The Great Illusion of the The Great Conspiracy

The MatrixAt the heart of The Great Conspiracy is the Great Illusion, for in order for the El-ites to successfully implement their One-World Government plan, we need to be looking the other way (one trick of an illusionist) or to believe it is not happening. In other words, we need to be distracted and deluded, and not become dis-illusioned (without-illusion). Here is a great summary of ‘The Six Grand Illusions That Keep us Enslaved to The Matrix’.

In brief, they are:

1. The Illusion of Law, Order and Authority
2. The Illusion of Prosperity and Happiness
3. The Illusion of Choice and Freedom
4. The Illusion of Truth
5. The Illusion of Time
6. The Illusion of Separateness

Middle Class the new Working Class

Economic Opportunities in the 21st Century


Half a dozen points worth noting from this Rockefeller Foundation report…

1. The present ‘middle class’ is becoming the new working class:

“In the future, the livelihoods of the global middle class may thus look remarkably similar to the patchwork baskets of work that poor families have long relied on for their livelihoods in developing countries.”

2. If the share of income is not going to workers… where is it going?

“…the declining share of global income going to labour and the automation of routinized work, are eliminating steady jobs that were once pathways out of poverty into the middle class.”

3. That there is to be a global financial and economic crisis is accepted fact:

The years after the global financial and economic crisis may prove to be an inflection point with drastic implications for today’s poor and near poor.”

4. Stable jobs will be the preserve of University educated people:

“Stable employment may come to be reserved for those with what the International Labour Organization calls “non-routine, cognitive occupations”—creative jobs that depend on critical thinking and have traditionally been reserved for those with university degrees.”

5. The world they ‘imagine’ is one where governments will be de-stabilized by a growing inequality between rich and poor:

“One could imagine a world where low levels of economic growth and a growing gap between decent jobs and eligible workers contribute to a significant increase in inequality and unstable livelihoods. Ultimately, the accountability, credibility and stability of governments could depend on how well they can adapt to this possible future.”

6. The rising number of poor live in middle-income countries:

“With the rising number of poor living in middle-income countries, there is also an opportunity to adapt existing financial tools…”

If the link in the title does not work, click here to read original.







The Conspindustry

captain hook nose

The Conspindustry [©C[eltic]R[ebel]] is a cancer, one which seeks to divide cells against one another, to war, to incite, to enflame, to revolt, to recycle, to stagnate … and stagnation, ultimately, is death.

The conspiracy movement is aimed at those who fear. It is aimed at the child inside us who wants to stay a child forever. We want to keep playing. We want to face imaginary monsters. We will do whatever it takes, because we “know” (i.e., we “fear”) that when we grow up, the fun stops. Better to battle monsters we can imagine, than turn and face the unimaginable. So, we will continue playing our games, oblivious to the universe, and the laws of nature shouting: “It’s time to let go and grow.”

To read the full article by The Celtic Rebel: click here.







KPMG Report on FRACKING in Europe: Not Looking Good, Is It?


Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Peter Kiss & Steve Butler (authors) KPMG

Despite their best spin, this damning report should not only alarm investors, but should alert British and other European citizens to the inherent dangers, clearly well-known to the industry, of FRACKING in Europe. This report confirms that whatever the Americans are suffering, we in Europe will suffer more. One area that is completely overlooked in the report is the impact FRACKING will have on property values, sale-ability and insurance disclaimers.

They concede:

“chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing may migrate into drinking water sources, posing a threat to human health and the environment.” (pg 15)

Unlike North America,

“This concept [of concentrated mining developments, known as “sweet spots” or “hogs”] might encounter difficulties in Europe, which is more densely populated, as such developments would bring drilling rigs closer to inhabited areas.” (pg 22)

While governments may try to convince us that FRACKING can be made safe through regulation and using advanced technology and equipment, the fact is,

“As the geological setting varies significantly by shale formation, the technology known to work effectively in one formation might be ineffective in the case of others.” (pg 18)

There seems to be something wrong with the maths too.

“Preliminary studies suggest that there are 456Tcm of shale gas [worldwide], of which 40% is estimated to be economically recoverable… Europe, however, accounts for… 7% of global shale reserves.” (pg 22)

But in a another report, just one year later, this has been drastically inflated to

“…as much as 40Tcm of shale gas in the north of England alone, making it the biggest shale basin in the world.” (Shale Development: Global Update; pg 24)

Equally, in an EIA report from 2011, Britain was assessed as having less than 100Tcft (Trillion cubic feet), whereas both France and Poland have more (100-200Tcft) and the Russian enclave (sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania) has even more (200-300Tcft), (Shale Gas- A Global Perspective; pg 12). How did the north of England suddenly become “the biggest shale basin in the world”?

Was the British Geological Survey under pressure from The Dept. of Energy and Climate Change to produce propaganda supporting the government’s drive to force FRACKING on the UK?

There is a glimmer of hope though. As can be seen from the example in Bulgaria, public opposition can halt this irreversible destruction of land, water and air:

“…shale gas exploration has been indefinitely banned in Bulgaria because of bitter public opposition to hydraulic fracturing practices…” (pg 30)

Here are a few extracts:


“The costs and financing associated with shale gas are influenced by a number of factors that prevent the North American experience from being easily replicable in Europe. Aside from the differences in the physical characteristics of rock, depth ranges, and water availability, these costs are governed by particular market forces, such as the availability of specialists, necessary equipment used for exploration and extraction measures, and existing infrastructure.

Due to the higher costs and risks of E&P [Exploration and Production[?]] in Europe, more joint venture activity is likely, and locally tailored methods of financing will continue to be necessary to support CEE [Central & Eastern European] exploration projects.” (pg 35)


Environmental concerns regarding shale gas extraction are one of the main questions facing the industry today, and they remain a strong obstacle for the expansion of the global shale gas business. The most salient issues in both the US and in Europe are similar, including concerns with ground water contamination, usage of scarce fresh water resources, the possibility of greenhouse gases escaping to the atmosphere, and potential provocation of seismic activity in regions where hydraulic fracturing is used. Political factors influencing governmental decisions on shale gas in various countries should also not be disregarded.

Some studies indicate that the drilling and fracturing of a single well in the US requires up to 17 million litres of fresh water. Given the nature of deeper shales and the higher geothermal gradient in Europe, the amount of water to be used is expected to be even greater. At the same time, the water which returns to surface after the fracturing process contains salt (depending on the shale salinity) and potentially, depending on the location, radioactive elements as well. Water management and the effective disposal of fracturing fluids are crucial issues to be addressed.

In addition to water resource management, a major public concern is the risk of groundwater contamination. As wells are drilled and the shale fractured, the water pumped into the opening is mixed with a number of chemical additives, some of which are toxic and can be quite harmful to health and the environment. Because companies are required to disclose chemicals used at differing times and degrees, depending on local regulations, the exact amount of potentially dangerous chemicals in hydraulic fracturing areas can be difficult to determine.” (pg 27)

“Public acceptance of shale gas development

4.1 Overview

Public awareness of shale gas has gained momentum in recent years, particularly with regard to hydraulic fracturing and its highly publicized potential dangers. Environmental groups and civil opposition to shale gas have raised a number of concerns, while scientific study in support of hydraulic fracturing has been viewed with scepticism.

Social concern with shale gas drilling has encouraged governments to invest more efforts in scientific research, and European countries in particular have been keeping a close eye on public opinion, while endorsing the acceptance of new energy sources as possible solutions regarding energy security and greater independence from gas imports.

In light of this, some European countries have already developed strong stances on shale gas, giving rise to a palpable split between some EU countries. Whereas shale gas exploration has been indefinitely banned in Bulgaria because of bitter public opposition to hydraulic fracturing practices, Poland’s population is largely in support of shale gas because of its economic advantages and the energy independence it would bring.” (pg 30)

“Key inhibitors

Environmental concerns

The recovery of shale gas uses hydraulic fracturing, which requires millions of gallons of [fresh] water and presents a challenge in water-deficient areas, or in regions where the price of water resources is relatively high. Moreover, water contamination resulting from the improper disposal of fluids is a concern, especially with regard to fears that chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing may migrate into drinking water sources, posing a threat to human health and the environment.” (pg15)

The full report is in three parts and can be read here:

Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Part 1

Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Part 2

Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Part 3







Forbes magazine contributor, Jon Entine, emphatically pronounces that “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over…” Great! Now we can all trot off to the shops to buy GM foods and not worry about a thing?


(Photo source:

The most worrying and disturbing thing is this: Jon… You’ve totally missed the whole point! And in doing so, you expose your inhumanity, and whore yourself out to the economic God of Commerce by promoting the lie that humans have evolved into nothing more than mini-economists: Homo economicus. ‘We want everything, and we want it fast and cheap.’

Nothing, absolutely nothing, is further from the truth. Loving Homo sapiens still roam this Earth, and we’re damned if we are going to allow Homo economicus to wipe us out and exploit this planet to its destruction. And herein dwells the core issue Mr Entine’s conscience blatantly ignores: Corporations must not be allowed to have total control over our food. Patents on genes, that can be used in economic warfare and domination, are unnatural, immoral and unethical. Nature does not belong to Monsanto.

Let’s not dismiss his conclusions too readily. Entine makes a valid point and backs it up with research and evidence to answer GMO opponents. Research on GE animal food, both in the lab’ and in the industrialised animal factories once known as ‘farms’, appears to show that GMOs are harmless to animals that consume them. Additionally, ‘research’ showing the harmful effects of GMOs has been pilloried, shown to be ‘bad science’ and, in some cases, has had to be withdrawn.

While Entine acknowledges “the so-called dangers of corporate controlled industrial agriculture”, he claims that, “The central issue that you must assess is the safety of GM foods.” No, that is not the central issue. ‘Food’, by its very definition, is safe. There is no need to test something that has been eaten by Earth’s inhabitants for ‘trillions of years’, not just ‘trillions of meals’. Corporate control over farmers, nations and Nature’s gifts, IS the central issue. And the ‘safety record’ of corporations is so bad, that anyone would think they were deliberately trying to kill us.

People opposed to GMOs, not only want clean, safe food, but are trying to pull in the reins of an out-of-control corporate monster. Mr Entine is keen to let the beast roam free and wild; to hell with the consequences.

Do us all a favour Mr Entine… Take your engineered life, along with your economic wild beast, and go let it devour you somewhere else. You’re not welcome on this planet, we don’t want to be your beast’s next meal and we don’t worship your Economic God. Now do you see ‘the central issue’?






The Urgent Case for a Ban on Fracking


A Report by Food and Water Watch

“We now use the term fracking to represent all that this
specific process of hydraulic fracturing entails. Allowing
more fracking means that oil and gas companies will
continue to:

• Fragment forests and mar landscapes with new
roads, well sites, waste pits and pipelines;
• Compete with farmers for local water supplies
while consuming millions of gallons of water for each
fracked well;
• Produce massive volumes of toxic and even
radioactive waste, the disposal of which is causing
earthquakes and putting at risk drinking water
• Cause thousands of accidents, leaks and spills
each year that threaten public health and safety and
put at risk rivers, streams, shallow aquifers and farms;
• Pump hazardous pollutants into the air, at the
expense of local communities, families and farms;
• Turn homes into explosive hazards by contaminating
water wells with methane and other flammable
• Put vital aquifers at risk for generations by
creating new pathways for the potential flow of
contaminants over the coming years and decades;
• Destabilize the climate on which we all depend
with emissions of carbon dioxide and methane and by
locking in future climate pollution with new oil and
gas infrastructure projects; and
• Disrupt local communities, with broad physical
and mental health consequences, increased demand
on emergency and other social services, damage to
public roads, declines in property value, increased
crime, and losses felt in established sectors of local

View full report HERE

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Water and Land Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Water consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Impacts on surface waters, forests and soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Aquifer contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Methane and other hydrocarbon gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hydrocarbon gases in aquifers as a sign of more problems to come . . . . . . . . . . 10
Earthquakes, Lightning Strikes and Exploding Trains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Air and Climate Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Silica dust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Byproducts from combustion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
The pollutants that oil and gas companies bring to the surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Emissions are larger than officials estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Natural gas dependence causes more global warming than thought . . . . . . . . . . .18
Public Health, Economic and Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Ban Fracking and Usher in a Safe and Sustainable Energy Future . . . . . . . . . . . 22

EL-ITE BLOODLINES & THE JEWS: Co-conspirators to Pillage England


How Did England Become the Property Of the El-ite Bloodlines?

What Role Did the Jews Play?

There is clearly a parallel between The Domesday Book of the 11th Century and Agenda 21 of the 21st Century.  Both were/are a survey, on gargantuan scales, of every exploitable living thing to secure the ‘unalterable appropriation’ by an ascending power. What else can we learn from William the Conqueror’s conquering methods? 

William’s Co-conspirators

The following quotes are from ‘Magna Carta’s three Jewish clauses’ by Jonathan Romain; in ‘The Jewish Chronicle’, 4/5 Sept. 2014.

“It was then [late 11th Century] that William of Normandy brought over Jews from his French territory to help colonise his new kingdom.

“As Jews did not have a set place in this hierarchical chain, a niche had to be created for them, and their right of residence was made dependent on the will of the Crown. It was a two-way relationship: they being answerable directly to the king and the king being their protector.

“William encouraged Jewish migration here for two reasons. First, it was obviously useful having people who were both French speakers and loyal to him… Second, many of them performed a very useful economic function as moneylenders.

“With Christians being forbidden to enter such [usury] arrangements, here was an important economic vacuum.

“The barons… were appalled at how Jews were indirectly bolstering the power of the Crown at their expense.

What happened was that, if landowners could not pay their debts to the Jews, they forfeited the property they had put up as collateral. As Jews could not own land, this then reverted to their master, the king, who systematically built up his holdings. It meant that the Jews were accidental agents in a substantial land transfer to the king, and in increasing his powers nationally.”

Does all this sound familiar? History has a habit of repeating itself. So who is using the Jews,  in the 21st Century, to acquire the resources needed for an out-of-control population explosion, without the need to “…integrate [the] various domains into one empire, but instead continued to administer each part separately“?

I suggest you look East and into the eye of the tiger.