have worked out reasonably well.

However, in the UK there has already been a reported change in public perception of the police in some cases and there are reports of alienation and tensions between the police and some sections of the public. Some see a link between different policing methods that have been adopted and increasing negative attitudes towards the police. Well that’s the UK. Let them do what they see fit. Could it be that we have followed suit somewhere along the line? Let’s hope that we discover what is behind these complaints. Let’s hope that we are able to find out more about the guidance issued and whether it has changed in recent times and if so for what reasons.

Just a reminder: Small nation, mostly law abiding, low crime rate, high detection rate. What’s going on?

The promise of better things to come?

 Things are hotting up election-wise. More candidates are declaring. There are some new faces as well. However, I was beginning to despair of anyone addressing the real issues: Freedom of Information Act (some have), having a grown-up relationship with the UK – which might include detaching ourselves from the UK tentacles, taking a completely new look at the health service and removing the blinkers and seeing the world as it really is so that we can adopt appropriate measures for dealing with it. These issues are stunningly absent from most manifestos – meaning that your average candidate is still functioning as an obedient part of the system. Now we all know where that gets us – nowhere.

The candidate I seek is someone who is thinking outside the box and who doesn’t view the issues through the rose-tinted specs we receive at birth. Yes, it’s not easy to do this. We have all been conditioned. We even self-censor – we know there are some topics you simply can’t mention. You risk ridicule. They’re taboo. It is this reasoning that results in same old same old.

Now as an informed reader you also know the score. There are some nasty, greedy people out there who are doing their utmost to interfere in our affairs in order to control us. The sort of control we really wouldn’t like – unless of course you are some kind of Orwellian masochist. So let’s give a round of applause to a candidate who puts his cards on the table. Richard Kissack says it like it is. Of course there will be attempts to dismiss his ideas because someone somewhere wants to control us (who on earth permits or instigates the insertion of the extra clauses?) and “they” almost certainly won’t like our seeing through the opaque system.

Do I hear dissent? Did someone say how well we are doing and how splendidly our diverse economy has performed in difficult times? I admit we have done better than could have been expected. Yet, things are not balanced in our favour. There is far too much time and money spent on unnecessary and alien legislation. We have very little say in this and many other things. 

The present Tynwald debate about the film industry is unclear – we should be used to that though. The Liberal Vannin party has printed a lot of information on their website. Amongst other things they claim that CinemaNX was given £50million pounds. I’m no accountant and frankly I couldn’t understand where £50 million came into it. However, it is clear that millions of pounds have been written off and that the public has little insight into the workings of the film industry.

When some are being made redundant and we are all being asked to tighten our belts it seems inappropriate that this department is permitted to blithely write off millions of pounds. Questioning the film industry accounts resulted in outrage in Tynwald because Peter Karran had the audacity to raise the point! Thank you Peter. But if you wish for more of the same opaque stuff then just keep doing the same thing and voting the same way. After all, insanity has been described as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. However, without informed candidates we have no choice. This means we have to raise the real issues with our candidates. Educate them if necessary.

End of part one. Better things to come?

It’s all about controls and restrictions of freedom. The most effective reasons for doing this seem to be supposed health risks, threat of terrorism, claims of environmental harm etc. We’ve looked at most of these issues in depth. I haven’t gone into the terrorism threat too deeply. You either get it or you don’t.

The point is that these restrictions are being imposed on us from further afield and we need MHKs who can accurately assess the risks and decide if it is really necessary to remove further freedoms in order to counteract the supposed threat.

E-borders, GM (genetically modified) food, food controls etc are all issues which will be coming up in the next few years. Do these guys who dream this stuff up really know what they are talking about? Are we convinced enough to agree that the whole world should follow suit? How many of us can think of a prominent politician who always got it right? However, if we accept all these binding agreements we are virtually accepting these guys’ claims of infallibility. This is crazy! Why do these things have to be binding? Why don’t they admit that they don’t know for sure and leave options for countries to leave the system without suffering any financial or trading disadvantages? The answer is simple – it’s about control. The bottom line is that there are no guarantees. Life is fatal. So why spend this life under constant restrictions of our freedom and enjoyment?

Of course we should do our best to prevent pollution but remember that the packaging, the resources used in the production of the packaging etc are foisted on us. Geo-engineering, tampering with the balance of nature etc (GM foods) are things we didn’t request. There is evidence of suppression of energy production technologies etc. Why? Profits and control. We are constantly reassured about the safety of food additives, mobile phones, GM foods etc etc yet the powers-that-be claim to be puzzled by the increase in cancer rates. It’s all gone too far now for anyone to be able to pinpoint any one source of cancer risk. Indeed, how much investigation has been undertaken into synergistic effects of these things? There is also much evidence of air pollution – the aforementioned geo-engineering.“They” now admit to this after worldwide evidence of this issue. There should be no more spraying of populations without their consent. (If you think this is nonsense then please be aware that Porton Down has admitted to doing this in the past:  – and can’t assure us it won’t happen again)

 In the event of a military question arising which could only be answered by conducting open air trials in areas which may involve the general public, Ministers have made it clear that they cannot rule out the need to conduct larger scale trials in the future to try to ensure the protection of the UK from attacks by peoples of states using biological or chemical weapons.

James Delingpole puts it so much better than I have done:  

Bottom line:  How can we trust politicians we don’t even know? The island is undoubtedly open to legislation from other jurisdictions. The UN has openly declared its intentions to take global control in Agenda 21 and we know that there is an attempt to infiltrate local communities because this is “global, national and local”. Global Warming has now been renamed because it was so obviously erroneous. So-called threats of terrorism and health scares continue to dominate the news. Intended message: Be scared – be really scared. Be controllable. Our political system is non-transparent and there is evidence of close communications with the UK of which we have no record. We need MHKs who are awake. We need a well-functioning Freedom of Information Act. We need MHKs who understand they work for us. I rest my case.

PS This sums up the situation as I see it as present. Future posts will offer updates and related information. However, it is my intention to post helpful items whenever possible. We are many. They are few. There is hope for us all and I don’t believe it comes from the US or the UN.

UN local interference? Could that be true?

Returning to the Agenda 21, Sustainable Development issues etc. – you might be questioning the relevance again but remember the global to local plan? It has to be achieved locally because many communities would simply reject UN intervention in their daily lives. But we have already seen how this hurdle can be overcome – give different names to organisations and give them a local appearance and many people will co-operate. Indeed, the idea of environmentally-friendly reforms is fine in principle. The problem is that the following have been declared unsustainable:

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report. 

Yes, everything’s all right. Let’s take a back seat to the collective!

So it would be understandable if citizens with prior knowledge of the agenda had rejected it. You’d have to know about it first though, wouldn’t you?

Over the past twenty years, the UN’s communitarian system was implemented in every nation. In some nations it was an open process, because their systems were not established as governments of the people. In the nations where the citizens elect representatives and have veto power over laws passed by their elected representatives, Local Agenda 21 was hidden.

It seems a reasonable assumption that most of us do wish to do our bit to help look after the planet. But how do we know who is really in charge of things? What if a praiseworthy ideal has been hijacked? Agenda 21 contains plans to impose enormous controls upon the human race. The aims are to prescribe how and where we live, what we eat and to restrict our travel. The threats of terrorism and possible damage to the environment are two topics that seem to effectively control our lives and curtail our freedoms. Unfortunately, we cannot even be sure that this is the true picture. Global warming has become so obviously inaccurate (a prolonged freeze this winter followed by a chill summer) that it has now been renamed climate change. Well, that’s fine if it’s just an opinion. But when it is being used as the basis for financial sacrifices and to curtail our freedoms then I for one would like a little more than a report based upon the data from selected scientists and given credence above other opinions to the contrary, especially when we learn that the report was based on bad science and inaccurate data which was not freely available to other specialists. Does this sound like fair and open, objective assessment to you?

Note: This is quite a long video so I don’t urge you to view it. It shows a seemingly very nice lady attempting to give an insight into environmental issues. It seems to me that there is an attempt to encourage us to change our ways but the audience suggest that corporations and business interests are the real culprits and that this side of things is conveniently ignored.

Restrictions and controls need to be looked at very closely before they are adopted as law. The Crown Dependencies Report states that:

The Island parliaments legislate for themselves. UK legislation and international treaties are only extended to them with their consent.

Say that again?

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business – free viewing

This video was previously available for free viewing for a limited period of time. It is now available for free viewing until further notice thereby providing us all with the opportunity to view it again – or for the first time. This is a revealing report of how things can be suppressed.