The Human Rights of dolphins

Posted in Law by earthling on July 27, 2013

Yes it’s ANOTHER “legal person” blog. Just because this message does not seem to be sinking in with the vast majority of Human Beings on this planet.

Now, before I go on, I think it’s great that we protect species on our planet (but PLEASE do not think this is done by the likes of the WWF etc – it is NOT) so I’m all for this initiative. BUT, like ANY initiative – just like the government’s initiative and legislation which protects gay rights, women’s rights, ethnic minority rights etc; if you have ANY experience with the law whatsoever you will know that such initiatives are exploited as positive discrimination practice which is, in itself, anti “Human Rights” because it literally gives certain groups MORE “rights” than others. Take employment law for example. If you are either of the previous 2 mentioned groups, you are FAR more protected and have a MUCH better chance of winning a legal case than if you are a white, straight male.

Don’t believe me? Try this:


Now, what you all have to understand (for if you don’t this human race is finished – the majority being slaughtered by tyrants and the rest enslaved) is that YOU HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS! They DO NOT EXIST! The documents which state they are “Human Rights Acts” DO NOT apply to human beings! They apply ONLY to LEGAL PERSONS! For until you are recognised as a LEGAL PERSON you do not exist in law. If you do not exist in law then how can a “non-existent” entity be conferred ANY benefits? It is a LOGICAL FALLACY!

So what is the problem of being a LEGAL PERSON as well as a Human being? Well it really does not take too much synapse energy to work it out and I have beat that path before on other blogs so, if you’d like to know, read them! If you don’t like my tone then too bad. Spite yourself by not learning because you don’t like the “teacher”. Do I give a fcuk?

I wrote a blog some time back re the “Natural person”, in which I included the following:

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov's Bible!

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov’s Bible!

“As Martine explains, this colloquium was inspired by the long-running colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, which began in 1958.  She sees a connection between space law in 1958 and human rights of futuristic persons right now, in that they are both incredibly cutting-edge in 1958 and today, respectively.  In 1958, the experts decided that some things that were taken for granted, like national borders, had to be tossed out in the face of the new technology.  For instance, if a space probe is orbiting the Earth, it will violate the “airspace” of many countries whether they like it or not.  We may have to discard similar assumptions to come up with a serious legal framework for futuristic persons.  The point of this colloquium is to move forward the law on these new areas, as the law must evolve together with improving knowledge.  One crucial area is that personhood should be regarded based on intelligence and values, rather than substrate or superficial appearance.

This colloquium could go on for a long time — 10, 20, 30 years.  It won’t be done overnight, but the point is to move forward the law and ensure that the rights of futuristic persons are duly protected by the legal system as they are created.”

Clones and Robots of the 21st Century WILL be given LEGAL PERSON STATUS. As will animals of various kinds. Now Corporations already have them and are given greater preferential treatment over human beings (while the idiotic human beings that we are WORK for the very corporations – and, in essence, give them “life” – who rule over us! THINK about that! We WORK the very systems of oppression {government, law, religion and corporations} which dictate our very lives! We give them the ‘breath of life’ which provides them the status and, ultimately, the very power over us that they have! We then have issues with them, as individuals, and THEY win hands down over us. THINK OF THE SHEER MADNESS OF THIS!

Next up, we have DOLPHINS (and I personally think they are beautiful creatures).

Dolphin persons

Give this some thought however. You may then just begin to recognise how absolutely controlled and anything but free that you are. You see, this is not a blog about giving dolphins rights. This is a blog to demonstrate and display to YOU that you have none!

1. “Bans holding them in captivity for commercial entertainment”

Let’s compare that with you. Are you held in captivity? Oh I really think that if you consider it seriously, you will recognise that, in fact, you are.

Commercial entertainment? Well let’s see. Let’s go back to those Corporations for example. They’re commercial and they are using you – perhaps not strictly for entertainment purposes (unless, of course you ARE an entertainer and there are many girls in certain clubs who are for instance) – but do you get to choose your working hours? Your working days? The work you do? The holidays you get? And do you REPORT to anyone? Even if you are the Vice President of Disney Corporation you STILL report to the President.

But then, just to really take the piss out of you, you have MPs who get paid over £2000 for 14 hours work per month for a water company. What does he do? Does he pump the water for them for 14 hours? Even that would be a decent hourly wage for a water pumper!

Then you get the non executives who you find on the Board of Directors of TENS of different companies! HOW can they possibly be doing a decent job for any of them while, for each, they may be getting paid hundreds or tens of thousands of pounds each directorship (or perhaps they just get tons of stock!). While YOU get a 9 to 5 and a contract which states you can’t work for anyone else while you are in full-time employment for the company. Now HOW does that work eh?


2. Do you think they’ll issue dolphins with passports? I guess not. Dolphins then, are FAR more free and less captive than you are even as a legal person.

3. Will they start having to pay VAT on their food bill? Will they even have a food bill? I doubt it somehow. Humans have the greatest intellect on the planet yet here we are, PAYING to live! (when we don’t have to).

4. Do they pay interest on their promissory obligations to each other? Oh yes, Dolphins and ALL sentient beings take on all sorts of promissory obligations. Again, we are the “intellects” and we have set up a system we allow to run which steals our own promissory obligations to each other AND charges us interest on them! Humans? Top of the food chain? Pull the other one!

There is a VERY interesting question to be raised here however. You understand the word “standing” when related to legal issues don’t you? For instance, if you are not a party to a contract, you have no “standing” in court to be heard in relation to any contractual dispute.

Look at it another way: The girl called Jade Jacobs Brooks from Essex, was considered non existent so she had no “standing” to demand her human rights be acknowledged and “benefits” (not that being given a passport and a citizenship is a “benefit” but, again, I’ve covered that elsewhere) conferred upon her.

But here’s a beauty: As stated by the UN, the child with no birth certificate, non existent in law then just like Jade, has no standing and, therefore, cannot be protected by the state. Those children all around the world in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine who have no ID/birth certificate, have NO STANDING in law such that, if they are murdered by America, Britain or Israel, there is NO legal basis on which to prosecute. Genocide can take place and if those who are killed have never had legal standing, they did not legally exist. They CANNOT, therefore, be legally considered as murdered! 

Now, that would APPEAR to be a good argument for ensuring one has a birth certificate and, therefore, is legally recognised right? But let’s look at the dolphin issue once more:

If a dolphin is killed, it has no birth certificate so HOW then does it achieve “legal personality”? Well, simple. A dolphin is obviously a dolphin right? So one dead dolphin means someone has murdered it. Or, if it is kept in a tank somewhere then it’s obviously a dolphin!

What about all those human beings who are trafficked year after year? Isn’t obvious they are human beings? Pretty obvious really if they walk into a court and say “Hey judge! I’m being held against my will for the purposes of prostitution”, What’s the first thing the judge or police will say? “ID and address please!” Yet what the FCUK has that got to do with what that person – sorry, human being – has just stated? IF, then, that human being has no ID or birth certificate or Social security number to give, then that human being DOES NOT exist as a person in law and the law will do NOTHING to help them!

Will a dolphin have to fill in form after form and submit them to court? Will it have to follow legal procedure? Will it have to submit all documents with a 7 day window? Will it have to write out an affidavit? No!

So let’s say someone has it captive in a tank somewhere. Someone else sees it and reports it to the authorities. Here’s the thing – under any circumstances related to HUMAN person’s rights (if such existed), to complain under such (and watch out because the British government are looking to introduce a new Bill of Rights which, in parliament, they have stated will be NON JUDICIABLE – figure that one out!) requires that you MUST be the one DIRECTLY affected by any action. All others who may complain generally about issues affecting you (or even them – if it is too generally applicable to society) have NO “standing” in the matter.

It reminds me again of our friend Ken Clarke when, in Parliament, he just laughed at the idea of a parliamentary question relating to Bilderberg. He said he does not see what interest Parliament have in a Private organisation and how that organisation is or can be under parliamentary scrutiny – effectively, then, what he is saying is that Parliament have no “standing” wrt Bilderberg because Bilderberg is private.


Answer: You don’t have one!

Why? Because YOU are a LEGAL PERSON SLAVE!

Meanwhile……. in Canada.

Canadian Queen oath

Forcing would-be Canadians to pledge allegiance to the Queen before they can become citizens is discriminatory and a violation of their constitutional rights, three permanent residents are set to argue in court on Friday.

All three maintain they oppose the oath on religious or conscientious grounds, saying pledging allegiance to Canada should be sufficient.

The Citizenship Act requires applicants for citizenship to swear or affirm they will be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.”

People born in Canada or abroad to Canadian parents are automatically citizens and don’t have to take any such oath.

“All of the applicants would willingly take an oath to observe the laws of Canada and fulfil their duties as Canadian citizens,” the document says.

That they cannot have the “convenience” of a Canadian passport or the right to vote is a small price to pay for adhering to their principles, the government argues. (Ahh! So they WILL allow them to adhere to their principles – and, I assume, believe they are providing for their “human rights” – but there’s a BIG problem with such an argument. It is a “human right” to be provided with a passport and the means to travel. It’s also a “human right” to be provided with citizenship and NOT a cut down version! So they may be allowed their beliefs BUT with a penalty of foregoing another human right? hahahaha. The legal person system is so incredibly see through it should be coming apart at the seams by now!)

 Why would ANYONE willingly take an oath to a piece of land and to abide by laws which they have not read or, perhaps, even understand the full implications of? It is this ignorance which provides these statist maniacs their power to manipulate and control every last person on this earth.
Discriminatory; Which it is. To live “freely” you must pledge allegiance to another? So much for free human beings to have freedom of conscience, thought and expression plus freedom of faith, religion etc. From the outset, no commonwealth country provides that freedom! How about that?But hey, no-one ever thinks of that! And the monarchists will ignore the pure contradiction in it and say “If you don’t like it, then leave”. But where does one go because one must accept “citizenship” and therefore, allegiance to another piece of earth with fictional boundaries drawn up.So, to have all those freedoms, one MUST become stateless. However, do that and they win again because their legal system will not provide any “human rights” to you including a passport.

And you think you are not captive? 🙂




HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………
Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”



HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

Secondly, and more importantly, the Royal prerogative is a fiction and a dangerous fiction. It includes a wide range of ministerial appointments and vast areas of patronage. It makes it difficult for the Royal Family. The present Queen has behaved impeccably but it is possible that a future head of state, for example, might have different views on fox hunting—I throw that out as a possibility—and that that might lead to problems. At present, the whole situation with regard to the Royal prerogative is an enormous cop-out for Ministers of any party. It has absolutely aided the growth of uncontrolled, undemocratic and unaccountable patronage—the so-called “demi-monde” of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has written. I believe that it also has the effect of emphasising the status of our citizens as subjects and not as citizens.

Finally, I refer to the Prime Minister. Any Prime Minister is a beneficiary of Royal prerogative. We have seen the dangers of it in the Butler report. That report showed how changes in our constitutional mechanisms have led to serious effects in our foreign policy, and it absolutely makes the case for a far more written constitution.

First, the Prime Minister’s power to declare war under the Royal prerogative should absolutely come to an end. As it happened, there was a parliamentary vote in March, before the Iraq war. But simply leaving it to one individual, particularly in the way in which the Butler inquiry showed that that decision was reached and with all the misrepresentation attached to it, means that we should go towards the American system of having parliamentary approval and should draw a great distinction between it and the fiction of the prerogative.

Finally—I know my time is up—the question of legality should be set out. If a war is to be undertaken, it should be clearly set out that it is legal and that constitutionally and internationally it is approved in law. Far too much is taken on trust. Our presently informal, secret, enclosed constitution is dangerous to our liberties and I greatly welcome the Motion that has enabled me, however briefly, to say that.



HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65


said, he supposed that the management of certain rights included the receipt of any profit from them?

§MR. DARBY GRIFFITH            said, he understood the proposition to be a sort of adjustment between the property of the Crown and of the public, equalizing a liability on the one hand and a debt on the other. The property of the Crown and certain other matters frequently spoken of were all pure legal fiction, for the property of the Crown had been, since the settlement of 1688, arranged by the Civil List, and the Crown could not possibly resume that property. The foreshore rights were of an uncertain character originally, and had been sometimes exercised in a hostile manner to individuals.


INDEED YOU ARE CAPTIVE! Your “legal person” is a created fiction by, ironically, another legal fiction called the Crown (a legal person in of itself) which assumes a greater status of legal person than your legal person and, in doing so, imposes its legal statutes and rules upon you.


A fundamental of law is the following: ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE IT.

The biggest joke played upon the world’s population ever to be conceived (along with the theft of our own promissory obligations to each other – again given legitimacy by the legal fiction of the Crown.




Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on July 16, 2013

I have to admit, it sometimes is very tiring constantly trying to dredge up more and more proof and evidence of things I wrote about on here. It’s like hardly anyone listens and, even if they do, so what? Nothing is ever done!

It’s like people just want to remain in a state of abject fear and ignorance and never wish to use the evidence toward any direct action.

I know I speak to an “audience” but does that audience ever use the information in any way whatsoever? Or just acknowledge the info as “interesting”?

Anyhow, enough of the rant. Forgive me, I just feel sometimes I’m knocking my head against a brick wall.

THE PROMISSORY NOTE IN SCOTLAND (for that is all you have AND all you need).

For all you out there who do not understand the MPE/Promissory note issue and think it is some form of “mad theorem” I ask you to think again. Scotland already works on the very basis of Promissory notes. Every single person in Scotland does not buy and sell with legal currency but with Promissory notes. NOW do you want to learn?

Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments falls into exactly the same category as the previous one, in that if there was one matter over which the Scottish Parliament would be expected to take control, it would be an issue of such symbolic importance as the Scottish bank note.

I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is not correct about the issue of the euro, as Scottish bank notes are not themselves legal tender; they are merely promissory notes issued under the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845 and the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928. They are backed by reserves in the banks concerned, but they are not themselves legal tender. For that reason, they could remain in circulation as promissory notes if they were reissued as euro notes in the event that we joined the single currency. Of course, the European central bank and the other member states would not recognise them as legal tender, but, as they do not have such recognition in England or, indeed, in Scotland, that would not be a problem. However, it would be interesting to hear on the record whether that is also the Government’s view.

The issue has symbolic importance. As the United Kingdom Parliament allowed Scottish notes to continue in issue long after the currency union between England and Scotland, it is extraordinary that they should not become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

Of course, the Government must reserve legal tender as United Kingdom issue over anything to do directly with currency, but, as Scottish bank notes are technically not currency, I fail to understand, and ask the Minister to explain, why promissory notes could not become a matter for the Scottish Parliament, rather than the United Kingdom Government, to supervise.

So Scotland already is ACKNOWLEDGED as working on the basis of PROMISSORY NOTES. Do you see ANY difference between YOUR lives north of the border in terms of how you use “money” to that south of the border or anywhere else?

No, you don’t! And there’s a reason for that. The reason being is that just as you accept and consider these acknowledged promissory notes (obligations) as your currency, the rest of the world does precisely the same because, as explained in my blog “The new economics will be mathematics”, ALL currency throughout the world are simply no more and no less than PROMISSORY NOTES which represent each and every one of our promissory obligations to one another.

THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH USING THE BANKS’ RE-PRESENTATIONS OF OUR OWN PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS IS THAT WE NEED TO PAY INTEREST TO THESE BANKS FOR THE SIMPLE USE OF THEIR REPRESENTATION (i.e. BANK  NOTES) OF OUR OWN MONEY! THAT IS ALL WE PAY INTEREST FOR YET, IF WE SIMPLY RECORDED EACH AND EVERY PROMISSORY TRANSACTION ON THE MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) then we pay no interest for goods and assets we buy and, therefore, there is NO ever spiralling upward NATIONAL DEBT because the REAL economy would be perfectly reflected by the amount of promissory obligations in circulation.


Monetary table

Because interest can never be re-paid, the economy must borrow MORE money from the banks to service the debt. The more that is borrowed the more interest owed which can NEVER be paid off. It is a TERMINAL system and it will eat up every living being like a form of monetary black hole. We are approaching the event horizon of this black hole and it is NOT going to be pretty and GOLD does not stop it!


The ONLY solution (because it is the true representation of what money actually is) is Mathematically Perfected Economy!

INCREDIBLE NEWS! (from Ireland)

Posted in Finance by earthling on July 11, 2013




“Its special attraction is its sheer simplicity. Government would legislate to allow all residential mortgagors, whether up to date or in arrears, to unilaterally restructure their monthly repayments by requiring the lenders to accept the borrower’s promissory note instead,” Mr Honohan said.

I’ve been harping on about MPE and Promissory notes and that they are as good as – in fact ARE – money, for donkeys now. This is getting SO close to confirming it (as if it needs to be confirmed if people just use their heads to confirm it for themselves!) that WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS BLOODY VIRAL PEOPLE OTHERWISE YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE ONGOING MISERY!

This is SO CLOSE to a full, outright admission, it’s blown me away!

The article

Promissory notes in

Now, please read my blog of a few weeks ago titled “The New Economics will be mathematics”:

One only now needs to ask oneself: WHY do we sign our PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS over to a middleman (the Banks) and pay interest on it? Why do we allow them to obfuscate our promissory obligations and STEAL our money from us and simply “RE-PUBLISH” them at an immense cost to us?


For an overview of MPE  and why the governments and banks do not want its full implementation watch the following videos in sequence…..

David Icke’s Corporate sponsors

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Uncategorized by earthling on July 7, 2013

Re-publishing this article because it was written PRIOR to my applying to TPV. I have already explained why I did and my change of heart (not so much a change of heart but thinking “I need to give these guys the benefit of the doubt”). So I did and guess what? I found I shouldn’t have! lol

Always go with your gut instinct. I MUST remember that. But the real interesting stuff here is Tabatabai’s connections. Globalist ones which you will see clearly IF you research them.

Following on from my blog entitled: David Icke: “A Central bank of his own” (

Icke does it again! He takes yet another step which demonstrates this is about a business venture; a media empire?; Icke’s voice not yours.

Time and again, we hear the words of politicians and bankers – they sound “good” some of the time and well justified. They say “Obamacare will provide healthcare for every family” without explaining the massive cost of doing so and the inability for you to opt out while the Congress and Senate do not have “Obamacare”. We hear him say “I won’t sign the NDAA” and he does. We hear “I will close Guantanamo” and he doesn’t. We hear “The Bush administration must stay within the law rather than illegally wiretap” and VOILA! NSA and Obama knew all about it. We hear him say “This will be the most transparent Whitehouse ever” and then journalists are targeted as are whistleblowers.

So what’s that got to do with Mr Icke? After all, I wrote the previous blog and some of the reactions of Icke’s followers were as entirely expected while some were hilarious in their naivety and gullibility. Well, Mr Icke is telling you one thing while he gets £300,000 from you to start up his venture (again, HIS not YOURS – he’s not giving YOU an interest whatsoever in it EXCEPT that he’s going to give you “the truth” – HIS truth. And of course, his followers will accept it as the truth because, to do otherwise, would have them have to admit that where they have spoken to friends, neighbours and family and invested so much of themselves into what he says – a lot of it, I admit, is fact but just enough of it is total utter bullshit and helps no-one even if it were fact! – they would lose face AND, don’t forget, they would then have to “opt out” of the “Icke gang”. People HAVE to have and be a member of SOME “gang” or other otherwise they feel lost. YET, Icke fans will say “think for yourselves”. I gotta laugh – if a lot of them thought for themselves their heads would explode!). That thing being that this is “your voice”, the “People’s Voice”. To a great extent it may well be BUT that’s just like the political parties who ask for their donations from THEIR “sheep”. Icke now has formally got himself “Icke lambs” (to the slaughter). These political donations to parties – do the parties then truly speak for the people who donate (the little guy who’s a member?) or do they speak for the large donors and the corporate donors?

Ask yourself that question then give yourself the answer which you know full well!

So you’ve donated to Mr Icke while he asks for £50 for a t-shirt and THEN – wait for it! – if you actually do wish for YOUR voice to be heard on his channel (NOT yours) then he’s only asking for £10,000 from you for a one half hour slot! You can learn to play guitar with a teacher for £10 per 1/2hour slot! Imagine giving a guitar teacher £10K for lessons. It would last you and he’d teach you until you surpassed Jimi Hendrix or Eddie Van Halen for christ’s sakes!

Anyhow, you’ve donated and get N O T H I N G except the pleasure of watching and listening to what Mr Icke decides to broadcast and you think “Hey! My 10 pence contributed to that!” YOU ASSHOLE! But don’t worry there are a hell of a lot of you so you’re in good company – part of the gang as I said. After all you’re “awake” (in your dreams!). Like George Carlin once said: “It’s called the American dream because you’ve got to be asleep to believe it”. Well with Icke it’s “If you don’t believe it or me then you’re not awake”. Sure most of you sense or can see all that is wrong in the world but that doesn’t mean you have any concept of being used like an evangelist uses his followers in their “church” where they donate and the evangelist walks away rich as hell and you are left with false hopes.

So, before I wrote my last blog on this, Mr Icke hadn’t mentioned a word about the donation v investment issue. Then he did. I don’t propose it was due to my blog on the subject BUT the timing was immaculate. This is the video he produced to “justify” what he was doing:

He has, since, gone on to accept Indiegogo’s suggestion/offer of another 10 days of “Crowdsourcing” funding for the TV channel venture.

BUT NOW, he’s taken a further step which shows his hand. Now I repeat – THIS IS A GUY THAT, UP UNTIL NOW, I PRETTY MUCH TRUSTED AS BEING ON THE LEVEL (with, perhaps, a few reservations but nothing like the reservations I have now) – I even shook his hand at Bilderberg 2013. However, I am quite simply stating this: David Icke and Alex Jones – whether or not they fully realise it – are doing a “job” for the globalists who are trying to turn this world on its head. The globalist want fear, they also want to show you the corruption and they want to create chaos and have you all in a mental state of confusion and an ignorantly based belief system that “capitalism is bad” or even “socialism” or any ism is bad. The fact is yes, they all are BUT this creation of chaos and the opening of “Pandora’s Box” showing the world how corrupt the present system is and our political leaders are is part of the globalist agenda! You even KNOW this when you read and take in what you read of their own documents PLUS if you read the protocols. They want the destruction of the present political system! I’m not saying it shouldn’t be destroyed, I am just concerned (for good reason) that the populations of the world are not going to be able to arrive at a populist solution but simply take what is offered to them!


But what they ARE doing is profiting from your misery just as the politicians and bankers are doing, From your misery, your ignorance and your gullibility!

Oh you’re NOT gullible?

How, then, is it that you are not demanding what Icke is offering to CORPORATES – Sponsorship deals! Now I’m sure that he said he didn’t want “Investors”. Didn’t he say that? I’m sure he did! But, once more, you Ickians will justify and excuse (the exact same behaviour you despise from those still not “awake” and supporting Obama or a political party or an “ism”).

“Sponsorship doesn’t mean Investor” I hear some (or most) of you say. Like the guy who turned to me and said “He’s asking for donations not investment” not recognising what a bloody stupid, obvious thing to say considering my point in the last blog was that he was asking for donations because he did not wish to give you an investment in HIS business!

So let’s look more closely at what Sponsorship means:

Corporate sponsorship can take many forms, but generally involves a company or organisation attaching its name to a charity, event, or other promotion in exchange for providing funds or paying a sponsorship fee. Corporate sponsorship is an effective means of advertising for many organisations, because it promotes goodwill. Companies are more likely to spend large amounts of money sponsoring highly publicised events due to the amount of publicity that can be generated and the opportunity to be affiliated with a good cause or popular event.

Typically a director of development from a charitable organisation initiates the contact. They begin by approaching marketing directors of different companies to solicit funding. Rather than solicit straight donations, the charity makes the offer sweeter for the company by offering sponsorship opportunities in exchange for monetary donations. The company is more likely to donate money to a charitable cause when they have the ability to gain publicity as a result.

The specific terms of the agreement are then outlined in a written contract. For example, a company is sponsoring a charity golf tournament. The terms of the agreement state that the company’s name and logo will be used on all marketing and promotional materials leading up to and on the day of the event. The company will be credited as the headline sponsor for the event in all radio and television advertising leading up to the event, and the company’s logo will appear on event T-shirts.

The company making the donation typically becomes actively involved in the charity after the relationship has been established. For example, the president or other representative of the sponsoring company may sit on the board of directors for the charitable organisation, or a representative from the sponsoring company takes an active role in helping to plan and organise the charitable event.

Now, whether or not those sponsors actually get a say or a chair on the board, the point is that Icke is going to have to keep the message(s) on the “People’s Voice” in line with the wishes of his Corporate Sponsors OR he isn’t going to get any. Not only that but these sponsors actually get something of value to them out of donating (in this case it IS an investment for them and David is quite happy to allow an investment – “but with no financial return to them you understand right?” ;-)) whereas you’re not even being offered anything of value for YOUR donation! (Except that naive belief that he’s going to be YOUR voice! LOL).

So, once more, Icke creates money out of nothing for himself (The effective “Quantitative Easing” by creating hundreds of thousands of pounds from the many’s small donations) and then he’s inviting the sponsors in – the advertisers – but no matter how much money he gets it will ALL be ploughed back into the station (let’s ignore that the “Directors” and staff – essentially Icke and his family and friends – will receive probably pretty good salaries out of this venture and as the sponsorship deals come through and advertising, so the salaries will increase. So “no profit” just damned nice salaries! 😉

But David’s going to work for free. Yes SURE he is. He won’t take a salary – of COURSE not – he’ll take a 6 monthly or yearly dividend. YOU don’t need to know that do you?

Now, here is the Company vehicle for “The People’s Voice”:

People's voice Directors

People’s voice Directors

So who’s the guy with the strange name (with “ADL” in the middle of it? A strange quirk considering isn’t it? Not that I’m suggesting anything I just found it funny for obvious reasons).

Well Sean is a Producer – as stated – and is also Icke’s “David” webmaster as well as his trusted partner in this venture. But he has strange connections. Now, anyone else with 47 connections on their LinkedIn profile, 2 of which (the most from one organisation) being the BBC, PLUS connections with “Newstate Partners LLP” (look them up) and “EF Education First (first for what? Conditioning students into a globalist mindset AND which has trips to Nazi Concentration Camps in Germany just to keep the holocaust in mind no doubt) would have ANY ONE OF YOU think “Ahah!!” if it were anyone else but the partner of David Icke but, since it is the partner of David Icke then “there must be some simple sort of explanation (which, you can be assured, there will be I’m sure).

Newstate Partners

Their roots with S.G. Warburg indeed while they advise governments and Central Banks on debt management etc. Yeah, he probably just does their websites too right? Plus the BBC’s, plus EF Education First – ALL globalist organisations. Sure the guy just has to make a living right?

EF Education First

EF Education First

Sean's network

Each of the circles on the outer ring represents one of his connections. This is where, if you hover over them on his LinkedIn page you find, amongst others, Newstate and EF. The large circle in the middle represents his largest number of connections with one organisation and that is only 2, both with the BBC.

Sure, if Icke has a LinkedIn he might even have a couple of people as connections from the BBC – who knows? – after all he used to work for them (Wogan might even be one of them! ;-)) but Tabatabai having connections with them AND the other two is just a LITTLE teeny weeny bit strange. However, I’m sure you don’t think so so by all means carry on believing.

Why do I write these blogs about Icke these days? Because, to me, he’s now transparent. I’m not saying he’s a bad dude but I despise the way he’s actually treating you, his audience. If you enjoy being treated in such a way then more power to your elbow.

Personally, however, I don’t think you’re NEARLY awake. Just naive and FAR too trusting and gullible.

How do you plea? “Unwittingly your honour!”

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on July 4, 2013

This is James Clapper



It reminds me of Bill Clinton in a way:

Question: “Bill did you or did you not have sex with that woman?”

Bill’s answer: “No!… well perhaps, unwittingly, I ejaculated once over her suit in the oval office but I can’t remember. I was having a bad day. Perhaps I had to blow off some steam but got confused and blew my load”

Time and again, we’re led to believe (or told) that these sort of people are “in control” and know what they’re doing yet, time and again – whether it’s Bush and Cheney stating as fact that they never once said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11; or Condaleeza Rice saying the Whitehouse would never had considered planes being flown into buildings; or Obama saying he would never sign the NDAA; or Cameron stating that depleted uranium would not be used in Libya; or Blair saying there was WMDs in Iraq; or Rumsfeld saying that there were underground “Cave cities” in the Mountains of Afghanistan; or…or…or…. – they claim they are either impotent, incompetent OR that they “UNWITTINGLY” said or did something. It just so happens that their claims of incompetence always seem to happen after the event and when the truth emerges that they told a shitfull of lies. AND YET, the excuses of “unwittingly” or “inadvertently” or “The intelligence I got was wrong” or a million other excuses for being the true – not incompetents but – LIARS that they are, stops them EVERYTIME from getting a jail sentence.

So, next time you’re up in court (because, you see, the reality of law is this: There must be an “Actus reus” and a “Mens Rea” and while the court will determine itself whether YOU have a guilty mind – the mens rea – or not, in the world of politics it is FORBIDDEN to call another of your colleagues, who is a “Right Honourable Gentleman”, a liar. That being so, there is no-one who can say to these people “I don’t believe you and no-one does therefore you are a liar and you are going to jail for life”. You see Right Honourable Gentlemen (and Ladies) “don’t lie”. It’s as simple as that and the entire edifice of politics works on this basis. If an MP in the House of Commons or a Lord in the House of Lords (or a Senator or a Congressman) were to turn in Parliament or the Congress/Senate and call another a liar, then that MP or Congressman etc is ejected from the house PLUS, no matter if he is being truthful and we all know it, he will be dealt with severely.

It is precisely the same when it comes to asking questions. There are some questions YOU DO NOT ASK IN PARLIAMENT. One example being “Who owns the Bank of England?” It is OFF LIMITS and, in fact, the answer to such is protected by the Official Secrets Act (look up Bank of England Act 1946).

So. with that, have a read of this:


Released by Edward Snowden on his Twitter account…..


2013-06-21 DNI Ltr to Sen. Feinstein

Clapper 1


Clapper 2



Now, if you have ANY idea of what Feinstein is, then I don’t have to tell you that she’s going to support Clapper to the hilt and they’ll both run from this issue like the Clappers!

Did you notice, however, who was sitting to Clapper’s left hand side in the video? Well… nothing abnormal about that is there? After all, when it comes to “U.S.Intelligence” you can just drop the two first letters and replace them with the name “Rockefeller” because that is precisely who (with certain others) run the “U.S.” Intelligence services.

I’m sure they run it “unwittingly” however when people finally let the penny drop and call them out on it.

David Rockefeller: “I unwittingly stated in my memoirs that I wanted a New World Order and was working with others throughout the globe to achieve that aim. I unwittingly forgot that that would be tantamount to treason by me and those others I work with to achieve it when our respective countries have sovereign Constitutions. I’m a little senile after all – though I don’t know what the others excuses will be!”

Well their excuses will be like Ken Clarke’s: ” I am unwittingly a Steering Committee member of Bilderberg and completely forgot about it! What that has to do with Parliament however is beyond me since Bilderberg is a PRIVATE organisation”.


Well folks, let’s all UNWITTINGLY start up a PRIVATE organisation whereby we plot to do WHATEVER we wish. What should it be? Murder? Bankrobbery? Treason?

YOU NAME IT. PARLIAMENT (who make our “laws”) CAN’T TOUCH US IT SEEMS AND IF THEY CAN’T THEN THE POLICE CAN’T I WOULD ASSUME SINCE THE “LAW” (Courts/Police) JUST SIMPLY ENFORCE WHATEVER LAW THAT PARLIAMENT PASS INTO ACTS. If Parliament has stated that it cannot interfere or even investigate what the purposes are of a PRIVATE organisation then let’s all start one shall we? If Parliament ask what we’re doing we just tell them to go screw themselves after all that is precisely what Bilderberg AND the Freemasons do!

I wonder: Do the Freemasons also protect themselves by way of CHATHAM HOUSE RULES?