[Hertog van Gelre]

Vandaag op NOS-Jounaal en EenVandaag: Complottheorien:
http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/dossie..._complot1.html
Uitzending is te bekijken op úitzending gemist'.

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Hertog van Gelre

Vandaag op NOS-Jounaal en EenVandaag: Complottheorien:
http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/dossie..._complot1.html
Uitzending is te bekijken op úitzending gemist'.

En niet te vergeten zondag op Zembla.

[exodus]

Vertaling van een artikel van Richard Falk, emeritus hoogleraar Internationaal Recht aan Princeton University.

Een onderzoek naar de feiten van 911

David Ray Griffin heeft een buitengewoon boek geschreven. Zelfs als je voor maar dertig procent onbevooroordeeld bent, verandert dit boek als je het zorgvuldig leest vrijwel zeker je denkwijze over de manier waarop de grondwettelijke democratie van de Verenigde Staten in de hoogste regionen van de regering werkt. Het komt zelden voor dat een boek zo’n potentie in zich draagt om de geschiedenis te bepalen.

Wat 11 september: Een onderzoek naar de feiten zo bijzonder maakt, is dat dit boek het meest gevoelige en meest controversiële onderwerp – het brede spectrum aan uitingen van de overheid met betrekking tot de tragedie van 11 september – verkent volgens de beste academische tradities.

Griffin toont zich een voorbeeldig wetenschapper: hij is bereid om iedere weg van bewijslast en logica te volgen, waarheen die ook moge leiden. Griffin stelt op briljante wijze een overweldigende bewijslast samen die duidelijk maakt dat er een uitgebreid, ongehinderd, volledig betaald en fundamenteel onderzoek moet plaatsvinden naar het volledige verhaal over hoe en waarom 11 september kon gebeuren.

Er zitten zoveel gapende gaten in de officiële verklaringen over 11 september dat geen enkel zogenaamd sluitend verhaal overeind blijft staan. De ene berg onverklaarbare feiten na de andere, de herhaalde pogingen van machthebbers om onafhankelijk onderzoek te voorkomen, en het bewijs dat personen binnen de regering-Bush al vóór 11 september een blauwdruk hadden klaarliggen die exact de acties beschreef die ze nu uitvoeren alsof de gebeurtenissen van 11 september er de aanleiding voor vormden, zijn voorbeelden waarom het boek van Griffin niet eens volkomen onbevooroordeeld gelezen hoeft te worden. Zoals ik al zei: dertig procent onbevooroordeeld is al genoeg, wat betekent dat bijna iedereen, behalve de dogmatisch blinde aanhangers van president Bush, overtuigd zal worden door de algemene bewijsvoering in dit boek.

Er is op dit moment in Amerika geen enkel excuus om aan te nemen dat de politiek onschuldig is, om klakkeloos uit te gaan van de goede bedoelingen van onze overheid. Het manipuleren van de gevoelens van het volk kent immers al een lange geschiedenis, zeker als het om oorlog en vrede gaat. Geschiedkundigen zijn het er in steeds grotere mate over eens dat de feiten werden gemanipuleerd:

(1) bij de explosie van de uss Maine om de Spaans-Amerikaanse oorlog te rechtvaardigen (1898),

(2) met betrekking tot de Japanse aanval op Pearl Harbor om de voorheen impopulaire inmenging in de Tweede Wereldoorlog te rechtvaardigen,

(3) bij het incident in de golf van Tonkin in 1964, dat door het Witte Huis als rechtvaardiging werd gebruikt om de Vietnamoorlog naar Noord- Vietnam uit te breiden,

(4) om Irak af te schilderen als een land dat een gevaarlijke hoeveelheid massavernietigingswapens verborgen hield, ter rechtvaardiging van een oorlog waarbij werd voorbijgegaan aan het internationale recht en de Verenigde Naties.

Dit plaatst ons allen voor een fundamentele, klemmende vraag. Waarom zou de officiële verklaring van 11 september als onaantastbaar moeten worden beschouwd en klakkeloos moeten worden aangenomen, zeker nu zij wordt gebruikt als rechtvaardiging voor een aantal van de gevaarlijkste ondernemingen uit de wereldgeschiedenis?

Zoals Griffin aantoont, is het niet noodzakelijk om het met de totale bewijsvoering van de critici eens te zijn om tot de conclusie te komen dat de officiële verklaring van 11 september absoluut niet overtuigt. Ieder onderdeel van zijn verhaal is genoeg om Griffins uitgangspunt te onderschrijven: dat dit land en de wereld een uitgebreide, geloofwaardige en directe verklaring verdienen van wat er op die noodlottige dag gebeurde en hoe dat heeft kunnen gebeuren. Zo’n stap zou vandaag de dag blijk geven van de onbetwiste wijsheid van het beroemde antwoord dat Ben Franklin gaf toen hem werd gevraagd wat de grondwetsconventie in Philadelphia had bereikt: ‘Een republiek, als je die tenminste in stand houdt.’

– Richard Falk, emeritus hoogleraar Internationaal Recht aan Princeton University
over 11 september: Een onderzoek naar de feiten. Uitgeverij Lemniscaat, 2006

[Pindar]

Facts Everyone Should Know About ID Cards


'What's wrong with being expected to carry an ID card?' ask the naive. `If you've got nothing to hide, why should you care?'

Well, apart from the fact that there is something intrinsically fascist and oppressive about being expected to carry identification with you at all times, one problem is that if it is illegal to leave your house without an ID card then there has to be a punishment for not carrying an ID card.

To begin with the punishment will probably be a search, an arrest, an appearance in court and a fine. But, historically, all the evidence (from Nazi Germany and the USSR) shows that the punishments will become increasingly severe.
Here are some things everyone should know about ID cards:

* The idea for ID cards came from America. George W.Bush told the EU that Europeans should carry them. The EU Commission slavishly and gutlessly agreed to obey the instruction. The British Government did as it was told.

* Spain had ID cards before the Madrid bombings and the alleged September 11th hijackers all travelled on legitimate papers.

* Information the Government intends to put on ID cards includes: previous residential status, address of main home and any second homes, details of how often name has been accessed by others, date and place of birth, physical characteristics, finger prints, nationality, medical details, financial details, criminal record and anything else they think they might be able to sell to data processing companies.

* If thieves manage to steal your fingerprints or iris scan you will lose these very personal bits of biometric data for ever. Unlike your bank details you can't change your iris scan every time it gets stolen.

* The proponents of ID cards seem to ignore the fact that in order to obtain an ID card (and prove our identity) we will be asked to produce some identification. What will we be told to produce? Passport or driving licence. Two easily forgeable pieces of identification.

* The information on ID cards can, of course, be recorded and used without the knowledge or consent of the individual concerned. Information on ID cards will be made widely available to civil servants and Government employees. And information will be sold to private companies.

And here's what Tony Blair said about ID cards before he met George W. Bush and bought a house with a mortgage he couldn't afford: `Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards...let that money provide thousands more police officers.'


Taken from Living In A Fascist Country by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books at £15.99. Available from the shop on this site and from all good bookshops, wherever they are.

Pin d' Ar

[exodus]

Informatie over het peace teken. Het peace teken heeft ook een occulte achtergrond, zoals vele tekens die door elitiarie personen gelanceerd zijn. In feite wil het in het echt iets helemaal anders dan "vrede" zeggen:

Peace Sign

The signal "actually began as a symbol of Satanic benediction during the rituals.'' This sign has been used by Yasser Arafat, Richard Nixon, Winston Churchill, and Stewart Meacham, Co-Chairman of Reds' New Mobilisation Committee." Churchill said that the sign stood for victory but remember that Churchill was one of the insider "elite" and a Mason. He most likely knew the evil significance of this symbol but tried to give it a facelift.


The "v sign " has a colourful history. "V" is the Roman sign for the number five and Adam Weishaupt used it in the Illuminati to symbolise the "Law of Fives,'' but there's more. In the Cabala:

"the meaning for the Hebrew letter for V (Van) is 'Nail.' Now, 'The Nail' is one of the secret titles of Satan within the Brotherhood of Satanism. Satan is letting us know that this is one of his favourite signs. Why else does he like the PENTA-gram (Penta = five!) and the FIVE-fold salute used in Masonry and Witchcraft?''

[Furthermore:

"The Leftists, radicals, and Satanists who have popularised that sign...know its ancient significance very well. In fact, that 'V' sign is now used extensively by such Communist organisations as the Young Socialist Alliance, Vets for Peace in Vietnam, and the Students for a Democratic Society."

Although not a hand sign, the peace symbol itself needs to be examined.

"Known as the 'peace sign' throughout the 1960's and into the present day, this symbol is the Teutonic rune of death. 1950's peace advocate Gerald Holtom may have been commissioned by communist sympathiser Bertrand Russell to design a symbol to unite leftist peace marchers in 1958. It is clear that either Holtom or Russell deemed the Teutonic (Neronic) cross as the appropriate symbol for their cause.

"Throughout the last 2,000 years this symbol has designated hatred of Christians. Nero, who despised Christians, crucified the Apostle Peter on a cross head downward. This hideous event resembled the Teutonic cross and became a popular pagan insignia of the day. Thereafter, this sign became known as the 'Neronic cross.'

"The symbol's origin in history proves it to be the visual mystic character for 'Aum' (the split 'Y'). This is the sacred word to the Hindu. Chanting 'Aum' is supposed to help awaken 'the serpent power of Brahma' at the base of the human spine. Occultist Albert Pike also identifies this symbol as mystical in his book on Freemasonry Morals and Dogma.

The peace symbol (also called the "broken cross," "crow's foot," "witch's foot," "Nero Cross," "sign of the 'broken Jew,'" and the "symbol of the 'anti-Christ''') is actually a cross with the arms broken. It also signifies the "gesture of despair," and the "death of man.''

"The Germanic tribes who used it attributed strange and mystical properties to the sign. Such a 'rune' is said to have been used by 'black magicians' in pagan incantations and condemnations....To this very day the inverted broken cross--identical to the socialists' 'peace' symbol--is known in Germany as a 'todersrune,' or death rune. Not only was it ordered by Hitler's National Socialists that it must appear on German death notices, but it was part of the official inscription prescribed for the gravestones of Nazi officers of the dread SS. The symbol suited Nazi emphasis on pagan mysticism.''

[With the arms of the cross raised in an upright position, it is "a Pythagorean emblem of the course of life, in the form of a rising path with fork roads to Good and Evil.'' It also signifies fertility, but with the arms pointing downward, it denotes evil and death.


"In fact, the inverted 'Man-rune'--the figure encircled in the common sign which the Communists tell us means 'peace'--has for centuries been a favourite sign of Satanists.''

Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, used the peace symbol as the backdrop for his altar.
One former witch makes the following comment about the peace symbol:

"It is an ancient and powerful symbol of Antichrist. During the dark ages it was used in Druid Witchcraft and by Satanists of all sorts during the initiation of a new member to their order. They would draw the magic circle and give the initiate a cross. The initiate would then lift the cross and turn it upside down. He would then renounce Christianity in all three dimensions (sic) of time (past, present and future) and break the horizontal pieces downward forming the design of the 'Raven's Foot.' This ugly symbol is nothing short of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. For one to wear or display this symbol is to announce either knowingly or unknowingly that you have rejected Christ. Remember, symbolism is a picture language, and a picture is worth a thousand words.''

Below are a few examples of how the peace symbol is being used.

[Pindar]

Heel juist Exodus, hopelijk helpt dat weer meer mensen wakker te maken


Over wakker maken gesproken, Eerder heb ik en anderen gezegd dat de BBC
geen betrouwbare zender is!!

Maar als U nog steeds gelooft dat de BBC een betrouwbare zender is,
zou toch echt eens onderstaande moeten lezen.

The BBC - The Bent Broadcasting Corporation



A state broadcaster that would have been comfortable in the old Soviet Union

Vernon Coleman




It has long been clear to me that the BBC is a very biased broadcasting organisation which takes a strong pro-establishment line on almost every issue.
I used to work for the BBC regularly - presenting programmes on both radio and television. But I don't get invited to appear much on the BBC these days. Review copies of my books are sent to programme editors and presenters but, on the whole, we would get as much response if we sent copies to the Man in the Moon. When representatives of the BBC do ring up it is usually to invite me to appear on something in which I have absolutely no interest and which is unlikely to give me any opportunity to embarrass any part of the official establishment. A little while ago, for example, I received a message offering me a fee of £2,000 to appear on a `celebrity' issue of a BBC quiz programme. I declined. I rather doubt, however, that I will be invited to discuss this book on any BBC programme.

The BBC seems to me to support the medical establishment, the meat industry and the drug industry and to say that it is not keen to give air time to my views on doctors or the health service or to my views on the pointlessness of animal experimentation is something of an under-statement. I have never heard a BBC programme (on radio or television) which was fair to pro-animal campaigners, that dealt with the EU fairly, that dared to criticise American Imperialism with gusto or that criticised doctors and drug companies. The BBC usually only gives air time to politicians and other establishment figures and gives little (or preferably no) time to anyone threatening the establishment with contrary or original thoughts. Not for nothing is the BBC known not as the British Broadcasting Corporation but as the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, the Bush and Blair Chorus and the Bent Broadcasting Corporation. The whole darned organisation spins more than a top. After watching a BBC news programme I feel dizzy from all the spinning.

It has, for some time now, also been pretty clear to me that the BBC does not like to broadcast uncomfortably trenchant criticism of the European Union. My book England Our England is probably the biggest selling book on politics to have been published in England in recent years. And yet I have discussed it just once on the BBC, on a late night local radio programme. (The presenter later reported an unprecedented interest in the broadcast.)

I am not the only person to have noticed that the BBC takes an unusually partisan line on the EU. This pro-European bias has been evident to many listeners for many years and few people were surprised when, in June 2004, a study conducted by the Centre for Policy Studies revealed that the BBC gave twice as much coverage to pro-EU speakers as to eurosceptics. (I'd like to see, but am unlikely ever to obtain, a list of all the direct and indirect grants and financial inducements the BBC may have received from the European Union.)

Naturally, representatives of the BBC are invariably quick to defend their organisation. I suspect that some of them really believe that they are impartial and it is certainly a fact that they often fail to realise just how much their bias is showing. People who work for the BBC don't think of themselves as being part of the establishment (in fact many of them like to think of themselves as being rather radical) but with the possible exception of the British Medical Association I don't think I've ever known a more pro-establishment body than the BBC. The BBC has a hierarchy based on the civil service and certainly doesn't reflect the diversity of opinion in England. Very few BBC employees have ever experienced life in the free market (the ones who have, have often failed).

The problem is that the BBC's internal environment, their in-house culture, is terribly biased towards Labour and all its best-established enthusiasms. Any honest broadcaster would have left the BBC in disgust years ago. The European Union is important to Labour and so it is important to the BBC too. (The BBC's uncomfortable, and for it rather embarrassing, position over the illegal invasion of Iraq was merely a reflection of the Labour Party's own internal schism.)

Most BBC staff members are recruited through advertisements which appear exclusively in left-wing pro-Labour newspapers such as The Guardian and the organisation grows and grooms its own managers instead of recruiting from outside. Inevitably, most of the people who work for the BBC are Guardian readers. There are uncomfortable and unacceptable links between BBC staff and the Labour Party. One BBC presenter and her company are alleged to have received £600,000 in public money since Labour took over the government.Would anyone trust a journalist reporting on, say, the drug industry who earned part of their income working for the drug industry?

Is it really surprising, therefore, that the BBC ends up supporting the EU and refusing to allow the critics of the EU fair access to its airtime? Is it surprising that BBC staff invariably seem frightened of producing anything likely to upset the establishment? Was it really surprising when one well-known presenter referred to the Labour Party as `we'? Most BBC staff may not be stupid enough to endorse one party but they don't even realise that their prejudices are prejudices. They simply regard their views as `right'.

The BBC produces very little real investigative journalism and no consumer protection. The organisation is plump, complacent and infinitely pro-establishment; full of people who are terribly pleased with themselves and scared witless that their comfy sinecure may end. Is it any wonder that young BBC broadcasters do nothing original or daring or likely to upset any part of the establishment, unless it is acceptably original or daring (in which case of course it is neither).

The ultimate insult, of course, is that it is impossible to listen to the radio or watch television in England without paying a hefty annual fee to the BBC. Where else in the world do the citizens have to pay to be indoctrinated? Does no one outside the BBC realise that any broadcaster which is totally dependent upon the establishment and the government of the day for its very existence must end up as no more than a tool for both.

Although the BBC gets its income from a tax on the public (whether they watch its programmes or not) the BBC is effectively a state owned broadcaster. It certainly acts like one. No one with a brain would expect to turn on the BBC to listen to the news. The BBC is a good old-fashioned state broadcaster. It would have been comfortable operating in the USSR in the 1960s.

Nuff said

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Wordt er nou niemand kwaad als ie dit leest???????

Kids buy lunches with scans of fingers

The never-ending march of technology now means school children here can pay for their cafeteria sloppy joes with their fingers. Rome City Schools is switching to a scanning system that lets students use their fingerprints to access their accounts. In the past, students had to punch in their pin numbers.

"The finger's better because all you've got to do is put your finger in, and you don't have to do the number and get mixed up," said Adrianna Harris, a second grader at Anna K. Davie Elementary School. The new system speeds lunch lines, said city administrators.

It's being phased in to Rome High School, Rome Middle School and all the city's elementary schools. The city hopes to have the system in use next month system-wide. Some parents are uneasy with having their children's fingerprints scanned, and wonder about how well the information is secured. "It may be perfectly secure, but my daughter is a minor and I understand that supposedly the kids have the option to not have their prints scanned, but that's not being articulated to my daughter," said Hal Storey, who's daughter is a 10th grader at Rome High.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060905/...te/finger_food


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

het wordt met de dag gekker!!!!!!

Jewish man removed from airplane for praying

'Some fellow passengers are questioning why an Orthodox Jewish man was removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight in Montreal last week for praying. The man was a passenger on a Sept. 1 flight from Montreal to New York City when the incident happened.'

But this is the best bit ...

'The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada has offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training.'

That's like getting Saharan nomads to teach igloo construction.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...eronplane.html


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Hoeven we ons echt geen zorgen te maken??

Government and Industry To Use Computer Microphones To Spy On 150 Million Americans

'Private industry and eventually government is planning to use microphones in the computers of an estimated 150 million-plus Internet active Americans to spy on their lifestyle choices and build psychological profiles which will be used for surveillance and minority report style invasive advertising and data mining.

Digital cable TV boxes, such as Scientific Atlantic, have had secret in-built microphones inside them since their inception in the late 1990's and these originally dormant devices were planned to be activated when the invasive advertising revolution arrived - 2006 marks that date.'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...60906spyon.htm



Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

en gekker en gekker:

White House Targets Conspiracy Theorists As Terrorist Recruiters

A document cited by President Bush in his recent speech at the Capital Hilton Hotel on how to 'win the war on terror' cites conspiracies as one of the wellsprings of terrorism and threatens to "address" and "diminish" the problems they are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda.
On Tuesday Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."

The document says that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

The terminology echoes President Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly on November 10th 2001 in which he stated, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

This is an outright threat to the 9/11 truth movement and is meant to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

It is also a callous reminder that the administration that has been the progenitor of the most heinous and deliberate campaign to mislead and lie to its own people is so transfixed by its own hubris that it has the temerity to accuse others of propagating deceptive information.

This is the same administration that deliberately included the Niger yellow cake fraud in a state of the union speech to sell a war - knowing that the information was completely bogus.

How dare they threaten us with the very defining characteristic of their black legacy and equate us with terrorists?

This is a direct assault on the alternative media and a continuation of the twilight zone rhetoric that saw the administration attempt to link its critics with Fascists and Hitler appeasers. The only fascists that should really concern us are not imaginary 'Blogofascists' or 'Islamofascists' but the Neo-Fascist slugs that occupy the White House and their cheerleading sycophants in the mainstream media and congress.

This is by no means the first time political enemies of the state have been smeared as terrorist sympathizers.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...recruiters.htm

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

[quote]Olbermann’s Latest Special Comment Targets Bush: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”[/quote]


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...-sir%e2%80%9d/


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

We hebben het al eerder over de mainstream pers gehad en dat ie niet te vertouwen is.

Why The Media Can't Be Trusted To Provide The Truth

Anyone who relies on mainstream newspapers, television or radio for news about the EU will have a very superficial and one sided view of what is going on. What masquerades as news is simply a mixture of lies, half truths, spin, counterspin and propaganda. The aim of the media today is to misinform, to manipulate and to make you afraid.
Quite rightly, distrust of the press is becoming widespread. A major recent survey in the USA showed that 45% of Americans believe little or nothing that they read in newspapers. Twenty years ago only 16% of readers expressed such profound scepticism.

Apart from newsletters and small publishers there is no free press in America.

And with the exception of newsletters and small publishers in England there is no free press in England either.

In most countries where there is no free press it is because the government has used brute force to censor the media. Tyrants from the dusty depths of history right up to the Nazis and the communists knew the importance of controlling the press.

But things are different now.

The difference with the 20th century despots is that they know how to manipulate the media and, instead of just dipping journalists in boiling tar they hire tame journalists to spread their message. Labour's spin doctors were, in a spiritual sense, fathered by Hitler and Goebels.

Today, politicians may not own the media and they may no longer need to chop off the arms and heads of troublesome scribes, but they can control the media with ever increasing subtlety. News used to be defined as things someone didn't want to see in print - these days it's the opposite; it's stuff someone in power wants you to read.

The result is that although we may seem to have a free press, we don't. And that's worse than having a despot who boils disobedient journalists in oil. What you read in your newspaper and what you see on television and what you hear on the radio are, by and large, the accepted messages. People believe what they see and what they hear and what they read.

But today's journalists are muzzled not by the threat of violence but by the promise of wealth and fame and success. The statist elite of the EU and Labour don't kill journalists - they buy them.

Today's journalists have given up their spirit in return for money, fame and honours. Journalists used to pride themselves on their freedom and independence. Today's journalists are servile, weak and greedy. They are also easily bribed.

The people who should be protecting our freedom are helping our tyrannical rules take it from us. The rulers tell the journalists that what they are doing is `inevitable' and `necessary' and they talk of threats from terrorism and the need for progress.

Today's journalists have no sense of history, no ability to think for themselves; they have become part of show business. They are not in the slightest bit interested in truth. They will blow whichever way the wind takes them.

Journalists and editors have chosen popularity with their bosses, gold and fame, above principle. They want to be `in' with the `in crowd', they want to be liked. They are sycophantic quislings not journalists. They grovel at the feet of third rate politicians and businessmen and they suppress the truth for an invitation to Chequers and a company car (preferably with chauffeur).

It is the role of journalists to harry, criticise and question politicians. Always. Whoever is in power. Journalists should never have friends among politicians and should never accept favours. It is as bad for a journalist to accept hospitality from a politician as it would be to accept a bribe from an industrialist.

Among the 300 guests officially entertained, at taxpayers' expense, by the Blairs during Labour's first term in power between 1997 and 2001 were (in addition to an Italian nobleman and his wife and two daughters, who had loaned the Blairs his Tuscan villa for a holiday) a clutch of well-known journalists.

Now, if any of those journalists had been writing a story, say, on the oil industry and had spent a weekend dining and wining at the expense of an oil company chief do you not think there might have been raised eyebrows?

When employees of the BBC accepts such an invitation, and the BBC seems unperturbed by their accepting it, serious questions should be asked about the independence of the whole organisation. Journalists should avoid the hospitality of the people they are supposed to be investigating as determinedly as they should (but don't) refuse honours or awards or prizes. Any journalist who accepts a peerage, a knighthood or even an MBA has betrayed his readers. Dammit, journalists shouldn't even be on first name terms with the people they write or broadcast about. They shouldn't eat with them or drink with them.

Niccolo machiavelli recommended that a Prince could make someone a puppet by `dignifying him, enriching him, binding him to himself by benefits, and sharing with him the honours...of the State.'

He was right.

What all this means is that those who rely upon the press and upon TV and radio for their news, and for an interpretation of the news, will be unable to see what is happening or form useful judgements.

You cannot possibly rely upon your daily newspaper or news programme for anything approaching the truth about the EU. Indeed, I would go further. Every time you read an article about the EU in a national newspaper you should assume that the writer is lying. And every time you listen to a programme about the EU on the BBC you should ask yourself not whether the broadcaster is telling the truth but why he might be lying.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Identity Cards: Why You Should Be Afraid



Why all citizens who care about freedom, justice, privacy and independence must oppose identity cards.


New Labour claims that forcing British citizens to carry identity cards will help combat terrorism. This is a lie. British leaders are either very stupid or very dishonest. (They could, I suppose, be both.)

Identity cards offer no security against terrorism.

But they will remove our last scrap of freedom. Their introduction will take us further down the line towards a police state. We must oppose their introduction vigorously.

The New Labour Government (the most fascist Government Britain has ever had) has taken advantage of the so-called `terrorist threat' to announce its intention to introduce compulsory identity cards.

(I call the threat `so-called' because there have been fewer terrorist attacks in Britain since 11/9 than there were in the years immediately preceding the attack on America. This fall in the number of terrorist incidents in Britain could well be due to the fact that the Americans are now very slightly less enthusiastic about supporting the IRA than they were before 11/9.)

The irony here is that even the Americans themselves have rejected the idea of introducing identity cards.
They (unlike New Labour) are presumably aware that countries which have introduced ID cards have seen no increase in security or reduction in terrorist attacks.

The USA Congress inserted the following line in the bill which created the now much depised Department of Homeland Security in the USA: `Nothing in this act should be construed to authorise the development of a national identification system or card.'

The New Labour Government frequently claims that we should accept identity cards because the French have them. They do not bother to explain why the fact that the French has identity cards has anything to do with their suitability for Britain.

There are flaws in this particular argument.

The first flaw is that the identity cards the French use are quite simple, more like the flimsy bits of cardboard that the Nazis were so fond of, than the high-tech credit card style devices that New Labour plans to introduce.

It is quite wrong to suggest that the cards the French use compare in any way with the cards Britons will have to use.

The identity cards being introduced by New Labour will use iris recognition technology to identify the holder. Plus fingerprints. The French ID cards do not contain fingerprints or eye scans.

The New Labour ID cards will contain a microchip with every bit of information about you that the authorities can find. Your medical history, dental records, police record, banking records, address, telephone number, tax records, age, credit card details and, of course, a personal number similar in style to the one the Nazis used to tattoo on people. (New Labour has already proposed giving every newborn British child an identity number.)

The French ID cards do not include any electronic records, they are valid for ten years and only 51% of the population have them. French identity cards can be used to support claims for state benefits, banking transactions and (in place of a passport) for travel around Europe. They are, indeed, a sort of poor man's passport - perfectly acceptable for people who just want to travel on the European mainland.

New Labour's identity cards (also known as smart cards) will ultimately replace credit, debit and cash cards, keys, passport, driving licence, national insurance cards, medical records, tax records and even cash.

In the Brave New World envisaged by New Labour, we will carry nothing with us but our New Labour smart cards. Administration and control will be simple and effective. Mr Blunkett and his lieutenants will know where you are, what you earn, what you spend, what you wear, where you sleep (and whom you sleep with).

The second flaw in the New Labour argument is that identity cards are voluntary in France (as they are in most of the European countries which have them).

British ID cards, the ones New Labour is introducing, will be compulsory.

(Just how compulsory is subject to debate but it seems that they will probably be compulsory if you want to drive a car, consult a doctor, get a job, claim any benefits or pension, use the NHS or, in the end, walk about the streets without being gathered up and thrown into jail.

One plan (popular among Ministers on even days of the week) is that British citizens will have to produce their ID cards on demand, which means, as it suggests, that we will all have to carry an ID card at all times.

Another plan (currently popular among Ministers on odd days of the week) is that failure to carry a card won't be an offence but that the police will be able to order people to turn up at a police station and present their card for examination within five days.

(No one seems to have pointed out to anyone in the Government that someone who does not have an ID card is unlikely to take the trouble to report to a police station to confess that he doesn't have one.)


The Government has not yet explained the difference between their planned ID card system and a good old fashioned police state.

It seems only a matter of time before some bright young Minister at the Home Office points out that tattoos on the forearm would be cheaper, easier and more reliable than ID cards. Better still, he will doubtless suggest that we could all have little chips inserted under our skin. They will `sell' this to us on the basis that it will mean that if we ever get lost the authorities will be able to find us very quickly. They will also point out that since we won't be able to lose our tattoos or our `chips' we won't have to face the cost and inconvenience of obtaining replacements. I have no doubt that millions of citizens will accept these arguments and eagerly queue up to be tattooed or to accept their implants.

There is a third, rather less significant, difference between the French ID card and the identity card which New Labour plans to introduce.

French ID cards are issued free but Britons will have to pay a minimum of £25 to prove that they are living in a police state.

The overall cost to taxpayers for setting up the system is forecast to be between £3 billion and £30 billion. On past record, this probably means that the final bill will be at least ten times as much as the highest of these two figures with 50% added on for additional unforeseen costs.

The real problem with the New Labour ID cards is that no one has yet explained why we need them and how we will all benefit.

The Government claims that their new ID cards (complete with fingerprints and iris recognition capability) will stop terrorism, money laundering, asylum seekers and identity fraud. If they really believe this then they are even more stupid than most people already suppose them to be. I suspect that the Government is, as usual, simply lying through its collective teeth.

The truth is that ID cards will make life easier - not harder - for terrorists, money launderers, asylum seekers and identity fraud cheats. ID cards will cost a fortune (much of which will be raised by forcing citizens to buy their card) but will be just as pointless as the old fashioned bits of creased cardboard which the French use (and far less intrusive).

By giving the authorities a false sense of security the New Labour ID cards will make serious fraud, terrorism and money laundering much easier - not harder.

The big flaw in the whole argument is, of course, the fact that in order to obtain an ID card you must first prove your identity.

How do you do that? Well, naturally, you must use your passport or your birth certificate - the very items which are so easy to forge or to obtain illegally.

The Government's ID cards will merely legitimise fraudulent papers.

Those wanting to pretend to be someone other than they are must be cheering enthusiastically at the prospect of Britain forcing its citizens to carry and use ID cards.


***


I have a host of fears about ID cards. Obviously, the threat to civil liberties and human rights is paramount.

But does anyone out there know if iris scans are safe? Has anyone checked? Will repeated iris scans be safe - particularly when performed by the sort of incompetent, poorly trained half witted thugs now employed to police borders and search for nail files? Not as far as I know they haven't.

What possible long term damage could eye scanners do? How many people will be blinded before they discover the dangers? Even if the equipment is safe, what risks will be there when it is faulty (which it often will be) or ill maintained (which it often will be)?

Frequent travellers will have their irises scanned a lot. What risks will they run? Remember doctors once thought X-rays and cigarettes were perfectly safe. I can remember when they said Mad Cow Disease wouldn't affect humans and when they insisted that benzodiazepine tranquillisers couldn't possibly be addictive. What's the potential for error?

(My advice, if you are told you have to have an eyescan, is to insist that the person doing the scan sign a form accepting full legal responsibility for any damage which might be done to your eyes. If they refuse to do this make a written note yourself of the date when the scan was performed, the place and the name of the operator.)

Put the risks aside for a moment and we are still left with the fact that iris scans are really of very questionable value. Does the Government know that iris scans can be duplicated and forged? How will they stop crooks switching the iris scan on your ID card and enabling a terrorist or identity thief to take over your life completely? Will the Government sell advertising on ID cards? Will they sell all the information on ID cards to commercial companies? What happens if someone steals your ID card? What happens if you just lose your ID card?

The bottom line is that New Labour really wants to protect British citizens against terrorism they should stop supporting America's commercially inspired foreign policy, stop supporting Israel's aggressive and illegal policies in the Middle East and stop sending British soldiers to start wars against countries which are no threat to Britain. All these actions have made Britons targets for terrorists.

ID cards have nothing whatosever to do with terrorism or money laundering. But they have a great deal to do with state control and fascism.

We must oppose them.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm

en effe doorklikken naar politics


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

niet schrikken!

Thirty Facts You Should Know About The EU

1. The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. (page 122).

2. Not one citizen in any of the 15 nations in the E.U. has ever been asked if they wanted to join the E.U. (page 15).

3. Every English taxpayer pays £450 a year for membership of the E.U. For every £1 England receives from the E.U. the English taxpayer must hand over £4.15 to the E.U. (page 19).

4. Joining the euro will cost every Englishman, Englishwoman and English child £650 in hard cash. (page 25)

5. Corrupt E.U. staff are immune from prosecution. (page 27)

6. Fraud costs the E.U. between £4 and £8 billion a year. (page 28).

7. The E.U. is planning a chemical testing programme which will involve pointlessly torturing and killing 50 million animals. The programme will be partly paid for with money contributed by English taxpayers. (page 28)

8. More than half of the world's most useful inventions since 1945 were made by Englishmen and Englishwomen. (page 29)

9. The European Union will shortly ban the sale of effective vitamin therapies (much to the delight and profit of large drug companies). (page 32)

10. The E.U. now takes precedence over the Queen of England and the Government is rewriting oaths of allegiance. Policemen, members of the armed forces and civil servants will swear oaths of allegiance to the E.U. (page 33)

11. [b]The E.U. wants to ban political parties which disapprove of the E.U.[/B] (page 33)

12. The Labour Government is trying to abolish trial by jury in England. They are doing this because the E.U. has told them they must. (page 35)

13. Members of Europol (Europe's new official police force) are armed and `immune from the law'. (page 35)

14. The E.U. spends £600 million a year telling English university students the value of England being part of the E.U. (page 36)

15. The E.U. banned firemen's' poles in English fire stations because bureaucrats in Brussels were worried that firemen might hurt themselves. The bureaucrats also felt that the poles might pose a hazard to blind and disabled firemen. (page 39)

16. The Labour Government's Regional Assemblies will mean the end of England. (page 39)

17. As a result of E.U. policies the average English family has to pay an extra £1,000 a year on food. (page 47)

18. The E.U. keeps files on people who might one day be suspected of doing something contrary to E.U. law. The E.U. keeps at least 56 different types of information about each suspect (including racial origins, religion and political affiliations). If you're reading this the chances are that Big Brother is watching you. (Page 47)

19. England has over £600 billion invested in pension savings - and has unfunded pension liabilities of £4,000 per head. But if England joins the euro English pension debts will rise to £30,000 a head. If we join the E.U. our pension savings will be handed over to the E.U. and shared out among E.U. countries whose citizens have not saved enough. England will have to take on part of the E.U.'s £1,200 billion pension debt. Your pension will be in peril. (Page 49)

20. England's oil reserves are worth over £250 billion. The E.U. now regards those reserves as a `shared E.U. resource'. (page 50)

21. The Government has handed England's £32 billion worth of gold and dollar reserves over to the E.U. (page 52)

22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws passed by England's parliament in its first 700 years. (page 64)

23. Duty free sales were abolished to make the E.U. look like one big country. (page 65).

24. The European Court of Justice now has the authority to overturn laws made by the English parliament, and verdicts delivered by English courts. European courts and laws now take precedence over English courts and laws. (page 73)

25. If the E.U. has its way (and it will) the England cricket, football and rugby teams will disappear. (page 82)

26. The European Commission President wants to create an inner core of `fewer than 10' unelected, unaccountable vice presidents who will run the new Eurostate. (page 87)

27. The E.U. spends over £1 billion a year supporting the production of poor quality tobacco - which is too poisonous for sale in the E.U. but which must be `dumped' on undeveloped countries. Many Greek, Spanish and French farmers exist on these tobacco grants. (page 88)

28. The new E.U. army of 60,000 soldiers will soon replace the English army. The English army (and its traditions) will disappear. (page 97)

29. Every new E.U. law, directive and regulation must be translated into each of 11 official E.U. languages. By the year 2004 the E.U. will have 21 official languages and the E.U. will have to find tens of thousands of skilled and honest interpreters able to translate Estonian into Polish, Czech into Maltese, Dutch into Hungarian etc etc. There will be 420 possible interpreting combinations. The E.U. will become even more unwieldy than it already is. (page 121)

30. It will soon be illegal for England to withdraw from the E.U. If we join the euro it will be impossible to leave. (page 122).

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

The Evidence That Britons And Americans Are Living In Fascist Countries


Here are some very specific examples of the fascist state in action:


1. A woman who read out the names of British soldiers who had died in Iraq was arrested.

2. An animal rights campaigner, peacefully inviting passers-by to look at his leaflets about vivisection was reported by the police for a breach of the 1824 Vagrancy Act because he `attempted to obtain or gather alms by exposing wounds or deformities'. It took three policemen and two community support officers to invoke the 1824 Act (which was originally designed to stop soldiers who had returned from the Napoleonic Wars displaying their tattered limbs in the street in an attempt to beg for money for food) and to take away the campaigners animal rights material.

3. A heckler who dared shout out Nonsense during a speech by the hideous Jack Straw at the 2005 Labour Party Conference was manhandled and forcibly ejected from the building by two stewards (one of them a professional bouncer). He had his security pass confiscated. The 82-year-old Jewish refugee of Nazi Germany, mildly diabetic and hard of hearing, was detained under the Terrorism Act when he tried to re-enter the hall.

4. A woman who wore a T-shirt carrying the words `Bollocks to Blair' was taken away by police.

5. A woman who said on the radio that she did not believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children was contacted by the police who told her that she had been responsible for a homophobic incident - which they regarded as a priority crime.

6. When the Chinese leader last visited Britain, people concerned about China's record on human rights wanted to protest peacefully. They were dragged away by police to avoid embarrassing the Chinese leader.

7. Six students at Lancaster University were prosecuted for demonstrating on their own campus. The students were charged with `aggravated trespass' after they heckled at a corporate conference held in one of the University's buildings attended by representatives of an arms dealer, an oil company and a drug company. The protestors, who were accused of interrupting a speech by Lord Sainsbury of Turville (the Labour Government's Science Minister) said that they were concerned about the commercialisation of research. One of the students was arrested immediately after the protest, the other five were summonsed five months later.

8. The British Government has brought in endless European laws which are not wanted by the British people. It is planning to break up England into nine regions. No one has ever been given the opportunity to vote for this. Voters in the North East of England were given the chance to vote for or against a Regional Parliament. They rejected the Regional Parliament. But all nine new regions of England have had secret Parliaments for years. The vote was an undemocratic nonsense.

9. A footballer in Scotland was arrested for making the sign of the cross.

10. During the European elections a pensioner put up a poster on which he wrote: `Free speech for England. Don't forget the 1945 war.' He was arrested and charged with racially aggravated criminal damage.

11. There are around four million surveillance cameras in Britain. That is more than six per square mile. Only Monaco (where every square inch of the principality is under 24 hour Government video surveillance) has more cameras. It won't be long before Britain catches up since our Government is having more cameras installed every day. The evidence shows that they don't help the police catch criminals and they don't prevent crime. CCTV cameras are the main reason why so many city-centre thugs now wander around wearing hooded jackets.

12. A group of excited schoolchildren, visiting London for the day to take photographs in aid of charity, were marched away when they tried to take photographs of Trafalgar Square.

There are dozens more examples of practical fascism in action in my book Living In A Fascist Country. The police in Britain are allowed to shoot innocent people with impunity. They can drive at 159 mph without even having points put on their licence. The Government has brought in so many oppressive new laws that not even the lawyers can keep up with them. It's difficult even for decent citizens to avoid breaking the law on an almost daily basis.

And day by day it's getting worse.

uit: Living In A Fascist Country.
van Vernon Coleman


Pin d'Ar

[Firestone]

En het blijft maar duren.

Zowat alles wordt hier teruggebracht tot de nazi's of fascisten. Nu irrelevante zever als "The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler."

Godwin's wet is in deze thread duidelijk niet van toepassing.

Maar durf het hier maar aan de echte racisten, nazi-aanhangers, antisemieten, haatzaaiers met bronnen aan te wijzen, dan kent de verontwaardiging van de believers en aanverwanten geen grenzen!

[Pindar]

Britain's Police Are Now A Bigger Threat Than The Terrorists Vernon Coleman






I am appalled, horrified and terrified that a majority of Britons apparently support the new `shoot to kill' policy arbitrarily adopted by the police. This is an even scarier development than the bombing of London.

Here are some questions nobody seems to want to ask (and which, I suspect, no one in authority will want to answer). You won't see or hear these issues discussed on television or in your newspaper.

1. If policemen shout and tell you to stop then will it not, in future, be logical to run away as quickly as you can? When the police caught their innocent Brazilian `suspect' they shot him to death even though they had caught him. They shot him so many times that I doubt if his family were able to recognise him afterwards. They argued that if they hadn't shot him he might have set off a bomb. But this policy hardly encourages suspects to give themselves up. Why give yourself up to the police if they're going to shoot you eight times anyway? When armed policemen are allowed to dress in jeans how are people supposed to know that they really are policemen? I'm English, white, middle aged and a member of the MCC. I speak English and understand it reasonably well (unless it is spoken by Americans). If a group of rather scruffy men in jeans, carrying large guns, yelled at me to stop I too would run away from them. (How many visitors to London don't even speak English?)

2. Why did the anonymous policeman shoot the prisoner seven times in the head and once in the shoulder? Seven times in the head? How many bullets in the head does it take to kill someone? Is there just the teeniest chance that the policeman who did the shooting panicked? Wasn't this perhaps a teeny bit of overkill? Were more than one policeman involved? Am I not right in thinking that if a murderer shoots his victim repeatedly he is usually regarded to have done so in anger?

3. The Home Secretary (Charles Clarke) has congratulated the police for the shooting. Everyone in the establishment seems more concerned about the mental welfare of the gunman than the fate of the innocent man who was murdered. When is someone going to arrest the murdering policeman? The policeman who executed an innocent citizen should be tried. If found guilty of murder (and I find it difficult to see how he could not be) then he should be sentenced to life imprisonment. The senior officer who gave the order to shoot should also be arrested and tried. (In reality, I suspect that everyone concerned will be given huge amounts of compensation and pensioned off.)

4. Why have we not been given the name of the policeman who shot and killed? The police are always quick enough to release the names of suspects - even if they are innocent. (Ask TV presenter Matthew Kelly.) The policeman who killed the innocent Brazilian is a murderer. Why haven't we been given his details? And why don't we know who gave the order to kill? Don't these people work for us?

5. We are told that we have to carry on as `normal' if we are to defy the terrorists. Changing our society or way of life will, we are warned, mean that the terrorists have won. So, it is now presumably going to be `normal' for the police to shoot innocent people and get away with it.

6. How many of those who voted in support of the `shoot to kill' policy have really thought about what it means. How many would support a policy of `shoot to kill them' or `shoot to kill their friends and relatives'?

7. How come the police are so incompetent that they took days to find the names of any of the four men whose pictures have been plastered over every newspaper in the country? (Maybe if policemen still had legs - and didn't spend all their time sitting in patrol cars on motorway bridges - they would have been able to do a little knocking on doors, to find someone who knew one of the alleged suspects. To say that the police have not come well out of the tragic events in London is something of an understatement.)

8. The role of the media has been a disgrace. The worst paper of all has been The Sun. I am thoroughly ashamed to have been a Sun columnist for seven years. (Though I was not, I am pleased to say, a columnist under the present editor.) The day after the shooting of the Brazilian innocent The Sun ran the headline `One down - three to go'. They ran this even though they must have known that the man who had been shot was not a terrorist. Someone at the paper presumably liked the headline. The editor (a woman called Wade I believe) clearly has the morals of a Blair.



***



The really scary thing about this development is that once the police have power, they never give it up. They're like the Government. A power gained is a power retained. The police in England now have the power to shoot to kill. And they will keep that power.

Terrorism may abate (it will probably never end completely). But we are now stuck with a police force who can shoot and kill innocent people and get away with it. Is this really our country? One of the reasons we don't have capital punishment in this country is because of the risk of the State killing an innocent man. The police have now given themselves powers which make them a more serious, long-term threat to our freedom and safety than the terrorists.



***



What the hell happened?

I'll tell you exactly what happened.

Tony Blair happened.
The London bombing happened because our lying Prime Minister is a war criminal who took us into an illegal war. In the first six months or so of the illegal invasion of Iraq, British and American troops killed in excess of 100,000 innocent Iraqi women and children. Does anyone seriously doubt that the illegal war is not the cause of the terrorist attacks on London?

So, why did Blair take us into an illegal war?

I believe he did so because he is a vain and greedy man.

Blair is now enormously popular in the USA. Whenever he goes there people cheer him. He doesn't get cheered much in England. He likes being cheered. So he sucks up to the Americans.

And Blair has bought a large house in London which is well beyond his present means.

I suspect that the only way he will be able to pay off the mortgage will be to get good jobs with his American pals. His autobiography won't pay the mortgage. It probably won't even pay for Cherie's frocks. Blair will, I strongly suspect, end up a director of the Carlyle Group (along with John Major).

So is that why we went to war?

Did Blair just want to suck up to Bush and his pals so that he could guarantee himself a wealthy future?

Did our nation get embroiled in an illegal war so that Blair could get rich?

Were Londoners bombed because of Blair's need to pay off his mortgage?

And now the police in England have adopted a shoot to kill (innocent or not) policy. Our freedom, our liberty, our traditional culture have all disappeared in days.
It seems to me that it is all because we have a Prime Minister who wants a house he can't afford.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Twelve Amazing Facts You Ought To Know About The EU.



FACT 1:
If the EU gets its way, England will cease to exist within a few years. England will disappear from maps and history books.

FACT 2:
Bureaucrats with criminal histories are now in powerful positions in the EU. They cannot be tried because their EU positions give them immunity. And yet they have introduced thousands of new laws which have turned most of us into criminals too.
You could be breaking the law and you wouldn’t even know it until it’s too late. According to the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

The EU is bringing in new laws faster than anyone can possibly read them. If you sat down today to try to read every law you are supposed to obey you would never finish. And new EU laws now mean that you are also expected to keep all the laws passed in individual member countries to the EU.

So in addition to being expected to know the laws of England and the laws of the EU, you are also expected to know the laws of Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Spain, and so on.

FACT 3:
The EU has stolen England’s fishing grounds, ruined England’s farming industry, and destroyed thousands of English businesses.
FACT 4:
If we join the Euro, England will be expected to share the EU’s pension debt of £1,200 billion. You will be forced to hand a good chunk of your pension to the EU.


FACT 5:
The EU’s courts now take precedence over English courts. An EU judge ranks higher than an English judge. FACT 6:
Membership of the EU costs you - and everyone in your family - £450 a year.


FACT 6: ?? missing

FACT 7:
The euro is designed to help turn Europe into a single state. Wales and Scotland will become EU regions. England will disappear and be split into nine regions.

FACT 8:
Soon, the EU will be enlarged by the addition of a number of poor Eastern and Central European countries. These countries will make huge demands on the EU. You will have to pay to support them.

FACT 9:
Once England joins the euro there will be no going back. England will be governed by unelected administrators in Brussles. Two World Wars will have been a complete waste of life. We might as well have handed over the keys of the Bank of England to Hitler in 1939.

FACT 10:
If we had not been members of the EU, England would by now have accumulated a surplus of cash so substantial that the Government would be able to pay off every householder’s mortgage.

FACT 11: The EU will ban you from buying effective vitamin therapies and other natural remedies within the EU.

FACT 12:
Because the EU now takes priority over the Queen of England, our Government is rewriting the oaths of allegiance. Members of the armed forces, policemen and civil servants must swear an oath of allegiance to the EU.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm


Pin d'Ar

[AEvanLoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Ik heb toch al een volgende tekst gepost? Die over de CFR.

Je hebt al gezegd dat de tekst van Marrs over de Fed als zodanig gelezen kan worden.
Ik heb toen geantwoord dat ik die tekst op geen enkele manier kan beschouwen als een argumentatie die bewijst dat er een NWO-complot bestaat die overeenkomt met wat jij en andere believers hier proberen te omschrijven.

Welke tekst over de CFR bedoel je eigenlijk, want omdat ik hier niet meer alle uren van de dag passeer weet ik niet zo meteen te vinden waar en wanneer je die tekst hebt gepost.

Mijn opinie over de CFR vind je in deze post:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AEvanLoon

Ik vind niet meer onmiddellijk terug welk artikel je bedoelt, maar ...

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AEvanLoon

Je hebt al gezegd dat de tekst van Marrs over de Fed als zodanig gelezen kan worden.
Ik heb toen geantwoord dat ik die tekst op geen enkele manier kan beschouwen als een argumentatie die bewijst dat er een NWO-complot bestaat die overeenkomt met wat jij en andere believers hier proberen te omschrijven.

Welke tekst over de CFR bedoel je eigenlijk, want omdat ik hier niet meer alle uren van de dag passeer weet ik niet zo meteen te vinden waar en wanneer je die tekst hebt gepost.

Mijn opinie over de CFR vind je in deze post:

Ik bedoelde deze, ik weet niet of je hel al gelezen had, je had er allezsinds niet op gereageerd.