Earthlinggb's Blog

Share amongst the Nation

Posted in Politics by earthling on February 19, 2013

For some reason, I completely overlooked a response I got from Nigel Farage’s office in the EU Parliament approximately 2 years ago.

I think it is VERY important that this be shared. It is also important to notice the PERCEPTION of individuals and how one individual’s perception (without giving one an opportunity to correct that perception) can go a long way to demonise an individual in the eyes of others.

If one simply chooses to take one’s PERCEPTION as a fact and then use that perception against another without giving the other recourse to correct a misperception (either purposefully conceived or otherwise) then that can lead to bad feeling, jail or even war between countries.

It is a lack of communication and/or willingness to listen to other opinions which can cause all of these things so very easily. You will see what I mean when you read the following:

 

His office's words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don't, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right. So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

His office’s words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.
The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don’t, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right.
So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

Subject: RE: Results from form on website…
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:13:50 +0200
From: nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu
To: Removed@hotmail.com
CC: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com

Dear Mr (Earthlinggb)
Thank you for your very pertinent questions, to which, however, in your closing “opinion”, you seem to assume certain answers.
The UKIP is opposed to the global politico-commercial cartel, in which the Rothschilds are prominent, and which underpins a number of supra-national organisations, notably the UNO and the EU.  If that cartel has undue influence on some members of UKIP, then I can only say that UKIP has its moles, traitors and agents provocateurs, just as you would expect in an anti-establishment party.  They expose themselves fairly regularly and we expel them as regularly.
UKIP is not “aligned with Zionist policy”.  We are in favour of democratic, sovereign nation-states, however, and are opposed to multiculturalism, which we see as a form of apartheid.  How this will play out in the Levant, with a minimum of bloodshed and loss of democratic structures, is not clear.
The written constitution of the UK consists of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and numerous statutes, which are now being over-ridden by a treacherous EU-élite, which has no justification whatever for its actions, and which has made a mockery, among much else, of the Coronation Oath.
The CFR, whose “shop-window” and recruiting-office is the annual Bilderberg-Meeting, must be seen as the epicentre of the conspiracy, of which the UK’s treacherous EU-élite is a part.  Throwing off the EU is therefore a key objective in opposing the formation of global, totalitarian government; but this is not something the public will readily understand – and does not need, at this stage, to understand – as long as the objective of dissolving the EU can be attained.  Moreover, as a poorly-funded, anti-establishment party, UKIP’s capacity to reach the public is severely limited.  We simply cannot afford, financially or tactically, to depart from our simple anti-EU message, at this time.
The face-book forum is too time-consuming to permit much dialogue.  I apologise, for example, concerning the ability of our correspondence-team, to answer your questions systematically.  We do not have the resources to do this, and Mr Farage has no time at all to answer general enquiries.  You won’t find any national party-leader who does.
Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
www.ukip.org    www.ukipmeps.org

From: Fuller Annabelle [mailto:annabelle.fuller@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2011 15:42
To: FARAGE Nigel
Subject: Fwd: Results from form on website…

This guy has been causing real problems on Nigel’s facebook page, being anti semitic and offensive. Can you check that Nigel is okay with me saying that given his comments on the facebook page he does not wish to interact with this person?

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Office of Nigel Farage <admin@nigelfaragemep.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Results from form on website…
To: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com===[Contact Nigel]===Name: Earthlinggb

Address: None of your business.

E-mail: Removed for privacy

Your Query: Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“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.”

6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?

7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?

8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?

9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?

10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?

11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?

12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.

My opinion of you Nigel is you\’re a fraud and a cheap one to boot. It\’s easy to stand up in the EU Parliament (a controlled venue) and make theatrical speeches which are then posted on Youtube which make you out to be \”Spartacus\” (My God!) but it\’s a lot harder to answer questions in public on your Facebook page isn\’t it?

As for your comment about not intentionally ignoring comments on your page, it doesn\’t quite hold water when then you resort to deleting them and then deleting the questioner entirely so he can no longer post questions YOU don\’t like.

Van Rumpoy may have the appearance of a damp rag but you have one of a Double Glazing salesman. You\’re just as transparent!