MP Lazarowicz has been advised time and time again about the Rothschild influence yet has simply refused to accept what is in front of his eyes written in black and white by the UK Parliament.
From: Earthling
To: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: Coming soon… to the UK.
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:22:00 +0000
Dear Mark,
Don’t say I didn’t warn you Mark. Your government of today know it. They’re getting ready for it.
But while all of your colleagues keep your mouths shut to keep in line with the party, this is what you are allowing to build up.
Because you’re allowing yourselves to be bullied. You’re all weak. Just a fact Mark. You’ve lost your individuality. You’re no longer “Mark Lazarowicz” you’re “Mark Lazarowicz Labour MP”. And you and your MP colleagues feel so proud and better and above everyone else – that’s why you feel no need to reply to points which are facts and you cannot argue.
I could be wrong but I sense you picking up on all of this while it’s just too hard and too dangerous for you in your position to speak out. But don’t worry. Your weakness will be more than made up for by those who will. The unfortunate thing is – when they look to you they will ask what your modus operandi was. The answer: “To keep my job”. FAR more important than doing your job isn’t it?
You’re not going to like Britain soon Mark. I don’t like it now but then I “see” it whereas you don’t. You wish to believe it’s all going to blow over.
You’re so very very wrong. Having said that, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve seen this coming for years now. I’ve educated myself immensely to see the how’s and the why’s.
We have Police in the UK Mark who are beginning to listen too. We don’t want a mini civil war now do we? Or would the bankers profit from it?
I’m just trying to get through to you Mark. When the questions are put nicely I get nothing in return or I get the BULLSHIT responses you know I just got from an evasive treasury. When someone is faced by people who show them no respect, then those people tend to be offered no respect. It’s not a preference but straight, blunt talking is needed and it’s going to be needed even more unless you people get your fingers out of your collective posteriors.
As for the attachments. Just to give you a flavour (hardly exhaustive) of the Rot of the Rothschilds which has crept in over the last couple of centuries – and never let up – while they have “advised” (and I use that term advisedly) the government on all the major sell offs of our industry. A to Z. I haven’t even touched on the Motor industry. So while all the developing world is doing great – investment, GDP growth etc BECAUSE they have basic industry – the UK has zero. Oh EXCEPT for perhaps TWO things – TWO guesses what they are Mark? ….. BANKING and???……….. ARMAMENTS/DEFENCE/WHITE PHOSPHOROUS/ DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS to sell to Iran and Iraq and every other dictatorship Rothschild can do business with.
Is it getting clearer Mr Lazarowicz?
I wait in hope Mark to hear from a man not a mouse.
Regards,
Earthling
PS: As for the mousy quiet Darling (another weak willed Scot just doing as he’s told – but the pay is good) who has refused to answer the questions I put to him also. Isn’t this a rather interesting little statement he made a number of years ago in the commons:
Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The reason why we ask him to be brief is that we know that he can make his arguments extremely well briefly, which he does time and again——and I say that not only because he happens to be one of my next-door neighbours in an Edinburgh constituency.
The debate has been extremely useful. On few occasions that I have witnessed in the eight years I have been a Member has the House spent so much time discussing directly problems which affect so many of our constituents, and also a problem that is fundamental to the future development of the economy.
There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the principle of venture capital trusts. We all agree that it is desirable, and from time to time necessary, to use fiscal incentives to ensure that investments are made in the sectors where we need it.
The difference between us is threefold. First, we believe that the Government need to consider other sectors, which have been mentioned on both sides of the House. Secondly, we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that, if one gives a tax incentive, one does not end up subsidising undesirable behaviour, such as the behaviour that occurred when the business expansion scheme was set up. In that respect, too, there was common ground on both sides of the House. The difference between the two sides is that those who support the Government do not appear to accept that there is a case for ensuring that there should be safeguards in relation to venture capital trusts.
I suppose that the third difference between us is that we believe that the Government have given fiscal incentives in undesirable ways, such as the business
417
expansion scheme, but the Government will not accept that the taxpayer’s money has thereby been poured down the drain. I shall perhaps discuss that later.
7.15 pm
The Minister appeared reluctant to accept that there is no difference of principle between us, so we should perhaps not spend too much time trying to make differences where none exist. Perhaps British industry as a whole will welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of encouraging investment in what is known as the investment gap, which has been identified by almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
However, I took exception when the Minister said that because no one was focusing on granny farms, as he put it, that was all right. In support of his proposition, he cited the fact that Rothschild’s supported the Government. What a surprise—Rothschild’s supports the Government. I am sure that a bank such as Rothschild’s, which has no fewer than 14 times been the recipient of public largesse, either as an adviser to the Government or as an underwriter of its flotation schemes, should say, “Well done the Government for coming up with that scheme.”
Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, if venture capitalists do take great care in assessing the risks and evaluating the projects before them, it is scarcely surprising that the Chancellor hardly sat down after his Budget statement before our old chums at Rothschild’s announced that they were going to set up a venture capital trust. They could not have known what was in the Budget, could they? How on earth would they know what a surefire bet it was—unless, of course, they had the amazing foresight of the noble Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare?How could Rothschild’s say so confidently that it was going to set up a venture capital trust unless it had made an evaluation of the type of tax breaks available and knew that, no matter what the risk, no matter what venture it backed, it was guaranteed to obtain a suitable return? I do not think that the Minister can rely on Rothschild’s for support, therefore, and I believe that both he and Conservative Members generally, today of all days, would do well to be very quiet about Rothschild’s and the Conservative party, for reasons that people outside and inside the House will understand.
The main subject to which successive hon. Members drew attention was the funding gap between quoted companies and small businesses, many of which are funded by family money or by bank overdraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said, that is starting to change; nevertheless, there is obviously a funding gap and we welcome the fact that the Government are tackling it.
I want to take up an argument that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made about property. I think that we all accept that if inflation remains low—a big “if’—obviously property will not be the kind of bet that it was in the past 30 or 40 years. However, in my travels around the City of London I have been surprised how many people tell me that they are getting back into property again. We all remember the property collapses of the 1970s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s; yet people are getting back into property because it is regarded as a major asset in a portfolio.
But no, indeed, Alistair has no idea what I’m talking about when I put those questions to him now does he?
Would you care to comment Mark? No, I guess not.
Attachments:
I hope that gives a fairly decent summary to you all regarding Rothschild TOTAL influence on the UK government (along with their “Friends of Israel lobby) which you can consider having watched the following Channel 4 programme “Dispatches” Nov 16 2009: article23997.htm
While you may then consider the following Rothschild “ADVICE” to the UK government: article6814923.ece
While you may also consider the following Rothschild/Mandelson/Osbourne threesome:
YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THESE JEWS GIDEON! THEY DESTROY GOVERNMENTS NEVERMIND LITTLE WEEDS LIKE YOU!
And finally, you may wish to understand why our dearly departed ex PM Blair gets along so well and becomes so rich while being picked up by J.P. Morgan (another Rothschild front bank):
I think it’s important, for the “naysayers” who visit this blog, that I prologue it with a point re the “Crown of England”. The following is a statement made by Tony Benn in the Houses of Parliament not too many years ago (and it matters not when such was said anyhow). This is very very simple: The British people have no idea who this “Crown” is. It acts outside of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. As such, it acts outwith the law yet decides what this thing called “Law” is!
The Crown prosecutes. Our Armed Forces fight and kill and destroy nations on its say so. Our Police and Forces take an oath to this “thing” called “the Crown”. They believe it to be “Her Majesty” the monarch without understanding at all that the monarchy is NOT a person or the Queen and her family. The Monarchy is a Constitutional Office. When it comes to the profit of the British Queen and her family from the “Crown Estate”, it is, in actual fact, deceptive criminal theft by the “reigning monarch” (like a reigning CEO of a corporation stealing the wealth of the company yet, the person in the office of CEO does not have the legal or lawful entitlement to take the wealth of the company because it is the Corporation in total as a legal person which owns the wealth and NOT the CEO). This is PRECISELY the same when we look at this “Constitutional Monarch” in office profiting no longer from a Civil List but from various sources of the country’s wealth.
Our Armed Forces, Police and judiciary are immensely ignorant but do what they are told otherwise they will not eat. They do as the “Crown” bids simply because, if they question it, then their wealth and the wealth of their family disappears. The Policeman with integrity would be sacked and the soldier fighting for his dearest “Crown” would find himself at the mercy of “friendly fire”.
So, what were those words of Tony Benn which crystallises the seriousness of this issue?
Here they are:
“I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not.The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”
Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:
WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE’S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.
Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.
“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.
This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.
“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.
“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.
The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:
“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits
“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.
The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:
“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:
“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”
Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”
The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.
It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.
The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.
All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.
As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.
The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .
About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :
….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:
” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…
The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.
At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.
In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?
The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.
Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:
“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.
(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)
Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?
Well, in England, it’s very interesting:
IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.
The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:
— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —
Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:
1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.
1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.
1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.
1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )
[As an addendum to the above, I feel it is necessary to clarify that, before the expulsion in 1290, there was the Statute of the Jewry in 1275, entirely based upon the moneylending and usury issue: jews1275.html
Now please understand that this is just pure factual history and the pieces fall where they fall.
It seems very obvious to me that, while the Islamic religion has not forgotten one of its fundamental cornerstones: NO USURY, the Christian world simply has. For NO USURY is a cornerstone of the christian religion too. I wonder, then, why Christians call themselves christians? They don't follow Jesus' teachings and haven't done so in the west since the following took place - the readmission of jewish usury into England by Oliver Cromwell during the 1640 - 1660 period and then the establishment of the Bank of England where one can see, William of Orange and his Queen, Mary became original investors - it is on Bank of England documents]
JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.
A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:
Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —
To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —
Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.
Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )
JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.
The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.
To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.
In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.
The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.
Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.
ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS
MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.
The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.
In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.
A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.
With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.
This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )
ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN
(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.
A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.
The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:
* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.
* The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.
Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.
The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )
Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.
Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England
Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange
Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby
Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery
UPDATE 4 Nov 2011: George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper. Although he just doesn’t go quite far enough into the history and the connectivity. Mainstream media now supporting much of the above regarding the “above the law” nature of the City of London. I rest my case your honour!
The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest
Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance.
Illustration by Daniel Pudles
It’s the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.
What is this thing? Ostensibly it’s the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, “among local authorities the City of London is unique”. You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.
There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You’re most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don’t even ask.
To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you “must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery”. You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a “contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year.” This is, in other words, an official old boys’ network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.
The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation’s unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.
The Lord Mayor’s role, the Corporation’s website tells us, is to “open doors at the highest levels” for business, in the course of which he “expounds the values of liberalisation”. Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it “handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City”, such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts “extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services.” But this isn’t the half of it.
As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London’s mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.
Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.” The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.
It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it’s colluding with Babylon.
If you’ve ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. “The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …”.
The Corporation’s privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK’s dependent tax havens.
But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor’s Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.
While you may note at the end of this that the house, at the time, was divided. Therefore, many parliamentarians didn’t consider the strict abidance to law STILL ON STATUTE as important. And this is EXACTLY what we have today. Their ignorance of their own law with respect to Constitutional issues will be based upon their arbitrary decisions. You see the bottom line is: WE HAVE NO LAW! It’s a joke and it’s on us!
STATUTE LAW OF SCOTLAND IN DESUETUDE.
HC Deb 23 March 1819 vol 39 cc1138-43 1138
§Sir John Newport said, the subject to which he was about to call the attention of the House was one of very great importance. The object of his rac- 1139 tion was to obtain information as to the state of the law of Scotland, as to what acts of the legislature were deemed by the courts of that country to be in force, and what acts were deemed to be in desuetude. When he had last brought the subject before the House, the learned Lord Advocate had read him a lecture on his ignorance of the laws of Scotland. It had astonished him, and he thought it would astonish every person who did not belong that part of the empire, to learn that its judges united in themselves judicial and legislative powers; that they had, as was stated by the learned lord, the power of declaring what acts of the legislature were now binding on the people, and what were no longer in force; and that they exercised this power without control. The House ought to know what limits there were to this power of the courts of session and justiciary in Scotland, and whether these acts were binding in the other courts of judicature. He proposed to bring the whole subject before the House, that they might see whether this power, which if exercised at all, ought to be exercised only under the control of the legislature, was really assumed by the courts of session and justiciary. He had adopted the course of moving an address to the Prince Regent to derect an inquiry to be made into this subject. This would leave the subject with government. He could anticipate no objection to his motion. He thought that so valuable a part of the empire of which the people were distinguished by their ability, intelligence, spirit and gallantry, ought not to be at the mercy of a court of judicature. He had been told that the judges of Scotland not only declared entire statutes to be in a state of desuetude, but also declared parts of statutes to be in desuetude, while other parts remained in force. Was it to be tolerated, that a great portion of the united kingdom should remain in a state like this? He should therefore move, “That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that his Royal Highness may be pleased to direct an inquiry to be instituded into the nature, extent, and limits of the power exercised by the lords of session, judges of the court of justiciary, and barons of the exchequer, in Scotland, of declaring any part of the statute law of the land remaining with-out repeal on the statute book, to be in 1140 desuetude, or obsolete, and no longer of force to bind his majesty’s subjects of that part of the united kingdom; and, in particular, into the authority from whence such power is derived, into the manner in which the courts of justice promulgate their decisions upon these Questions to the people of Scotland, and how far the decisions of any court of justice thereupon are held to bind their successors in such court, and the judges in the other courts of justice, finally and irrevocably; and to pray his royal highness, that the result of such inquiry, together with a list of such statutes, or parts of statutes, as have been declared to be in desuetude, may be laid before the House.”
Making them up as you go along eh Clarke? Make sure none encroach upon your media interests or BAT however. Keep your Bilderberg chums sweet too you CRIMINAL!
The Lord Advocate thought, considering the eulogium which the right hon. baronet had passed on the natives of Scotland, it might have been expected, that if the power so reprobated had been of that grievous description, at least some one of those natives would ere this have raised his voice against it in that House. But, since the year 1707, up to the present moment, no person belonging to that country had ever complained of the power in question. The right hon. baronet had proceeded altogether under a misapprehension. In the first place, the courts of session and justiciary never declared that statutes were no longer binding on the natives of Scotland; but it was a fundamental principle, coeval with the law of that country, and a principle in that great code on which the law of Scotland was founded, and which was the law of all the countries of Europe, with the exception of England, namely the civil law, that laws enacted by the legislature, by contrary consuetude fell into desuetude, or became obsolete. The right hon. baronet had stated this as an assumed power contrary to law. But he would read a passage from the principle institutional writer of that country, Mr. Erskine, who stated the law in these terms [Here the learned lord read a passage in which it was declared, that as a posterior statute explained or repealed a former statute, so a posterior custom derogated from the authority of a prior statute.] This principle was also laid down by lord Stair, one of the most constitutional writers Scotland had ever produced. But this matter did not rest with institutional writers, nor the decisions of courts, recognized by the House of Lords; but it was also recognized in the great foundation of 1141 the constitutional liberties of Scotland, the claim of rights, in which one of the grounds on which the parliament of Scot-land declared king James had forfeited his crown, was his having prosecuted his subjects on old and obsolete laws. This power was not a subject of complaint with the people of Scotland. They had never raised their voices against it. The judges of Scotland had never yet issued one decree pronouncing any law of the united parliament to be in desuetude; and if gentlemen would look into the statute law of Scotland, which was all contained in three small pocket volumes, they would find many of the statutes not very applicable to the present state of affairs. There was one law which he believed the right hon. baronet was not ambitious of violating; but it did not accord with the sentiments of many of his countrymen, who frequently honoured the people of Scotland with their visits. There was a statute against the importation of the Irish; and every Scotchman was liable to pains and penalties for importing them into the country [a laugh]. There were also laws against the exportation of black cattle or eggs.
§Mr. Hume considered the inhabitants of Scotland as greatly obliged to the right hon. baronet for the pains he had taken in bringing the laws of Scotland before the House. He was far from thinking that, because no individuals from Scotland had raised their voice against the power in question, there were therefore no grounds of complaint against it. Such was the state of the law of Scotland at this moment, that it was impossible for any man before he went into court to know whether any law was in force or not. But the court of session not only decided what laws were, or were not in force; they passed what were called acts of sederunt, setting aside the law of the land. Lord president Hope had declared that acts of sederunt suspended the law of the land. It had also been stated from the Bench, as appeared from Buchanan’s Reports of Remarkable Cases—”I do not Care what an act of parliament says on the subject, for I know there is a power paramount to acts of parliament,” namely, the court of session. In several cases great injustice had taken place, from the court of session having, by acts of sederunt, declared the provisions of acts of parliament no longer in force. By the Scotch 1142 act of 1540, the subjects had a tight to bring their grievances before the courts in person; but in consequence of an act of sederunt, no man could go into court with a petition in his hands which had not the signature of a counsel. There were many of the Scots acts which deserved the character given them by the learned lord; but that was an argument for the inquiry proposed by the right hon. baronet.
The Lord Advocate explained.
§Mr. Boswell said, he happened to have the third part of the Scots acts in his pocket; and the hon. gentleman then read a passage from an act of Chas. 2nd, to show that the principle of acts of parliament being derogated by custom was recognized in these statutes themselves. It was one of the evils under which that country had suffered, that statute after statute was passed, without any one having ever been repealed. It had been said, that no individual of Scotland ever complained of this. He, as an individual, and many others, complained of this evil, namely, that a certain body of laws and acts were left in that sort of dubious state, that no person could say what act of parliament was in force and what was not, till it was brought before the court of session, and the matter was argued and the custom proved. It had been said by the learned lord, that many of the laws were absurd; but this was the Very objection he had to the system—if these laws were absurd, there was no doubt they ought to be repealed. As every man was bound to know what the law was, he ought to have it in as explicit a state as possible.
Lord Binning opposed the motion. If the custom of the judges of declaring laws in desuetude was monstrous, yet it was coeval with the existence of law in Scotland. If lord president Hope had used the expression imputed to him, he was certainly unfit to sit upon the bench. Statutes were declared in desuetude, not by acts of sederunt, but by decisions on special cases, argued by counsel. With those decisions the people of Scotland, the only persons interested, were well satisfied. Not a petition from them had been presented to the House on the subject: whereas, if the laws of Scotland had been attacked in that. House, the table would have been covered by petitions.
§Lord A. Hamilton observed that if the laws which were liable to be affected by 1143 the power thus exercised by the judges of Scotland, were comprised in three small volumes, it was the more inexcusable hat the parliament did not reduce to a Certainty what parts should be obeyed, and what should be disregarded. To leave to the judges the facility of doing this, was to invest them with legislative power.
Mr. Forbes paid a compliment to the right hon. mover, to whom he thought Scotland was indebted for the inquiry into its courts of justice. The inquiry proposed might do good, and could be productive of no evil.
Mr. Kennedy said, that though he was of opinion that the exercise of this power on the part of the Scots judges had been beneficial to the liberties of the people, yet the practice was such an outrage on principle, and so liable to abuse, that he thought the House bound at least to inquire into it.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 33.
Posted in Finance, Politics by earthlinggb on February 23, 2011
Here are the questions and points put to George Osbourne through Mark Lazarowiz requesting a full and frank explanation:
Just one further issue for now that I would request you pass to the relevant government Minister – and I shall copy Mr Darling on this because I see him as the relevant minister without a doubt (please advise me if I am mistaken). There are certain issues which it is impossible to reduce into a simple one or two line “soundbite”. Perhaps that is what our MPs wish for from their constituents but I am afraid I can only be as succinct as the topic allows –
I would request from the relevant minister, an explanation of the following. It is a very simple question in essence. HOW did Mr Darling not know about the impending crisis until, at the earliest, Summer, 2007?
Let me list the UK attendees who attended the Bilderberg conference in May 2003:
Taylor. J Martin – Chairman WH Smith PLC; International advisor, Goldman Sachs International
Balls, Edward – Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury
Clarke, Kenneth – Member of Parliament, [former Chancellor of the Exchequer]
Gould, Philip – Public Relations Adviser to Prime Minister Blair
King, Mervyn A. – Deputy Governor, Bank of England
Williams, Gareth – Leader of the House of Lords
Wolf, Martin H. – Associate Editor/Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
Micklethwait, R. John – United States Editor, The Economist
Rachman, Gideon – Brussels Correspondent, The Economist
Now, regarding the reports of it being well understood in political and financial circles what was on the horizon:
Sept 26th 2002: “To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property markets……..” rothchildmeeting.html
and,
May 2003: “…the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown;” EE22Ak03.html
INCREDIBLE “crystal ball” these people have isn’t it? It’s not as if they are thinking it COULD happen or that there is a CHANCE of it happening. They’re saying bluntly that it is GOING to happen and giving their “minions” (our government representatives) warnings to ensure their little lapdogs do as they’re told.
And before anyone suggests WE were advised in any way by our governments. Think again (yet reps from our governments and Central Banks attended but said nothing and kept pushing the mortgages and loans!!). Here is Alistair Darling -
“He can clearly recall the day last summer when alarm bells first began to sound. The chancellor was on holiday with his wife and their two teenage children in Majorca. “I remember I picked up the FT in the supermarket, as you do, and it had the European central bank starting to put money into the economy. I phoned the office to ask why they were doing quite so much. It didn’t surprise me that money was going in – there was concern going around – but it was the sheer scale of it. I said, what about our institutions? This was when Northern Rock started to figure.”When news broke of the first run on a British bank in more than a century, Darling was back in Edinburgh. “I received a phone call and went straight down to London. From where I never returned. That was the last time I saw Edinburgh.”Even then, the gravity of the credit crunch was still not fully clear. “No one knew how serious it was yet.”
“In the UK, in the recent Pre-Budget Report we revised the forecast for growth down for 2008 to the range 2 to 2½ per cent to reflect this international uncertainty. But due to a combination of the Government’s strongmacroeconomic framework, its promotion of open and flexible labour, product and capital markets and the strength of the British economy in the first half of the year, it is anticipated that the economy will remain resilient and return to its trend growth path in 2009. The underlying strength of the British economy has allowed the government to put in place medium term spending plans which support the objective of a strong economy and a fair society, able to meet the challenges of new global economy, with opportunity and security for all.”
So what I want to know is this: WHO are the LIARS here? I tend to almost trust (perhaps naively) this ex Chancellor not knowing. After all, he didn’t attend and he was not Chancellor at that point so perhaps he was not privy and one of the inner circle? Or perhaps Darling DID know but knew if he said anything prior to when he did, it wouldn’t be a healthy thing to do?
BUT, what we DO know is that, among others, KEN CLARKE and MERVYN KING attended this conference in 2003.
So the questions of Mr Darling are these:
a) You presented to the IMF that you believed that the UK economy was healthy (how you can suggest such when we have no industry to speak of is beyond me, but anyhow) plus you stated in the Guardian interview that the earliest sign you had was in Summer 2007. Even then you had no concept of how big an issue it was to be. Were you speaking the entire truth on these two occasions?
b) If the answer to 1. is “Yes”, then please simply explain how our own Chancellor had no idea of what was impending when reports from two separate occasions, 4 to 5 years prior, attended by the most influential controllers of finance, economy and government in the UK and the USA, show clearly that these people KNEW what was ahead and even spoke of how to re-orientate their own investment portfolios to deal with it?
c) Why, when our government and Banking establishment knew what was coming, no action was taken by the Bank of England or the government, to reign in public spending nor to regulate/control individual/private spending/debt but simply allowed it to continue.
d) Why did the Chancellor (both of them) and Bank of England not attack the derivative issue head on from approximately 2002/2003 onward?
e) I do not have to explain to the ex Chancellor how Fractional Reserve Banking works. Neither do I have to explain to him how the CDS/Derivatives market works. What I would like to know is how a man, in charge of and entire country’s finances (UK PLC’s Chief Accountant) did not recognise from a very early point (even if he was not privy to the meetings and the information gleaned from them by Mervyn King, Ed Balls and Ken Clarke etc) that the county was on seriously thin ice? The individual debt to income ratio in 1997 was 101%. By 2007 it was 173%. It is EASY to talk of “good times” when all the government is doing, by fiscal policy, is creating greater and greater debt. What they did NOT create was INDUSTRY.
4. Finally, if this is not for Mr Darling to respond to, then please pass to whichever Minister who’s job it IS to answer. And please ensure it is understood and is answered sufficiently. No evasion:
1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference
HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W
§ Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty’s Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.
Now, I trust a long explanation of this is unnecessary so I will simply say this: The Prime Minister at this time was James Callaghan. His response was that the conference was a “private occasion” attended in a “personal capacity”. It was, in 1977, at a time when no-one had any clue or even heard of the Bilderberg Group outside a very few in tight circles. Mr Roberts makes it clear that no-one from Her Majesty’s government should be attending such meetings and you and your MP colleagues know why this is. Please do not have the replier to this question act dumb Mark.
So then, we move on to the following:
Mr. Blair’s denial of Bilderberg attendance.
PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group. [93240]
The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally.
PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997. [95308]
The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings.
Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past.
Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with Ken Clarke) while not wishing to divulge such information.
And finally,
Examination of Witness (Questions 78 – 99) TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2001 THE RT HON KENNETH CLARKE “I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”.
What is the point? The point is quite clearly as follows:
Callaghan knew it was necessary that he responded that people attended the Bilderberg Conference (a so called “Private occasion”) in a personal capacity (an evasion) thereby suggesting there was no influence nor collaboration nor political policy or national impact. Mr Roberts knew different.
Mr Blair, meanwhile, continues the obfuscation of the issue.
Lastly, however, Mr Clarke (a Steering Committee member of what is simply a “Private Occasion”) describes the reality that it is a POLITICAL CONFERENCE.
Question (rhetorical): Is this or is this not SEDITION?
I have explained why it is in previous correspondence with you (re the Coronation Oath etc). You have also heard David Cameron speaking about the power lies with the people regarding the transference of any powers from an elected Parliament of the UK to any and all third parties such as the EU. He is correct because he knows that the Coronation Oath of the monarch and Head of State is worn to the people. Mandelson also knows that the Oath he takes as a Privy Councillor to the monarch is to a Head of State who swears her oath to the people.
I will ask firmly once more that this issue is not evaded and that the answer is provided in detail. If there is disagreement regarding what I have stated here, I demand to have a clear and precise explanation and justification of the replier’s position and the position of the United Kingdom government.
Please ask your Ministers to treat the public and their constituents with respect by providing full, detailed non-evasive, considered responses to inquiries. Such will then ensure that this respect is reciprocated.
Thank you and Regards,
HERE IS THE REPLY OVER 6 MONTHS LATER – seemingly there was a draft reply in or around December last year – AND AFTER NUMEROUS CHASERS BY MARK LAZAROWICZ (SO HE LEADS ME TO BELIEVE):
WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS TO ANY SINGLE ONE OF THE SPECIFIC POINTS? NOWHERE!
THEY TREAT YOU LIKE THE MUSHROOMS YOU ALLOW THEM TO CONSIDER YOU AS!
As for this “EX Northerner” Mark Hoban: Here’s what he is – LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS! Well I never! And ex PWC. But yet another thick, ignorant imbecile who’s “in the game”.
Mark Hoban
Mark Hoban was appointed Financial Secretary to the Treasury in May 2010.
Mark was appointed the Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury in December 2005. Between November 2003 and December 2005 he was Shadow Minister for Schools. Prior to November 2003, he was an Opposition Whip. Between 2001 and 2003 Mark was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Mark was born in 1964. He married his wife, Fiona, in 1994 and they live in Locks Heath. Mark was born and brought up in the North East of England, where he attended a comprehensive school in Durham. He has an economics degree from the London School of Economics. After graduating he qualified as a Chartered Accountant, and went on to work for PricewaterhouseCoopers between 1985 and 2001. Mark has been the MP for Fareham since June 2001.
And so this is the message to Mr Osbourne: YOU TALK TRIPE AND ARE A LYING CRIMINAL! A poor excuse for a sentient being but you’re in good company!
From: Earthling
To: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: George Monbiot: The Guardian
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:05:39 +0000
Mark,
I have just read that PATHETIC, TRANSPARENTLY, EVASIVE TRIPE!
Specific questions entirely evaded. If THIS hasn’t told you everything you need to know then you are IN ON IT!
Now I ask you what you intend doing about it?
Regards,
Earthling
> From: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:55:37 +0000
> Subject: RE: George Monbiot: The Guardian
>
> Dear Earthling
>
> Thank you for your email. I have read George Monbiot’s article. I agree he raises important points. I will pursue them with the Chancellor.
>
> With regard to your last point, I have now received a reply from one of George Osborne’s Ministers, and my office has sent it to you. You will see he only briefly responds to the points you raised. As always, I am willing to discuss these issues at my MP advice surgeries.
>
> Mark Lazarowicz
>
> From: Earthling
> Sent: 09 February 2011 21:19
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Subject: George Monbiot: The Guardian
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> 48 years on this planet. 45 of them spent naive and too damned busy to notice. The last 3 however allowing one fairly intelligent guy, who had no interest in politics while he was too busy carving out a very nice living that stretched the planet, to rapidly bring himself up to speed on what EXACTLY is what.
> You perhaps, though I doubt it, have not had the opportunity (or perhaps even the interest) to look more closely at things and delve under a few “rocks”.
>
> Meanwhile, have you noticed how things have changed so dramatically in the UK in the last few decades while what I have been suggesting will come has not quite “hit the fan” here in the UK yet but is beginning to in Greece, Egypt, Ireland to an extent and given time…
>
> The IMF Mark and those who I have said own and control it. Legalised criminals. A cartel. A mafia. Mafias are always infighting too Mark but they group together when the mafia as a whole is under threat.
> Do you have any idea of why Vodafone gets let off with £6.5B in its taxes? Do you have any concept whatsoever as to how the Foundations work? Have you studied it at all? Do you recognise cozy little relationships like those between Vodafone Foundation and “Common Purpose” while “Big Society” is the “darling” of Cameron while it was grown through Common Purpose under YOUR government?
> Or are you an outright Marxist revolutionary who doesn’t understand, has no concept, of where it is leading and how it will impact your own offspring?
>
> ARE you naive Mark? ARE you ignorant of these things? In Politics all of this time?
>
> I’m sure you will know of Mr Monbiot of the Guardian – what you or I think of him is neither here nor there. Too many people get caught up in the dismissal game of “he’s a socialist” or “he’s an extreme right winger” – all the labels come out to play when demonising people who open cans of worms for inspection.
> I don’t “read” the man. I read the words and I check them. You’ll know by now where I’m coming from on all of this as I have brought issues to your attention so many times now I have lost count. Regarding when the sh** hits the fan however Mark: If I am ever asked the question “What did you do about it?” and “So you brought all this to your MP’s attention and he did what?” I will have to honestly answer “He did nothing”. What the outcome of that will be is unknown. I just feel that when the country DOES fully wake up, those of you who did nothing in the expectation nothing would change and you’d keep your cushy little positions, will be persona non grata. I would FAR rather be in a position to say, honestly “My MP gave it his best shot… A man with the utmost integrity”.
>
> Can I say that Mark? Could I honestly, in all conviction, even come close to saying that?
>
>
> Monbiot: tax-city-heist-of-century
>
> You never wished to be educated Mark. Such a sad reflection, yet an accurate one, on the arrogance of our political class.
>
> You serve criminals Mark and you continue to.
>
> “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”
>
>
> Where is your DEMAND to George Osbourne’s office that he replies to the questions posed to him?
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
Posted in Finance, Politics by earthlinggb on February 23, 2011
“For twenty-two years, twenty-four merchants of the city of London, as the directors of this corporation, had, without check and without control, the unlimited power of issuing a forced paper currency on the country, for their own exclusive benefit. The public did not participate in any way in the advantage derived from this establishment; and this corporation, uncontrolled and unlimited, had the power of issuing notes to any amount, without any expense to them but the trifling expense of paper and the payment of their clerks”.
Which continues to the present day but in VASTLY increased number by way of the fractional reserve system and the forever increasing number of “financial instruments” they have used (and abused) to rape the public of their wealth. And TODAY’S Chancellor does quite the same as the Chancellor of 1818 – Says NOTHING!
HC Deb 26 January 1819 vol 39 cc0-111 0
§Mr. Grenfell said, he had often addressed the House on the subject to which he was about to allude—a Subject of deep interest, and one which demanded all the wisdom of the House. Notices had been given of different motions since the opening of the session, connected with the question he was about to submit to their consideration. The first was from his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), the second from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer; and notice had been given by an hon. and learned friend of his (sir J. Mackintosh), on the subject of the fabrication of bank notes—an inquiry of deep public interest in every way that it could be considered—interesting as it affected national credit, and doubly interesting as it affected the happiness, the character, and the morals of the people. It would 109 be of course extremely ill-timed in him to enter into a subject which happily was in the hands of men so capable of treating it with superior knowledge and ability: it was not his intention. The only object he had in view in calling the attention of parliament to the subject was, to show that the corporation of the Bank of England had, during a period of twenty-two years, accumulated an enormous mass of wealth at the expense of the public, without the performance of any public service that could entitle them to that exclusive benefit—that they had accumulated wealth during a shorter period, and to a greater amount, than any body of men had been ever able to do, in any banking or commercial country, since banking or commerce had been established in the world. The first great benefit this corporation enjoyed flowed directly from the Bank Restriction bill, an act which was first passed in the year 1797, and from that period down to the present, the Bank had been relieved from the necessity of paying in cash, and had therefore been exonerated from the performance of its pecuniary engagements. For twenty-two years, twenty-four merchants of the city of London, as the directors of this corporation, had, without check and without control, the unlimited power of issuing a forced paper currency on the country, for their own exclusive benefit. The public did not participate in any way in the advantage derived from this establishment; and this corporation, uncontrolled and unlimited, had the power of issuing notes to any amount, without any expense to them but the trifling expense of paper and the payment of their clerks. There was, he should add, one other item in their expenditure—one, he supposed, of considerable amount, from the frequency of the case—he meant the numerous prosecutions carried on by the Bank, from one extremity of the kingdom to the other, against those unhappy wretches who were almost every hour brought to the bar of criminal justice, on the charge of forging notes. This practice had of late years been carried to so alarming an extent, as to call forth, from every quarter, the loudest murmurs of disapprobation—it forced itself upon the attention of parliament, and demanded an immediate inquiry.—The next great source of profit and advantage to the Bank was the enormous extortions which they had committed in their various contracts with the 110 government. By means of their exclusive credit, the corporation of the Bank had been enabled to meet the wants of the minister, but they had done so on terms enormous and highly injurious to the country. These matters, he said, had been frequently mentioned—they have been met on the part of the Bank, sometimes by assertion, often in silence, and never by disproof. He concluded by moving for —1. “Accounts of the total weekly amount of Bank notes and Bank post bills in circulation, from the 1st Jan. to the 25th Jan. 1819. 2. Of the amount of Bank notes in circulation on the 7th and 12th of each month, from Jan. 1818, to Jan. 1819, both inclusive. 3. Of the highest and lowest aggregate amount of bank notes, including those of every kind, at any one time in circulation from the 1st Jan. 1818, to the 25th of Jan. 1819, both days inclusive. 4. Of the weekly amount of bank notes in circulation of the value of 5l. and less, from the 1st Jan. 1818, to the 25th of Jan. both inclusive. 5. Of the market prices of standard gold in bars, of Portugal gold in coin, standard silver in bars, and Spanish dollars, or pillar pieces of eight, with the course of exchange with Hamburgh, Lisbon, and Paris, from the 1st Jan. 1818, to the 25th Jan. 1819. 6. Of the balances of cash in the hands of the Bank of England, on the 1st and 15th days of each month between the 1st Jan. and 15th December, 1818, inclusive, resulting from payments under the head of customs, and of all other branches of the public revenue, stating the average balances of the year, made up from the said days. 7. Of the balances of cash in the hands of the Bank of England, on the 1st and 15th days of each month, between the 1st Jan. and 15th Dec. 1818, inclusive, resulting from the postmaster-general’s account with the Bank, stating the average balance of the year, made up from the said days. 8. Of the balances of cash in the hands of the Bank of England on the 1st and 15th days of each month between the 1st Jan. and 15th Dec. 1818, inclusive belonging to the different departments of the government, including the balances of the accountant-general of the court of chancery, and stating the average balance of the year, made up from the said days. 9. Of all other public balances not particularly specified in the three preceding accounts with the bank of England; on the 1st Jan. 1819; 111 distinguishing the amount under each head respectively, and stating the aggregate amount of the whole. 10. Of the total amount of unclaimed dividends, including lottery prizes, in the hands of the Bank on the 1st and 15th days of every month in the year 1818 inclusive. 11. Of the Exchequer bills and Bank notes deposited by the governor and company of the bank of England, as cash, in the chests of the four tellers of his majesty’s receipt of exchequer, on the 2nd Jan. 1818, and on every 28th day subsequent to that period, down to the 1st Jan. 1819; distinguishing the amount of all such Bank of England notes as exceeded in value l,000l. each, known at the Exchequer under the title of special notes, and stating the average balances of the year, made up from the said days. 12. Of all allowances made by the public, to the Bank, or charged by the Bank against the public, exclusive of the charge for the management of the public debt, for transacting any public service in the year 1818; describing the nature of the services, and the amount charged thereon in the said year, and including the sums paid to the Bank under the denomination of Charges of Management. 13. Of the advances made by the Bank of England to government on land and malt exchequer bills, and all other securities, on the 10th Jan. 10th April, 10th July, and 10th Oct. 1818, and on the 10th Jan. 1819.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it was not his intention to object to the production of the accounts. The information they contained might be usefully laid before the House, preparatory to the discussion which was to take place. With regard to the hon. gentleman’s comments, and the justness of the inferences which he had drawn, a better opportunity would soon present itself for the consideration of them.
§ The motions were then agreed to.
Now on to the present day Governor of the Bank: Mervyn King.
Looks like the usual old gent who loves his kids and grandchildren right?
Maybe so. But he couldn’t give a DAMN about yours!
So Merv here suggests the “quantitive easing” is entirely necessary and a good idea. Yet Merv knows full well how the creation of money happens with the stroke of a pen – NO MORE, NO LESS! – while Merv then goes around the country evangelizing about why the fractional reserve system should be and has to be abolished. So while he knows the money is created out of nothing and that all the money created out of nothing can then be multiplied by factors of 10 or substantially more (and, in fact, within investment banking, when they get their hands on it, can be factors of 1000 and far more! So the money they gambled with and you and I paid back to them DID NOT EVER EXIST!).
However, it’s worse than that when it comes to Merv. You see Merv KNEW you were all going to be stolen from in 2008. He knew this at least as far back as May of 2003! How do i know this? This is why:
“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.” EE22Ak03.html
While you have people like Blanchflower here spouting off about having worked for the MPC - therefore, this must give him authority to speak on the subject while he doesn't have a clue who the 24 original merchants were. While he'll ignore the fact that this "Independent Bank" (oh yes it is indeed) has aspects of its charter protected by the Official Secrets Act (Oh yes it does - Bank of England Act 1946. Look it up).
You see, our Merv here, attended that conference along with our present Lord Chief Justice Clarke (the shark). Our entire inner government and Banking circles knew what was coming and the private debt to income ratio levels increasing from 101% in circa 1997 to 171% circa 2007, was simply to “fatten you up” for the financial slaughter.
Skip to 5.54 if you wish to hear the list or British attendees.
You see, you’ve been fleeced. The entire world has been and now people like Merv can go round saying “we need to have stricter controls and we need to change the entire system” because he’s been given the nod to do so. It’s what the controllers of the money supply want because they have now committed the heist and they want to lock the door from anyone being able to achieve it again and catch up with them (not that that is actually possible). But what Merv is doing (and he knows it) is LOCKING THE BARN DOOR AFTER THE HORSE HAS BOLTED!
Merv King is as much a criminal as any of the rest of them!
The major point, however, is this: WHO were these 24 merchants who were given the capability by a King and Parliament to create money out of thin air? Because, today, it is the offspring of these merchants – or associates thereof – who are still profiting from it and are protected by the OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT regarding their identities.
But there is ANOTHER simple, while abundantly plain and obvious, issue with all of this. One must think in terms of the powers of the King and Parliament particularly in the 17th Century (and sure we had the Glorious Revolution prior to the formation of the Bank of England in 1694 BUT, it must be considered that if it were not for William and Mary – remember being Dutch who had the precursor to the BofE with the Bank of Amsterdam – then, perhaps, the Bank of England may never have been founded at that time or in the way it was). Having considered this, then one must ask the question:
WERE OUR MONARCHY AND PARLIAMENT IMBECILES?
You have a King of England and a Parliament in 1694 who charter a Bank of England. OF ENGLAND.
You have a country full of people whom you wish to be able to transact together in commerce in a simple fashion using paper money instead of gold or silver etc.
YOU’RE the King of England and you and your parliament govern the UK and create its laws and yet you cannot set up a public bank called the “Bank of England” to create and issue your own currency without charging YOU debt interest? The King himself and the Parliament has to BORROW money from this bank and pay it interest on money which the bank creates into existence using a pen and paper?
YOU as the King of England create an entity which allows that entity to charge you for your own money? AND those who own that entity become richer than YOU are over time?
WHAT ASSHOLES IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD ACTUALLY DO THAT?
WAS THE KING OF ENGLAND AN IMBECILE?
Were the Government and Parliamentarians IMBECILES?
But it gets worse because, not only were these owners of the Bank of England allowed to do as above, but they were then ALSO allowed to provide loans to foreign entities – foreign governments – thereby allowing for the possibility of such loans to finance enemies at the time such as France, Spain and even the USA!
Yet even THESE countries used the same idea. They set up their OWN banks where they then had to borrow money from them and pay interest rather than create their own paper out of thin air with NO debt and NO interest!?!
So the question remains and is the fundamental question which, if humanity understood the simplicity of it, it would free humanity worldwide:
WHO are these people who were so powerful – even in the 1600s and 1700s (and even earlier one would have to assume) that they had Kings and governments by the balls to put in place such INCOMPETENT “laws” and grant a worldwide monopoly to a group of private individuals?
There can be no doubt that – unless there is, in fact, some unknown, mysterious group of people/families who have power we can only have nightmares about – then it is the monarchies themselves who are behind the entire global financial system and have hidden it wonderfully well.
NO KING (and let’s face it – it seems ALL monarchies “succumbed” to this) would ever, in their right minds, allow this.
We can think it is the Pope and Vatican/Jesuits who hold the key – and that is still debatable since it COULD be – BUT if it were the case then the Jesuits must have some incredible form of “Army” (perhaps even of assassins as in “Vatican assassins”) to ensure that their demands are met. And let’s face it – Zionism was not even an issue hundreds of years ago. It didn’t even exist in any real sense.
So, bottom line, in one way or another, I would definitely suggest the entire thing is controlled by the jesuit/vatican connection along with the Royal bloodlines. Your Rothschilds and Rockefellers are simply “Knights” in this game. Powerful Knights nevertheless.
Or is that just too much to ask and a figment of my imagination?
From: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:55:37 +0000
> Subject: RE: George Monbiot: The Guardian
>
> Dear Earthling
>
> Thank you for your email. I have read George Monbiot’s article. I agree he raises important points. I will pursue them with the Chancellor.
>
> With regard to your last point, I have now received a reply from one of George Osborne’s Ministers, and my office has sent it to you. You will see he only briefly responds to the points you raised. As always, I am willing to discuss these issues at my MP advice surgeries.
>
> Mark Lazarowicz
>
> From: Earthling
> Sent: 09 February 2011 21:19
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Subject: George Monbiot: The Guardian
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> 48 years on this planet. 45 of them spent naive and too damned busy to notice. The last 3 however allowing one fairly intelligent guy, who had no interest in politics while he was too busy carving out a very nice living that stretched the planet, to rapidly bring himself up to speed on what EXACTLY is what.
> You perhaps, though I doubt it, have not had the opportunity (or perhaps even the interest) to look more closely at things and delve under a few “rocks”.
>
> Meanwhile, have you noticed how things have changed so dramatically in the UK in the last few decades while what I have been suggesting will come has not quite “hit the fan” here in the UK yet but is beginning to in Greece, Egypt, Ireland to an extent and given time…
>
> The IMF Mark and those who I have said own and control it. Legalised criminals. A cartel. A mafia. Mafias are always infighting too Mark but they group together when the mafia as a whole is under threat.
> Do you have any idea of why Vodafone gets let off with £6.5B in its taxes? Do you have any concept whatsoever as to how the Foundations work? Have you studied it at all? Do you recognise cozy little relationships like those between Vodafone Foundation and “Common Purpose” while “Big Society” is the “darling” of Cameron while it was grown through Common Purpose under YOUR government?
> Or are you an outright Marxist revolutionary who doesn’t understand, has no concept, of where it is leading and how it will impact your own offspring?
>
> ARE you naive Mark? ARE you ignorant of these things? In Politics all of this time?
>
> I’m sure you will know of Mr Monbiot of the Guardian – what you or I think of him is neither here nor there. Too many people get caught up in the dismissal game of “he’s a socialist” or “he’s an extreme right winger” – all the labels come out to play when demonising people who open cans of worms for inspection.
> I don’t “read” the man. I read the words and I check them. You’ll know by now where I’m coming from on all of this as I have brought issues to your attention so many times now I have lost count. Regarding when the sh** hits the fan however Mark: If I am ever asked the question “What did you do about it?” and “So you brought all this to your MP’s attention and he did what?” I will have to honestly answer “He did nothing”. What the outcome of that will be is unknown. I just feel that when the country DOES fully wake up, those of you who did nothing in the expectation nothing would change and you’d keep your cushy little positions, will be persona non grata. I would FAR rather be in a position to say, honestly “My MP gave it his best shot… A man with the utmost integrity”.
>
> Can I say that Mark? Could I honestly, in all conviction, even come close to saying that?
>
>
> Monbiot: tax-city-heist-of-century
>
> You never wished to be educated Mark. Such a sad reflection, yet an accurate one, on the arrogance of our political class.
>
> You serve criminals Mark and you continue to.
>
> “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”
>
>
> Where is your DEMAND to George Osbourne’s office that he replies to the questions posed to him?
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
I want to try and make this issue as clear, succinct and simple as possible for ANYONE who reads it…….
THE MONEY ILLUSION, THE CON, THE REAL GLOBAL PONZI SCHEME LEGALIZED!
MERVYN KING AND MANY MORE ARE PROMOTING THE FACT THAT THE FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM IS UNTENABLE. WHAT THEY DO NOT DARE TO STATE (BUT WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THEIR BELIEVING IT SO ANYHOW) IS THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, ONE GIANT, CORRUPT, PONZI SCHEME. THE ENTIRE GLOBAL BANKING SYSTEM AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD FOR WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND THE PERPETRATORS OF IT – ROTHSCHILD, ROCKEFELLER AND OTHERS, SHOULD BE BEFORE THE HAGUE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND PREFERABLY SHOT – OR HUNG.
The British government knows this and so do the banks and bankers who OWN the banks and IMF etc.
WHEN YOU GO TO A BANK AND EITHER DEPOSIT YOUR MONEY OR YOU SIGN FOR A LOAN, THE BANKING SYSTEM AS A WHOLE HAS A “MULTIPLICATION FACTOR” INHERENT WITHIN IT WHICH HAS BEEN LEGALISED FOR CENTURIES. IT IS CALLED “FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING” AND IT IS A CON ON EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS EARTH.
What it allows is that the banks, as a whole system, can take your signature on a loan for, say, £100,000 for a mortgage let’s say, and the banking system then generates that amount as nothing more than digits on a computer screen. IT NEVER DID EXIST AND DOES NOT EXIST!
Yet YOU have signed it into existence. But even more than that, you have created at LEAST (and it is AT LEAST) 10x (so £1M) that amount into the banking system. YOU have, therefore, GIVEN (LOANED) the banking system £1M. The following is from the Federal Reserve’s OWN LITERATURE….
Now, while the following video is an excellent summary of the Banking system and what we are trapped within (and TRAPPED is the correct term here), what it does not do is clarify precisely how the debt which, would be left for the public (which includes government borrowing of course) to repay even if we repaid every loan in existence, is a debt which would never have had existed if it were not for OUR signatures creating the money then loaned to us in the first place. Essentially, the banking system (completely owned by a few) has us CREATE the money which exists FOR them and they lend our OWN created money to US at interest. So when you watch the video, recognise that the £306bn left in debt to the banks is “money” they never created (we did) or generated in any way through adding ANYTHING of value to society.
This is why, if you are a christian (and I hasten to add I am agnostic when it comes to any and all man-made religions) you MAY recognise why Jesus cast out the moneylenders from the temple and, up until the 17th century (just before the Bank of England was created) USURY was outlawed since this entire issue was understood. Today, it is only Islamic banks which do not charge interest however, rest assured, they get around the system for the problem is not only Jews and their manipulation of christian principles (in ALL walks of life) but any and all corrupt people of any religious bent.
Now, one must simply consider this all very very simply: The banks not only charge you interest on what THEY describe as a “loan” to you of £100K BUT THEY ALSO have another £900K (again, at the very least) which they have been “legally” allowed to create, to either loan out to others OR to invest and speculate with.
[Please note and consider this "legally" point: While it is "LEGAL" for the banks to create this money, you will note further on that the treasury themselves admit that such money is NOT "LEGAL TENDER"! Consider how bizarre these two facts taken together are]
Now, you are only ONE person doing this. There are approx 65 million people in the UK alone using this banking system. Each one of them, through taking a “loan” or depositing their money with the banks, are enabling the creation of “money” FOR the banks out of absolute thin air.
The financial crisis (the mortgage subprime and Credit Default swaps etc) has all been based upon the £billions (in fact £trillions) of non existent money (except existing on the balance sheets of banks worldwide and created by YOU) being used to gamble.
THEN, when they have “lost” this “money” (it is seriously monopoly stuff), not only do they expect your payback on your mortgage and loans based upon money which never existed until you SIGNED it into existence, but they also demand (and put pressure on) our government to apply austerity measures and sell off assets (such as forests/land) to pay back the loans which the government itself took form these banks AND increase taxes of all shapes on you.
REMEMBER: THIS “MONEY” THEY LOST WOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED WITHOUT YOUR SIGNING IT INTO EXISTENCE!
Please consider this response, to an FOI request, from the UK Treasury VERY carefully:
You will note the reference made to “credit money” in particular and the admission that it has no intrinsic value (not linked to gold for example) and that it is NOTHING MORE than a PROMISSORY NOTE or I.O.U.
Now, let’s consider the “money” which exists in ALL banks (whether initially YOUR cash deposits or not):
From another FOI request to treasury regarding LEGAL TENDER:
1. Is electronic money legal tender in the UK?
Bank of England notes are legal tender in England and Wales. Therefore,
electronic money (bank deposits) is not legal tender. Nevertheless,
people are very often willing in settlement of a debt to accept value in
the form of bank deposits which can be delivered using a wide range of
payment instruments, e.g. debit cards or cheques.
Hence in ordinary everyday transactions, legal tender has little practical
application. It means that if a debtor pays in legal tender – i.e. in
banknotes – the exact amount he or she owes under the terms of a contract,
he or she has a good defence in law, if they are subsequently sued for
non-payment of the debt. It is essentially a matter of agreement between
the parties concerned in a transaction.
So from the above, please understand that the Banks are gambling with money which is not, by the UK treasury’s own admission, legal tender!! And YET, when they “lose” it (and the system as a whole – as I have explained – does NOT lose it, it is simply transfered upwards) YOU, the taxpayer, are LEGALLY obliged to bail them out with your REAL generated wealth from the sweat of your brow!
ARE YOU SEEING THIS YET?
Now, back to the original FOI response:
“None of the above suggests to us that mortgages contracted with financial institutions…. would be judged void”
OF COURSE the treasury would HAVE to make this statement because it is simply due to their need (and the Bank of England/ALL Central Banking/ Banking system’s need) to maintain what we all know is “confidence” in the system. You may quite rightly then call this entire system a “Confidence Trick” for that is precisely what it is. It maintains itself on people’s ignorance!
BUT the treasury is morally bankrupt with such a statement because, while it suggests the only alternative is bartering with goods and services, that is using a “slight of hand” to deflect from the REAL issue.
PAPER MONEY and the BANKING SYSTEM would have been (and can be) perfectly adequate in concept if it had always been based upon REAL (NO fractional reserve) money being used for deposits and loans. There would then be NO “illegal tender” in the banking system that they could expand and contract at will. Furthermore, IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT BORROW IT’S MONEY BUT ACTUALLY CREATED SOVEREIGN TREASURY MONEY (for want of a better term), IT WOULD HAVE NO INTEREST AND THERE WOULD BE NO (ZERO) NATIONAL DEBT. THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR AN IMF TO DEMAND AUSTERITY MEASURES FOR THERE WOULD BE NO DEBT!
Given the “Confidence trick” the banks have played and the immorality of the entire system:
1. They LOAN YOU money which never existed and charge you interest on it, while that loan has allowed them to generate at least 10x the loan amount in MORE non existent money.
2. They do not pay you interest on the £1M you have generated for them but actually CHARGE you interest on £100K you have taken as a loan AND GENERATED FOR THEM.
3. The banks add ZERO value to ANY transaction. It is YOU, as working taxpayers that generate EVERY LAST PENNY of value within the system.
Then, yes, if people fully appreciated this, the banks and those who justify and promote them (i.e. our government), would be held to account and the mortgages contracted with financial institutions would most certainly be judged void. There being NO “consideration” within the contract. The ONLY consideration being provided by YOU in your creation of the money by your signature and your promise to pay, with interest, a sum of money which would never have existed for the bank in the first place.
AND YOU ARE ALLOWING THIS TO CONTINUE!
WHEN A BANK ATTACKS YOU FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THIS ENTIRE CON, THEY WOULD SOON GIVE UP CHASING YOU. THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT MONEY TO BEGIN WITH AND THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS THIS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS CONTINUING TO ALLOW LEGALISED MASS THEFT BY THE BANKS.
IT IS MORALLY CORRUPT AND REPUGNANT AND ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SET THE SYSTEM UP AND< TO THIS DAY, USE IT (The IMF and World Banks owners together with the Federal Reserve and major investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, J.P Morgan etc) SHOULD BE LOCKED UP. This is not a throw away statement. This is a serious one. These people have entrapped the world’s population into a global con which has gone on centuries. The booms and busts are created to first expand the money supply globally then the “bust” is not for them. The bust is when they transfer the money from you and I and our offspring to them.
IN CONTRACTUAL LAW, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING CALLED “CONSIDERATION” ON BOTH SIDES. EACH PARTY MUST BRING SOMETHING OF TANGIBLE VALUE TO THE CONTRACT. THE BANKS, WHEN PROVIDING A LOAN, DO NOT DO THIS. YOU DO! YOU ARE CREATING THE “MONEY” THEY “LOAN” YOU BY WAY OF YOUR SIGNATURE. YOU ARE NOT ONLY CREATING THAT MONEY BUT 10x THAT AMOUNT FOR THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE- FACT! QUESTION: WHERE IS YOUR INTEREST? YOU ARE PAYING INTEREST TO THEM ON MONEY YOU CREATED!!! WHERE IS THE INTEREST THEY – IN FACT AND IN PRINCIPLE – OWE YOU??
So ALL of those £trillions WE create for them allows for the massive bonuses, allows the banks and Corporations owned by these same banks to buy up land and assets and also to speculate and play their monopoly game. When it doesn’t work out (and it doesn’t at the high street banking level because that is the whole idea – to pump up a financial bubble then deflate it) what happens is that the bubble is deflated and the money does not disappear – it finds it’s way through hedge funds and very private investment vehicles to those who KNOW what is about to transpire. George Soros IS NOT a brilliant investor! He is an Insider. If you knew beforehand that the horse way out in front was going to fall before the finish line you would bet on the number two horse now wouldn’t you?
Doing so transfers wealth from us to them. It’s SIMPLE!
In 2008/9 the 1000 richest in Britain raised their wealth by 30%. THINK about that for just TWO SECONDS! It doesn’t take an Einstein!
There is a financial crisis across the world but these people saw their wealth soar by 30%!
How? By exactly what I’m telling you above. It is a transference of wealth and precisely why people like Soros and Kissinger and our political elite LOVE crises! They make opportunity out of them because they CREATE them!
Then, finally, please read the following of how these people KNEW there was going to be a financial “destruction”:
[ Source: CEC's Australian Alert Service Oct.03 2002 ]
According to the Sept.26 LondonTimes, in private retreats, top oligarchs are discussing a “hair raising” and “grim” future of non-stop wars in the Middle East, and global economic collapse — or, How the Old Dark Age meets the New Dark Age.
In his regular Times column, Anatole Kaletsky writes a quite shocking article. He says he is reminded by a recent experience he had of the writings of Boccaccio’s Decameron, written during the 14th century tribulations, where a form of “escapism” is described, whereby the characters “turn away from the plagues of the outside world and retreat to a refuge of beauty, luxury, and self indulgence. Although I am not very rich, I had the opportunity to do exactly this when I spent two days at a retreat for the rich and powerful, organized by NetJets, a company which provides private aircraft for the world’s movers and shakers.
Schwarzenegger being Groomed for California’s Governor
Warren Buffet, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lord Jacob Rothschild at Waddesdon Manor
“Everything about this gathering made me think of Boccaccio. The setting was Waddesdon Manor, the magnificent baroque palace outside London, built by the Rothschild family, in the 1980s…. The hosts were Lord Rothschild,…. and Warren Buffet, the owner of NetJets, and the second richest man in the world.” The themes were so unnerving, that “the conference agenda made me think of Boccacciossybarites, eating sweetmeats on their hilltop outside Florence, as the plague ravaged the world outside..”
He said that while everyone was drinking the best wines in the world, they were confronted with “three interconnected traumas” by those speaking: The Middle East, The collapse of shares, and the prospect of a global economic depression.
Kaletsky writes: “The apocalyptic tone was set by a hair raising discussion of the Middle East. After hearing presentations from two well placed Washington officials, it became clear that war was now inevitable — and in a matter of weeks, not months. Far more alarming, was that the war would not stop with the removal of President Saddam Hussein, still less with the U.N.-sponsored campaign to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Within hours of September 11 2001, President Bush apparently made two irrevocable decisions. America was at war, and the war ‘was not just against the authors of September 11, but against all those who air or support acts of this kind.’ The war against terror, would therefore, ‘get bigger and bigger all the time.’
“After dealing with Iraq, the pressure for ‘regime change’ would shift to Iran, then Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan. Most Middle Eastern countries, we were told, were not really ‘nations’. They were personal fiefdoms. Iraq should really be called ‘Saddam-land’, Syria ‘asad-land’ — and the name Saudi Arabia speaks for itself. Thus military action to remove Saddam will really be a war on Iraq, not against it. The White House seemed confident that Iraqis would see things this way and would welcome U.S. soldiers, if not American bombs.
“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative bubbles of all time.
“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property markets……..”
“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.”
From “Business Week”
Stock markets across the world may have tanked last year but that didn’t stop the top performing hedge fund managers from making themselves a huge pile of cash.
In fact, the top 25 made £8.275 billion or an average of $464 million (£331m) each in 2008, according to research by Alpha Magazine. That is enough money to pay for 30 hospitals, employ more than 300,000 nurses for a year, or vaccinate every child in poverty from five preventable diseases.
Anyway, here is the list of the top 10, and how they made their millions (billions).
(Earnings have been calculated by adding each managers’ share of their firm’s performance and management fees, and gains on their own capital invested in their funds.)
1. James Simons, Renaissance Technologies Corp: $2.5 billion
Mr Simons generated an 80 per cent return for investors at his 20-year-old Medallion Fund last year. His exact investment strategy is a mystery but he says that it is based on rapid-fire trading across almost every possible market. Alpha Magazine says that his fund relies on computer-driven programs designed by an army of more than 100 Phds.
2. John Paulson, Paulson & Co: $2 billion
Mr Paulson also appears in our list of the 10 biggest winners of the financial crisis after he made millions in 2007 short selling risky pools of collateralized debt obligations. Last year he continued short selling and continued to make huge profits. However, Mr Paulson has felt the effects of the slump in the US housing market. Last year, he cut the asking price for his 6,800-square-foot Southampton, New York, home twice, by a total of $5.6 million, to $13.9 million.
3. John Arnold, Centaurus Energy: $1.5 billion
Energy trading John Arnold achieved an 80 per cent return at his Houston-based fund last year. The former Enron trader, who manages $5 billion in assets, deals mostly in natural gas, using futures and other derivatives.
4. George Soros, Soros Fund Management: $1.1 billion
Mr Soros’s $21 billion Quantum Endowment Fund eventually rose 8 per cent last year but it was a close call. In an annual review he published in the Financial Times, Mr Soros said he was losing money until bet correctly that the US dollar would fall. Mr Soros made his name and millions of pounds by betting against Sterling in the early 1990s.
5. Raymond Dalio, Bridgewater Associates: $780 million
Mr Dalio’s $38.6 billion Pure Alpha Strategy fund made 8.7 percent last year after a series of successful currency trades. Mr Dalio went long on the Japanese yen and shorted certain credit positions and emerging markets.
Although Mr Dalio’s is unlikely to suffer personally, he is very pessimistic about the future of the world economy. In his year-end letter, he wrote: “One of the most important lessons for those who did badly in 2008 is to have a ‘timeless and universal investment’ perspective” and to “understand what happened in long-ago times (e.g., the 1930s) and faraway places (like Japan and Latin America).”
6. Bruce Kovner, Caxton Associates: $640 million
Bruce Kovner, a former NY cab driver, made 13 per cent last year (after a 30 percent performance fee) on his $4.3 billion Caxton Global Investments fund . Most of the profit came from fixed-income investments.
7. David Shaw, D.E. Shaw & Co: $275 million
D.E. Shaw & Co.’s $13 billion macro fund was up about 7 per cent last year, offsetting most of the loss from its flagship $15 billion multistrategy fund, which ended 2008 down 8 to 9 percent.
8. Stanley Druckenmiller, Duquesne Capital Management: $260 million
Mr Druckenmiller made his money last year by reducing both his long and short exposures, instead building up cash. By the end of the year, he had cut his exposure to equities frop $5.8 billion to just $745 million. He also correctly bet on the dollar staging recovery last summer.
9. David Harding, Winton Capital Management: $250 million
Mr David Harding rode a number of trends — both up and down — including large moves in bonds, equity indexes and commodities (especially energy and grains), according to Alpha magazine. His $5.5 billion flagship Winton Futures Fund rose 21 per cent.
10. Alan Howard, Brevan Howard Asset Management: $250 million
Mr Howard’s Multi-Strategy fund made a 21 per cent gain in 2008 mostly from interest rate and foreign exchange arbitrage.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE GAY COMMUNITY. I DON’T GIVE A RATS ARSE WHETHER YOU ENJOY A DICK UP YOUR ARSE OR NOT! BUT, JUST AS ONE MAN’S “FREEDOM FIGHTER” IS ANOTHER MAN’S TERRORIST, ONE GAY’S STEP TOO FAR RE “EQUALITY” IS AN ATTACK ON THE HETEROSEXUAL COMMUNITY’S AND CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY’S BELIEFS AND THUS UNDERMINES SUCH.
SO WHILE YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE LIKE JIM CORR SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE GLOBALISATION, FREEMASONIC, FABIAN, ILLUMINATI, 9/11 CONSPIRACY WHILE PROMOTING HIMSELF AS A GOOD CHRISTIAN BOY, I’M AFRAID HE CANNOT THEN IGNORE OR SIDESTEP THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE LGBT COMMUNITY AND THEIR “HANDLERS” WHICH DIRECTLY ATTACK HIS CHRISTIAN CORE BELIEFS. OR IS IT THAT WHERE IT JUST BECOMES TOO ACUTELY ON HIS DOORSTEP AMONG PERHAPS FRIENDS AND FAMILY, THEN HE “DOESN’T GO THERE” AND MAKES UP ANY KIND OF EXCUSE TO JUST “NOT GO THERE”. A LITTLE LIKE THE BONO AND GELDOF ISSUE!
The above is not an attack on Corr either. It is simply telling the man he can’t pick and choose based upon what he can handle and what doesn’t come too awkwardly close to his door! If he does he may as well give up now and accept that his christianity is when it suits. A fairweather christian.
David Cameron support for Stonewall:
John Bercow support for Stonewall:
What links the UK’s most criticised and most respected gay group to the world’s biggest international conspiracy?
Information is beginning to be unearthed by a number of bloggers and gay activists linking the gay rights group Stonewall, who GayMafiaWatch believes runs the British “Gay Mafia” to the much speculated and often feared “Illuminati” – or at least a part of it.
As you will have heard, the more believable elements of the various outrageous Illuminati conspiracy theories relate to their relationship with various dubious groups and secret societies including the Freemasons.
So how is Stonewall’s thinking and inevitable practice connected to this exclusive and often rather secretive political group?
Without mentioning the obvious “New World Order” connections to Stonewall due to its financial donors and board members who have their fingers in numerous big multinationals, there is a clearly identifiable political influence behind the organisation.
It appears Stonewall is a sub-project of a relatively unheard movement known as “Fabians” and their UK based branch “The Fabian Society” – a somewhat secretive, self righteous and almost impenetrable collective now running our country.
In the beginning the Fabians were more about exploring spiritual, rather than political, alternatives to capitalism until a woman called Annie Besant brought Freemasonry to England in 1902 and joined the Fabians tea party. Her involvement massively influenced the Fabians and has shaped the organisation into what they stand for today.
On hearing the name for the first time you might be forgiven for confusing the Fabians with some eccentric religious cult however this group of Capitalist Socialists most people have never heard of represent one of the most powerful circles of people in the country – if not the world.
The facts and figures behind the theory
The Fabians were one of the original founding groups of the original Labour Party in 1900 and despite their obvious connection they still exist as a separate, antonymous body today. Members include Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Stephen Twigg, Peter Mandleson, and Gordon Brown. Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill has used his position as Chief Executive of Stonewall to speak at a number of Fabian events all over the world, and his Grandmother, a notable feminist the late Baroness Summerskill, was a notable member of this elite group.
For an organisation with less than 6,000 members, the number of highly influential members signed up is unusual to say the least.
One prominent link between the Fabians is Tom Happold – Chair of the Young Fabians between 1996-1997. He is the editor of Guardian Unlimited, previously Deputy Editor of “Comment is free”, to which Ben Summerskill and Julie Bindel are regular contributors.
Controversially, Julie Bindel (a radical feminist known within the LGBT community who opposes the rights of transsexuals) has been nominated for a Stonewall Award along with countless Fabian members and people with connections to the Fabian Society.
Fabians take their name from the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus famous for keeping his enemies at bay not by fighting but by wearing down his army with “delaying tactics, endless maneuvering, and avoiding confrontation wherever possible”. Additionally Fabians believe in “gradual incremental change rather than revolutionary change” – is this sounding familiar?
The name “Stonewall”…
It has often been asked “why would a British based Gay and Lesbian rights group choose to name itself after a violent riot against the police led by transsexuals?”
The gay liberation movement did not begin at the Stonewall Inn in New York as most people are led into believing, and many other groups exist and have been established in the United States that rather fairly use the name Stonewall. However the British group “Stonewall” takes it’s name from another source entirely…
It is a nod and a wink and possibly a peculiar masonic handshake to an Irish-born Major General of the British Army who served in the American Civil War. His name was Patrick Ronayne Cleburne, also known as “Stonewall of the West” and was granted the title over 100 years before the Stonewall Riots. Is this where the Stonewall Inn get’s it’s name from? Either way there are undoubtibly a a number of connections.
Cleburne’s most historically notable and controversial act was a proposition to abolish slavery with the intention of enlisting ex-slaves in the army to fight for the British. Cleburne’s hailed strategic manipulation of terrain, ability to hold ground where others failed, and his ability to use his smaller force to distract the movements of his enemies earned him the nickname. In his later years, Cleburne delivered a keynote speech on the “Principles of the International Masonic Order” emphasising their belief in “principles of the Masonic order, “Brotherly love, friendship, charity, and truth’…“. He was granted the title “Stonewall of the West” and as you may have guessed he happened to be gay.
Over a century later the great grandchildren of Cleburne’s generation inspired by his concept of recruiting an oppressed and exploited section of society to fight his battles by offering them emancipation unleashed the same conceptin the UK. Replicating his Masonic teachings combined with the ideology of the Fabian Society – “thriving on capitalism but pushing communist ideals“. “Stonewall” was established in 1989 by influential Fabians in an attempt to get the Tories out of power and New Labour in. It worked.
To sum it all up… we have a gay rights group heavily influenced by and connected with what is effectively a branch of the Freemasons… and we have a decorated gay Freemason…with the same name doing with the gay community just what he is remembered for doing with former slaves.
What about Stonewall’s future?
Who knows if there are really dark forces at work at Stonewall, their real intentions may in fact be good but their means of achieving real change simply appear contradictory or confusing to the casual observer. In the mean time support for the gay rights group once loved by many appears to be waning, at least that’s the picture a Google search for blogs and social networking groups discussing Stonewall’s recent work seems to paint. Stonewall has been charged with the crime of selling it’s own people down the river. This is what happens when the true nature of a group is not to advance the stated objectives but to drive an entirely other agenda.
Member in Skulls?
Another curious anagram of the Gay Mafia figure’s name…. “The Skulls” was a film directed by Rob Cohen and released in 2000 based on a fictional “Secret elitist college fraternity organization called the Skulls” staring Joshua Jackson closely based on the real life “Skull & Bones;” society based at Yale University of which many influential world leaders and directors of multinational organisations have been members of including George Bush. The film is underpinned by a subtle homo-erotic subtext.
We recommend you read “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones” by Antony C. Sutton.
Similar societies exist in the United Kingdom and membership involves similar Masonic customs and connections.
Whilst studying at Oxford University also attended by a number of individuals also named in this article including Ben Summerskill, the politician, businessman, scholar and Prime Minister of the British Cape Colony (South Africa) Cecil Rhodes became a Freemason. He was also a homosexual… Obviously GayMafiaWatch isn’t so naive to believe this is anything but coincidence, however conspiracy mongering information like this will continue to spew it’s snake-eyed head at anyone in a position with the potential for it to be true allows it – Stonewall included unless they address the influx of criticism and sort out their image and attitude problem.
You may then wish to read the following: “The Pornographic Conspiracy: Destroying the family – Degrading the human spirit” the-pornographic-conspiracy.pdf
ABOUT 7 MONTHS AND COUNTING!
“Would someone shut this guy up? You don’t have to deal with questions like this on “Question Time” or the BBC!
Anyhow, it was Darling not me! Ok perhaps I had the tete a tete with Nat Rothschild, Mandy and Deripaska but Nat
would be even MORE pissed with me if I answered these questions!”
What do you do when you HAVE no answer except the OBVIOUS? You duck the questions!
ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTIONS GIDEON!!
From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
Subject: George Monbiot: The Guardian
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:19:12 +0000
Dear Mark,
48 years on this planet. 45 of them spent naive and too damned busy to notice. The last 3 however allowing one fairly intelligent guy, who had no interest in politics while he was too busy carving out a very nice living that stretched the planet, to rapidly bring himself up to speed on what EXACTLY is what.
You perhaps, though I doubt it, have not had the opportunity (or perhaps even the interest) to look more closely at things and delve under a few “rocks”.
Meanwhile, have you noticed how things have changed so dramatically in the UK in the last few decades while what I have been suggesting will come has not quite “hit the fan” here in the UK yet but is beginning to in Greece, Egypt, Ireland to an extent and given time…
The IMF Mark and those who I have said own and control it. Legalised criminals. A cartel. A mafia. Mafias are always infighting too Mark but they group together when the mafia as a whole is under threat.
Do you have any idea of why Vodafone gets let off with £6.5B in its taxes? Do you have any concept whatsoever as to how the Foundations work? Have you studied it at all? Do you recognise cozy little relationships like those between Vodafone Foundation and “Common Purpose” while “Big Society” is the “darling” of Cameron while it was grown through Common Purpose under YOUR government?
Or are you an outright Marxist revolutionary who doesn’t understand, has no concept, of where it is leading and how it will impact your own offspring?
ARE you naive Mark? ARE you ignorant of these things? In Politics all of this time?
I’m sure you will know of Mr Monbiot of the Guardian – what you or I think of him is neither here nor there. Too many people get caught up in the dismissal game of “he’s a socialist” or “he’s an extreme right winger” – all the labels come out to play when demonising people who open cans of worms for inspection.
I don’t “read” the man. I read the words and I check them. You’ll know by now where I’m coming from on all of this as I have brought issues to your attention so many times now I have lost count. Regarding when the sh** hits the fan however Mark: If I am ever asked the question “What did you do about it?” and “So you brought all this to your MP’s attention and he did what?” I will have to honestly answer “He did nothing”. What the outcome of that will be is unknown. I just feel that when the country DOES fully wake up, those of you who did nothing in the expectation nothing would change and you’d keep your cushy little positions, will be persona non grata. I would FAR rather be in a position to say, honestly “My MP gave it his best shot… A man with the utmost integrity”.
Can I say that Mark? Could I honestly, in all conviction, even come close to saying that?
You never wished to be educated Mark. Such a sad reflection, yet an accurate one, on the arrogance of our political class.
You serve criminals Mark and you continue to.
“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”
Where is your DEMAND to George Osbourne’s office that he replies to the questions posed to him?
Regards,
Earthling
From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
Subject: FW: Robert Peston Discovers the Root of the Problem
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:10:59 +0000
Dear Mark,
Explain fractional reserve banking to your staff and then try and explain to them why it is not important and has never been illegal and why you don’t view it as anything you may wish to speak out against. Also, perhaps, explain to them how it is used to have a government borrow money when it need not do then use the fractional reserve system within the banking industry to grow derivative bubbles, gamble within the system with “non existent money” (because of the fractional reserve system) and then when the bubble pops, you and your staff are taxed by your employer, the government, to pay back banks that gambled money which never truly existed in the first place as legal tender.
Then you may wish to explain to your staff how, when they sign up for a loan or mortgage, the money they get doesn’t actually exist but their signature has created it from thin air. the bank never HAD the money in the first place but they then charge your staff interest on money THEY (the staff) created!!! However, it’s even worse than that because the fractional reserve system then allows the banking system to create AT LEAST 10x the amount loaned to your staff (out of thin air) and allows the banking system to lend that additional “money” to others and collect interest on it.
To summarise then: When one of your staff members (or yourself) takes a mortgage for £100K let’s say, not only does the bank charge interest on £100K BUT that loan has allowed the banking system to create at least £1M (at the very least) and charge interest on £1M.
Now YOU extrapolate from there what that means. It isn’t difficult!
I presented this to you months, if not over a year, ago and you ignored it. Do you like a monopoly Mark? If not, then why do you go along with the monopoly of money control and why support a government borrowing money from a private cartel of bankers (with our economy dictated to us by the IMF on their behalf to install austerity measures) when it is ENTIRELY unnecessary! In fact, it is organised crime and loansharking.
I STILL await the answers form George Osbourne regarding the questions I have raised. I would like, now, an explanation form the government as to why they are not forthcoming with those answers. I would like that by letter, documented. Thank you.
Regards,
Earthling
Subject: Robert Peston Discovers the Root of the Problem
From: ben.dyson@positivemoney.org.uk
To: Earthling
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:39:09 -0500
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Dear Earthling,
On Tuesday evening, a major step forward was made for this campaign. Robert Peston, the famous BBC presenter on everything to do with finance, actually used the words ‘fractional reserve banking’ on national television!
Fractional wotsit?
That’s the system that the banks used to create £1.2 trillion of ‘funny money’ over the last ten years.
It’s the system that is so unstable that taxpayers have to prop it up with a subsidy worth £100bn a year (according to the Bank of England).
It’s the system that has buried ordinary people under a mountain of debt, and which caused the crisis we’re all paying for now.
It’s so poorly understood that in all the millions of words of coverage of the financial crisis, not more than about 5 mainstream journalists actually figured out the root cause.
And now Robert Peston’s talking about it on national television. Finally!
The program is well worth watching, getting as close to hitting the nail on the head as anything we’ve seen so far. You can watch this documentary on BBC Iplayer until Tuesday 25th January here:
Note the contributions from Toby Baxendale, chairman of the Cobden Centre, who also spoke at the Positive Money student conference. (And ignore Paul Tucker’s suggestion that we need fractional reserve banking to allow people to borrow for the long term – that’s a naive misunderstanding for the second in command at the Bank of England.)
After you’ve watched it, please leave your thoughts and discuss on the Positive Money blog.
Ben Dyson of Positive Money
From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:31:42 +0000
> Subject: RE: Mark Lazarowicz, MP – New Surgery Details
>
> Dear Earthling
>
> I write to let you know that notwithstanding two reminders, no reply has yet been received from George Osborne or his office. My office made telephone enquiries in December, and we were advised that a reply had been drafted. If it has come in during the Christmas and New Year mail, it will of course be forwarded to you.
>
> I am of course always willing to discuss these issues with you at one of my surgeries.
>
> Mark Lazarowicz
> MP for Edinburgh North & Leith
> For more information about my work in Parliament and in our local community, visit www.marklazarowicz.org.uk
> ________________________________________
> From: Earthling
> Sent: 02 December 2010 15:35
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Subject: RE: Mark Lazarowicz, MP – New Surgery Details
>
> Thanks for this Mark. It has been a long time to wait for the reply from Mr Osbourne and yourself regarding the questions I asked. I do intend, therefore, to make a visit to your surgery at some point in the near future to discuss once more. I understand it is an imperative of our representatives to clearly and unambiguously answer the questions of the electorate.
>
> Meanwhile, you may find the following speech by a US Senator of interest. Where are OUR political representatives in the UK who will have the guts and integrity to speak out like this man? We, because of political aspirations, greed and deception, live in a globalised society Mark so, as I am sure you are aware, all that is going on in the USA is going on here too. If you need evidence of such I will gladly provide you with it.
> Our political, corrupt elite will be held accountable Mark I can assure you of this. It may not be tomorrow but it is coming.
>
>
>
> As I’ve said before, you are a cog in a wheel. You don’t seem to look at the big picture and the history which has led us to this. I have.
>
> For now, I would not like an update but simply an answer to the questions I put to you months ago. It is becoming ridiculous. No strike that. It IS ridiculous to wait so long albeit I am well aware of why no answers have been forthcoming thus far.
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
View email in your browser | Unsubscribe | Update your profile | Forward to a friend
Copyright (C) 2011 Positive Money All rights reserved.
We’re emailing you because you registered for news from us at www.PositiveMoney.org.uk.
Positive Money
107 Fleet Street
London, – EC4A 2AB
Add us to your address book
From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 08:06:14 +0000
> Subject: Reply please.
>
> Dear Earthling,
>
> Thank you for your email. I am still awaiting a reply from the Chancellor on your query. I have already followed this up with his office. Once I have that, I intend to respond in detail to the points you have raised.
>
> However, I take this opportunity to advise you a further Early Day Motion on Depleted Uranium has now been submitted in the current parliamentary session, and I have given it my support. The text of the motion and the signatories is given below.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Lazarowicz MP
>
>
>
>
>
>
> EDM 825
>
>
>
> UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON DEPLETED URANIUM
>
> 13.10.2010
>
>
>
> Bottomley, Peter
>
> 53 signatures
>
>
> Aldous, Peter
>
> Begg, Anne
>
> Betts, Clive
>
>
> Blenkinsop, Tom
>
> Blomfield, Paul
>
> Brake, Tom
>
>
> Campbell, Menzies
>
> Caton, Martin
>
> Connarty, Michael
>
>
> Corbyn, Jeremy
>
> Crockart, Mike
>
> Cunningham, Jim
>
>
> Dobbin, Jim
>
> Doran, Frank
>
> Durkan, Mark
>
>
> Efford, Clive
>
> Farron, Tim
>
> Flynn, Paul
>
>
> Foster, Don
>
> Francis, Hywel
>
> Gapes, Mike
>
>
> George, Andrew
>
> Glindon, Mary
>
> Hancock, Mike
>
>
> Heyes, David
>
> Hopkins, Kelvin
>
> Horwood, Martin
>
>
> Jamieson, Cathy
>
> Lazarowicz, Mark
>
> Leech, John
>
>
> Lloyd, Stephen
>
> Lloyd, Tony
>
> Llwyd, Elfyn
>
>
> Long, Naomi
>
> Love, Andrew
>
> Lucas, Caroline
>
>
> McDonnell, John
>
> Meale, Alan
>
> Michael, Alun
>
>
> Munt, Tessa
>
> Osborne, Sandra
>
> Ritchie, Margaret
>
>
> Rotheram, Steve
>
> Russell, Bob
>
> Sanders, Adrian
>
>
> Sheridan, Jim
>
> Skinner, Dennis
>
> Smith, Nick
>
>
> Thurso, John
>
> Whittaker, Craig
>
> Williams, Mark
>
>
> Wright, Simon
>
>
>
>
> That this House notes that the British Army maintains depleted uranium (DU) munitions within its arsenal and that 1.9 tonnes of DU rounds were fired by UK forces during Operation Telic in Iraq; recognises the continuing news stories emerging of higher rates of childhood leukaemia and birth defects in Iraqi cities since the conflict began; acknowledges that the Ministry of Defence has released to the United Nations Environment Programme the coordinates where UK forces fired DU; is aware that US armed forces expended at least 404 tonnes of DU ammunitionin the 1991 and 2003 Iraq conflicts but have yet to release the firing coordinates to the UN; appreciates that without full transparency it will remain impossible properly to monitor and decontaminate which in turn will lead to avoidable civilian exposures; and calls on the Government to support the resolution to be put before the UN General Assembly this autumn calling on states to provide quantitative and geographical data on DU munitions use to the relevant authorities of the affected states.
>
From: Earthling
> Sent: 27 October 2010 04:35
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Subject: Reply please.
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> I am still waiting on a reply to my questions. Can you please follow up on this urgently and insist I receive the answers please?
>
> Thank you,
> Earthling
>
>
>
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; darlinga@parliament.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
> Subject: Why exactly are we paying Green Taxes? It isn’t based on the “science”!
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:41:37 +0000
> Dear Mark,
>
> And so many of us understand that it was NEVER based on science!
>
> So, if you remember a few months back when you sent me the response from your Climate Change Minister who quoted the IPCC (no credibility after Climategate), NOAA and NASA (have come out since, contradicting their original stance) and now this. Your Royal Society – crushed.
>
> 7902-royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error
>
>
> How much of this can you stand and take Mark? As a government, I really wish to know? Your entire “policy” is being ripped apart by science – REAL science.
> As an intelligent human being, how can you support your government’s disinfo, corruption and outright lies? Because, you see, you may work for them but the joke is on you too as an individual. Don’t you understand this? You might personally gain significantly in the short term but you’re storing up real pain for yourself (or your offspring) in the long term. There is no WISDOM in that Mark. At best there is only short term selfishness. You’re creating nothing for society – you’re helping to destroy it. Therefore, you’re destroying the society your children will live in. They will not thrive in it.
>
> Do you understand Fabianism Mark? Do you belong to the Fabian society? So far, I haven’t checked, however, being Labour, I’m sure you probably do. It’s not just a Labour issue though Mark. Ollie Letwin is a Fabian too – although he suggests otherwise – and there are many Tory fabians. A lot of good London School of Economics students.
>
> The LSE too; The London School of Economics which immerses itself heavily in not just economics but social science. Geopolitical socio-politics and even the world of terrorism research. Probably the most exclusive school on the face of the earth and guess who manages to get himself a place there?
> Omar Saeed Sheikh!
>
> You’re aware of Omar I assume Mark? If the name escapes you, check him out. But wy would such a smart individual such as Omar wish to become a terrorist? With a future career such as he would have had? How, even, did the school admit him? You’d think they’d do some checking wouldn’t you? After all, such alumnis as David Rockefeller and George Soros they don’t just let any old terrorist in the door. You have to be a terrorist on the level of Soros for example. They particularly like financial terrorists!
>
> A rhetorical question Mark; but don’t you have children? Or members of your family have children? Do you think they will be protected by the state because they were the offspring of Mark Lazarowicz MP?
> Do you remember childhood Mark? Do you remember how free we were as children compared to today where there is no freedom whatsoever?
>
> I’m serious Mark. Are you blind to what is happening? By your “collective” ideology and not having the integrity to stand and even question the collective, you are creating something that will allow the complete control of your children or your children’s children.
> As I write these mails, I can assure you, I am quite literally in awe of the closed mindset which I have come to recognise permeates our political “class”. You really are quite amazing.
>
>
> You cannot POSSIBLY read all that I have put in front of you and dismiss it. All I can suppose is that you either do not read it at all or, you do but you cannot accept facts put down in front of you. You, perhaps, would rather remain willfully ignorant?
>
> You NEVER, genuinely, respond with your own thoughts to anything I lay in front of you Mark. Your responses, if any, are that of the “collective”, your party, your government. You are like a hive mind – a “Borg”.
>
> I’m not attempting flippancy or sarcasm Mark. I am being bluntly honest. It is quite incredible.
>
>
> I still await the response from the Minister(s) re the Bilderberg and Alistair Darling questions but, meanwhile, your own thoughts on it would have been interesting. However, for any MP to have their own thoughts on such – the answers staring them in the face – is dangerous and not in keeping with the collective.
>
> Remember I mentioned “Control” Mark? Collectivism IS control. You are not allowed your own thoughts to be expressed otherwise……
>
> I also hope to hear from you on the document which is overdue release.
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
>
> PS: The same points refer to the others sent this communication so I can assure you, you are not alone.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; darlinga@parliament.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
> Subject: Feedback
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:36:46 +0000
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Still no feedback on the questions re Bilderberg and Darling? Makes you wonder what’s so difficult doesn’t it?
>
> Can you let me know about the closed document when you have a moment please? I would wish to read it.
>
> You may also have interest in the following damning indictment of the pseudoscience which our government is creating legislation (or what they call “law”) around:
>
> us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life
>
> A couple of other things you just may be interested in reading and listening to Mark:
>
> Part 3 of an audio file explaining to you that your EU that you support was propagandized to you through funding by the CIA in the early 70s.
>
>
>
> You may then wish to read the scanned photos of the documentation (a tiny portion of it) which explains the government’s fraud. Nice bedtime reading I think. The FCO writing letters to MPs pretending to be constituents in support of the EEC. Nice straightforward fraud Mark. I don’t recognise ANY government who have either instigated nor continued such. Now, be honest would you? Unless of course you worked for them!
>
> Now, pardon my sometimes considered “irate” communications by your staff but if your staff don’t understand the enormity of what I present to you then I’m afraid I cannot help their ignorance.
>
> But that all said, what’s your thoughts Mark? Incredible criminality and fraud don’t you think? All funded by your local friendly neighbourhood CIA!
>
> And the UK population don’t have a clue!
>
> No wonder Ken Clarke wishes to keep the 30 year rule huh? [cid:image001.jpg@01CB7685.DF513440]
>
> Lord Chief Justice indeed. Anti bribery and corruption indeed!
>
> What a book that would make eh?
>
> But you don’t think the UK electorate should know about all of this do you?
>
> I’d really like to read what your thoughts are on all of this. It would tell me so much about who I am communicating with. After all, you can readily grasp where I’m coming from and communication is the key to democracy isn’t it?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
> ________________________________
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
> Subject: Closed document.
> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:52:02 +0000
>
> Mark,
>
> The expiry term for this document has now passed. Please ensure it is now released to the public.
>
>
> dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Show.tcl&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqSearch=%28%28text%29%3D%27Bilderberg%27%29&dsqPos=1
>
> Thank you
From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; darlinga@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: UK Parliament EDM re Depleted Uranium
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:05:37 +0000
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your response.
I would like to understand a few things better however.
1. You say that the EDM was tabled in the previous parliament and it’s no longer possible to put names to it? Is that how it works? Everything is scrapped because of a new Parliament? So, if Brown had been considering war just prior to the election this year because of aggression by another nation toward us (however, we shall ignore that all the aggression is always on our part), the entire idea would have been dropped with the new parliament? Not quite the same but I’m sure you realise what I’m getting at.
If that is the case, then why are you not re-tabling it yourself?
2. With regard to Iran and the article: I copied the article on the email. You simply need to click on it and you will see quite clearly the fraud I am speaking of. Our media have a duty of care regarding the news and the propaganda they force upon the population. This is outright fraud. Further, you know as well as I that the IAEA and our Intelligence Agencies have ALL stated for the record that Iran has NO bomb, no bomb making capability, no sufficiently enriched uranium for such purposes and no delivery capability. Yet, our government is STILL following the American sabre rattling propaganda and allowing FRAUD such as shown in the Daily Mail article, to whip up public hysteria and support for an attack on Iran. You also know as well as I who controls our mainstream media Mark. I need not state it.
So, I request, again, that some form of investigation goes into the responsibility for producing this fraudulent article.
3. Just one further issue for now that I would request you pass to the relevant government Minister – and I shall copy Mr Darling on this because I see him as the relevant minister without a doubt (please advise me if I am mistaken). There are certain issues which it is impossible to reduce into a simple one or two line “soundbite”. Perhaps that is what our MPs wish for from their constituents but I am afraid I can only be as succinct as the topic allows –
I would request from the relevant minister, an explanation of the following. It is a very simple question in essence. HOW did Mr Darling not know about the impending crisis until, at the earliest, Summer, 2007?
Let me list the UK attendees who attended the Bilderberg conference in May 2003:
Taylor. J Martin – Chairman WH Smith PLC; International advisor, Goldman Sachs International
Balls, Edward – Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury
Clarke, Kenneth – Member of Parliament, [former Chancellor of the Exchequer]
Gould, Philip – Public Relations Adviser to Prime Minister Blair
King, Mervyn A. – Deputy Governor, Bank of England
Williams, Gareth – Leader of the House of Lords
Wolf, Martin H. – Associate Editor/Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
Micklethwait, R. John – United States Editor, The Economist
Rachman, Gideon – Brussels Correspondent, The Economist
Now, regarding the reports of it being well understood in political and financial circles what was on the horizon:
Sept 26th 2002: “To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property markets……..” rothchildmeeting.html
and,
May 2003: “…the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown;” EE22Ak03.html
INCREDIBLE “crystal ball” these people have isn’t it? It’s not as if they are thinking it COULD happen or that there is a CHANCE of it happening. They’re saying bluntly that it is GOING to happen and giving their “minions” (our government representatives) warnings to ensure their little lapdogs do as they’re told.
And before anyone suggests WE were advised in any way by our governments. Think again (yet reps from our governments and Central Banks attended but said nothing and kept pushing the mortgages and loans!!). Here is Alistair Darling -
“He can clearly recall the day last summer when alarm bells first began to sound. The chancellor was on holiday with his wife and their two teenage children in Majorca. “I remember I picked up the FT in the supermarket, as you do, and it had the European central bank starting to put money into the economy. I phoned the office to ask why they were doing quite so much. It didn’t surprise me that money was going in – there was concern going around – but it was the sheer scale of it. I said, what about our institutions? This was when Northern Rock started to figure.”When news broke of the first run on a British bank in more than a century, Darling was back in Edinburgh. “I received a phone call and went straight down to London. From where I never returned. That was the last time I saw Edinburgh.”Even then, the gravity of the credit crunch was still not fully clear. “No one knew how serious it was yet.”
“In the UK, in the recent Pre-Budget Report we revised the forecast for growth down for 2008 to the range 2 to 2½ per cent to reflect this international uncertainty. But due to a combination of the Government’s strongmacroeconomic framework, its promotion of open and flexible labour, product and capital markets and the strength of the British economy in the first half of the year, it is anticipated that the economy will remain resilient and return to its trend growth path in 2009. The underlying strength of the British economy has allowed the government to put in place medium term spending plans which support the objective of a strong economy and a fair society, able to meet the challenges of new global economy, with opportunity and security for all.”
So what I want to know is this: WHO are the LIARS here? I tend to almost trust (perhaps naively) this ex Chancellor not knowing. After all, he didn’t attend and he was not Chancellor at that point so perhaps he was not privy and one of the inner circle? Or perhaps Darling DID know but knew if he said anything prior to when he did, it wouldn’t be a healthy thing to do?
BUT, what we DO know is that, among others, KEN CLARKE and MERVYN KING attended this conference in 2003.
So the questions of Mr Darling are these:
a) You presented to the IMF that you believed that the UK economy was healthy (how you can suggest such when we have no industry to speak of is beyond me, but anyhow) plus you stated in the Guardian interview that the earliest sign you had was in Summer 2007. Even then you had no concept of how big an issue it was to be. Were you speaking the entire truth on these two occasions?
b) If the answer to 1. is “Yes”, then please simply explain how our own Chancellor had no idea of what was impending when reports from two separate occasions, 4 to 5 years prior, attended by the most influential controllers of finance, economy and government in the UK and the USA, show clearly that these people KNEW what was ahead and even spoke of how to re-orientate their own investment portfolios to deal with it?
c) Why, when our government and Banking establishment knew what was coming, no action was taken by the Bank of England or the government, to reign in public spending nor to regulate/control individual/private spending/debt but simply allowed it to continue.
d) Why did the Chancellor (both of them) and Bank of England not attack the derivative issue head on from approximately 2002/2003 onward?
e) I do not have to explain to the ex Chancellor how Fractional Reserve Banking works. Neither do I have to explain to him how the CDS/Derivatives market works. What I would like to know is how a man, in charge of and entire country’s finances (UK PLC’s Chief Accountant) did not recognise from a very early point (even if he was not privy to the meetings and the information gleaned from them by Mervyn King, Ed Balls and Ken Clarke etc) that the county was on seriously thin ice? The individual debt to income ratio in 1997 was 101%. By 2007 it was 173%. It is EASY to talk of “good times” when all the government is doing, by fiscal policy, is creating greater and greater debt. What they did NOT create was INDUSTRY.
The questions Darling/Osbourne: ANSWER THEM SCHMUCKS!
4. Finally, if this is not for Mr Darling to respond to, then please pass to whichever Minister who’s job it IS to answer. And please ensure it is understood and is answered sufficiently. No evasion:
1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference
HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W
§ Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty’s Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.
Now, I trust a long explanation of this is unnecessary so I will simply say this: The Prime Minister at this time was James Callaghan. His response was that the conference was a “private occasion” attended in a “personal capacity”. It was, in 1977, at a time when no-one had any clue or even heard of the Bilderberg Group outside a very few in tight circles. Mr Roberts makes it clear that no-one from Her Majesty’s government should be attending such meetings and you and your MP colleagues know why this is. Please do not have the replier to this question act dumb Mark.
So then, we move on to the following:
Mr. Blair’s denial of Bilderberg attendance.
PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group. [93240]
The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally.
PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997. [95308]
The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings.
Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past.
Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with Ken Clarke) while not wishing to divulge such information.
And finally,
Examination of Witness (Questions 78 – 99) TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2001 THE RT HON KENNETH CLARKE “I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”.
What is the point? The point is quite clearly as follows:
Callaghan knew it was necessary that he responded that people attended the Bilderberg Conference (a so called “Private occasion”) in a personal capacity (an evasion) thereby suggesting there was no influence nor collaboration nor political policy or national impact. Mr Roberts knew different.
Mr Blair, meanwhile, continues the obfuscation of the issue.
Lastly, however, Mr Clarke (a Steering Committee member of what is simply a “Private Occasion”) describes the reality that it is a POLITICAL CONFERENCE.
Question (rhetorical): Is this or is this not SEDITION?
I have explained why it is in previous correspondence with you (re the Coronation Oath etc). You have also heard David Cameron speaking about the power lies with the people regarding the transference of any powers from an elected Parliament of the UK to any and all third parties such as the EU. He is correct because he knows that the Coronation Oath of the monarch and Head of State is worn to the people. Mandelson also knows that the Oath he takes as a Privy Councillor to the monarch is to a Head of State who swears her oath to the people.
I will ask firmly once more that this issue is not evaded and that the answer is provided in detail. If there is disagreement regarding what I have stated here, I demand to have a clear and precise explanation and justification of the replier’s position and the position of the United Kingdom government.
Please ask your Ministers to treat the public and their constituents with respect by providing full, detailed non-evasive, considered responses to inquiries. Such will then ensure that this respect is reciprocated.
Thank you and Regards,
Earthling
> From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:00:24 +0100
> Subject: UK Parliament EDM re Depleted Uranium
>
> Dear Earthling
>
> Thank you for your email. The EDM re depleted uranium was tabled in the previous Parliament, and it is no longer possible to add names to it. I would in fact have been quite happy to sign it if I had been aware of it as I have supported similar EDMs in the past. (There are normally 50-100 EDMs tabled each week, and it is not possible to keep in touch with each one in detail).
>
> With regard to Iran, I did not see the article in question, but I can assure you I am not persuaded by those who seek to provoke an attack on that country.
>
> With regard to the other issues you would like me to raise with the government, I would be happy to pass these on to the relevant government Minister. It would be helpful if you could list these in a succinct form so that I can decide which would be the most appropriate Minister (s) to raise them with. I would point out, though, that there is in fact no restriction on members of the public raising issues directly with Ministers if they wish to do so.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Mark Lazarowicz
>
> Sent from my HTC Touch —–Original Message—–
> From: Earthling
> Sent: 08 July 2010 13:58
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Cc: DARLING, Alistair ; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk ; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk ; GILLAN, Angela ; DAVIES, Kate ; tellnigel@hotmail.com ; GRIFFITH, Nia
> Subject: UK Parliament EDM re Depleted Uranium
>
> Mark,
>
> I wish to know whether you will support this EDM in parliament?
>
> 323.html
>
> Further article re the issue: did-the-us-drop-tactical-nuclear-weapons-on-iraqafghanistan—you-bet
>
> I would also ask that you respond to my emails. Particularly the issue regarding the fraudulent nature of the Daily Mail article.
>
> Meanwhile, I see the old guard have whitewashed the IPCC scandal. What a surprise!!
>
> climategate-whitewash-complete-third-inquiry-clears-everyone-involved
>
>
> Earthling
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
> CC: darlinga@parliament.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; gillana@parliament.uk; daviesk@parliament.uk; tellnigel@hotmail.com; griffithn@parliament.uk
> Subject: IPCC phony Amazon claim
> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:38:23 +0000
>
> Mark,
>
> If you do not present ANY of this evidence I keep firing at you to the UK Parliament, YOU ARE A FRAUD! For if these do not make you sit up to attention and start asking questions of what you are “so sure” of then there is something disturbingly wrong. But then that goes without saying doesn’t it?
>
> amazongate-smoking-gun.html
>
> How many scientists against AGW? Over 30,000.
> How many IPCC “experts”?
>
> You see the problem is Mark is that 30,000 scientists couldn’t all be bribable and paid off whereas a handful can with big incentives.
> Do I REALLY have to explain this to you?
>
>
> Earthling
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
> CC: darlinga@parliament.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; gillana@parliament.uk; daviesk@parliament.uk; tellnigel@hotmail.com; griffithn@parliament.uk
> Subject: What’s the difference between a sheep and an MP?
> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:21:38 +0000
>
> A sheep has a sheepdog to keep it conforming.
>
> An MP has a chief whip – no, not a whip for that other well established parliamentary past-time.
>
>
> Mark, how does it feel to have been led the down the garden path? To be fooled. To be suckered in. To have been gullible enough to listen to what so called “experts” told you and then find you’ve been had hook line and sinker by lie after lie after lie? While you sit there in your “ivory tower” just not accepting that you and your belief system and your government legislation based on BULLSHIT can be questioned. While you retort to constituents with literally NO justification, no defence, no debate, no argument except “I don’t agree”.
>
> Really Mr Lazarowicz! YOU don’t agree? Is that meant to hold some weight? If so, please advise me why!
>
> How much evidence needs to be put under your nose before you smell it? Nevermind recognise you’ve been well and truly had! We’ve meant to trust a representative who can’t see when he’s being treated like an ignorant, incapable idiot?
>
> the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider
>
>
> When are you going to wake up Mark? Or is it just not personally worth doing so?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Earthling
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
> CC: darlinga@parliament.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; gillana@parliament.uk; daviesk@parliament.uk; tellnigel@hotmail.com; griffithn@parliament.uk
> Subject: IRAN
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:42:59 +0000
>
>
> How IGNORANT and IMPOTENT are you?
>
> Do you actually DO anything? Or do you just complain when it comes to a local pub or fish and chip shop going out of business or when there’s a pothole in the road?
>
> Do you understand ANYTHING about how it all works? Get a BRAIN man! Because if this kicks off, you better have your place in an underground bunker! Then the question is: What do you
> find when you come out?
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqs_BCvvHFI
>
>
> Your IGNORANCE is astounding Mark. It’s only competition is your apathy!!
>
>
> And all of you are impotent because you follow – you’re followers, that’s all you are – You’re like the “House negroes” of the past. You believe you’ll be treated better by those in the real power
> because you’re doing what they demand of you by passing outrageous, pathetic legislation because, even if you DON’T agree, you’re “whipped” into doing so.
>
>
> You and 99% of the UK parliament are sheep Mark. Trust me – the day will come when you shall be sheared too. It won’t be pretty!
>
>
> However, I recognise that talking to all you people (including the “Councillors”) is like talking to a wall. You all are truly ignorant, mentally incapable to grasp this while you feed off the BBC
> news and the rest of the mainstream crap you read and listen to.
>
>
> Have you read “The Grand Chessboard” yet Mark? No
> Have you read the CATO Institute paper entitled “The Green Peril”? The manufacturing of the Islamic threat. No.
> Have a read of this: PETRODOLLAR WARFARE AND COLLAPSE OF U.S. DOLLAR IMPERIALISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY
> BY CHARLES H. COPPES, AUTHOR OF AMERICA’S FINANCIAL RECKONING DAY
> open-letter-to-gordon-the-real-reason-for-the-wars-iran
>
>
> If you can’t work out ANYTHING from this lot then, seriously, you shouldn’t be in that MP job mate. You don’t have the intelligence!! If you can’t figure out how all of this geopolitical politics impacts us here in our streets, then give up Mark.
>
>
> Yes, I have no respect for you Mark. Pretty obvious I guess. But, unfortunately, I live in a quasi fascist state which dictates I have no option when trying to communicate with MY government but to go through you. However, it’s like swimming in the Gulf of Mexico and suddenly finding yourself stuck in the sludge of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
>
>
> Either enlighten yourself and be useful as an MP or do Edinburgh a favour and resign.
>
>
>
>
> I STILL await your response on the Daily Mail fraudulent article!
>
leave a comment