Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on November 29, 2011

By Rabid Anti-Dentite!


Dentists are calling for tougher laws to be introduced by the EU and also for the United Nations to introduce a new protocol similar to the “Rights of the Child” specifically to protect Dentists after what has been described by many EU Ministers as a racially motivated, hate crime against worldwide dentistry – commonly referred to as the “dentalspora”!

Worldwide, politically correct….. politicians (who else?) are speaking out in condemnation of groups who they say are associated with OWS (Orthodontal Western Socialists) who the political world alleges are carrying out a hate-based campaign against the Dentalspora by suggesting they are behind the “New World Order” – a Conspiracy theory which suggests that people like the Rothschilds (whose great grandad was a dentist and acquired his first million in gold bullion by murdering his dental clients before melting down their fillings!) and Rockefeller (who went on to fund Nazi medical and dental experiments on the jaws in concentration camps – later to be known as the “Holofloss”) rule the world through organisations such as the Tridental Commission.

Tridental Commission’s logo and flyer (while cadbury’s produce chocolate to rot away your teeth!)

Please note: Conspiracy theorists maintain that the Trident nuclear missile is named after the Tridental Commission and “Trident” has some form of secret meaning within the Satanic Dentist Society such as a Holy trinity of some sort. The second letter of the pre-endodontic dental Irnbrew period was R and the third letter was B (a slightly backward race then). The number sequence “322” for Skull and Bones (and Jaws) therefore would spell out BRR which would stand for Blankfein Rothschild and Rockefeller. When advised that these names/people did not exist in the Pre-endodontic period the theorist are undaunted, explaining that the Jaws’ Holy Book The “Torus” has many hidden formulas and hidden text which prophecise such future events and names. BRR also signified that they lived in times before global warming!

Dentists believe that, after the Endodontic and Periodontic periods, “Molar” son of “Mesial” came down from Mount Amalgam and gave the Jaws God’s ten commandments which the God of Molar carved into tablets of Amalgam using what the Dentaism religion believe to be the first pre-dental drill. After this event, the jaws (a tribe of dentists who were one of the 12 tribes of “Thathurtslikehell”) built the first Temple of Solomon (and as you can see, the Solomon’s dentist bloodline continues to this day run by one of the Sachs brothers in Maryland USA 1).

In fact, Goldman Sachs got it’s name from the Sachs brothers recognising the fact that most of the world’s gold reserves lie in the jaws of goyim and since goyim outnumber jaws by a significant proportion in today’s world, the Sachs’ and their Dental brotherhood believe since we have all the gold they’ll take all the money!

So the Temple of Solomon was built and, when deciding where to build it, they asked “Thathurtslikehell” for guidance. “Thathurtslikehell” (or Jacob for short) suggested it should be built in the land of Canine! And so it was. The City was called Letloosomephlegm and such is celebrated even today when you visit the dentist as you gargle and spit in the bowl – it’s all very occlusal you know!

The jaws holy book, the “Torus” was named after a peculiar outgrowth of bone. It usually develops on the roof of the mouth or around the premolar area only found in jaws.

During the pre “Thathurtslikehellite” and pre Molar era, it is thought that the Jaws appointed Molar to be their leader because he led the diastema (origin of the term “dentalspora” and now meaning “the space in between two teeth”) to the Promised Land during the “Excision” (mistranslated in the bible as the “Exodus”) and that he parted the Root Canal, thereby removing the necessity for a bridge. An incredible feat never repeated to this day! This is why, today, dentists would prefer not to supply jaws with bridges – lots of cost but not too much profit. Molar was, therefore, handed the crown and this is why crowns are commonly bestowed in jaws everyday throughout the world how we also know, by inference, that the monarchy “The Crown”) are really jaws!

Now, according to the Conspiracy theorists, dentristry has been infiltrated by freedentistry, a secret society founded by Adam Wisdomtooth in 1776. The theorists believe that most top politicians, bankers and dentists are all what is known as “33rd degree Freedentists” and, at which level, they secretly and quietly dabble in occlusal practices! This is why most Presidents and Prime Ministers have straight white teeth and smile a lot – it’s their version of a secret handshake. You may ask yourself at this point about the state of Tony Blair’s and most other British politicians teeth in comparison with their American cousins: Well this is simply due to that, in fact, the British politicians have achieved 32nd degree and not 33rd. You see, the number of teeth an adult has is 32 and while the Americans are big on their fake boobs and fake white toothy smiles and are willing to undergo plastic surgery far more willingly than the average brit, the British politicians tend to maintain their “britishness” so they generally stick at the 32nd degree level. IF, however, you were to count the number of teeth in Obama’s, Bush’s, Romney’s etc jaws, you’d notice a very strange anomaly. They have an EXTRA TOOTH. This proves, therefore, that they are 33rd degree freedentists and, effectively, IGUMMYNASTY!

An example of the before and after effect of transcending the 32nd to 33rd degree in Freedentistry can be shown here:

Sarkozy Pre-33rd degree

Sarkozy: Post 33rd degree IGummynasty (Private Album photo)

Now, each Jaw, at birth, goes through a Jawish tradition known as a “Sore spitzvah!” This entails what is known as a “Rabid” carrying out a pulpectomy on the newborn child WITHOUT any anaesthetic! This then induces a feeling of fear and rage throughout the newborn jaw’s life because it felt the pain and had toothpulp removed without being consulted and the individual then lacks all empathy for other human beings! So much for the UN’s “Rights of the child” eh?

The operation further ensures that there is added space in the jaw for an extra tooth if and when the child grows up to become a 33rd degree Igummynasty! They don’t all become such however, according to the Conspiracy theorists.

So, that is the background of the jaws and the Dentists. There’s more but perhaps for another session. Think of the foregoing as a descaling.

Meanwhile, the Conspiracy theorists and the OWS are of the opinion that it is the dentists who are destroying the minds of our young as shown here:

Having then watched this, it would seem to be a fair point!

However, the political and banking establishment and the ADL ( the American Dental League, a powerful dental lobby) have continually pointed out that extensive tests have been carried out over decades to show that the Conspiracy theorists beliefs that Fluoride being used in dental surgeries, in toothpaste (even when the dentists have done nothing to prevent the later onset of gingivitis and the danger of fluoride then attacking one’s system through the bloodstream) and fluoridated water negatively impacts the human nervous and brain system, is all simply paranoid nonsense.

The problem with the establishment line, of course, is that if fluoride was so damned good for people’s teeth then why did so many “Holofloss” victims have so very little teeth?

Ah! Just remembered: We’re back to the gold again!

Israel: The Contrarian Agenda

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Uncategorized by earthling on November 26, 2011

The following totally scrambles the existing thinking in both mainstream AND alternative media as I see it. I have not read or seen anything which suggests what you are about to read. Therefore, I take all responsibility – right or wrong – for the following analysis.

Lord Jacob “Israel” Rothschild

The Globalist agenda is a very immense one and while I have attacked and criticised Zionism (ad nauseum) over a period of time, I’ll also be the first to state that it is Israel which the globalists now wish to destroy in one way or another. While most of you will consider Zionism = Globalism in many ways, it is and it is not.

Zionism is a tool of the globalists. Nothing more, nothing less. Zionism is a political ideology and movement which is built upon a false association with judaism. It purports to be the ultimate wish and ideology of there being a jewish homeland and that that is its aim. It is NOT its aim.

So Zionism is a tool just as capitalism, fabianism, Nazism, comunism and fascism are tools. As you well know, each of these “isms” are constructed and then, at the right time, destroyed by the globalists. The globalist money builds them and the same money destroys them.

Now remember: Israel and Zionism are Rothschild constructs – entirely. Rothschild is head zionist and head globalist. What comes first for the Rothschilds?

Answer: The Rothschilds!

The Rothschilds bought the Suez canal for the British government in the 1800s (or you could put it this way: The British government bought the Suez canal and was loaned the money for it BY the Rothschilds). In effect and as is historical fact, the Rothschilds then controlled both the Suez AND the British government. Very little has changed since.

Benjamin D’Israeli was British PM at the time and when he died, who then was trustee of D’Israeli’s will and testament? Answer: Lord Rothschild. But that’s by the by.

During the 1800s and early 1900s, the globalists (headed by Rothschild) did not have an adequate grasp on the middle east and its riches, its resources, land etc. However, by 1948, the Rothschilds had finally achieved the promise of a “land for the jews” called Israel which the British government, via the Balfour Declaration (which the government had never intended, it would seem, to be a remit to create a jewish only state but simply to be a concession to Rothschild that his “beloved jews” (not at all actually the true interest of the Rothschilds but a very useful tool nevertheless) would SHARE the state (a British mandate) with the Palestinian people. Well, times move on as do the machinations of the globalists like Rothschild so that we now have this “Mad dog” state (their own words by Moshe Dyan) called Israel.

Why did Rothschild and the globalists (helped by a Zionist organisation, some of whom may well have believed that Rothschild’s plan was to have a safe haven for jews) want an “Israel” in the Middle East? Because they then had a “beach-head” from which to attack the region they had otherwise failed to bring under their control.

So, the establishment of Israel (by way of terrorist acts against the very government who handed them their “safe haven” in the desert) provided a means to an end and a first step for the domination of the region. How was such domination achieved?


This “race” which we shall refer to as “jews” but who never originated from this land and neither was this land ever called “Israel” but was, in part, Canaan, at the time of Jesus and before – the Israelites were simply one of many tribes in the region and Israel himself (the Tribe OF Israel) was a man called Jacob (so the story goes) – have been persecuted over centuries by so many different races, creeds, cultures and nationalities (the question is why? Let’s be blunt, if you are sacked from a great number of jobs, the likelihood is that the problem lies with you right? think about it) that, to have the “race” in the centre of the Middle East (entirely Muslim) is like throwing a single christian into a den of Lions. Perhaps a poor analogy however, because one would always support the christian since he is both the underdog and it suggests the muslim world of Arabs are like a pack of animals – but then that is precisely what Rothschild would capitalise on. That ideology.

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[30] According to the Hebrew Bible the name “Israel” was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; “struggle with God”[31]) after he successfully wrestled with an angel of God.[32] Jacob’s twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,[33] led the Israelites back into Canaan in the “Exodus“. The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word “Israel” is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).[34]

The area is also known as the Holy Land, being holy for all Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá’í Faith. Prior to the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence, the whole region was known by various other names including Southern Syria, Syria Palestina, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Iudaea Province, Coele-Syria, Retjenu, Canaan and, particularly, Palestine.

Now, what happens when you have what is promoted as a judeo-christian nation which is purportedly the “only democratic nation in the region” (translation: the only fully controlled and owned globalist state in the region) while that state actually takes an aggressive stance toward its neighbours from day one while bleating that “if we don’t stand up for ourselves the Arab/Muslims will slaughter us”. Yet, had they shared Palestine with the Palestinians and lived in peace (and as we know, terrorism of the King David Hotel and other atrocities around that time is not the way to settle peacefully with one’s neighbours AND hosts), there would have been no wish on the part of their neighbours – the muslim world – to feel this way. Again, we must ask ourselves who is at fault here when jews or “jews” have been thrown out of almost every nation they have used as a host in history (while isn’t that a fact? They have had HOST nations a little like, one could say, the movie “Alien” where the human body acted as a HOST for the Alien embryo). How does one destroy a nation or a culture or movement? By planting “aliens” with agendas into the nation. By setting up oneself within a host and eating away from the inside. If you have different hosts in different lands and you wish to destroy them all then one good way would be by setting up a “diaspora” now wouldn’t it?

Diaspora definition: any group migration or flight from a country or region. Synonyms: dispersion, dissemination, migration, displacement, scattering.

Interestingly: “Spore” definition: A usually one-celled reproductive body that can grow into a new organism without uniting with another cell. Spores are haploid (having only a single set of chromosomes). Fungi, algae, seedless plants, and certain protozoans reproduce asexually by spores.

Now, remember, I am not speaking here of an everyday, ignorant jew – ignorant of the agenda of a zionist movement which is wholly controlled by globalist interests and who have NO interest, nor similarity, to an everyday jew (just like the everyday, ignorant Brit or American who have zero in common with the British or American wealth establishment and who are globalists themselves or pawns thereof). So PLEASE understand this and do not be so willfully ignorant as to, once again, read this quickly, pick up what you want from it and scream “anti semite”. Or, by all means do so – I couldn’t give a rats arse if you are willfully ignorant!

So then Rothschild and the globalists have their “beach-head”, Israel, within the Islamic region of the world and they use the tool of “persecution throughout the ages” and the tool of “the Holocaust” (nothing to do with Arabs by the way) and “democracy” and all that good stuff to create the myth of “poor little Israel” while “poor little Israel” has nuclear weapons which have never been admitted to the UN security council while that same body – controlled by the same globalists, Rockefeller this time – demands every other country in the region and elsewhere to declare their nuclear weapons and/or refrain from developing them – the hypocrisy is absolutely stunning isn’t it?). Therefore, every move Israel makes is one of defence even when it is the agressor. The western mainstream media owned by the globalists ensures that the ignorant mass of conditioned western population, swallow the story they’re given while Israel is acting precisely as the globalists want – to shake up the region.

Over time – after the 2nd world war – the globalists further consolidate their position in the Middle East by way of their technology and capability in finding and then drilling for oil via their oil and gas multinationals. The IMF does its bit to leverage entry for western conglomerates (globalist interests) into the region using bribery and outright corruption to increase the region’s debt but the region is still under the ultimate control of non western orientated leaders and establishment.

Then comes 9/11.

Netanyahu: “Good for Israel”. No buddy, you may have thought so at the time (but I doubt it because I’m sure you know the globalist plan) but you’re going to find out that it was the worst thing for the PEOPLE of Israel even though you, as a state, played a formidable part in it.

You see, while your Zionist neocons like Wolfowitz, Perle, Donald Rumsfeld etc wrote your PNAC document wherein you state:

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”


 “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”

[ And please note that the “What we require” and references to the “United States” are all actually translatable to “We” and “United States” being “Globalist interests” and nothing to do with the United States people at all – the US (and UK/NATO) military is ALL globalist controlled]

And you THINK that is beneficial to jewish/Israeli interests, you are terribly wrong.

So while Ehud Barak and Richard Perle are shouting for the Western nations (Christians doing the dirty work of the “jews”/Zionists once more) to attack a long list of nations in the Middle East on the very day of 9/11 on British TV (funnily enough all those same nations we are picking off one by one up to the present day)…..

Watch and listen from 7.20 onwards:

…. the culmination of all of this leads to a VERY different outcome for Israel which has not yet (but will) revealed itself.

When the magician does his magic trick through slight of hand, you are watching his left hand while his right is doing the REAL job!

Let me explain:

Israel refuses to tell US its Iran intentions

Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, raising fears that it may be planning a go-it-alone attack as early as next summer. (that is Summer 2012)

The US leader was rebuffed last month when he demanded private guarantees that   no strike would go ahead without White House notification, suggesting Israelno longer plans to “seek Washington’s permission”, sources said. The disclosure, made by insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between America’s most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s hawkish prime minister, comes amid concerns that Iran’s continuing progress towards nuclear weapons capability means the Jewish state has all but lost hope for a diplomatic solution.

On Tuesday, UN weapons inspectors released their most damning report to date   into Iran’s nuclear activities,   saying for the first time that the Islamic republic appeared to be building   a nuclear weapon. It was with that grave possiblity in mind that Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, flew into Israel last month on what was ostensibly a routine trip.

Officially, his brief was restricted to the Middle East peace process, but the most important part of his mission was a private meeting with Mr Netanyahu and the defence minister, Ehud Barak. Once all but a handful of trusted staff had left the room, Mr Panetta conveyed an urgent message from Barack Obama. The president, Mr Panetta said, wanted an unshakable guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations without first seeking Washington’s clearance.

The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.

“They did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent, but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington’s permission, or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway,” one said.

An Israeli attack could probably manage at most a dozen targets, using more than 100 F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

But not everyone is so sure. Mr Obama’s willingness to take on Iran militarily is openly questioned in Israel. And while many Israelis do not believe Iran has any intention of actually firing a nuclear missile at them, the the key question is whether their prime minister is one of them.

In Mr Netanyahu’s eyes, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is another “Hitler” whose aim is to complete what the Holocaust failed to do by wiping out the Jewish race.

“People outside Israel don’t understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making,” said Mr Bergman, the military analyst. “At the end of the day, this policy of  ‘never again’ would dictate Israel’s behaviour when intelligence comes through that Iran has come close to a bomb.”


Now, let us, at this point, correct the proven mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s words regarding “Wiping Israel off the map”. He did not ever say this. He stated that the Zionist regime (NOT Israel or the Israeli people) should disappear from the pages of history. ENTIRELY different words and intent from that which the Israeli, American and British mainstream media and press would have us all believe – but then it is the globalists who own them so it is what we have come to expect from our media whores.

Further, Israelis have every right to believe that Iran would not attack them. For what reason would Iran wish to attack? Let’s forget this old worn out “tactic” of “Because they hate us for our freedoms” – WHAT freedoms? Who feels free in ANY country these days under this Orwellian nightmare called Globalism? The Israelis themselves, I am sure, just like us Brits or Americans hardly feel “free”. We are not! We are controlled by a UN based upon a legal system oppressing us through our registration of birth (but that’s the subject of another blog you can read).

Israel themselves have nukes! Do the countries of the Middle East and their people live in constant fear that Israel would nuke them? (let’s ignore for a moment the fact that, with zionist hawks like Netanyahu at the helm, they probably would). Do the nations of the world all live in constant fear that the US or UK or any of the other nations with nukes are going to nuke them tomorrow or any day soon? Then WHY does the Israeli regime think Iran would? (even IF Iran were developing nukes which has, as yet never been proven while Iran says it is for nuclear energy). Is it that “persecution complex” which follows them everywhere at large again? Well by the sound of the above – “People outside Israel don’t understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making,”  – it probably is!

Imagine a PARANOID, rabid dog (or “Mad dog”) with nuclear weapons! Now THAT scares the hell out of me more than Mahmoud Achmadinejad!

So, what we have here is an Israeli regime suggesting they may well make a pre-emptive strike upon Iran in or around Summer 2012. Would that be to the globalists’ liking? I say yes. Very definitely so. Yet, from reading the above article and others, it would seem it is not to Obama’s liking now wouldn’t it? And yet we know that Obama is a globalist puppet so that doesn’t make sense does it?

Herr Rockefeller

Well yes it does. Because while the world believes that the US and UK etc are big Israeli buddies (and I have suggested this myself on the face of it in blogs and videos while I also recognise the bigger “game” in all of this), they are not. They are “buddies” (more like paid servants) of the Rothschild and Rockefeller globalists. Yes Rothschild owns/controls Israel BUT he sees it as simply another pawn in the game. Rothschild doesn’t give a damn about people whoever they are whatever nationality, religion or race. Rothschild doesn’t give a damn about the ideology of an Israeli state for Jews except it has been of great use up until now. NOW, however, it is past its “sell by” date. It’s usefulness as a regime in the middle east has come to a stop.

Why? Well, because, since 9/11 what has happened? The globalists have now directly taken up real estate in the region. They have Iraq and they now have Libya and, of course, Afghanistan. The globalists now control Israel and three other far more sizeable nations in the region. Israel is actually no longer needed AND, in fact, is somewhat of a problem for them because what the globalist plan is, is the total unification of the Arab muslim world under Islam with all states having the globalist (“western”) puppet regimes. However, the muslim nations/people do not want this “Mad dog” jewish nation biting at their heels and they wish to feel they are in charge of their own destiny. The Arab League and the Muslim Brotherhood (entirely globalist controlled) will have them believe they have achieved it while, quietly, the puppets will be singing the globalist tune (it was NEVER the western tune because the globalists are not interested in the ideas of east and west but simply globalism and one world government – the world is seen as their oyster NOT a country or region).

So HERE is the crux of the matter:

If and when Israel decide to make a pre-emptive strike on Iran (or perhaps another nation) – and Netanyahu is very probably well in step with the globalist aspirations to the point he and his cronies would be happy to sacrifice Israel for the agenda – the US globalist controlled Armed Forces (perhaps along with the UK and EU and NATO) would crush Israel.

I mentioned the Wolfowitz’s and Perles earlier. These nerds are lackeys in the scheme of things. They are useful idiots. Perhaps they actually believe they are having the western nations carry out Israel’s dirty work for Israel’s benefit or perhaps they ARE smarter than that, I don’t know. What I am 99% convinced of however is that while these guys strategise, there is a level above them who strategise on the “Grand Chessboard”. These individuals are the Kissingers and the Brzezinskis.

Now why does Obama seem reticient to attack Iran while also trying to be diplomatic and friendly with Israel? In fact, one would consider him to be very friendly with Israel since he is funded by Goldman Sachs and Rothschild picked etc. But Goldman and Rothschild are NOT concerned with Israel but with globalism. THEIR “Zionism” is not the zionism of the many jews who have bought into the story and ideology of a “homeland for the jews”. The Zionists allowed and consciously wished for the deaths and persecutions of the jews in WW2 and they got it. They wanted it because they wanted sufficient jewish blood to be spilled to give them a strong case to create the jewish homeland in Israel. But it was NEVER for the purpose of having a jewish homeland. It was for the purpose of having that globalist “beach-head” in the region to agitate while the globalists made their further plans.

Why did the Zionist organisation smuggle Nazis into Palestine near the end of the war? Smuggling Nazis into the homeland for the jews? Come on! Use your head!


Zionist Organisation smuggling Nazis into Palestine

So, as said earlier, high above the Wolfowitz and Perle neocons are the Kissingers and Brzezinskis. Now, Brzezinski wrote his book “The Grand Chessboard” in 1997 – 3 years before the neocons wrote their PNAC document suggesting a new Pearl Harbor would be useful to drum up Americans support for imperial wars by the American military (on behalf of the globalists who Brzezinski works for) and this is what HE said in it:

“…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Now let’s put the PNAC and Brzezinski quotes side by side:

“…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” PNAC

“…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” BRZEZINSKI

Zbigniew isn’t a jew yeah yeah yeah he’s a metal guru!

Now, by all means, look up the source document and book for each of these quotes and read in full context. You will see it changes nothing. Both of these groups/people knew what had to be done and they did it. If you wish to believe in coincidences like this then you might like a book I would recommend: Fables and Fairy stories by Hans Christian Andersen! Be careful though. It contains adult content suitable only for those 8 years and older!

But where is your evidence Earthling regarding the idea that the globalists (via the American/UK/NATO forces) would consider taking out Israel?

Here:  zbig-brzezinski-obama-administration-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

“We are not exactly impotent little babies,” Brzezinski said. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.”

And, from what I have read extensively about the modus operandi of the globalists plus having read “The Grand Chessboard” in entirety by Brzezinski and recognising whose payroll he is on and whose orders he takes (Rockefeller’s), I can see exactly that the grand scheme in this is to remove any and all Israeli threat to the Middle East (either destroying in totality the state called Israel or simply removing the zionist/jewish homeland ideology of it and its regime) and uniting the Islamic republics under a strong central core (which I believe may well be Iran) with globalist puppet leaders in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt etc etc etc. Such a region – wholly controlled by globalist interests – then “making amends” with the west and becoming “friends” and turning on the major “enemy” of the globalists: China. That is the intention. That is the globalist agenda. Taming China and Asia and then creating the One world government under globalist/banking control. The western nations already succumbed centuries ago. Parts of Asia already have such as Singapore and the Philippines (also Australia). Africa will be off limits to China resource-wise once the Middle East and the west make their “pact”. We can see Italy and Greece being run now by trilateralist central bankers. My only question is Russia. They are still very much influenced by the “Zionist”/”jewish” west but it is questionable by how much. Putin for instance doesn’t seem too enamoured by Rothschild.

So Israel the upshot is: You are a pawn and while you see the sabre rattling by the US and the west against Iran, the real target is you!


While here’s one last little quirk to think about:

Do you remember earlier the Telegraph report suggesting perhaps a strike by Israel in the Summer of 2012?

Just so happens that’s Zion Olympics!

And David Cameron has stated he is going to have surface to air missiles at the ready to defend against what? Terrorists? I mean there are terrorists and there are terrorists right?


“Come on down to London and enjoy the 2012 Zion Olympics. 1000 FBI agents, Mossad agents – this is the Olympics to end all olympics! It’s the MOTHER (fcuker) of all olympics! We even have Surface to Air missiles ready for launch against …… what? More hijacked planes? The Royal Airforce can’t send up intercepts to hijacked passenger aircraft? You think the men in caves have got hold of a nuke? Perhaps one you lost David? 😉

Christ lads! Whatever you do, don’t try to set any new world records for javelin or discus throwing otherwise you may just set off something else if you throw them to high and far: You may set off World War 3 and end up with not a new world record but a NEW WORLD ORDER!





Trump’s America: Destroyed by Executive Orders!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on November 7, 2011

So you love your new President’s Executive Orders?

In a few years’ time you will understand what they were all about you STUPID people!

But meanwhile, in your ignorance and false hope (just a “mirror” of Obama’s which you also fell for) you’re supporting the destruction of your country.

But hey, I know you’ll never believe or admit to it. But then, I don’t say I’m more intelligent than you (not at all), I just say I’ve done a vast amount more research to understand it.

(And for those of you who may be new to this site – I am neither American NOR liberal, nor right wing – I don’t buy into it all because I see the “show” which it is)

America: Not too long from now, you are in for a rude awakening. However, it will be subtle while you, strangely, buy into it. They’ve won – they’ve divided you sufficiently to be able to take the next steps.

US President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders in the Hall of Heroes at the Department of Defense Friday, Jan. 27, 2017 in Arlington, Va. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS) 1196704

US President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders in the Hall of Heroes at the Department of Defense Friday, Jan. 27, 2017 in Arlington, Va. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS) 1196704


Dear America,

It was nice knowing you! You never quite managed Independence (even though you may have thought you did but then you know how immensely deceptive these people are now and have always been) but you were the closest thing to freedom – note I do not use that disgusting, deceptive term “democracy” – that the planet ever had. However, even all the way back to George Washington, you were never quite free. But that detail, perhaps, is for another time, another blog and will take a long, arduous explanation.

How America was founded – the principles in a nutshell:

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Jacob G. Hornberger, November 2001

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Regardless of one’s judgment concerning the type of government that the Constitution brought into existence in 1787, no one can deny that it was truly the most unusual and radical in history.

Consider: With the tragic exception of slavery, the United States was a society in which people could, by and large, engage in any occupation or economic enterprise without a government license, permit, or regulation.

Where people could travel anywhere in the world without restriction (no passports) and trade with whomever they pleased without the permission of their government officials.

Where people could accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without government interference, because the Constitution did not permit the government to levy taxes on income.

Where people were free to do whatever they wanted with their own money — save, spend, donate, invest, hoard, or even destroy it.

Where government was not permitted to take care of people — no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education grants, or foreign aid.

With a few exceptions (e.g., 1850s Massachusetts), there were no compulsory public (i.e., government) school systems.

No wars on drugs, poverty, or wealth.

And open borders for the free immigration of people from anywhere in the world.

Like I say, regardless of how you might feel about the political and economic philosophy of the Founders of our country, no one can deny that the political and economic system that they brought into existence was the most unusual and radical in history.

Our Founders’ philosophy toward foreign affairs was also an unusual one. A primary responsibility of the U.S. government, they believed, was to protect the nation from invasion or attack and not involve itself in the affairs or conflicts of other nations.

The Founders clearly understood that horrible things would be seen all over the world, such as brutal tyrannies and cruel dictatorships — after all, they themselves had only recently been the victims of the brutality and cruelty of the British Empire.

But they believed that the best gift that America could give to the world would be a model for a free, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous society — a beacon for the rest of the world to follow. And they believed that that goal would be not be served if their government had the imperial power to straighten out messes all over the world.

Here’s what George Washington counseled to all succeeding generations of Americans in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns…. Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

Celebrating American freedom on July 4, 1821, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives setting forth the vision of the American republic:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart…. She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence … the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world.

Thus, when our 18th- and 19th-century ancestors celebrated the Fourth of July each year, the concept of freedom that they were celebrating was totally different from the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth. The freedom they celebrated involved a way of life in which government had little power to take their money, regulate their peaceful activities, or take care of them. It was also a freedom arising out of their government’s noninterference in the conflicts of foreign nations.

No one can deny that somewhere along the way, America changed direction, both domestically and internationally. How about a national debate as to which vision — the vision of Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, or that of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon — should guide our nation into its third century of existence?

Meanwhile, let’s look at the reality behind what is termed an “Executive Order” by your President:

Executive Orders: The authority to use Executive Orders isn’t even provided for in the US Constitution! It’s clear that when a President is sworn in he is the Executive and has the power to ensure the law is faithfully/properly executed but the following is essentially all that refers to the Executive power of the President within your Constitution….

“The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

But that does not, in any way, suggest that he has any power to create laws and yet that is what all these EOs do!

The Constitution clearly means that he ensures law (as created by the CONSTITUTION not him!) is executed properly! They have seriously gone way beyond their powers and remit!

Washington himself was the first to issue an Executive Order. Unfortunately, however – and rather ironically, it was he who created the precedent so early into this Republic governed by the rule of law NOT Executive Order!

President Rutherford Hayes once warned that although  American chief executives had to that point been conservative men wedded both to  precedent and to modesty in the exercise of presidential power, a future  president committed to concentrating power in his hands could make of the office  what he wished.

Attorney William J. Olson spoke to those gathered for Y2K and the Presidency, the May 8 conference sponsored by The Conservative Caucus, concerning the unconstitutional use of Executive Orders. Excerpts from his talk follow:

“President Washington issued the first Proclamation; it was…to declare a Day of National Thanksgiving. It was…pursuant to some Congressional action… certainly that’s a Proclamation that’s perfectly legitimate. …

“Even his Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation…was pursuant to a 1792 statute.”

“But then we get to the Neutrality Proclamation, which did not cite any Congressional or statutory authority. It sought to impose penalties on U.S. citizens who would deal with European powers at war. …it was viewed by others in government as an abuse of Executive authority.

And, when prosecutions were begun under that statute, the
court said, ‘No, that does not have the force of law, Mr. President. That is your opinion. You do not have the Congress’s concurrence.
…’ The Congress then passed the law, and the prosecutions continued. But in any event, it was very instructive time because people had then read the Constitution. …”

[Note this last proclamation forbade any dealings with European powers at war. A GOOD call actually considering the fact that the Bush patriarch and so many other so called “Americans” (actually all globalists no matter whether they hold an American passport) funded the Nazi war machine even after war was declared and so many of the Allied Powers troops were slaughtered by the “machine” – well oiled let’s say – which these so called “patriots” funded. Why is America (and yes Britain too) so stupid an sleepy-headed to acknowledge the facts that our governments and their Corporate/Banking paymasters play both sides and kill our own?]

Before leaving George Washington however, it is immensely enlightening to read incredibly prophetic words from the man regarding the introduction of political parties – Republican and Democrat not existing until after Washington’s Presidency (although there had been Federalists and Anti Federalists there were no specific parties):

The Dangers of Political Parties

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.
[Note: It is then obvious from this that the Federalists exist today in the form of Republicans while the Democrats have been more aligned with the French/German EU concept albeit that in the past 10 years or so Democrat and Republican, just as with Labour and Conservative in the UK, have been far more strongly aligned. Such is the influence of the real powers: Bankers, Bilderberg etc. There is still this split however to a degree whereby, in Europe, the British Conservative party, on the whole, still wish to have the greater say in Europe than the Labour Party which ties in with the Federalist/Republican attitude toward the UK and Europe. They all want the EU, it is just there is a little “negotiation” going on as to who has the greatest power within it. I am sure the Pilgrim Society will be working hard on this!]

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.

Moreover, Washington makes the case that “the alternate domination” of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and “is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” From Washington’s perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and “gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

Back to Executive Orders:

“Presidential executive orders are a particular type of presidential document that has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute. There is no law defining “executive order”, the meaning of the term has varied over the years. Prior to 1936, a document was an “executive order” because the president himself designated it as such. On February 18, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7298 prescribing a uniform manner of preparing executive orders”.


Isn’t it interesting to read how the University of Oregon puts this? “has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute”.

The reality is nothing of the kind. There is NO authority derived from the Constitution or a Federal Statute whatsoever as we saw earlier. They even indicate this when they say  “There is no law defining “executive order””. We have to then assume that American law students just accept this on face value! Not very prudent of them then and indicates a concerning lack of diligence on their part!

Can Executive Orders be Overridden or Withdrawn?

The president can amend or retract an executive at any time. The president may also issue an executive order superseding an existing one. New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, let’s be clear here: Executive Orders are NOT “Law” at all in ANY shape or form. They are purely the wishes of the incumbent President. Period! That is purely and simply a dictator’s dream!

Theodore Roosevelt did not merely extend executive prerogative here or  there; he put forth a full-fledged philosophy of the presidency that attempted  to justify his dramatic expansion of that office. He contended that the  president, by virtue of his election by the nation as a whole, possessed a  unique claim to be the representative of the entire American people – a position  taken by Andrew Jackson during the 1830s and for which he was sharply rebuked by  John C. Calhoun. Each member of the executive branch, but especially the  president, “was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do  all he could for the people.” He could, therefore, “do anything that the needs  of the nation demanded” unless expressly prohibited in the Constitution. “Under  this interpretation of executive power,” TR later reflected, “I did and caused  to be done many things not previously done. … I did not usurp power, but I did  greatly broaden the use of executive power.”

Since TR believed himself to be doing the people’s will,  and since he believed his own rhetoric that portrayed the president as the  people’s unique representative in American government, his need to fulfill this  special mission overrode concerns about the separation of powers. He remarked  privately that in the United States, “as in any nation which amounts to  anything, those in the end must govern who are willing actually to do the work  of governing; and in so far as the Senate becomes a merely obstructionist body  it will run the risk of seeing its power pass into other hands.”

It was TR who pioneered rule by executive order as a  governing style among American presidents. Many Americans rightly howled during  the 1990s when Bill Clinton’s aide Paul Begala famously said of executive  orders, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” But Clinton, who once  called Theodore Roosevelt his favorite Republican president, was only exercising  a power that TR had made a major feature of the presidential office early in the  century.

To appreciate the transformation that occurred in  American government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by  the presidents of the late 19th century. Presidents Hayes and Garfield each  issued none. Arthur issued three, Grover Cleveland (first term) six, Benjamin  Harrison four, Cleveland (second term) 71, and McKinley 51. TR issued  1,006.

Now, it is true that TR served nearly two terms. But  that figure is so much higher than that of his predecessors that it reveals a  vastly different philosophy of the presidency from that held by those who  preceded him.

To take just one domestic example, TR intervened in the  United Mine Workers strike in 1902, ordering the mine owners to agree to  arbitration. Should they instead remain obstinate, he threatened to order the  Army to take over and operate the coalmines. When informed that no  constitutional authorization existed for such a brazen act of confiscation, he  replied, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told the Washington  Post that when the Bush administration entered office, it was determined to  reinvigorate the presidency and reverse the steady reduction in executive power  and prerogative that had persisted since Watergate. But what reduction could the  vice president have had in mind? “The vice president,” noted Sen. John E. Sununu  (R-N.H.), “may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has  somehow lost power over the last 30 years.”

Whether or not the vice president was correct in his  analysis of the state of the presidency in the year 2000, there can be no  question that since then George W. Bush has dramatically expanded the powers of  the president – primarily though not exclusively in matters pertaining to the  war on terror.

One of the most notorious examples involved the torture  of prisoners, a power the administration claimed in the face of law and  international agreements to the contrary. “The assertion in the various legal  memoranda that the President can order the torture of prisoners despite statutes  and treaties forbidding it was another reach for presidential hegemony,” wrote  Anthony Lewis in the New York Review of Books. “The basic premise of the  American constitutional system is that those who hold power are subject to the  law…Bush’s lawyers seem ready to substitute something like the divine right of  kings.”

The Limits of Presidential Power:  Domestic Surveillance

Arguably the greatest controversy of all was the  revelation at the end of 2005 that the Bush administration had engaged in  domestic surveillance without the necessary warrants. James Bamford, author of  two books on the National Security Agency, points out the pertinent aspects of  what would appear to be the relevant law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance  Act (FISA), passed in 1978. According to Bamford, then-Attorney General Griffin  Bell testified before the intelligence committee that FISA acknowledged no “inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance.”

As Bell himself put it, “This bill specifically states  that the procedures in the bill are the exclusive means by which electronic  surveillance may be conducted.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush administration  officials spoke again and again of the president’s inherent powers. But the  pertinent statute in this case disclaims any such powers and requires that the  president proceed according to the guidelines set out by Congress, which  involves securing warrants from a special court. As things stand, the president  is claiming a right to engage in surveillance of any American, unrestrained by  any institutional check, in the service of the war on terror – a war that by its  very nature must go on indefinitely and, indeed, that we can never really know  is truly over.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the  reason the administration did not seek to revise FISA to give the president the  clear and unambiguous power to order these wiretaps was that even a Republican  Congress would not have gone along. In a Dec. 19 press briefing, the attorney  general said, “We have had discussions with Congress in the past – certain  members of Congress – as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to  adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be  difficult, if not impossible.”

The administration’s claim, as set forth by the attorney  general, is that Congress implicitly agreed to such wiretaps when in the days  following Sept. 11 it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators and  their allies. Of course, if Congress really had authorized them, it is not clear  why it would be so difficult for the administration to persuade Congress to  amend FISA accordingly in light of this permission.

The Limits of  Presidential Power: The New  Deal

Gonzales’s argument calls to mind H.L. Mencken’s 1937 “Constitution for the New Deal,” a satirical rewrite of the U.S Constitution,  which says of the attorney general, “It shall be his duty to provide legal  opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the  President.”

As the controversy over the wiretapping developed, it  was only a matter of time before the “even Lincoln did it” argument would be  heard. GOP apologists did not disappoint, reminding Americans that Honest Abe  engaged in massive violations of civil liberties while president. But Tom  DiLorenzo raises the proper reply to such claims in the form of remarks by  Supreme Court Justice David Davis – a personal friend of Lincoln – in the 1866  case Ex Parte Milligan: “The constitution of the United States is a law for  rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its  protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No  doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit  of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great  exigencies of government.”

As DiLorenzo suggests, if the government were to be  given carte blanche during wartime, all that would be necessary to whittle away  the people’s liberties would be to concoct – or to provoke – an endless series  of crises.

This is all deeply disturbing, to be sure. But to hear  much of the Left tell it, the presidency of George W. Bush is a bizarre  aberration in the history of the presidency and more or less sui generis. I have  no objection to those who describe the Bush presidency as utterly disastrous,  and I do not mean to excuse the president by recalling that the ideological and  institutional roots of the imperial presidency extend back at least a century.  My point, rather, is that a bit of history can enrich our  understanding.

Now, with all that in mind, perhaps you would wish to read the following Executive Order (just one of MANY bad ones which has been formulated to destroy America) written by George H.W. Bush:


He put America on sale to the highest bidder. While REMEMBER, all of that infrastructure (and natural resources) was built by you, the American people and funded by your tax dollars! The important Executive Orders for the people truly in charge never get repealed and the ones that do not quite do the job, get amended.

And note:

“Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No.
Federalism = “Monarchism” = Despotism
And now, it is so ingrained into your psyche that the Federal Government is all there ever has been and ever shall be that you have lost sight of what it SHOULD have been! You therefore, have lost your liberty and freedom America as so mant said you would. But it’s been out of sheer ignorance and misplaced pride. But pride comes before a fall.
The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised “monarchic” power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than Federal Government (and in the Federalist papers James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington.

Noted Anti-Federalists

One can also argue that Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but that his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

And who is it, do you think, who demands all of these Executive Orders and for what purpose?

It’s VERY simple. When you wish to destroy the sovereignty of a nation which has a working Constitution based upon the rule of law, you ensure you can change the law.

My question is: How do you make a “Conspiracy Theory” out of a blatant confession?

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.”

A child could understand this and say “There you go dad! There’s the culprit! Well at least the main “American” one!”

Oh the Irony!

As you cheer your new President on, because his Executive Orders are “stiffing” (so you believe) the liberals and the NWO, you’re actually promoting the death of that Constitution you conservatives, Republicans and Tea-Partyists say you love!

This “game” of theirs is FAR deeper than it seems you can fathom.

While, what do you do when you recognise the public are on to you? You give them a “leader” and promote him by attacking him endlessly and viciously because then the people BELIEVE he’s working for them! Such a simple, reverse psychology tactic. And your man Trump is one great actor!

How about that for sheer stupidity?

NB: Portions of this blog have been taken from various sources including Wikipedia and The Daily Reckoning.

Thomas Paine re-affirms the illigitimacy of the UN Articles of Human Rights!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on November 1, 2011

Having written the blog entitled “U.N. inadvertently confirms Freeman concept” u-n-inadvertently-confirms-freeman-concept  a week or so back, I must admit that I had no idea that such an ideology expressed within that blog would be further supported by such a figure as Thomas Paine. I have also, here, to admit my own ignorance in much of historical and political writings up until a few short years ago. Life, career and family tends to keep one busy and the last thing I was interested in, like so many still today, was politics and the finer details of Human Rights and other legal acts.

So, I am immensely surprised and delighted in stumbling over this book today by Thomas Paine because I couldn’t have asked for a better affirmation of what was written in the above blog.

The “Rights of Man” was written by Paine in 1791 and posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard its people, their natural rights, and their national interests. Using these points as a base it defends the French Revolution against Edmund Burke’s attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

The publication of Rights of Man caused a furor in England; Thomas Paine was tried in absentia, and convicted for seditious libel against the Crown, but was unavailable for hanging, having departed England for France.

Principally, Rights of Man opposes the idea of hereditary government — the belief that dictatorial government is necessary, because of man’s corrupt, essential nature. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) Edmund Burke says that true social stability arises if the nation’s poor majority are governed by a minority of wealthy aristocrats, and that lawful inheritance of power (wealth, religious, governing) ensured the propriety of political power being the exclusive domain of the nation’s élite social class — the nobility.

Rights of Man denounces Burke’s assertion of the nobility’s inherent hereditary wisdom; countering the implication that a nation has not a right to form a Government for governing itself. Paine refutes Burke’s definition of Government as “a contrivance of human wisdom”. Instead, Paine argues that Government is a contrivance of man, and it follows that hereditary succession and hereditary rights to govern cannot compose a Government — because the wisdom to govern cannot be inherited.

The arguments put forward in the “Rights of Man” are:

Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Government’s sole purpose is safeguarding the family and his/her inherent, inalienable rights; each societal institution that does not benefit the nation is illegitimate — especially the Monarchy, the Nobility, and the Military.

In essence then, Paine is stating (as expressed in bold type above) precisely what the blog regarding the UN’s Human Rights Charter based upon the deception of “LEGAL rights” is saying.

Isn’t it then interesting to note the British monarchy and nobility’s reaction to such simple, straightforward expression of man’s inherent rights and freedoms? Even today we see they do not wish you to simply have them but that THEY must bestow them upon you. Privileges therefore and not Rights. People MUST wake up and smell the coffee!

Thank you Mr Paine!

“Rights of Man”: index.htm