For Queen AND Country?
The Armed Forces and the Police: They LOVE their Queen. They think when they take that oath for Queen and Country it is all wrapped into one. What FUCKING IGNORANT IDIOTS they are! While they do their duty their own families are getting SCREWED by the very woman and HER family they swear an oath to!
THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF DUMB-ASSED STUPIDITY but what’s even worse is: Even when it’s put in black and white under their noses – never mind by a blogger but later by a national newspaper (though the newspapers never paint the whole picture in one nice big gulp. They just feed it gently over months or years piece by piece – that way the big picture gets ignored by the ignorant!) – they STILL don’t get it!
So let’s look at today’s (21st April 2012) headline in the Daily Mail for starters shall we?
The real news (but just a snapshot of it) next to Cowell just to distract the attention. "Oh I don't understand wind farms etc... sounds boring anyhow... so I'll read the Simon Cowell segment". GOD this fucking country is SO THICK and yet it then moans constantly about being screwed anally!
Now, a blog I wrote over a year ago: The Crown: Profiting from your misery!
To all you STUPID “monarchists”: You bloody fools! Those parasitical scum are screwing you left right and centre while you celebrate a Diamond jubilee and wave your silly little flags as the Olympic team and English football teams sing their praises for her and her clan every time they win a fricking medal!
What is it you do not understand about the monarchy (who are MEANT to be ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy – funny that when so many say we have no constitution!!) through their lovely little banking friends – the Crown Estate – OWN THE SEABED?
Now just before moving on, watch this little clip of the corrupt bastard you call your Prince:
What is it you do not understand about this?
UK PARLIAMENT ARCHIVES:
11 Feb 2003 : Column 245WH—continued
Seabed Management
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to examine the workings of the Crown Estate Commission, which is one of the slightly gloomier corners of Government business. It is an area of public life that is not often overly troubled by the bright lights of public accountability, but it has a profound and real effect on the life of my constituents and many people who live in coastal and island communities throughout the United Kingdom. It was the subject of a considerable part of my maiden speech. …….
I would be delighted if the Minister were to say today that the Government will examine the question of ownership of the seabed. Such an initiative is long overdue. However, I realise that this is a Westminster Hall debate. I have been an MP long enough now to be realistic about what can be achieved. For that reason, I have asked that today’s debate be limited to the management of the seabed. Nevertheless, it never hurts to place on record my belief that it is fundamentally obnoxious that a body such as the Crown Estate Commission should exist and should exert power in the way that it does over coastal and island communities. I speak as one who represents several island communities and was born and raised in one.
It is questionable that we should allow such a body to raise money from things on which we depend, such as piers and marinas. We have no alternative but to use them, but rent is exigible by the Crown Estate Commission on them.
Now get this:
I turn to sub-sea cabling. The Minister may be aware that a project to lay a fibre optic cable between the Scottish mainland and Shetland is under consideration, although it is rather on the back burner. It would be in tune with an important Government policy on broadband to get that cable laid, and it might well be supported both financially and politically by the Scottish Executive, the Shetland Islands council charitable trust, the Shetland Islands council and the Orkney Islands council. However, if that is achieved, the Crown Estate Commission will charge no less than £64,000 a year in rent simply for the privilege of allowing that cable to lie on the seabed.
The same situation will transpire in the event that we are able to lay electricity cables to allow the export of electricity generated by tidal or wave power or wind power in the islands, which are uniquely well placed for the development of renewable energies.
SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS RENT (PER YEAR!!) FOR A SINGLE CABLE DOING NOTHING/ZERO/NADA BUT SITTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA ON THE SEABED!
NOW work out why there is so much emphasis on OFFSHORE WINDPOWER and work out why, while the feed in tariffs for those using solar power on their houses has been dropped so dramatically last year (41p/KW to 21p/KW) while wind energy AND PARTICULARLY OFFSHORE WIND, was not hit?
Do you get it? It is SIMPLE!! While it is possible for people to receive money back from the energy providers (the feed in tariffs) for supplying the grid, the CROWN DO NOT WANT THAT AND THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE THE REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF BEING “OFF GRID” AND SELF SUFFICIENT!
What happens when the generation of the electricity is offshore? There is NO self sufficiency and it ensures that all of our (your) energy supply is provided by the grid and NOT YOU!
Now, since the dawn of North Sea Oil, the Crown Estate have owned that because they OWN THE SEABED AND THE MINERALS – see the blog which provides the link to the FACT that Petroleum vests with the Crown!! It does so for this simple reason – the Crown owns the seabed and minerals! Doing so, the Crown has been making 12.5% “royalties” (outside of the tax paid to government coffers) from the day oil was first struck in the north sea. 12.5% of the value of EVERY barrel of oil!
Now back to the wind power: Remember that £64,000 rent for a single cable between the scottish mainland and the Isle of Skye? Well think about this:
Charlie, invest in this, go around the world promoting the doom of the planet like the young David Rothschild. Also invest in Tamar energy (biomass) with me, Jacob and Evelyn and make speeches at the EU Parliament so they know who's boss, and I assure you, you'll be the richest King ever as you screw your subjects to the fucking wall mate. Just watch the energy prices rise! 
Now consider this picture of a typical wind farm set up and all the requirements. THEN consider the number of turbines and then the number of cables between the turbines and the grid back onshore. Think about that number multiplied by at the very least £64,000 per year every year JUST FOR SITTING ON THE SEABED! Then wonder: WHO THE FUCK GAVE THE SEABED TO THE QUEEN AND THE CROWN ESTATE? THEN wonder once more about Tony Benn’s comments in Parliament regarding who or what the FUCK the Crown is in the first place? Put it all together and take a deep fricking breath!
Let's just ask one of many questions of this Crown Estate: "How many turbines are anticipated and how much is the rental PER CABLE PER YEAR for them to sit on the seabed doing FUCK ALL?"
Then, perhaps, we can also ask them how much they are charging for the rent of every single turbine itself?
NOW can you get it through your skull as to why they don’t want you generating your own electricity? But they will “create jobs” for you to create THEIR energy generating plant so that they can get you to pay for it and pay for your energy that you are working for them to generate! YOU CREATE FOR THEM AND THEY PAY YOU PEANUTS BUT THEN THEY MAKE IT WORSE BY CHARGING YOU FOR THE ENERGY YOU HELPED CREATE FOR THEM TO CHARGE YOU! DON’T YOU GET IT YET?
Now let’s just take a quick look at ONE aspect more of this:
The Crown Estate acting as a co development partner. How nice. What the FUCK does the Crown Estate know about anything? Anything at all? Nevermind the engineering of offshore wind farms. While the cost of just the development and CONSENT (consent by whom? Ah you guessed it – THE CROWN ESTATE!) is just 4% of the total cost of a 500MW wind farm. But that 4% comes to £60M! NICE!
Read the whole thing:
Now one last thing because you may read this and say “You said the Petroleum vests in the Crown and yet this says the Crown Estate doesn’t have control over the oil! So you’re wrong!!”
But listen: Even the UK bloody parliament doesn’t know who the Crown actually are! Read the blog: “Tony Benn, the straight man” - tony-benn-the-straight-man
THEN read once more: Petroleum vests with his majesty! The question then is “How many British Crowns are there?” Or is it that the Crown is something more than her majesty while she is the main focal point of it from the population’s ignorant perspective? Why, for instance, are there clauses in the Bank of England Act 1946 which are protected by the Official Secrets Act? Why is it that now, the Queen and her fucking family are being even more protected from scrutiny by this utter shit they call “law’?
Now here’s something else (how much do you actually need before that bloody penny drops you monarchical cretins?):
Charles: Richest King in history!
Republic warns of “historic stitch up” as Queen asks Parliament to allow royal funding changes
29th Jun 2011
Republic has described new plans to tie royal funding to Crown Estate revenue as an “historic stitch up” that could divert millions of pounds from public services.
The Queen today issued a “gracious message” asking Parliament to allow changes to royal funding which would see her paid a single annual grant based on a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate. Proposals for the new “sovereign support grant” will be presented to MPs tomorrow and introduced in a new bill.
The royal household is currently funded through the Civil List and grants from several government departments.
Republic spokesperson Graham Smith said:
“The Crown Estate is not – and never has been – the personal property of the royals. The Windsors have no more right to its revenue than I do. To claim that it should fund their lavish lifestyle is deceitful and dishonest.”
“The Crown Estate is there to fund government and public services. If this deal goes through it will be a historic stitch up that will end up lining the royal family’s pockets.”
“We’ve seen that the royals are unable to keep their spending under control. The new grant is likely to lead to even greater waste with less accountability. It will give the royal household even more freedom over its finances at exactly the time when its expenditure should be more tightly controlled.”
“The office of the head of state should be funded like every other public body– through a budget agreed by Parliament and based on need.”
NOTES
Details of the funding changes are on the HM Treasury website: leg_sovereign_grant.htm.
The Crown Estate is a land and property portfolio, managed on behalf of the Government, whose surplus revenue is paid annually to the Treasury. It is the ‘hereditary possessions of the Sovereign’, not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.
New report reveals annual cost of British monarchy ‘enough to feed an army’
23rd Jun 2011
The annual cost of the monarchy has been found to be more than the entire annual MoD food budget and the equivalent of thousands of nurses, police officers and teachers, according to a new report.
The new report by campaign group Republic has revealed that the total annual cost of the British monarchy could be over £200 million, more than five times the official figure released by Buckingham Palace.
The report describes the monarchy as ‘one of the most expensive, wasteful and financially irresponsible institutions in the world’.
The estimated cost presented in “The ‘Value for Money Monarchy’ Myth” includes security expenditure, costs of royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, all of which are excluded from official figures.
The key findings include:
* The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
* The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
* Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.
* £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.
* The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
* Britain’s royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.
* Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family’s finances.
Republic will be holding a protest outside the gates of Buckingham Palace on Saturday June 25 at 1pm to raise awareness of the cost of the monarchy. The protest will go ahead despite the decision by the royal parks agency to withhold formal permission.
Republic’s campaign manager Graham Smith said:
‘This report cuts through the spin and shows beyond doubt that the British monarchy is a colossal waste of public money. The royals have shown that they are simply incapable of reining in their spending – they will continue to waste taxpayers money until the government stands up to them.’
‘In pointing out the scale of waste here we’re calling for an immediate start to opening up royal accounts. It’s time for the government to take control of the monarchy’s budget, pay the Queen a salary and make the royal household fully accountable to taxpayers.’
‘Every year we go through the charade of Palace press officers telling us what great value the monarchy is. It’s time for the royals and politicians to come clean – spending hundreds of millions of pounds on one family is morally indefensible, especially at a time of painful cuts.’
NOTES
For further information or comment contact Graham Smith on 07747 608 770 or graham@republic.org.uk
The report is available to download from www.republic.org.uk/royalfinances
The protest will go ahead outside the gates of Buckingham Palace at 1pm on Saturday June 25.
Visitors have been mesmerised by the quality that pervades every aspect – thanks to the demanding eye of a man who, in every aspect of his life, operates at the highest level.
The Rothschilds have always been well connected – Lord Rothschild’s son, Nat, has been the subject of media speculation after entertaining George Osborne and Peter Mandelson on the oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s yacht – but this family does not court publicity, preferring to operate through a network of connections behind the scenes. Indeed, Lord Rothschild rarely gives interviews, even about a subject as close to his heart as Waddesdon.
The purpose is to provide an archive and a conference centre, holding meetings on “subjects of interest to mankind, such as climate change, the environment, the Middle East, investment. Ten years ago I held a conference with Warren Buffet and people were queuing to come. I intend to do more of those, perhaps with the Saïd Business School at Oxford.
Lord Rothschild: My manor from heaven.
Now, it is significantly, the very last paragraph of this which is of immense interest and very telling. You see, the conference old Jacob refers to which he held 10 years ago is that conference at Waddesdon Manor which Arnold Schwarzenegger attended shortly before running for Governor of California. Furthermore, even more telling is the transcript of that meeting which was reported in the Times shortly thereafter. It was this:
Read it ( They knew! ) and recognise that these bastards not only knew what was coming but they planned it years before while the British Government (yes, even the UK chancellor, Alistair Darling, suggested he did not see the financial crash coming until 2007/2008. If not, then he was never obviously, “in the know”. You see, the Labour party (the left wing of the bird) pumped the bubble up (Tony and Gordon knew exactly what they had to do) and the right wing of the same bird (you see they are both run by the same people at the top) then imposes the austerity while there is no need for a national debt in the first place! See previous blogs on this proving it!
And lastly, Charlie linking up with the Rothschilds to invest in the very scam they preach is necessary to “SAVE THE WORLD”.
Charles’ Rothschild links and the screwing of a nation.
I mean, my apologies to those of you who still can’t quite grasp this but you must be as thick as dog shit not to understand what is and has been going on here for a very long time!
There was a reason I rewrote this song. Tongue in cheek yes but absolutely true nevertheless:
National Geographic: Who owns the moon? Could Richard Branson?
You may think this is crazy but just you watch!
Bilderberg & The Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1954
Direct evidence of Bilderberg agents in the British Government subverting the value of our currency and covering up the “swindle” that the “Private Interests” (Rothschild, Rockefeller and crew in collaboration with European and British monarchy) have perpetrated on not just the UK but the entire globe.
Not exactly the “Great Rock & Roll Swindle” but,
The GREAT ROCK AND ROTH SWINDLE
First we listen to Dennis Healey!
‘Uniting the West’ – by Denis Healey (extract)
From his autobiography ‘The Time of My Life’. Published by Penguin, 1989.
Dennis Healey - Bilderberger
Before long a benign providence developed another mechanism for assisting impecunious European socialists to learn something of the outside world – the international conference. Konigswinter performed this function for Germany. The Council of Europe covered Western Europe as a whole. The NATO Parliamentarians Conference brought politicians from Europe, the United States, and Canada together once a year. Before long there was also an annual meeting in Bermuda of British MP’s and members of Congress. Then the great American foundations of Ford and Rockefeller took a hand. There was a proliferation of cultural conferences in all parts of the world, including the Congress for Cultural Freedom, where I could meet people less directly involved in politics such as the poet Stephen Spender, the philosopher Raymond Aron, and the novelist Mary McCarthy. I later discovered that the Congress for Cultural Freedom, like Encounter magazine, was financed by the CIA; both nevertheless made a useful contribution to the quality of Western life at that time.
Of all these meetings, the most valuable to me while I was in opposition were the Bilderberg Conferences – so called after the Bilderberg Hotel near Arnhem, where the first was held in 1954. They were the brain-child of Joseph Retinger, a Pole who had settled in England after the Great War, married the daughter of the socialist intellectual, E.D. Morel, and worked as a secretary to Joseph Conrad, another Polish ex-patriate.
Retinger was a small wizened man, with a pince-nez on a wrinkled brown face. He was crippled by polio. During the war he had been an aide to General Sikorski, and despite his extreme physical disability was parachuted into Poland to make contact with the Home Army. After the war he organised the Congress of the Hague, which launched the European Movement. Convinced of the need for a similar forum to strengthen unity between Europe and North America, he approached Hugh Gaitskell, General Colin Gubbins, who had commanded SOE during the war, and several leading politicians and businessmen who were concerned to strengthen Atlantic cooperation. They asked Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to act as Chairman, because they rightly thought it would be difficult to find a politician whose objectivity would be above suspicion, and who could call Cabinet ministers from any country to order without causing offence.
I was invited to the first meeting and later acted as convener of the British who attended; Reggie Maudling and I were the British members of the Steering Committee. Retinger and his successor, the Dutch Socialist Ernst van der Beughel, who later became Chairman of KLM, were extraordinarily successful in persuading busy men to give up a weekend for private discussions, though they found it more difficult to attract ministers than politicians out of office.
The Bilderberg conferences inevitably aroused jealousy, because they were exclusive, and suspicion, because they were private. In America they were attacked as a left-wing plot to subvert the United States, in Europe as a capitalist plot to undermine socialism. They were neither. Immense care was taken to invite a fair balance from all political parties, and to include trade unionists as well as businessmen. Though the discussions were more carefully prepared than at many such meetings – I myself wrote a paper for most conferences – their real value, as always, was in the personal contacts made outside the conference hall. Industrialists like Gianni Agnelli and Otto Wolf von Amerongen had to listen to socialists and trade unionists – and vice versa. Experience has taught me that lack of understanding is the main cause of all evil in public affairs – as in private life. Nothing is more likely to produce understanding than the sort of personal contact which involves people not just as officials or representatives, but also as human beings.
Next, we turn to Parliamentary Archive minutes from 1958:
FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE
§ 10.3 p.m.
§Mr. John Cronin(Loughborough)
John Cronin MP (1916 -1989)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Fiduciary Note Issue (Extension of Period) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 326), dated 28th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be annulled.I think that it would be of some value if I said a word or two about the nature of the Order, because it is not absolutely obvious at first glance. The House will recollect that before the war the note issue consisted of two varieties; one backed by the gold coin and bullion held in the issue department of the Bank of England, and the other backed merely by Government securities, and known as the fiduciary issue.With the advent of the war, the gold coin and bullion were very largely transferred to the Exchange Equalisation Account and, as a consequence, the whole of the note issue was, for all practical purposes, the fiduciary issue. There is, as I am sure the Paymaster-General will agree, a small part of the note issue that is still backed by gold coin and bullion, but that amounts only to about £400,000, as compared with the £2,000 million, roughly, of the full note issue.
This Order refers to the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1954.
PLEASE NOTE THE YEAR OF THE ACT. 1954, the same year Bilderberg first convened.
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
Mr Cronin continues:
It is interesting to notice the trend of the note issue. Although fixed at £1,575 million in February, 1954, when the Currency and Bank Notes Act received the Royal Assent, it increased and continued to remain at an increased level ever since the month after that Act received the Royal Assent. It was formally fixed by the Treasury on 22nd January at £2,000 million, which is nearly £500 million more than was originally intended by the Act.
1161 The effect of annulling this Order would, at first sight, seem to be that it would require the withdrawal of £500 million from circulation. I see that the Paymaster-General nods assent, but I do not think that that is quite correct, because I believe that the Government have full powers to restore gold coin and bullion from the Exchange Equalisation Account back to the issue department of the Bank of England, and, therefore, to increase the note issue based on gold coin and bullion to a very large extent.
I mention this only because the obvious purpose of this Motion is to receive certain assurances and the answers to certain questions from the Paymaster-General, but, at the same time, I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that, if his assurances are unsatisfactory, I shall hesitate to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House. I should say, en passant, that I am very pleased to see the Paymaster-General in his place. I believe that he has made a rather arduous train journey to be here.
And WHO is the Paymaster General during those years?
Reginald Maudling!
I am fully aware of the fact that modern economic thought tends to place more emphasis on bank advances than on the actual notes in circulation, but I do not think that notes in circulation should be completely ignored; and that has rather been the tendency. The actual note issue is a very useful gauge of inflation. It is worth pointing out that the note issue in 1946 was £1,332 million, on the average, and that in 1951 it had actually decreased to £1,291 million, but that since then it has gone up enormously. The reason was that, under the Labour Government, inflation was largely due to external causes, and under the present Government we cannot quite adopt the same explanation.
Now this is where it gets really interesting:
Mr. Niall MacDermot(Lewisham, North)
I beg to second the Motion.
I should like, first, to express the gratitude which I am sure we all feel for the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) in moving the Motion and giving us the first opportunity since the Act was passed, in 1954, to discuss in the House the fiduciary note issue. The Act provides the machinery whereby the state and level of the issue can be discussed once every two years. When the opportunity arose last, in 1956, there was no Motion of this character, and the large increase in the fiduciary issue passed by without discussion at all.
I understand that it was the object of the provision in the Act to increase to some extent at least the degree of Parliamentary supervision and control over the fiduciary issue.
I confess I find that any belief that there is any kind of Parliamentary control is illusory. My hon. Friend has suggested that if this Order were annulled the Government could retrieve the situation by transferring the bullion from the Exchange Equalisation Fund back to the vaults of the Bank of England. I doubt whether that is a practical measure. The Minister is able to sit with an air of calm confidence on the Government Front Bench in the knowledge that this House would probably not dare, whatever it might feel, to annul the Order for the simple reason that it would plunge the country into economic and financial chaos. We are blackmailed, in a sense, into accepting the status quo. All we can do is to seek to review what is happening and to discuss the position.
It is through the fiduciary issue that, according to orthodox economic ideas, it is possible primarily to control the supply of money. I see a puzzled expression appearing on the Minister’s face. I do not profess to have his economic ability or knowledge, but in the most elementary researches that I have made into the science of economics, I have understood from the beginning that the control of the quantity of bank credit ultimately rests on the fiduciary issue, because the limitation on the amount of credit which the banks can create at any moment is the necessity for them to preserve their cash ratio, which, before the war, was 10 per cent. and is now about 8 per cent.
In fact, any belief that it is possible effectively to control the quantity of bank credit in that way is, again, illusory. The reason is that in an inflationary situation, where there is a demand for more cash, more notes and more coinage, it is impossible for the Government to say, “We refuse to print any more money”, because, owing to the structure of our financial situation, if they attempted to do that when there was a real need and demand for that money, it would again provoke a financial crisis.
In an inflationary situation in which wages are rising and increased quantities of bank notes have to be drawn out of the banks every Thursday or Friday to pay the wages of millions of people on the following pay day, if the Government said, “We are so fed up with this inflation. We shall print no more bank notes or allow the Bank of England to issue them.”, there would be a panic situation and there would be, in effect, a run on the banks to try to obtain the cash which is being limited. The whole of our financial system, built up as it is on the structure of bank credit, has as its Achilles heel the fact that no action can be taken which might in any way provoke a run on the banks.
It is for this reason that I would like briefly to review the fiduciary issue and to consider what is and what is not the amount of control, either by Parliament or by the Government, which exists over the volume of money. The total volume of money consists, first, of the actual cash, that is to say, bank notes and coinage, and, secondly, of bank credit. And, of course, bank credit or bank deposits represent far the larger quantity of our total money. The fiduciary issue, the actual cash in circulation, represents only about one-quarter of our total money. Bank deposits at the moment are around £6,000 million and the fiduciary issue is about £2,000 million.
It is interesting to compare the prewar figures. In 1939, the total was only about £2,000 million, of which the fiduciary issue represented about £600 million. That is the measure of the inflation. What kind of control is there, either legally or in fact, over the quantity of this expansion of bank money which has taken place since 1939, so that we now have bank money of the order of £6,000 million where before the war it was some £1,500 million?
As I have said, in theory there is the control of the fiduciary issue but, as I have pointed out, that is not a practical control. There is also the control that the banks have to preserve their liquidity ratio, which is about 30 per cent. and which, according to their own practice, they find is a wise and prudent measure. Again, indirectly it is said that the Government have a measure of control over that, since a very large part of the liquid assets of the banks consist of Government securities, above all in the form of the floating debt.
Again, we may question the extent to which, particularly in an inflationary situation, the Government, from a practical point of view, are able to limit the floating debt in a way which would enable them effectively to control at all the supply of money by that means. What is significant is that there is no direct legal way in which the Government can compel the banks to maintain their advances or their deposits at any given level. This is, apparently, the official advice given to the Government, and this was confirmed by the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) at the time of our debate on the alleged Bank Rate leak. He said that the Government … had also agreed at that time to limit bank advances over the next twelve months to the same level as the previous year’s… An operation such as that upon which we were engaged would have been impossible without seeing the clearing bankers.
The right hon. Gentleman was explaining why he had called them in to consult them. He went on: There is no legislation which can order the level of their advances.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 864.]
I think that the advice given to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct and that there is no legal way in which the Government can control the level of advances.
I find it a remarkable state of affairs that not only this Parliament, but also the Government of the day have no legal way of controlling the level of what constitutes three-quarters of the volume of our money in this country. It is a remarkable surrender to private interests of something which derives originally from the Royal prerogative, and I should have thought would have been of the very essence of executive power.
When we turn to the fiduciary issue itself, with which this Order is directly concerned, there is some legal power in the Government, but, again, it is remarkably restricted. The position is that the Bank of England is limited, as my hon. Friend pointed out, to the figure of £1,575 million, except to the extent that it is authorised by Treasury directions to increase the fiduciary issue beyond that amount for periods of six months at a time.
What is significant is that the Treasury can issue such directions only if it has received representations from the Bank of England. It cannot take the initiative for an increase itself. Equally, the Treasury can alter the amount of the fiduciary issue only to the extent that it is created by the Bank of England. We have not only initiative but control lying with the Bank of England, which is a body independent of the Government. Even when we are dealing with the fiduciary issue, there is only a limited and indirect control by the Government.
[So much for the idea that the Bank of England 1946 Act transfered ownership of the Bank of England to the Treasury! People should seriously read that Act and see the issue for themselves]
It is time for us to review very carefully whether there is proper and adequate machinery for controlling the volume of money. I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough about the need for further information about the velocity of circulation, because in so far as it is possible to help towards a solution of the problem of inflation by controlling the supply of money that can be done only if we know a great deal more than we do now about the velocity of circulation.
We need to go further than that and to investigate the machinery of control and the machinery of issue, the machinery by which money is created. My hon. Friend made a valid point when he asked the right hon. Gentleman how the profit which derives to the Government when there is an increase in the fiduciary issue is shown in the accounts. Of course, there is such a profit—if that is the right term to use—and it is very right and proper that the benefit which arises when money is created should accrue to the Government, that is to say, accrue to the public at large through public expenditure.
[I have to admit I do not see how there is a profit from increasing the fiduciary issue]
If the volume of money is increased by, say, £500 million, whoever first has that £500 million to spend is getting something for nothing, something for the mere cost of printing the money. It stands to reason that if there is to be an increase that benefit must accrue to someone. It is precisely because a person who first spends new money gets something for nothing that it is a criminal offence for a counterfeiter to forge money.
One of the criticisms which is to be levelled against our present financial system is that as to three-quarters of our money, namely, the money which is created in the form of bank credit, that benefit accrues to private individuals, the persons who borrow the money, and to the banks by way of interest. The country at large does not benefit as it would if that money were created directly by the Government, either through increasing the fiduciary issue, or by whatever other system was adopted.
Secondly, by allowing three-quarters of our money to be created in this way by the banking system, the amount of money that is increased in that way carries with it into perpetuity, so long as bank deposits and bank advances remain the same, the heavy burden of interest, a burden which, under the policies adopted by the Government, is a very heavy burden, indeed. Where that money is created and loaned to the Government, that burden is borne by the taxpayer. Where it is created and loaned to private borrowers, that burden is paid by the private borrowers and borne in general by the economy of the community.
It does not appear to me to be right in principle, or for any other reason, that if it be necessary to expand the supply of money under our expanding economy, that we should be forced to pay a levy, as it were, to the banking system in the form of these interest charges on the new money which is created in that way.
Above all, the complaint that I make about our existing system is that there is a completely divided responsibility between the banking system and the Government. It appears to me that in a matter of this character the responsibility ought to rest fairly and squarely upon the Government, as should the power to discharge that responsibility. Under the present system, which we have the opportunity to discuss tonight, through the machinery of the debate upon this Order, the power does not exist in the Government, and such control as they have is extremely limited.
Now before continuing with the response to this, a quick view of who is responding:
Major-General Sir Henry Joseph “Harry” d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, 2nd BaronetDSO, MC, DL, TD (10 June 1909 – 11 December 1976), was a British army officer, company director and politician.
Henry d Avigdor Goldsmid - One of the Rothschild Mafia.
Following the Second World War, d’Avigdor-Goldsmid left the army and became a member of Kent County Council from 1946 to 1953. He was made a Freeman of the City of London and became a Justice of the Peace, Deputy Lieutenant (1949) and High Sheriff of Kent for 1953. His business career as a banker and bullion broker was marked by being Chairman of the Anglo-Israel Bank from 1961, and Chairman of Pergamon Press from 1969 to 1971.
What is missed from this profile but which is a rather obvious fact, is the Goldsmid’s are Jewish.
Sir Henry d’Avigdor-Goldsmid(Walsall, South)
The House, and especially hon. Members on this side, ought to be very grateful to the hon. Members for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) for the sparkling exposition of Socialist economics to which we have had the opportunity of listening for the last 35 minutes.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North was not in his usual form, as he spoke for only 20 minutes instead of 45. Nevertheless, he achieved the same impenetrability of thought in 20 minutes as he has done on previous occasions. I could not help feeling, as I saw the smiling face of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), that he and his two hon. Friends will probably form the Treasury Bench of the future. There is the Chancellor, and there, behind him, are the Financial and Economic Secretaries—or perhaps I should say the Nervo and Knox of the Crazy Gang, who no doubt look forward to the time when they will occupy the Government benches.
Nobody can say that the country has not been warned. My goodness! I hope that this debate will go down in our history. We have been here for only 35 minutes, but during that time the world of truth has been more disturbed and muddied than in any other 35 minutes for which I have sat in this House. I do not propose to add to the confusion.
If those interested in the question of the fiduciary issue will consult two rather interesting tables in the Monthly Statistical Digest, which is available in the Library, they will see that Table 139 includes the average estimated circulation with the public and Table 161 includes details of wages and salaries, and that there is a direct co-relation between the total of wages and salaries and the total of money with the public.
That is not surprising. That is what the fiduciary issue is for. It has no more relevance to the financial state of this nation than the amount of money hon. Members carry about in their pockets in order to pay for their lunches. Some hon. Members opposite like to have lunch at the Savoy, and carry large sums of money with them, while others prefer bacon and eggs and carry smaller sums. That fact has no greater relation to the financial state of the nation than has the fiduciary issue.
If the fiduciary issue were to be reduced we should be taken back to the unhappy days of 1920. It was considered to be the financial salvation of this country, after the 1914–18 War, to reduce the fiduciary issue, and that reduction, under Lord Cunliffe’s direction, produced the greatest deflation that this country has ever known. If hon. Members are considering something in those terms they should look at our economic history more closely than they have—and, my goodness, they have not looked at it very closely.
If they reduce the fiduciary issue the result will be that the clearing banks will have to draw on their balances at the Bank of England. One thing that was not mentioned by either the hon. Member for Loughborough or the hon. Member for Lewisham, North is that the clearing banks have to keep balances at the Bank of England, and draw on them in order to meet their needs. The net result of reducing the fiduciary issue would be that the Bank of England would be unable to meet its obligations. That, to my mind, is a perfect example of what would be produced by Socialistic economies carried to their logical conclusion. It has been particularly pleasant to me to hear this logical, interesting and fascinating exposition of the way in which the party opposite propose to conduct the fortunes of this country.
Now, do you recognise the unmistakable “strawman” argument, the put-downs and the sheer evasion and arrogance of the Jew? It is the usual strategy. The well worn one we have all become so used to. The hubris.
Let’s just take a breather on the money issue for a moment and see where else this name, Major Sir Henry J. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, could lead:
“In any case, the people who have been accused of running the Cold War through means of drug trafficking, arms trade, false flag terrorist attacks and coups, coincidentally also seem to be at the core of pedophile entrapment networks.
- That there’s also a clear pattern in international accusations of a cover up in child abuse networks when looking at the liberal establishment. Let’s take Bilderberg. From the United States there has been at least one accusation against Kissinger, together with David Rockefeller the most key person in the Bilderberg meetings. In 2003 the Casa Pia child abuse scandal was linked to a politician invited to Bilderberg. But we can do better than that. In the Belgian X-Dossiers, Bilderberg chairman Etienne Davignon, the European pillar of the Bilderberg group and a good friend of Kissinger, was named as a child abuser. So have the Lippens brothers on half a dozen occassions. Leopold Lippens has been a long-time member of the 1001 Club. Maurice Lippens, a close friend of Davignon, regularly goes to Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission. He is among those accused of having participated in hunts on children, in this case at Chateau de Chimay. Looking at accusations of a cover-up in the Netherlands, they are focused around the royal family, which of course has always been involved in Bilderberg. ISGP reported on a lawyer for the royal family, Prince Claus and a member of an aristocratic family who sits on the Prince Bernhard Culture Fund. However, information received privately indicates that Prince Bernhard himself was involved with the ritual abuse cult of 300 upper class Dutchmen that was briefly mentioned in the X-Dossiers. If the prince himself participated was unclear. The origin of this network may well be the CIA again. In 1959 an officer of Dutch intelligence, who was very close to Brian Crozier and Le Cercle, went to visit the Human Ecology Foundation, a CIA front for MK-ULTRA. In response he set up a Dutch branch of this foundation, financed by major Dutch multinationals.
Looking at the multinationals, their chairmen were all members of Prince Bernhard’s very secret “Tie Club”, set up in the early 1950s. This club also involved Bernhard’s good friend General Walter Bedell Smith, a CIA director and Pilgrims excutive. This may possibly explain the origins of this ritual abuse cult in the Netherlands. But in any case, also in the Netherlands the accusations point right to the Bilderberg crowd, as they do in Belgium.
Then in 2008 we had the Haut de la Garenne case on Jersey, one of the channel islands. Haut de la Garenne was a large children’s home on the island and as it turns out, a very notorious one among children who went there. Abuse in all forms was rampant. Reportedly up to 150 victim-witnesses reported to the police of having been abused there, but not much came of the investigation after key investigators had been replaced (as had happened with the X-Dossiers). One name leaked, because this person had been dead for decades: Senator Wilfred Krichefski. Let’s take a look at the newspaper archives in this case and mention a few sources: September 10, 1962, The Times, ‘New Investment Trust for Jersey’:
“The International Investment Trust Company of Jersey … Its chairman is Major Sir Henry J. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, M.P., who is chairman of the Anglo Israel Bank Ltd. … On its board are the Hon. N. C. Jacob Rothschild, of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, G. C. Karlweiss, a director of La Compagnie Financiere [de Edmond de Rothschild], Paris [and later chair of Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild], J. Pembroke, president of the Royal Trust Company, H. M. Robinow, a director of Barro Equities Ltd. and associated companies, and two Jersey company directors, Senator W. H. Krichefski, a member of the States’ Assembly, and Mr. R. R. Jeune, a sollicitator of the Royal Court.”
And another article: July 10, 1972, The Times, Business appointments:
“Following the acquisition by Star Investments Finance (Jersey) and Drayton Securities (Jersey) of a one-third interest each in Jersey International Bank of Commerce the board will comprise of: Senator W. H. Krichefski, Mr. C. H. Barclay … Mr. R. R. Jeune, … Mr. Philip Shelbourne [of Rothschilds, Drayton and Samuel Montagu]…” Interesting, so Krichefski was the premier business partner of the British and French Rothschilds on the island, as well as person who reportedly managed some of the queen’s investments (Shelbourne at Drayton). And both Clifford Barclay and Philip Shelbourne were Pilgrims. R. R. Jeune sounds familiar too. That’s Robert Reginald Jeune, a leading senator in the 1970s and 1980s and a good friend of Krichefski. And although Jeune wasn’t officially accused, he just happened to work at the Haut de la Garenne home where Krichefski, according to at least one victim-witness, went to rape boys. That’s not all. Jeune was a partner in Mourant du Feu & Jeune, one of the world’s largest offshore law firms with clients as Rothschilds, Warburg, Barings and other major English banks. In the 1970s he was a director of Warburg Investment Management Jersey and of S.G. Warburg & Co., headed at the time by the leading Pilgrims Society member Lord Eric Roll. Roll joined Kissinger Associates in 1984 and became Bilderberg chairman in 1985. Both the British and American branches of the Warburg family have been Pilgrims too. In other words, Krichefski and Jeune were closely tied to the liberal establishent.
- That there’s also a clear pattern in international accusations of a cover up in child abuse networks when looking at the Zionist establishment. Krichefski and Jeune obviously were closely working with the Rothschilds and Warburg, while Krichefski was the leading Jewish fundraiser on the island. Add to that d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, chairman of the Anglo Israel Bank Ltd. (Bank Leumi), and Israel comes even closer into the picture. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid was also chairman of Pergamon Press from 1969 to 1971, the firm of the constroversial Robert Maxwell who quite obviously worked with the Mossad (and was in contact with the CIA-backed, Japanese fascist, Moonie backer, WACL ally and Yakuza kingpin Ryoichi Sasakawa). Belgian dossiers actually provide a direct link between Bank Leumi and the Mossad. CEO of the Belgian branch of Bank Leumi in the 1980s was Rami Weinbaum, a “former” agent of the Mossad. Weinbaum was deeply involved in the criminal circuit and ordered at least one assassination. Because of a prominent Jewish community in Antwerp, Belgian dossiers provide many additional links to Mossad/Zionist operatives who work with criminals and the Russian mafia. Some of these Jews/Zionists (Mossad) have worked closely with Belgian establishment officials accused of child abuse and working for the CIA. The ASCO firm of Roger Boas, for example, had Israeli General Efraim Poran on its board while the Israeli Abraham Shavit was acting as Boas’ “right hand”. Poran was a military liaison officer for prime ministers Menachem Begin (1977-1983), Shamir (1983-1984) and Yitzchak Rabin (1974-1977 and 1992-1995). Shavit was described in a document as a “personal friend” of Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin. This same document reported that the bank of Jewish banker Edmond Safra (1001 Club, like a number of other Zionist/Mossad operatives) was used by the Mossad, Shavit, Roger Boas and Paul vanden Boeynants for money laundering. This is all interesting, because vanden Boeynants was a close friend of Boas (and Baron de Bonvoisin) and has been accused of child abuse by various witnesses. Furthermore, one X-Dossier victim-witness pointed the detectives to the ASCO factory, claiming that she and other victims had regularly been taken to this place for abuse. She gave a list of names and remembered that the owner of the company was called “Roger”. Also, she stated that a snuff room had been operated here. If that is not enough, ASCO was involved in Iran-Contra (arms) and so was apparently was vanden Boeynants (drug trafficking). And so there are other close links between Zionism and child abuse. “Nebula leader” Felix Przedborski, for example, protected by a team of “retired” Mossad agents in his operations, was a member of Cercle des Nations, ran by the child abusing, CIA-backed Opus Dei elite in Belgium (vanden Boeynants, de Bonvoisin and others). Another questionable Belgian Jew, Pierre Salik, was a friend of Przedborski and of the Neijman family, which ran Geoffrey’s Bank and illegally sold arms to Idi Amin and other questionable regimes. The Neijmans in turn were known friends of Roy Cohn, who was working with the CIA and accused of running a pedophile entrapment network (not to mention that he was on the board of Permindex). Salik reportedly worked with the Mossad. And so there are a number of other hints that there’s a Mossad/Zionist aspect to every illegal operation the CIA is running. But we already know that, of course, from Iran-Contra.”
So, back to the money issue:
I should not have intervened in this debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid). He is the last person in the world who should stand up and criticise the speeches of my hon. Friends. We on this side of the House regard him as a buffoon. If it comes to throwing insults across the Floor of the House, he is the last person who is qualified so to do.
We shall look forward with interest to the speech of the Paymaster-General who, we hope, will explain why it is necessary that this Order should be made. I do not claim to be an economic expert, but I understand that this Order relates to the currency in bank notes in 1954, when it was laid down that the fiduciary issue should be £1,575 million. Since then Statutory Instruments have been applied, one in 1956, to increase this amount to £1,765 million; and I understand that by this Order this sum goes up by over £400 million.
A humble person like myself cannot be expected to be an expert, but it seems to me that over the last few years there have been several hundred millions of pounds required from the point of view of the fiduciary issues. That is an indication that there is a great deal more money in the country, so we hear the ominous word, “inflation.” One has the right to ask the Paymaster-General—
rose—
No I do not intend to give way. I do not see why I should extend to the hon. Gentleman a courtesy which he was not prepared to extend to my hon. Friend. He must learn that if he starts throwing insults about in the House he will get something back. He is not qualified to refer to my hon. Friends in the manner in which he did.
Knowing both my hon. Friends very well, I can say that their knowledge in these matters is just as good as that of the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In my view, it would not have to be all that brilliant to be equal to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge. He may be well-known in the City, and as a financier, but that does not mean that he has all the experience.
Other people can study this matter and learn about it without actually being involved in the swindle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Swindle?"] I withdraw that word. The trouble is that when an hon. Member makes the sort of speech which was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South other hon. Members may be expected to lose their tempers. We shall want to know a great deal more about this matter before agreeing to the Order.
Reference has been made to the balances at the Bank of England which stand against the fiduciary issues. Some years ago there was something called the profit on the fiduciary issues, which was the profit drawn from the bank balances at the Bank of England. May we know what has happened to that old fiduciary profit? The figure may be about £120 million. On looking through the accounts, it is difficult to see where is that profit. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to answer it at this stage, but I would be most interested to know at some later stage the answer to that question.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling)
Reginald Maudling - Bilderberg Steering Committee
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) has certainly asked a complicated question. I must say that in these matters one always feels that accountancy sometimes hides things, though not so well as might appear. Any profit which the Bank of England may obtain from holding Government securities is, of course, a bogus profit, because it is only the interest that the Government pay themselves. Therefore, it may in this instance turn out to be self-destroying.
So far as the effects of this Prayer are concerned, I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid) that they would be rather disastrous. Though the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who moved the Motion, said that we might move more gold bullion across from the equalisation account, I think he knows perfectly well that no one would dream of rejecting this Order. It would simply create chaos to do so.
The purpose of the Order, of course, is to extend for another two years the powers of the Treasury to increase by direction the amount of the fiduciary issue over the £1,575 million laid down in the Act of 1954. I do not think there will be any challenge from either side regarding the fact that the Treasury must have this power.
The real question appears to be what is the economic significance of the fiduciary issue. In other words, what is the economic significance of the note circulation? My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South made the main point when he pointed out that the circulation of bank notes has, roughly speaking, increased pretty well proportionately with the national product and with personal incomes. As people have more money, they tend to hold the same proportion of their money in the form of cash.
With respect to hon. Members opposite, I think they have failed to distinguish between money and cash. If we look at the pressure of inflation, it is important to note that the total volume of cash is almost certainly a percentage of the volume of money.
§Mr. Cronin The right hon. Gentleman would agree that the volume of notes in circulation is roughly about one-third of the total of effective money. I do not think one can ignore one-third of that total.
§Mr. Maudling That is the point I was making, that the volume of cash is normally a percentage of the volume of money.
I think the hon. Gentleman was a little off beam. It is the volume of deposits and not the volume of the note circulation with which people are concerned, and, therefore, it is not relevant to this issue. Surely a bank note is a Government security. It is a non-interest bearing security. Therefore, from the point of view of the Treasury, the bank note is rather a useful thing to have in circulation.
The answer about the profit on the note issue—”profit” is the wrong word—is that the issue of notes represents the issue of Government securities, Treasury bills or long-term Government securities, and appears in the national accounts on that basis. Bank notes, of course, are non-interest bearing.
That leads me to the main point I want to make, that the volume of notes in circulation is entirely determined by the demand for those notes on the part of the public. Clearly, if people want bank notes they must be entitled to have them to the extent to which they own that amount of money. If people have an amount of money at the bank, they must be able to draw bank notes to the value of that money if they so desire. Therefore, the Treasury and the Bank of England must meet the demand for bank notes. No one could envisage trying to control the volume of money by saying that people who want to withdraw money from the bank should not be able to obtain bank notes to the value of that money.
There must be sufficient notes in circulation, therefore, to meet the demand. The Treasury cannot increase the number of notes in circulation beyond the demand, because no one wants to hold Government securities in the form of bank notes which are not interest-bearing securities. Therefore, on either count, it seems to me that the volume of bank notes in issue is entirely determined by the demand for bank notes and by nothing else.
It really has to be handed to these gits, they are brilliant at the slight of hand and the slippery evasion technique. Maudling turns the core issue of currency issue being in private hands into a secondary (and forgotten) issue by saying “because no one wants to hold Government securities in the form of bank notes which are not interest-bearing securities.”
Yet what absolutely sickens me is that their evasion is so obvious. As with the criminal corrupt lot today, they can only possibly get away with it because they are seen as the “higher echelon” of the political pyramid. There is no other logical explanation for the ease with which they manouevre so obviously.
Macmillan appointed Maudling to the post of Paymaster General and spokesman in the House of Commons for the Ministry of Fuel and Power, which was technically a demotion. Nine months later, Maudling had proved his usefulness and Macmillan brought him into the Cabinet (17 September 1957) where he acted more as a Minister without Portfolio: he had specific responsibility for persuading the six members of the embryonic European Economic Community, who had recently signed the Treaty of Rome, to abandon their proposal for a customs union in favour of a wider free-trade area where each country would preserve their own external tariffs. However, Maudling’s lack of international experience led him to underestimate the importance of the nascent Community and what was constructive in it. Faced with widespread rejection of the proposals, Maudling aroused hostility in Bonn and Paris by seeking to play off the Germans against the French. On 14 November 1958, six months after the election of General de Gaulle, Jacques Soustelle, the French Minister of Information, confirmed to the Press that France would reject the Maudling plan. Two days later, the British delegation to the Community formally called an end to accession negotiations. Maudling later revised his proposals which were to form the basis of the European Free Trade Association.
Meanwhile Maudling became an underwriting member of Lloyd’s of London in December 1957, although his assets were somewhat below average for other ‘names’.
In 1972 Maudling’s business activities were causing considerable disquiet and speculation in the press. In 1966, he had obtained a directorship in the company of John Poulson, an architect Maudling helped obtain lucrative contracts. Poulson routinely did business through bribery and in 1972 was made bankrupt. The bankruptcy hearings disclosed his bribe payments, and Maudling’s connection became public knowledge. Maudling came to the decision that his responsibility for the Metropolitan Police, which was beginning fraud investigations into Poulson, made his position as Home Secretary untenable. He resigned on 18 July, to general sympathy from the press. Shortly after receiving Maudling’s resignation Edward Heath’s government performed a ‘U-turn’ on economic policy and subsequently adopted an approach strikingly similar to Maudling’s.
Heath advised Maudling not to drop out of the public eye and he continued to make many media appearances. In the year after the Conservative Party’s electoral defeat in 1974, Heath was replaced as leader by Margaret Thatcher. She appointed Maudling to the post of Shadow Foreign Secretary. However, Maudling clashed with Thatcher over economics, and was dismissed on 19 November 1976. Maudling then openly attacked the monetarist economic theory she had adopted.
In 1969, he had been President of the Real Estate Fund of America, whose Chief Executive had been imprisoned for fraud; Maudling had also been an adviser to the Peachey Property Corporation, whose Chairman Sir Eric Miller had embezzled company money and later committed suicide. In addition Maudling was revealed to have lobbied for more aid to Malta after obtaining a commission for Poulson there which had led to heavy losses to the Maltese government. These further revelations led to a Parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of Maudling and two other MPs linked to Poulson. This inquiry published its report on 14 July 1977; the report concluded that Maudling had indulged in “conduct inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its members”.
When the report was considered by the House of Commons, the Conservative Party organised its MPs to attend the debate to “Save Reggie”. An amendment was put down to merely “take note” of the report, instead of endorsing it, and carried by 230 votes (211 Conservatives, 17 Labour, 2 Liberals and 2 Ulster Unionists) to 207. No punishment was imposed. An attempt by back-bench Labour MPs to expel Maudling from the House was defeated by 331 votes to 11, and a move to suspend him for six months was lost by 324 to 97.
As Lewis Baston’s 2004 biography recounts, Maudling and his wife became heavy drinkers once his political career was effectively ended by the scandal. The drinking turned to alcoholism and Maudling’s health rapidly deteriorated in the late 1970s.
In early 1979 he collapsed and there were fears his treatment would be hindered by the strikes in the “Winter of Discontent”. He died on 14 February of cirrhosis of the liver and kidney failure in the Royal Free Hospital at the age of 61.
He is buried in the churchyard of the Hertfordshire village of Little Berkhamstead, where a stone seat from the Maudlings’ garden has been placed beside the grave.
Awwwww…. Poor old Reggie! Cunt!
John Cronin died on 3 January 1986 whilst out riding in the New Forest in Hampshire. In the late afternoon his horse returned home without him: it was feared he might have been thrown and that he could be lying badly injured in freezing weather conditions. The Forest Verderers were sent out and found him dead on a forest path, not far from his home at Stoney Cross. A post mortem later found that he had died of a massive heart attack and stroke. His funeral was held at Minstead Church and Sir Ernie Harrison, Chairman of Racal and a close friend of Cronin’s, made a valedictory speech from the pulpit during the service. Cronin lies buried in Minstead Church graveyard.
From Niall MacDermot’s obituary by Tam Dalyell:
At the dispatch-box of the House of Commons Niall MacDermot was the most sure-footed, on-top-of-the- job, confidence-inspiring ministerial performer of all the talented 1964 Labour government, cabinet members included. In hour after hour of the Financial Bill, then taken on the floor of the House (it was MacDermot – in the crucial role of Financial Secretary to the Treasury – who initiated the pressure to have the Finance Bill taken upstairs on the Committee corridor), I never saw him caught out or made to look silly. On the contrary, not even the for- midably clever ex-Chancellor Reggie Maudling or Iain MacLeod, himself a superb parliamentary performer, were keen to get into a fandangle with MacDermot.
Why he was not promoted to the Cabinet at an early stage, I do not know. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else now alive, with the possible exception of James Callaghan, who shrewdly insisted on having MacDermot as his Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1964. But both Wilson, who saw conspiracy all too easily, and Richard Crossman, an ex-Intelligence operator himself, but deeply sceptical of MI5, were united in believing that MacDermot was “compromised on security grounds”.
obituary-niall-macdermot-1321310.html
Too much of a threat to the money power maybe? Just maybe?
The Bilderberg/Rothschild crew strike again!
So now we have the money issue admitted to by individuals as diverse as Captain Henry Kerby, Ben Bernanke, Senator Mark Kirk, Niall MacDermot and Lord Sudeley and others but the world just ain’t listening!
But just one last OBVIOUS point for all the “Royalists” out there:
How is it that it is all the top Cabinet brass and Lords of the utmost significance, throughout the decades/centuries, who justify and protect the currency issuance question (the vast majority of them Knighted and Privy Counsellors) IF her Majestic bitch isn’t involved?
The Matrix
Another little glimpse into the matrix for those who have the ability to see it.
The simplicity is so stunningly obvious it is painful that most people cannot grasp it!
Do you wish to "see" it or don't you?
1. The power to borrow: Now think, not too hard because it is staring you right in the face. If the treasury needs the “power to borrow” what did it do BEFORE it had that power? And if it has the power to borrow, it can also give itself the power to ISSUE. So instead of issuing Treasury Bills (which are simply collaterlized IOUs with interest attached) just issue CURRENCY direct!
What IS currency? It is either paper and coin OR, 97% of it today is computer digits. Now, if you had a printing press and a mint and a computer, then WHY would you ask someone else to print, mint and type for you and pay them interest when you can do it yourself with NO interest and NO DEBT?
YES, it is THAT simple: NO NATIONAL DEBT at the stroke of a statutory pen and ink!
While, in addition to this, just read what the term “PERSON” refers to. It does not mean only you – a human being – because the word “person” is a legal term. They just then break that umbrella term of “person”, down into subsets of which the “Natural person” is just one. The “Natural person”, therefore, is itself a LEGAL concept, a LEGAL definition or term. Period! And it is that LEGAL term of “Natural person” that the LEGAL SYSTEM can only see and that is why children, or people in general, with NO birth certificate (unregistered) cannot be “conferred benefits” upon by the state because the state is, itself a LEGAL PERSON which operates in the “Matrix” legal world and you, without a birth certificate, do NOT exist in the legal world. Therefore, they seriously cannot “see” you and cannot therefore, confer benefits upon you NOR can they (the corollary of this) have you up in court answering to LEGAL STATUTES. Because if they cannot “see” you then how on earth can they then say they “see” you to make you comply? They CANNOT argue “ying” without “yang”. It is that simple.
Clause 2.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.)
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ 1.0 a.m.
§Mr. K. Robinson This Clause is, perhaps, slightly less important than Clause 1, but it is nevertheless a Clause of some importance because it gives the power to the Treasury to borrow sums up to the amount which it is to issue out of the Consolidated Fund under Clause 1. In view of what happened on Clause 1, Sir Gordon, it may be a relief 229 to you to know that I have no intention on this Clause to question the desirability of raising a loan in preference to issuing Treasury bills, nor do I intend to challenge in any way the conduct of the officials or of the Departments which will receive the Supply grants. I wish merely to elucidate certain points which arise on phrases in the Clause.
It is provided that the
Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise…I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to explain what other methods would be open and why the issue of Treasury bills is the one method which is mentioned in the Clause.We next come to an extraordinary feature of the Clause. As you reminded us earlier, Sir Gordon, this Bill arises originally from the Supplementary Estimates which were debated by the House on 5th December last. Those Supplementary Estimates were presented in two parts, the first being Vote 5, National Health Service, England and Wales, accounting for £37,665,000, the second being Vote 10, National Health Service, Scotland, accounting for £5 million. Why does the Treasury propose to borrow from the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland? This really seems most invidious. Since the Bank of England is, presumably, the appropriate institution from which to borrow for England and Wales, why should the Bank of Ireland be, by presumption, the bank from which the Treasury will borrow for meeting the costs of the National Health Service in Scotland?
§Dr. Dickson Mabon I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the further invidious feature that there is discrimination in favour of the Bank of Scotland as against the other four joint stock banks in Scotland. There is the National Bank of Scotland, and there is the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, the British Linen Bank—
§Mr. Robinson I appreciate that, Sir Gordon. I think my hon. Friend was trying to assist me.
§Mr. Reynolds On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I appreciate that the other 230 banks are not mentioned, but the Clause provides that the Treasury may borrow “from any person”, and “person” must surely include corporate bodies of one kind and another. Because the particular banks or institutions are not mentioned, may we not refer to them because they are covered by the word “person”?
The Chairman Whether “persons” includes banks is a difficult point. I should not have thought that legally it did.
§Mr. Jay Further to that point of order. Surely, for the purposes of the Clause, “persons” must include financial institutions. It would not be the normal habit of the Treasury to borrow from private persons.
§Mr. Callaghan Old-age pensioners.
§Mr. Jay The Clause must have in mind other financial institutions than the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland.
§Mr. Robinson In the absence of any clear Ruling to the contrary, we must assume that “any person” includes bodies corporate. I recall that on a recent Bill, this very point cropped up and I was assured by a Minister on behalf of the Government that “person” included a body corporate.
I do not want, however, to be drawn too far from my main point of the curious incursion of the Bank of Ireland into the Clause. It is a bank which, I presume, is not even in the Commonwealth. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that I used the phrase “Bank of Scotland” because that seemed to be the proper analogy with the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, although I know that there are many banks in Scotland and that they are all banks of great distinction.
§Mr. Manuel The “bonnie banks o’ Loch Lomon’.”
§Mr. Robinson I must not be led into the byeways of Highland song. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will enlighted us about this curious provision.
Now let’s consider one more aspect of this “matrix legal world” when it comes to this borrowing aspect:
When was personal income tax brought in? Well, at first, it was introduced to fund the war against Napoleon and that is ALL it was introduced for! So what paid for the infrastructure of the United Kingdom PRIOR to the introduction of Income Tax?
But then, once it had been introduced (initially temporarily), it was the King’s “Remembrancer” who took note of how it had worked and what the benefits to the Kingdom were. They liked what they saw!
So then, there was the nest war with Napoleon and basically, some time after that, Income Tax became standard. Why? Because the government then liked what they got out of you and they enjoyed spending it. They began to extend government and create an ever richer government while they borrowed money and used your labour (and tax receipts) as collateral for the ever increasing borrowing. Yes they spent on the country but, even before Income Tax this country was one of the world’s richest. How? Yet since they introduced an ever increasing Income tax and a progressive one, this country’s fortune has dwindled and died. Why? Because the government became fat, lazy and very very rich. All off your labour and sweat.
And how did they impose this tax legally? Well, legally, you registered to the state. Legally all Businesses were required to register to incorporate and become legal persons. They were then legally bound (registered) to advise the government on their entire operations including number of employees. You were registered to then be legally obliged to tell the government who you worked for and your income.
And the government LOVED you for it!
But here’s the “rub”: The Income Tax, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells you every April what it shall be, what so many of you don’t know is that, from the very time it was introduced as a “temporary tax” for a war, IT STILL IS TO THIS DAY!
Yes, it is:
A ‘temporary’ tax Income tax is still a ‘temporary’ tax – it expires each year on 5 April and Parliament has to reapply it by an annual Finance Act. For up to four months until the Finance Act becomes law, the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913 ensures that taxes can still be demanded.
[Addendum 5 Dec 2011: Unless I am very mistaken in my logic - and I'm not - the above clearly demonstrates something which has had "freemen" argue and debate for some time up until the present.
For those 4 months they are applying a "law" to collect taxes until the "law" to collect taxes becomes law. That is what that paragraph is saying. SO, what does that tell you? It tells you, quite plainly, that an Act is NOT law! Because what would be the point of applying a law to collect taxes until the law to collect taxes became law? It's then clear as a sheet of CR Smith window glass. An Act is NOT law!
If it were to be law then these people are mentally insane.]
And just look at that year when they introduced the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act: 1913! The year of introduction of the Federal Reserve! Don’t you just love it how Britain and America’s “watches” were so well synchronized? hahahaha
But here’s another thing: If they decided to discontinue the Temporary Income tax then how would they borrow? Answer lies in what they did BEFORE they introduced Income tax! What’s that answer? Well, it is that they generally DIDN’T borrow!
Or let’s look at it from the other angle: What if they stopped borrowing? They wouldn’t have to apply and Income tax! So one cancels the other out. Obvious isn’t it?
So if it is so obvious to you then what is so difficult to comprehend when I say “Don’t borrow, therefore don’t tax and therefore don’t issue Treasury bills as collateral and simply issue the nation’s currency direct from treasury”?
EFFECT: No DEBT, no INTEREST. No spiralling NATIONAL DEBT. No AUSTERITY.
And yet here we are today, indebted to Private individuals controlling the world’s central banking system and in debt up to our necks.
Banks as legal persons, States as legal persons and YOU as legal persons. ALL “equal before the law” …..
BUT NOT QUITE!
When did a bank ever bail YOU out? 
Yes we have no Constitution! Indeed!
So the government want you to believe that LEGISLATION (therefore Statutory Acts) is LAW do they?
Well here’s a little conundrum for ye!
Justice
Act of Settlement 1700
Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which other Acts of Parliament would need to be amended if the Act of Settlement 1700 were amended to end the prohibitions on Roman Catholics within that Act. [197450]
Mr. Straw: Legislation that would need to be reviewed includes the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1707, the Union with England Act 1707, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937. Any change in legislation would among other things require the consent of member nations of the Commonwealth.
So, as you can see above, the government refers to basic CONSTITUTIONAL documents as LEGISLATION (in THEIR parlance: LAW). Now here is a question for all you Brits out there:
Notice the word “Act”. If LAW is simply and “Act” then under WHO’S authority do our government impose such “laws” or “Acts”? Do they ask you? Or do they just IMPOSE them? If it is the latter then you live under a dictatorship end of story (and you do!). Why? Well it’s simple: While they will say you elected them, it doesn’t seem to matter WHO we elect, when they are in office they do exactly as they please. They even go so far as to hand our sovereignty as a nation over to a FOREIGN STATE (the EU). Now read the Bill of Rights ACT:
“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
Now, this isn’t difficult so please do not try to make it so:
“No foreign state” It is VERY simple right? And it is an “Act” which, to them - they state continuously the Road traffic Act, the this Act and the that Act – is Law. ALL “Acts”, all “Law” according to them. And YET, such “Acts” may be imposed on a whim and ALSO retracted or repealed on a whim. Further, the IMPORTANT acts (such as the Human Rights ACT and the ACTS which ‘legitimize’ European laws enacted within our Courts) are pushed through by votes which have been assured by Party whips of all three parties. whenever something the REAL power wants to happen is voted on and is important to the REAL power (the International banks and Corporation of London and Her Majesty) the whips come out to ensure the vote goes through. Such as the LISBON TREATY and CLIMATE CHANGE ACT and many more.
But the strange thing is that the parliament then finds itself voting for a LISBON TREATY which is ILLEGAL according to one of the most fundamental ACTS and Constitutional Acts of this country: The Bill of Rights! And you wonder why the three main parties are trying so desperately to have the British people believe we HAVE no Bill of Rights nor a Constitution? Yet how do you possibly have a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH or even CONSTITUTE a country as a legally recognised entity if you HAVE NO CONSTITUTION?
So what about all these “Acts” the government of the day puts in place? Are they LAW? Are “laws” just made up on the spot to act (there’s that word again) as a passing necessity or phase while the people of the country have no say in the matter? So then why vote at all? These people do precisely as they please! They lie through their teeth to go to war for instance and murder 100s of thousands of people while putting our own troops in the firing line based on outright lies. YET, the troops’ families will support them and support the government sending them! ALL based upon lies. What the HELL is wrong with people? You will even send your sons and daughters out to be killed for LIES! Yet you won’t listen when the lies are shown to you (as in this blog) to extend further and deeper.
You have to understand that these people DO NOT “workforyou” they have MASTERS and those masters are the ones who dictate policy (yes POLICY not LAW – a LAW is something which remains law because it is GOOD law. It is solid and it prevents any and all HARM, INJURY or LOSS to another).
They say government governs on the consent of the people. Do they? Now be honest with yourself and everyone else: DO THEY? No, they don’t.
The fact is, legislation IS NOT LAW it is policy and that policy has nothing (absolutely nothing) to do with you or your vote. The government have broken their own “LAW” (policy, Statutory Acts, Legislation) by signing the Lisbon Treaty and all other EU treaties as well as many other “LAWS” because it is in THEIR interests (and not YOURS) to do so! It is also in their MASTERS’ interests. But YOU play along with it all giving it THE FORCE OF LAW which these people need! You can stop it anytime you wish by raising your voices. You can do anything. Just like you killed off the “News of the World” by not buying it, you can apply exactly the same to the government’s legislation by NOT CONFORMING to it. But you DO! Democracy then kicks in and the majority who DO buy into it (even when they don’t like it) ensure that the minority who are willing to make their voices and actions heard (many times on YOUR behalf) are swiftly dealt with!
Do they ask you, the people, if they can impose their “laws”? Do they ask you if they can repeal their “laws”? No.
Do they tell you there is an existing Bill of Rights? No
Do they tell you there is an existing Constitution sworn to by the Queen’s Coronation oath? No.
Who do you think the Queen swears that Coronation Oath to?
Here’s your answer:
“Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.”
You see? They could ONLY accept the Crown on the basis of swearing that oath to the PEOPLE. That’s YOU! Otherwise, they would not have be given the Crown. That fact remains today with the current incumbent (and traitor) Elizabeth.
But this is the fundamental “Why?” of why they are now attacking and destroying (repealing) the appropriate clauses in the Act of Settlement and all those other Acts which then need to be changed in accordance with it. This is why the government (and monarchy) wish to “sell” you this idea of “this catholicism issue is old and out of date and racist” and “we do not have a constitution”.
While isn’t it then strange that our excuse for a PM states that “the power lies with the people” while castigating the Labour and LibDem parties for their signing the Lisbon treaty and stating “it is not in politicians’ power to give away”?
Don’t you listen?
And he’s right. It’s not. WHY is he right? Because he knows the Constitution does exist and, within it, the sovereignty of the country lies not with politicians OR with the monarch BUT the monarch HOLDS the office of monarch as the protector of the PEOPLE’S sovereignty!
AND YOU ARE LETTING THEM DESTROY IT IN YOUR IGNORANCE!
Mr Jagland also singled Mr Clarke out for praise. ‘He is not only open [to ideas], but he understands, of course, very well why we have this Europe we have today, why we have to protect human rights,’ he said. ‘In addition to being intelligent, he is also very wise. So it’s easy to work with him.’
Why does Jagland like Clarke? Well why is Mario Monti now PM of Italy? Or why is Lucas Papademos the new Greek PM?
“Mr Papademos will replace Greece’s outgoing Prime Minister George Papandreou, who was forced to step aside after a disastrous call for a referendum on the eurozone rescue package.
The referendum plan was dropped within a few days, but not before sparking the wider financial and political crisis which led to Mr Papandreou’s forced withdrawal from the top job, even though he narrowly survived a confidence vote.”
“He helped Greece make the transition from the drachma to the euro – something he will now hope is a one-way process, and that there will be no disastrous exit from the eurozone as Greece’s financial woes worsen.
Mr Papademos will clearly have strong European support given his past experience – but there will be some Greeks who see Europe’s hand a little too clearly behind his appointment.”
He taught economics at Columbia University from 1975 until 1984, and then at the University of Athens from 1988 to 1993.
He has served as Senior Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 1980. He joined the Bank of Greece in 1985 as Chief Economist, rising to Deputy Governor in 1993 and Governor in 1994. During his time as Governor of the national bank, Papademos was involved in Greece’s transition from the drachma to the euro as its national currency.
After leaving the Bank of Greece in 2002, Papademos became the Vice President to Wim Duisenberg (and then Jean-Claude Trichet) at the European Central Bank from 2002 to 2010. In 2010 he left that position to serve as an advisor to Prime Minister George Papandreou.
He has been a member of the Trilateral Commission since 1998
Isn’t that strange? No, not really!
You see: Let’s look at Mario Monti now the new Italian PM -
He completed graduate studies at Yale University, where he studied under James Tobin, the Nobel prize-winning economist.[8]
Monti is a member of the Presiderium of the Friends of Europe, a leading European think tank, and was the first chairman of Bruegel, a European think tank founded in 2005. He is the European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a think tank founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller. He is also a leading member of the exclusive Bilderberg Group of economists.
Monti has been an international advisor to Goldman Sachs and The Coca-Cola Company
Both Economists, both gone through the American system, both Trilateralist/Bilderbergers and both licking the arse of David Rockefeller.
While, as you now all already know very well, our Mr Clarke is also a dye in the wool Bilderberger and licks the same arse!
THEY ALL LICK THE SAME ARSE! The ROTHSCHILD/ROCKEFELLER anal probers!
Rockefeller’s 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” he wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
What the HELL is it you people can’t quite figure out? Talk about under your noses and staring you in the bloody face! What’s it like living in “Dumb, incompetent land”? Sorry, but more and more, as all of this becomes even more plainly obvious, I have to ask that. I just do not understand the incapability of people to logically work out simple – VERY simple – things!
While you then bleat and moan about the state of this country and want solutions/answers. You are given the problem (and from that the solutions) in plain language yet you will listen to the liars themselves telling you otherwise EVEN WHEN, what is presented to you by others such as myself is straight from the horse’s mouth 99% of the time!
THE POWER LIES WITH THE PEOPLE!
Where do you think Cameron got that from? Do you think he had just watched an old episode of CITIZEN SMITH or something?
Wake the HELL up morons!
Occupy Rothschild & Soros’ NWO
Eyre International – Bringing You The News No One Else Wants To Bring You
The Hidden Truth Behind The News
Pandora’s Box opens up more Grime and Slime – Occupy Wall Street
Pandora’s Box Opens up more Grime and Slime
Occupy Wall Street Scam
Does the New World Order actually exist? – You bet it does!!
Did you ever link the Masonic Lodge with this massive empire? – You should have!!
Ever wondered how this evil satanic empire obtains its money? – Its easy believe me!!
Did you ever believe that Wiki Leaks was sincere or the current Occupy Wall Street?
Something strange going on here!!
How come George Soros and Rothchilds are funding these well planned illusions?
Before delving into Occupy Wall Street lets just reflect on one bank that topped the list here in the UK.
I came across an interesting article by David Noakes who in my opinion hit the nail on the head when he made the following statement:
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) went from assets of plus £88 billion in 1999 to estimated liabilities of minus £1.3 trillion in 2009 – equal to a year’s income (GDP) for the whole of Great Britain. If Directors with mental disabilities had been appointed, they might have reduced the bank’s value by half. But to utterly destroy it on so stupendous a scale took real knowledge and determination.
It seems clear the wholesale mismanagement and corruption of banks by their directors was not unbelievable incompetence, but criminal. The government huffs and puffs at bonuses and pensions paid as a reward for failure, but then in every case it lets those corrupt payments, totaling billions of pounds, stand without passing legislation to confiscate. It looks as though these huge bonuses and pensions were intentionally paid to compensate directors precisely for destroying their own banks, and for a job well done, Not to mention the donations to political figures and their party
The courts, CPS, coroner, FSA, directors and police have closed ranks to prevent a criminal prosecution or investigation. These services all have large numbers of Freemasons in their senior structures.
High ranking Freemasonry runs right through this banking crisis. All the failed banks, Northern Rock, Abbey, RBS, Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) had Freemasonry controlling their boards. Gordon Brown is a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemason, as was Tony Blair; there are 400,000 of them in Britain.
Gordon Bowden and I certainly agree with David Noakes, especially in regard to the Courts, Coroner, FSA, Directors and Police…..we both have continuously exposed massive fraud with forensic evidence produced by Gordon and all information/evidence has been passed on to Politicians, Political Parties, Serious Fraud Office and the local police……they are so arrogant they do not even reply to the claims made and even refuse to take recorded statements under oath. Having said that we must fully understand that this goes well beyond what David Noakes has reported…….this is how the New World Order operates and how they fund their huge organization……they are answerable to no one!!
Now back to the Occupy Wall Street Movement – What is really going on?
From the outside it would appear that a western type Arab Spring is unfolding but is there something more sinister taking place and who is fuelling it?
As we have seen that since the original world financial meltdown there has been increasing unrest in the Arab World and also in such places as Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and now Italy……….we have also seen two very significant protest marches in London, one being for the students and another for the unions regarding cut backs to the public sector, jobs and services etc…….what is now happening is a ground swell of frustrated citizens in the US, UK and EU rebelling against the banking, financial and corporate sector……however, what is truly happening is that this unrest is being hijacked by the political elite, extremely rich members of the New World Order and by the Zionist movement (both Christian and Jewish).
The previous meltdown was a well orchestrated master plan by the New World Order to collapse banks and financial institutions and at the same time close down many companies with resultant loss of income for the workers who in turn lost their homes…….this then allowed the New World Order to pick amongst the carcasses of dead companies and purchase the more lucrative aspect, leaving the toxic debt to the respective governments to bail out who then passed that debt onto the taxpayers.
The spin off from this and the ongoing resultant wars have blown most peoples income out of the water making it almost impossible for families to balance the books and buy food etc……..many have also now lost their homes because they no longer have a job and cannot cover their mortgage……..this then allows the New World Order to once again spread their talons and scoop up their homes at ridiculous prices.
We are now on the verge of a second collapse which will be far greater than the first and this time will directly damage the US, UK, EU and even places like Australia……the impact on the world cannot be ascertains at the moment but believe me it will make the previous meltdown miniscule by comparison.
With all of the above activity the true victim is the ordinary tax payer in each country……the government bail them out……..the banks and the government eventually get their money back or become a shareholder in the institution but the little old taxpayer never gets his tax reduces or his money back and will be responsible for clearing the debt for around 10-15 years…………one in three children (4 million) in the UK will be in poverty, record levels of unemployment, diminished public sector services i.e. NHS etc and cut backs on discount bus fares etc………..so maybe now we get to understand why now its the turn of the west to have their spring. Let’s all remember that if taxes go up and the public sector services go down, it is we that are paying for their excessive greed and fraud…..this is a sort of reverse Robin Hood concept….rob the poor and give to the rich (New World Order).
The only problem is that the New World Order can close down any bank, financial institution or company whenever it so chooses…..in actual fact in can bankrupt any country i.e. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy etc…….then we see the World Bank/IMF (Who are the New World Order) fly in and offer a rescue package with strings attached…….this forces the respective governments to cut back on the public sector…..what they call austerity measure and increase taxes…..and many other compulsory conditions……once achieved that country remains in debt to the WB/IMF for an indefinite duration if not forever.
Jobs continue to go, food prices and fuel continue to rise and the value of our wage packet drops to nearly half……..whilst all this is going on they are acting out their own geo political plan to fuel dissidents in many countries and to force regime change……it is at this point that the Arab Spring came into being and now the Occupy of Wall Street Movement has taken precedence. Please understand that behind this facade lies many actors that have infiltrated into the groups and crowds in order to stir them up and create civil unrest………in the meantime the Author of the unrest (the funder) takes advantage of this unrest to apply pressure to remove those in government they choose to blame………they also hope that the protest do get out of hand, create civil unrest and damage property etc as this plays into their plan.
One such funder is George Soros…….a notorious fraudster who on face value appear to be one of the crowd but his intention his only to get his own hand picked men into office and then carry out mass arrests of those that were protesting genuinely. It is people like him and the Rothschild’s who encourage conflict and wars as this is not only good for business (Arms Trade) but also keeps up the price of oil to which they directly benefit!!
The only way the genuine activists can win against this evil plan is to demonstrate peacefully and not allow things to get out of control.
George Soros International War Criminal and Fraudster
They must check and double check that those amongst them are genuine and not there to add fuel to the fire or allow a political party to take over their cause for their own purposes……..a good example of this was the last big union rally in London when Ed Miliband stole the show.
Can you imagine if Ed Miliband and Labour took over we would be handing our country over to Israel and no doubt his brother David would come out of the closet to hold a senior position and hey presto job done!!!
Activist should research who are behind these financial meltdowns and make sure that these hard line activists amongst their ranks are not working for the New World Order (NWO)……this is what they want…..disrupt the police, damage property resulting in mass arrests. When this type of action takes place it plays into their master plan and allows them to put their puppets in office, create more security measure and place the country into a total “Police “State.”
We must all understand that if all political leaders and their respective parties, union leaders and police have been informed of this massive fraud and do nothing, then they are part of the NWO. Myself and Gordon have approached them so many times, been to their meeting, sent messages to the Students Union and they do not even answer…….can you imagine thousands of jobs being lost, student fee hikes now triple and yet they choose to ignore that billions of pounds is being siphoned from the system and do nothing…..wouldn’t you as a student start asking questions of your union.
George Soros is a key player in all the New World Order groups and is part of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the CFR.
It is interesting to note the follow comment regarding the movement he his funding:
“Billionaire investor George Soros says he can sympathise with the ongoing protests on Wall Street, which have spread to other US cities”
Let’s also look at some of the other not so glossy comments made about this fraudster:
“A bad week for the financier of American progressive politics got a bit worse. A North Carolina-based cargo airline claims George Soros and one of his partners designed “an elaborate shell game intended to defraud,” and are using it to duck a $ 39.4 million judgment. The company, Tradewinds Holdings a subsidiary of Coreolis Holding say they hold a legal judgment against C-S Aviation Services, and seek to pierce the corporate veil to hold George Soros and Purnendu Chatterjee responsible”.
“George Soros, the hedge fund billionaire, has failed in his latest attempt to overturn an insider dealing conviction handed out in France 23 years ago. The European Court of Human Rights rejected his argument that French law on insider trading was not sufficiently clear to provide grounds for a conviction”.
“He said he understood the anger at the use of taxpayers’ cash to prop up stricken banks, allowing them to earn huge profits”.
Occupy Wall Street Movement is funded indirectly by George Soros who himself has been charged for massive fraud and corruption and it is vital that the genuine members of Occupy Wall Street are aware of this and do not become its victim!!!
To recap:
George Soros intentions is to create unrest in the west…allow the crowds to force change……a sort of Western Arab Spring…..then change the law to tackle this unrest…a sort of New World Order Patriot Act….. divide and conquer….put in your own puppet government (members being the NWO) and carry out mass arrests and hey presto you have a new government running a new police state and with the brain washed activists becoming the new victims to their own sincere effort by not knowing what they have just done for George Soros and his thugs
George Soros has also supported and financed the activists in Egypt, Libya and Syria but having other evil intentions in mind………..the Arab Spring and the Western Spring are basically the same and the only purpose is to implement their own geo political plan. Did you know for instance that Ghadaffi had intended to privatise all the oil companies in Libya and it was this alone that caused the New World Order via its military arm (NATO) to take out Libya.
Ghadaffi may have been corrupt, like many political figures, but as a President he did more for his country than any other country on the African Continent…….in that regard he was a good man and his country prospered from the wealth…..his intention to take over such companies as BP etc was part of his endeavor to churn the wealth back into the people……now the west has blasted his country with weapons of mass destruction and continue to pillage it natural resources.
The truth behind George Soros
The Occupy Movement was initiated in Vancouver Canada in July 2011 by the Adbusters Media Foundation….a not for profit organization….On the 17th of September a group of around 500 protestors descended on Wall Street……this turn out was very carefully over exaggerated by the media when they announced thousands had turned out in Wall Street!!!
The Mayor of New York obviously knew about this event just prior to the occupation when he predicted “riots in the streets if economy doesn’t create more jobs.”…..how did he know this…..because it was planed by those that had infiltrated the movement and Blomberg was informed……..it is also fact that the police also so happened to have staged a dummy riot on Brooklyn Bridge with various actors and again this was used as part of a propaganda tool by the media and one could assume the same when the activist attended the NYPD building etc. Did you ever ask the question how come this movement became so international in a very short time frame and how come the media, especially Fox and Sky, so enthusiastically falsely report it?……..the answer is simple….it was all a well orchestrated master plan by the New World Order with non other than George Soros at its centre.
Money for the so called activist came also from the Tides Centre with direct connection with George Soros who is directly connected with the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Relations and is a key player in the Bilderberg Group which is notoriously connected to the NEW WORLD ORDER……there is also a connection to the Ruckus Society which all leads back to George Soros…….it would appear that George Soros pumped in around $4.2 in 2008 and has since this time continuously support dissident groups…….Through George Soros and the New World Order he has also supported dissident groups in Egypt, Libya and Syria……..so far Egypt has fallen and is still pending a new puppet government and Libya is currently within their grasp……Syria almost went but managed to hold themselves in tact although the UN (who also belong to NWO) want the international community to take action (they mean NATO) .……..the final goal is to be Iran…….however with the latest false flag ( plan to take out the Saudi Ambassador) the US have not been so convincing…. LOL!!!!!
It is now time for all activist to do their homework and to find the true axis of evil here within the street of London
Or should that read where money is siphoned off?
This is how the AIM explain themselves by saying the AIM is the London Stock Exchange’s international market for smaller growing companies. A wide range of businesses including early stage, venture capital backed as well as more established companies join AIM seeking access to growth capital. What is doesn’t mention here is that it knowingly allows these scam virtual/shell companies to operate under its banner, even though people like our past and current PM have continuously been briefed, the LSE (London Stock Exchange) and the SFO (Serious Fraud Office) and yet they still do nothing!!!
You may find it hard to believe that the AIM (Alternative Investment Market) is totally unregulated and clearly supports virtual companies/shell companies who pillage thousands of investors of billions of pounds….these investors put their life savings into an offshore oil drilling programme or another phase of a mining project in some remote part of the world (the more remote the better – then you can’t check it out!!) in the hope they will get a good return……..what they didn’t know was that scumbags like the CEO of Lonhro, David Lenigas, are taking their money from day one and lining their own pockets. They operate from boiler rooms at such addresses as shown in the Pandora’s Box banner at the head of this article……..these virtual companies have directors but no staff….they do not even exist…..there is no oil rig…..there is no mine and these fraudulent elite share this wealth…..they include Corporate Directors, Bank CEO’s and very Senior Political (right at the top and some ministers).
One could take the current case of our ex Minister of Defence, Liam Fox and his close friend Adam Wirritty as one such classic case and maybe we can recall our own Prime Ministers, David Cameron’s visit to India when he tried to twist the arm of the Indian PM into accepting another fraudulent deal for and on behalf of his friend Sir Bill Gammell, Non Executive Chairman of Cairn Energy PLC in Edinburgh (a regular donor to the Tory Party). I have already covered the Bill Gammel fraudulent deal but as one would expect the deal went ahead anyway.
So what did Gordon Bowden uncover in the Fox – Wirritty scandal…….this was his email to me which uncovers some irregularities……..one could only assume that Fox was not the only one that benefitted from the many MoD deals and maybe even the Tory Party yet again received a good sized donation………as it did many years ago when it siphoned off £17.8 million of tax payers money to purchase 3 illegal nuclear bombs from South Africa and then allowed them to be stolen from their insecure compound…….one would have to ask Sir Ken Warren and our current PM, David Cameron the truth behind that deal which I have also covered in my Pandora’s Box series…..can you imagine this matter was raised in Parliament by Lord Doug Hoyle and Margaret Beckett MP and to this day the Tory Party have not been forced to respond…..it is recorded in Hansard if you do not believe me so go check it out….the reference is Hansard June 22nd 1993 from column 197…..also note that as a direct result of this highly illegal action Dr David Kelly was assassinated as it was he who had to check the health of the 3 nuclear weapons before departure from South Africa and upon their arrival in Oman before the money could be paid and the £17.8 million placed in the Tory Party Election Fund.
Now that you are starting to understand the dirty side of politics maybe you would like to know more about the Fox – Wiritty fiasco as uncovered by Gordon Bowden.
Start of Gordon’s email:
Peter
It wasn’t very hard to find the direct links between those involved with Liam Fox, Adam Wirritty and their Jewish funders, using fraud money laundering front companies.
Adam Wirritty had his pockets filed by.
The chair of Bicom
POJU ZABLOUDOWICZ
However, he is in Companies House actually named as.
Mr CHAIM ZABLUDOWICZ
a Director of.
THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
05742840
With some big hitting LORDS and CONSERVATIVE VIP’s
CHAIM
a.k.a without the MR is.
CHAIM ZABLUDOWICS
He has a large list of Companies, among them a group of “Tamares” Companies
TAMARES CAPITAL LTD
TAMARES MEDIA (UK) LTD
TAMARES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS UK LTD
TAMARES REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD
The registered address for their interlocking network of common director Companies:
41 DOVER STREET
LONDON
W1S 4NS
However, researching the listed Companies Documents they played “round robin” with their “G” Offices, leaving one, only to return in sequence back to the original offices.
The give-away I spotted immediately 36-40 JERMYN STREET. LONDON. SW1Y 6DN
It is in FACT a MASSIVE “BOILER ROOM”
refered as
PRINCES HOUSE
with a variety of SUITE numbers
38 JERMYN STREET. LONDON SW1Y 6DN
And to show the association:
Some of the Companies that fled 22 ARLINGTON STREET. LONDON SW1A 1RD after the PANDORA’S BOX Disclosures fled straight here.
Most of LONRHO’s other interlocked fraud Companies fronted by Aussie Co Artist DAVID ANTHONY LENIGAS
VATAKOULA GOLD MINES PLC
SOLO OIL PLC
LENIGAS AND OIL PLC
and
KALAHARI MINERALS PLC
EXTRACT RESOURCES
UNIVERSAL COAL PLC
PALADIN RESOURCES PLC
PACIFICA ENERGY LIMITED
These and a multitude of other FAKE, FRAUD Money Laundering Director Only Cash Shells.
Like I said, with Company Documents, they can run, but they can’t hide, not with Corporate registered Documents. – Gordon – End of email.
Finally if one is to hold a peaceful demonstration it should be held at the London Stock Exchange, the AIM (Alternative Investment Market) and at all the addresses shown above in the Pandora Box banner…….all of these locations are boiler rooms for virtual companies that do not exist i.e. Oil Company, Mining Company etc who are ripping this country off to billions of pounds each and every year and that’s not counting the tax avoidance aspect…….the directors are in bed with the Banks who are all in bed with Senior Political Figures. Two locations of significant importance is 22 Arlington Street, London (Next to the Ritz Hotel) and Lonhro situated on the 2nd floor of the Cadbury Schweppes building – 25 Berkeley Square London…..it is at such locations where our country has/is been raped and thousands of investors have said goodbye to their investment money.
My final question would be why is David Lenigas still operating these scams and living the high life………you had better ask the SFO and our current government who protect him!!
Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 16/10/2011
For more on Soros, please read other blog entries I have previously written regarding, particularly: “An orchestrated crisis”. Peter Eyre is so very correct in trying to get this message out that Soros (Rothschild boy) and, as I now see, Julian Assange (Rothschild “bitch”) are trying to co-opt this Occupy movement.
The problem with suggesting this is an “anti capitalist” movement is immense: These people WANT Communism. They want a level playing field (sounds good doesn’t it?). But no, it’s not. They want a massive gulf between them (the true evil elite) and us (the rest). So they WANT you to have communism BUT, as with the old soviet idea (and the present EU idea) this “communism” has a tiny elite at the top who run the entire show. They own the government, the banks, your right to live. They dictate any and all political policy, legislation, control the courts, the Police, the entire show. From that comes absolute, unadulterated tyranny. If you don’t focus in on the real evil in this, at the top of the tree, and allow these people to co-opt this movement – it’s the end. Game set and match for the New World Order.
This is why the protests need to be entirely peaceful. Violence gives them every excuse to “put the boot in” and believe me, they will. They can do nothing if there is no violence. But then you also MUST come to terms with and recognise who the puppetmasters are and take your focus away from the “little guy” working in Wall Street. Yes they’re criminals but they have been working in an entirely criminal system. It is the system (and the people behind it) who need to be brought down. NOT by pushing for communism and being anti capitalist (these are just “isms” both of which can be and are corrupted) but by re-constituting LAW. Not LEGAL but LAW. It is ONLY LAW which will beat this system. A LAW which is based upon morality.
And Jesus said…….
“See you Jimmy! Your tea’s oot!” (Aye Jesus was a Scotsman who believed in FREEEEDOM!)
When Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs uttered the words “We do God’s work”, the man in the sandals had had enough. The ultimate blasphemy. For, what is long forgotten by today’s catholics and christians is one of the basic teachings of the man in the sandals that they follow:
NO USURY!
And, by god! Did that man Blankfein and his criminal buddies (which make up the entire governments and corrupt capitalists of the western world) take usury (the charging of interest on money) to an extreme – and still are.
So now, you have the muslims AND the christians (even though most christians will still not understand what it is they are doing in effect) attempting to cast the moneylenders from their temple.
You see, the world has turned for centuries on the basis of this corrupt usury and the Muslim faith and Christian faith BOTH follow the teachings of Jesus in respect to the most fundamental control and oppression of the entire human race!
There is, as I understand it, only ONE religion on the face of this earth that does not outlaw usury (except amongst its own). 3 guesses which one!
One has been brought up being told (the earliest form of political correctness I would suggest) that, in company, one must never discuss politics and religion and CERTAINLY not mix the two. Now, there may just have been good reason for such a teaching by certain people! Because, at the very core, politics IS religion and relates life TO religion – albeit very subtly.
So, with “Occupy Wall Street” gathering pace and numbers all across the globe, I see a merging of the two major religions of the world – Islam and Christianity – whether they both recognise it or not. It is fact. Even for the ignorant, and even for those who have hate for the other, they are actually merging in one fundamental respect: A war against usury.
My only hope is that these two religious forces can come to appreciate that and appreciate what the enemy truly is. That enemy is that ideology which goes against the fundamental teachings of Jesus: A prophet to one of them and a messiah to the other whilst, just fact, an individual who is mocked and held in disdain by the force which would wish to keep its lustful, avaricious grip on humanity.
Personally, I have no belief in any man made god (no I’m no atheist, I am only an atheist toward the gods of man and not the Creator, whoever and whatever it may be) but I DO appreciate the simple humanitarian teachings of this Christ figure – particularly when it comes to this issue of money and usury which he knew was evil.
I again, only hope that, while the protestors against Wall Street greed continue, they do not miss the core of the corruption and the core of the evil. We have all operated within a system set up by this inhuman elite and, therefore, we have all participated to various degrees. Yes the Wall Street Investment bankers have capitalised through insider trading and pure criminal corruption but then the system has been set up this way and you either play the game or you don’t. It has been a conditioning of the human race and while I am making no excuses for those who have played the game fully, I am simply saying they have played within the “rules” of what has been set up as a corrupt game from day one.
To simply try to get these people to pay more tax will achieve nothing in my view. The REAL elites at the very top of this global “ponzi scheme” are wanting this attack on Wall Street and the bankers believe me. They want to destroy the middle class (to some this middle class will be multi-millionaires and even some billionaires but, to the REAL evil, they are STILL “middle class”). The people at the top want the system to crash just leaving a very few elite and the rest of us. With an IMMENSE gap in between. These elite are really not interested in cash any longer. Money was and is simply a tool to them. This tool, over decades and centuries, has allowed them to create and control this “ponzi scheme” while then allowing them to buy their way into power. Power is the control of governments, resources, countries.
Once they achieve that (and please remember when you think of Ron Paul etc who want to go back to a gold standard, that these same elites OWN the vast majority of gold) and they more or less have – they have no need for money. If you own everything you pay for nothing do you? If you own the circus you don’t pay to see the show do you? The ONLY “money” necessary will be for the rest of us and that money will be entirely electronic in time.
So, the point is this: Do NOT concentrate on that which is only a symptom of the disease – the symptoms being that there are bankers getting rich playing the game – but concentrate on what and who created the disease in the first place and eradicate that/them. When I say eradicate, I mean, through education and then law, set the conditions which disable them from having such power. Change the law. Do not go back to a gold based currency, a fiat system of notes is just as good BUT create the law which makes it incorruptible. GOLD is FIAT. Don’t let this idea of it being rare fool you. Yes it is rare but so are moonrocks. ANYTHING can be deemed money and ANYTHING can be manipulated and corrupted. The ONLY thing which protects ANY currency or commodity from manipulation and corruption is the LAW which surrounds it.
We must, however, concentrate on the top of this pyramid and demand that the Foundations which hold this elite’s wealth be scrapped. That the money is redistributed. That the legalities they have used to buy up their power are scrapped and that this is retroactive. It can all be done and done in stages.
But finally, to all you christians and muslims out there: Recognise how the system has been set up and also how your religions have been too (and corrupted) and just realise that we are all one on this world and break down the final “Berlin wall” which is the wall between you both. Let go of the dogma you have been conditioned with since birth and allow basic humanity to allow you both to love one another. Enough of this dogmatic “If you’re muslim you will be outcast if you love a christian” etc. If Islam is a religion of love then love knows no barriers and the same goes for christianity. Start practicing this love you preach. If you put up barriers then you set conditions for love. There ARE no conditions!
And to repeat to Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, IMF, World Bank, BIS etc etc
Your tea’s oot!
The narrative of Jesus and the money changers, commonly referred to as the cleansing of the Temple, occurs in all four canonical gospels of the New Testament.
In this episode Jesus and his disciples travel to Jerusalem for Passover, where he expels the money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple to a den of thieves through their commercial activities. In the Gospel of John Jesus refers to the Temple as “my Father’s house” thus in some views making a claim to being the Son of God.
This is the only account of Jesus using physical force in any of the Gospels. The narrative occurs near the end of the Synoptic Gospels (at Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27 and Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8) and near the start in the Gospel of John (at John 2:13–16). Some scholars believe that these refer to two separate incidents, given that the Gospel of John includes more than one passover.
“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves”
King James 2000 Bible
(©2003)
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who
say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and
worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
WHO SAY THEY ARE JEWS, AND ARE NOT, BUT DO LIE: ZIONISTS! Or, as Churchill called them: ATHEIST JEWS.
And to any IDIOT who suggests this anti semitic – Get a BRAIN! How can one speak of ATHEIST JEWS and be such? How can there even be such a thing as an ATHEIST and a JEW??
Ask Churchill! He knew! Or was he an “anti semite” too?
Next stop: Occupy the Vatican!
Next again stop: Occupy Jerusalem!
DON’T use violence. Use Intelligence. The latter will grind them into the dust.
The world is changing Detective!
You just need to ask yourself (then decide) who’s side you’re on? Your own and those around you? Your loved ones? Or the people who have created this system wherein you play a very tiny, insignificant part where you are IGNORANTLY supporting your own and everyone else’s oppression?
And ONE day Detective, IF, IF they manage to win and have kept you a slave to your own ignorance, they will dispose of you and yours. The thieving, corruption and removal of your and yours wealth will continue until you suddenly turn round and recognise you were building your own prison while you thought WE were the bad guys!
But, by all means Detective, you keep reading through my blog. Keep reading my hard drive looking for the evidence of some racist hater because I point in certain directions (not just one), keep watching my vids – not because you wish to be educated probably but because you, or the establishment lackey judiciary, want to find something, anything you can pin on me. There is nothing unless you are simply willing to make something out of nothing while your ignorance of the big picture and your willingness just to do what you’re told without any thought of your own, has you focused with absolutely no peripheral vision. “Just get him”. And the ADL and our Zionist occupied government full of corrupt bastards will thank you for it. The more you find the like of me and take care of, the more you will be awarded. Be a good dog or be an individual with some intellect and common sense.
Now, regarding the money creation issue I keep going on about in these blogs, providing every evidence from congressional and parliamentary archives, minutes, speeches and then showing how that creation out of thin air is then used by the morally bankrupt “elite” using their own insider knowledge who then invest in hedge funds etc: Here is Congressman Dennis Kucinich talking about a blaze of democracy (which you can be assured the corrupt will wish to manipulate then control as they did the Tea Partyists) which is hardly getting airtime on our mainstream media. Why would it? It is the same feral elite who own mainstream media! They don’t want true democracy catching on! And they look to you – their paid lackeys who don’t think just do – to protect them from true democracy.
And your Judges, your Procurator Fiscal, your Magistrates – what do they do? They apply “the law” based upon a legal system again controlled by these same elites. Who legislates Detective? The government does right? Or if you wish, Parliament but Parliament is whipped (the whole point of having Whips Detective!). So then they legislate. The courts apply that legislation. You go to court and show in black and white how the system is entirely corrupt and what happens? You’re in contempt of court. You show them a mirror and you are in contempt of court.
They then say “You must work such issues with basic legislation through Parliament and government” while the MPs try desperately to ignore you OR, if they can’t, they suggest the only way to fight the issue is through the courts. HOT POTATOES because it works. Noone takes responsibility “It wasn’t me officer!” while they all watch each others’ backs.
You ask why you must pay your tax when the money is created out of nothing by banks while the government could do the same just as easily but no, they actually BORROW the money created from nothing at interest which means they must tax us heavily to pay the interest back. While the interest is NEVER added to the original capital injected so where do we get the interest from to pay back? We don’t. THAT is why the government NEVER “wishes” to pay off the national debt but just service the interest. Because the money is not in the system to allow them to pay the entire sum off.
So then, back to court. One explains then how one is getting ripped off – it is an immoral, thieving corruption by banks and the government in collusion BUT it is they who make the law. Yes the banks make the law – not your High St bank Detective, I’m talking about the Goldman Sachs and JP Morgans of this world who bribe people like Tony Blair to do their work both domestically in the UK and abroad – meeting with Gaddafi not on UK PM business (which was his job) but on JP Morgan business! Effectively, then MOONLIGHTING. Then after the good job he did for the banks Detective, the Rothschilds – nice people – pimped him out and got him the nice cushy $2M/year with JP Morgan AND gave him the Middle East Peace Envoy job!
But again, back to court: So, what happens when anyone refuses to pay tax on the basis of understanding this corrupt scheme (on YOU as well as I and everyone else)? The lackey judge points to some statute or other and says “It’s law! You MUST pay!”
But the law is corrupt because it is put in place by these same corrupt people. The law is the enforcement to ensure we remain absolute debt slaves!
FUCK THAT DETECTIVE!
The Judge will not even hear the argument about the reality of the system and the corruption and will compartmentalize the proceedings saying words to the effect “This court is hearing on the issue of non payment of tax, these are the statutes which apply” END OF STORY!
No, again Detective: FUCK THAT!
Now, you can either appreciate fact when you read it hear it smell it and KNOW it or you can dance with the sick immoral fuckers and keep doing what you’re doing.
If you are a smart guy though Detective, you will want to understand this because, make no mistake, there is a revolution coming and YOU can help keep it a peaceful one OR, alternatively, you can decide to kill - and it may come to that knowing these sick fuckers as I do. But remember, you’ll be effectively killing your own.
If you wish to understand and learn Detective, my door is open. There will be no need to drill it in!
Oh and lastly, don’t talk about contacting one’s MP and working this through politics because I’ve had more of Lazarowicz and Chisholm and Osborne and Darling and Clarke and the entire lot of them than I can take. They’re monkeys!
While, in the past when contacting the local idiots, they’ve turned and said on occasion certain things would be a matter for the police or the judiciary. It’s like watching hot potatoes being thrown from one to the other. It’s PATHETIC. And all because you’re all so afraid - FUCKING CHICKENS – to do what you know is right in any given circumstance in fear of the short term issue of losing your jobs.
Imagine the entire British police actually had fucking guts and stood together to do the RIGHT thing then you WOULDN’T lose your bloody jobs because you’d actually, as a collective, be DOING your bloody jobs! The only thing left for the corrupt state to turn to would be the army!
Argh! It’s like talking to a fucking BRICK WALL but a brick wall is smarter!
Here’s a “We told you so!”
We’ve been saying this for years now. Personally, I’ve been saying it since mid 2008 (yes, even to a so called “Jew” who has decided, in his ignorance - and in the British judiciary and Police force’s ignorance – to “take offence” at what I told him was the source of what was coming. Now how would I know that? While everyone else who doesn’t understand how this all works said even as recent as a year ago “That’s Conspiracy theory”) that the world monetary and economic system was going to go into meltdown. Even as the financial crisis of 2008 was happening, I was STILL stating there was far worse to come!!
So YOU tell ME you NAYSAYERS - and you ignorant fucks who don’t understand but call anyone who can see it in advance and says WHY it is happening, an “Anti semite” – how did people like me and so many others you refuse to acknowledge or listen to, KNOW this (and even more) was and is going to happen?
David-Cameron-warns-world-64bn-wiped-value-British-firms.html
I’ll tell you why: Because we’ve STUDIED it all. Every little scrap of evidence and historical fact to put all the pieces together. Every bit of history that isn’t TAUGHT in our schools to ensure YOU (we) don’t understand how this fucking system works!
So then, when some of us do question and start to uncover that which has been hidden from our historical textbooks and then piece that together with facts and news of what is happening today and how Bilderberg and the Council of Foreign Relations and all the people involved in politics and banking fit into the puzzle, we get demonised as “Conspiracy theorist nutters”, “extremists”, “anti semites” and “potential terrorists”.
And YOU fucking POLICE, in your abject ignorance, just do as your told. Then let me be clear: FUCK your jobs when you lose them and FUCK your pensions! Because you DON’T deserve them you thick TWATS! You bunch of hopeless “yes sir no sir” fools!
Mr Bernanke: “No National Debt is necessary!”
MORK CALLING ORSEN – COME IN ORSEN!
HOUSTON, THIS IS DISCOVERY, WE’VE DISCOVERED SOMETHING!
EARTH CALLING AMERICA (AND ALL OTHER NATIONS) WHY AREN’T YOU LISTENING?
Or, in other words: What the HELL is wrong with you people?
Posted by the CATO Institute (if you don’t know who they are, look them up):
Now George Osborne:
You see, what our politicians constantly refer to is the DEFICIT. The DEFICIT is simply a measure of the difference between the amount the government borrows and the income it receives from taxation etc. As you will see in the next but one video however, there are parliamentary questions which quite clearly advise you that the government never has and never will have the intention of actually paying off the NATIONAL DEBT! Yes, it is incredible isn’t it? You’re in debt yet you have no intention of ever wishing to be free of it?
There is a good reason for that. They are DISALLOWED from being free of the debt.
The government COULD issue debt free money/currency tomorrow but it chooses not to. If it did, however, the entire country could be free of debt AND the entire country would have ZERO austerity, very little tax, no cuts to services AND almost FULL employment. How about that? And it is SO exceptionally simple!
But no. They won’t do it. Why? Well that’s also very simple! Hitler mean anything to you?
And now the man who didn’t want to say “Yes” but he was pinned into a corner and had absolutely no choice because Mark Kirk and all other Senators, Congressmen and Parliamentarians know the facts. They are simply too damned scared AND/OR well paid off (bribed) to tell you.
Now, YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED IN PLAIN ENGLISH BY THE MOST POWERFUL CENTRAL BANKER IN THE WESTERN, IF NOT ENTIRE, WORLD, THAT A NATIONAL DEBT IS UNNECESSARY.
IT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED, IN A RECENT BLOG, THAT THE ENTIRE CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM IS IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP!
FURTHER, THE FOLLOWING VIDEO EXPLAINS IN AS CLEAR AND SIMPLE A WAY AS I CAN THAT, AS A SINGLE ENTITY, THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE IN DEBT!
So, by all means, it is entirely your prerogative (just as the Queen has hers) to continue allowing yourself to be thieved from by your government, your Council and all those who simply demand, like some form of highwayman, that you hand over cash to pay taxes that are entirely unnecessary. Not only are they unnecessary but, due to the fact that it is a privately controlled cartel running a ponzi scheme to suck your wealth dry in order to increase theirs, with absolutely no MORAL legitimacy but only LEGAL (because it is these same personages who are creditors to each and every government and, therefore, they dictate what “Law” is to the debtor – the government) authority, they are substantively illegitimate, morally bankrupt, corrupt and criminal. Indeed, it is a crime on humanity what they are doing when you consider how this very same system then allows millions in Africa to starve to death and how they start wars between countries and murder millions more purely for a buck!
ADDENDUM: Dylan Ratigan MSNBC. Worth every single cent he is paid in salary! Quite brilliant and amazingly gutsy!
Procurator Fiscal: An etymology
PROCURATOR
Pontius Pilatus (Greek: Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος, Pontios Pīlātos), known in the English-speaking world as Pontius Pilate ( /ˈpɒntʃəs ˈpaɪlət/), was the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, from AD 26–36. He is best known as the judge at Jesus’ trial and the man who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus. As prefect, he served under Emperor Tiberius.
Little is known of Pilate. There is an old tradition linking the birthplace of Pilate with the small village of Bisenti, Samnite territory, in today’s Abruzzo region of Central Italy.[5] It has also been asserted by modern commentators that Pilate may have been born in Fortingall, Perthshire, in Scotland, the illegitimate son of a Roman ambassador sent to pacify the Picts and a Pictish girl.
Pontius Pilate’s title was traditionally thought to have been procurator, since Tacitus speaks of him as such.
When applied to governors, this term procurator, otherwise used for financial officers, connotes no difference in rank or function from the title known as prefect. Contemporary archaeological finds and documents such as the Pilate Inscription from Caesarea attest to the governor’s more accurate official title only for the years 6 through 44: prefect. The logical conclusion is that texts that identify Pilate as procurator are more likely following Tacitus or are unaware of the pre-44 practice.
The procurators’ and prefects’ primary functions were military, but as representatives of the empire they were responsible for the collection of imperial taxes, and also had limited judicial functions.
From “Promagistrate” (Wikipedia): One should also mention here the procurator, a posting originally as a financial manager in a province, a position which held no magisterial power until Claudius gave them his power in the mid 40′s AD,[1] enabling them to administer provinces
FISCAL
The origin of the word “fiscal” dates back to the Roman Empire when the word ‘fisc’ or ‘fisk’ related to the State Treasury.
Over centuries this meaning was abased and relevance to State or Government became blurred, so that today the word ‘fiscal’ is loosely used to describe many financial matters and activities.
Fiscal Agents’ activities follow this modern day usage in that it is involved in financial matters in relation to Canada’s Debt and Money Markets, on behalf of Government, Government Agencies, Financial Institutions, and the general public.
However, Fiscal Agents’ corporate philosophy hews to centuries old values by stressing “Enterprise, Prudence & Integrity”.
Procurator Fiscal: His entire raison d’etre is to procure money for the state.
Create statutory “crimes”. As many as possible no matter how ridiculous they may be. The Corporate state “law”, then, if infringed or broken (god forbid) allows the procurement of MONEY for the state.
Very sick lads. Very sick indeed.
10 comments