The Pornographic jew

Posted in Media, New World Order Religion, Paedophilia, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 29, 2013

A lesson into the destruction of family and morality.

And the jew who writes about jews having significant control and influence over the pornography industry. These people will bleat and moan about my being “anti semitic” for writing such blogs yet it is IN THEIR OWN WORDS which they are more than happy to promote (because, as I see it very clearly, they have such a huge chip on their shoulder and are so full of inbred hatred of all peoples who are non jews and they want it all their way) but you know? They have such “pride” that they cannot stop themselves from boasting, thereby writing their own evidence against them. But then there’s always the fifth amendment right?

This just looks at ONE aspect of the protocols – the debasement of morality in society and lo and behold, once more the “jews” spearhead it.

The protocols of Zion


“The return of the head of the Snake to ZION can only be accomplished after the power of all the Sovereigns of Europe has been laid low, that is to say, when by means of economic crises and wholesale destruction effected everywhere, there shall have been brought about a spiritual demoralization and a moral corruption, chiefly with the assistance of JEWISH WOMEN masquerading as French, Italians, etc. These are the surest spreader of licentiousness into the lives of the leading men at the heads of nations.” –  Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton anyone?

“Behold the alcoholized animals, bemused with drink, the right to an immoderate use of which comes along with freedom. It is not for us and ours to walk that road. The peoples of the goyim are bemused with alcoholic liquors; their youth has grown stupid on classicism and from early immorality, into which it has been inducted by our special agents — by tutors, lackeys, governesses in the houses of the wealthy, by clerks and others, by our women in the places of dissipation frequented by the goyim. In the number of these last I count also the so-called “society ladies,” voluntary followers of the others in corruption and luxury.”

“In countries known as progressive and enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature. For some time after our entrance to power we shall continue to encourage its existence in order to provide a telling relief by contrast to the speeches, party programme, which will be distributed from exalted quarters of ours. Our wise men, trained to become leaders of the goyim, will compose speeches, projects, memoirs, articles, which will be used by us to influence the minds of the goyim, directing them towards such understanding and forms of knowledge as have been determined by us.”


Who are the Elders?

This is a secret which has not been revealed. The are the Hidden Hand. They are not the “Board of Deputies” (the Jewish Parliament in England) or the “Universal Israelite Alliance” which sit in Paris. But the late Walter Rathenau of the Allgemeiner Electrizitaets Gesellschaft has thrown a little light on the subject and doubtless he was in possession of their names, being, in all likelihood, one of the chief leaders himself. Writing in the Wiener Freie Presse, December 24, 1912, he said:

“Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successor from their entourage. “



The principles and morality of these latter-day PROTOCOLs are as old as the tribe. Here is one of the Fifteenth Century which Jews can hardly pronounce a forgery, seeing that is taken from the Rothschild journal.

The Revue des etudes Juives, financed by James de Rothschild, published in 1889 two documents which showed how true the PROTOCOLs are in saying that the Learned Elders of Zion have been carrying on their plan for centuries. On January 13, 1489, Chemor, Jewish Rabbi of Arles in Provence, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constan- tinople, for advice, as the people of Arles were threatening the synagogues. What should the Jews do? This was the reply:

“Dear Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great a pain to hear it as yourselves.”


The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:

“1. As for what you say that the King of France obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise, but let the law of Moses be kept in your hearts.

2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your goods [the law was that on becoming converted Jews gave their possessions} make your sons merchants, that little by little they may despoil the Christians of theirs.

3. As for what you say about their making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.

4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons cannons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.

5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix themselves up with the affairs of State, in order that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged of them.

6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will bind by experience that, humiliated as your are, you will reach the actuality of power.”

Signed V.S.S.V.F.F., Prince of the Jews, 21st Caslue (November), 1489.


In the year 1844, on the eve of the Jewish Revolution of 1848, Benjamin Disraeli, whose real name was Israel, and who was a “damped”, or baptized Jew, published his novel, Conningsby, in which occurs this ominous passage:

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

And he went on to show that these personages were all Jews.

Now the Providence has brought to the light of day these secret PROTOCOLs all men may clearly see the hidden personages specified by Disraeli at work “behind the scenes” of all the Governments. This revelation entails on all white peoples the grave responsibility of examining and revising au fond their attitude towards the Race and Nation which boasts of its survival over all Empires.



The following letter appeared in the “Spectator” of August 27th, 1921.

When the PROTOCOLS first appeared in English it was pointed out that they embodied a forgery perpetrated by the Tsar’s police with the idea of promoting pogroms. It now appears that they are adapted from a “pamphlet” of 1865 attacking the Second Empire.” This is most interesting, but it explains nothing. As you point out, Mrs. Webster has shown the PROTOCOLS to be full of plagiarism which she effectively explained by the use of parallel columns, and before her most able book appeared Mr. Lucien Wolfe had traced other similarities. As the PROTOCOLS were obviously a compilation this was to be expected, and further resemblances may be discovered. The importance of the most sinister compilation that has ever appeared resides in the subject matter. The PROTOCOLS explain in almost laborious detail the objects of BOLSHEVISM and the methods of carrying it into effect. These methods were in operation in 1901 when Nilus said that he received the documents, but BOLSHEVISM was then MARXIAN COMMU- NISM, and the time had not come for applying it by military force. Nothing that was written in 1865 can have any bearing upon the deadly accuracy of the forecasts in the PROTOCOL, most of which have since been fulfilled to the letter. Moreover, the principles they enunciate corresponds closely with the recorded statements of JEWISH authorities. If you read the American edition, with its valuable annexes, you will understand this, and the confirmatory quotations there given can be multiplied. Even the “JEWISH WORLD DESPOTISM,” which you described as a “piece of malignant lunacy,” is not obscurely hinted at. Take this one quotation from JEWISH STATE, by Theodore Herzl:

“Where we sink we become revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party: when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”


Compare this ominous statement with those of the PROTOCOLS, of which it is plainly an echo.

“I note with thankfulness that you say that the discovery of the French pamphlet “does not clear up the whole mystery.” Indeed it does not, and if you will carefully read Mr. Ford’s amazing disclosure you will wish for more light. The main point is, of course, the source from which Nilus obtained the PROTOCOLS. The Russians who knew Nilus and his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the BOLSHEVIKS. His book, in which the PROTOCOLS only form one chapter, has not been translated though it would give some idea of the man. He was, I have been told by a Russian lady, absolutely incapable either of writing any portion of the PROTOCOLS or of being a party to fraud.

What is the most striking characteristic of the PROTOCOLS? The answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field. The solution of the “MYSTERY,” if it is one, is to be found by ascertaining where this uncanny knowledge on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be shown to reside.”

I am, Sir, &c., SYDENHAM


Here, we have a “jew” attempting to adapt the protocols to reflect they were written by jesuits/catholic church. The fact is it matters not who wrote them. What matters is that they were written over 100 years ago and accurately reflect the past 100 years of history and what is currently unfolding. You simply cannot ignore this.



By the late Leo H. Lehmann

    IT IS ADMITTED by all intelligent people that the so-called “Protocols of the Wise men of Zion” are criminal forgeries, and could never have been written either by a group of Jews or Freemasons.  Yet their authorship remains unknown.  The amazing part of it is that this fantastic fraud has succeeded in its planned objective– the ousting of all Judaic-Masonic influence in Central Europe by methods that would bring a blush to the cheek of a Torquemada.

      The contents of these alleged Protocols are well enough known, and have been broadcast in every country as authentic reports– proces verbaux— of secret conferences at which certain Jewish leaders drew up plans for the formation of an invisible world-government.  With the help of Masonic Lodges and the liberal, democratic, socialist and communist parties, these “Elders of Zion” are said to have conspired for the overthrow of all non-Jewish governments and to destroy all religions other than Judaism.  Every despicable means to weaken Christian institutions is set forth by the imaginary leaders of this vast conspiracy.

      All this is to be accomplished principally by means of the Masonic orders throughout the world, as the blind dupes and willing tools of this supraimperialism of the Jews.  Credit is claimed for the Jews in having instigated practically all revolutionary movements of the past century, assassinations of rulers and heads of states, all the wars, civil, racial and international, and all the upheavals in and throughout the nations– from the Protestant Reformation to the economic conditions that resulted in our business depression.  Behind it all there is pictured the cold calculation, the unscrupulous cunning and murderous fanaticism of these Elders of Zion.  Protocol One tells of a vast army of spies and secret agents, well supplied with funds, who bore from within and create dissension and revolution in all countries.  Support of anarchist, communist, and socialist movements for the destruction of Christian civilization is outlined in Protocol Three; also the debasement and ruin of the currency system, leading to a world-wide economic crisis.  Universal war against any nation or group of nations, which fails to respond, is planned in Protocol Seven.  Protocol Ten contains particulars how all morality is to be undermined and leading statesmen blackmailed, compromised and calumniated in order to force them to serve the ends of the conspirators.*

      The secret conclave, at which these monstrous plans were purported to have been drawn up, is said to have been held under the auspices of “one of the most influential and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry”; they are also said to have been “signed by representatives of Zion of the Thirty-Third Degree.”

      No group of organization could ever be as evil and satanic as these Judaic-Masonic Elders of Zion picture themselves to be.  They are the apotheosis of the anti-Christ, and could only have been conjured up by minds imbued with the fearful expectation of the eventual coming of an anti-Christ.

      It must be admitted that there is a certain similarity between this revolutionary plan of action and the Bolshevist program that followed the assassination of the Czar of Russia and the overthrow of the Kerensky regime.  But of the seventeen members of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet government at that time, only one, Trotsky, was a Jew.  Neither have the Masons ever been the least bit influential in Russia, either under the Czar or the Soviets.  A world-wide economic depression also has since happened, somewhat similar to that allegedly planned by these elders of Zion.  By no means, however, have the Jews and Masons ever so completely controlled the world’s finances.  They suffered as much as others as a result of the economic debacle.

      The Nazi-Fascists, who have successfully exploited these Protocols to their great advantage, and who have  used these criminal forgeries to attain their primary objective, might well be accused of their authorship.  But their publication  antedated the rise of Fascism by a quarter of a century, when Hitler and Mussolini were youngsters learning their multiplication tables in school, and Franco babbling his “Hail Marys” at his mother’s knee.

      Now, authorship of an anonymous document is best discovered from the document itself– by the cause it favors and the enemies it depicts.  These will appear even if placed in reverse.  A clear sample of this can be seen from such an analysis of a part of these Protocols of Zion which I have before me.  It is a reprint from The Catholic Gazette, of February, 1936, a monthly publication of the Catholic Missionary Society of London, England.  Space limits permit the quotation of only parts of this nefarious document.

      The Judaic-Masonic conspirators are speaking:

      “As long as there remains among the Gentiles any moral conception of the social order, and until all faith, patriotism, and dignity are uprooted, our reign over the world shall not come…

      “We have still a long way to go before we can overthrow our main opponent: the Catholic Church…

      “We must always bear in mind that the Catholic Church is the only institution which has stood, and which will, as long as it remains in existence, stand in our way.  The Catholic Church, with her methodical work and her edifying and moral teachings, will always keep her children in such a state of mind as to make them too self-respecting to yield to our domination, and to bow before our future king of Israel…

      “That is why we have been striving to discover the best way of shaking the Catholic Church to her very foundations…

      “We have blackened the Catholic Church with the most ignominious calumnies, we have stained her history and disgraced even her noblest activities.  We have imputed to her the wrongs of her enemies, and have thus brought these latter to stand more closely by our side… We have turned her Clergy into objects of hatred and ridicule, we have subjected them to the contempt of the crowd… We have caused the practice of the Catholic Religion to be considered out of date and a mere waste of time…

      “One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of Israel…

      “So far, we have considered our strategy in our attacks upon the Catholic Church from the outside… Let us now explain how we have gone further in our work, to hasten the ruin of the Catholic Church… and how we have brought even some of her Clergy  to become pioneers of our cause.

      “We have induced some of our children to join the Catholic body, with the explicit intimation that they should work in a still more efficient way for the disintegration of the Catholic Church…

      “We are the Fathers of all Revolutions– even of those which sometimes happen to turn against us.  We are the supreme Masters of Peace and War.  We can boast of being the Creators of the REFORMATION! (sic).  Calvin was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation.

      “Martin Luther yielded to the influence of his Jewish friends, and again, by Jewish authority and with Jewish finance, his plot against the Catholic Church met with success…

      “Thanks to our propaganda, to our theories of LIBERALISM and to our MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FREEDOM (sic), the minds of many among the Gentiles were ready to welcome the Reformation.  They separated from the Church to fall into our snare.  And thus the Catholic Church has been sensibly weakened, and her authority over the Kings of the Gentiles has been reduced  to almost naught…

      “We are grateful to PROTESTANTS for their loyalty to our wishes– although most of them are, in the sincerity of their  faith, unaware of their loyalty to us…

      “France, with her Masonic government, is under our thumb.  England, in her dependence upon our finance, is under our heel; and in her Protestantism is our hope for the destruction of the Catholic Church.  Spain and Mexico are but toys in our hands.  And many other countries, including the U.S.A., have already fallen before our scheming…

      “Likewise, as regards our diplomatic plans and the power of our secret societies, there is no  organization to equal us.  The Jesuits are the only ones to compare with us.  But we have succeeded in discrediting them… for they are a visible organization, whereas  we are safely hidden under the cover of our secret societies.

      “But the Catholic Church is still alive…

      “We must destroy her without the least delay and without the slightest mercy… Let us intensify our activities in poisoning the morality of the Gentiles.  Let us spread the spirit of revolution in the minds of the people.  They must be made to despise Patriotism and the love of family, to consider their faith as a humbug… Let us make it impossible for Christians outside the Catholic Church to be reunited to that Church, otherwise the  greatest obstruction to our domination will be strengthened and all our work undone…

      “Let us remember that as long as there still remains active enemies of the Catholic Church, we may hope to become Masters of the World… And let us remember always that the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before the Pope in Rome is dethroned…

      “When the time comes and the power of the Pope shall at last be broken, the fingers of an invisible hand will call the attention of the masses of the people to the court of the Sovereign Pontiff to let them know that we have completely undermined the power of the Papacy… The King of the Jews will then be the real pope and the Father of the Jewish World-Church.”

  (End of quotation.)

      When all this is placed in reverse, the following appears:

      The Catholic Church is the only upholder of morality, the social order, faith, patriotism and dignity…

      The Catholic Church is the only institution which has stood, and which will always stand, in the way of antichrist.

      The Catholic Church is the great exemplar of methodical work, edifying and moral teachings; she always keeps her children self-respecting, and will never bow to satanic allurements.

      Only when Catholics become ashamed of professing the precepts of the Church and obeying its commands, shall we have the spread of revolt and false liberalism.

      The Catholic Church has been blackened by the most ignominious  calumnies, her history has been stained, and her noblest activities disgraced.  The Practices of the Catholic Church are not out of date or a mere waste of time.

      Freemasonry is allied with Satan against the Catholic Church.  Not all priests are to be trusted; liberal Catholic priests only serve the work of the devil.

      The Reformation was the work of evil conspirators.  Calvin and Luther were financed by them to overthrow the Catholic Church.

      Freedom and liberty are mere misrepresentations of good.  Protestants have unwittingly helped to bring all the evils into our present world.  Protestant England aims to destroy the Catholic Church.  All that may happen in Spain and Mexico is a part of a plot against the Catholic Religion.

      The Jesuits are not an underhand organization, but all they do is open and above board.  The Jesuits are the only organization, however, who can defeat the force of evil in the world.

      Finally: As long as the Pope remains on his throne in Rome the world is safe…

      This is exactly what is taught in all Catholic schools.  Every retreat and mission given to priests and lay people begins with St. Ignatius’ picture of “The Two Camps”– the Catholic Church led by God on one hill, and the combination of Protestants, Jews, masons, communists, socialists and atheists on the other led by Satan.

      And all of this is to be found again in Father Coughlin’s Social Justice magazine.  In its issue of February 5, (1940), for instance, he reiterates that the Catholic Church is “the ideal Christian Front” and proclaims that all those opposed to, or not with it, belong to anti-Christian groups which will soon “appear incarnated in the person of Antichrist himself.”  He says that “lay Christian leadership of social matters is to be condemned.” A Special Correspondent of his magazine in Rome writes an article that the “Only Hope of Christian Europe Lies in Rome,” and that Europe can only be saved by the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire; that England, “who more than any other country now represents the neo-Judaic, anti-Catholic spirit,” will be destroyed by Germany and Italy.  In another part of this issue, liberal Catholic priests, like Mgr. John A. Ryan, are called “Hireling Clergy” paid by left-wing revolutionary groups.  Towards the end is a trick questionnaire which implies twenty answers aimed to secure a poll from its readers which will be condemnatory of democracy.

      Although first published in Russia in 1903, the Protocols of Zion had their origin in France and date from the Dreyfus Affair, of which the Jesuits were the chief instigators.  They were planned also first to take effect in France, by the overthrow of the “Judaic-Masonic” government of the French Republic.  But the discovery of the gigantic fraud of Leo Taxil, who had been openly supported by the Jesuits, the concluding of the Franco-Russian alliance, along with the Vatican’s difficulties with the French government at that time, made it more opportune to have them appear first in Russia.

      These Protocols of supposedly Jewish leaders are not the first documents of their kind fabricated by the Jesuits.

      For over a hundred years before these Protocols appeared, the Jesuits had continued to make use of a similar fraud called “The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine”  against Jansenism– a liberal French Catholic movement among the secular clergy.   The analogy between the two forgeries is perfect– the secret assemblage in the forest of Bourg-Fontaine, the plan of the “conspirators” to destroy the Papacy and establish religious tolerance among all nations, the alleged plot against Throne and Altar, and the setting up of a world-government in opposition to the Catholic Church.  There is the same dramatization of the negative pole of the historic evolution of the world, in order to bring out, by contrast, the positive Christian (Catholic) pole, around which all conservative forces– the monarchy, the aristocracy, the army, the clergy– must gather to save the world from Satan’s onslaught.

      Analyzing, therefore, the ends to be attained by these Protocols of Zion, the means to be employed, the forces depicted as evil and those to be considered good, we must reach the conclusion that only to those, whose objectives these forgeries were clearly intended to serve, can their authorship be attributed.

  The End

(Originally taken from “Behind the Dictators,” by L.H. Lehmann and reprinted by permission of Agora Publishing Company, New York 6, New York.  Copyright by Agora Publishing Company.)

Taken from Old Fashioned Prophecy Magazine, ed. Eric C. Peters, Vol. X, Nos. 5 & 6, September-December, 1968. pp. 29-37.      

   Knowledgeable Christians should know that this picture is not Scriptural.  It calls into question Revelation 17:18 and all of Revelation 18, with its great emphasis on verse 24.  Rome “Christian” is the culprit; NOT THE JEW! Hence we must decide between the veracity of the author of the Protocols and the veracity of our Lord Jesus Christ. – Editor, OFPM


Now on to porn today:


Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry

Nathan Abrams  |  Winter 2004  –  Number 196

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue Jews’.

Smut peddlers

Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin. According to Jay A. Gertzman, author of Bookleggers and Smuthounds:The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), ‘Jews were prominent in the distribution ofgallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials’.


mr411exotik1In the postwar era, America’s most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the ‘Walt Disney of Porn’. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country.

Reuben Sturman

Reuben Sturman



Born in 1924, Sturman grew up in Cleveland’s East Side. Initially, he sold comics and magazines, but when he realized sex magazines produced twenty times the revenue of comic books, he moved exclusively into porn, eventually producing his own titles and setting up retail stores. By the end of the 1960s, Sturman ranked at the top of adult magazine distributors and by the mid-70s he owned over 200 adult bookstores. Sturman also introduced updated versions of the traditional peepshow booth (typically a dark room with a small colour TV on which the viewer can view X-rated videos). It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry. Eventually he was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes and died, disgraced, in prison in 1997. His son, David, continued running the family business.

The contemporary incarnation of Sturman is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch, who has been described as ‘the Donald Trump of porno’. The link between the two is Steve’s father, Fred, who was a stockbroker-cum-lieutenant to Sturman. Today Hirsch runs the Vivid Entertainment Group, which has been called the Microsoft of the porn world, the top producer of ‘adult’ films in the US. His specialty was to import mainstream marketing techniques into the porn business. Indeed, Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by Hirsch. Vivid was the subject of a behind-the-scenes reality TV show recently broadcast on Channel 4.

Steven Hirsch - Vivid

Steven Hirsch – Vivid

Nice Jewish girls and boys

Jews accounted for most of the leading male performers as well as a sizeable number of female stars in porn movies of the 1970s and ‘80s. The doyen of the Hebrew studs is Ron Jeremy. Known in the trade as ‘the Hedgehog’, Jeremy is one of America’s biggest porn stars. The 51-year-old Jeremy was raised in an upper-middle-class Jewish family in Flushing, Queens, and has since appeared in more than 1,600 adult movies, as well as directing over 100. Jeremy has achieved iconic status in America, a hero to males of all ages, Jewish and gentile alike – he’s the nebbischy, fat, hairy, ugly guy who gets to bed dozens of beautiful women. He presents an image of a modern-day King David, a Jewish superstud who supersedes the traditional heroes of Jewish lore. No sallow Talmud scholar he. His stature was recently cemented with the release of a pornomentary about his life, Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy. As probably the most famous Jewish male porn star, Jeremy has done wonders for the psyche of Jewish men in America. Jeremy has also just released a compilation CD, Bang-A-Long-With Ron Jeremy. For £7.99 (including delivery), the lucky listener gets to enjoy Jeremy’s hand-picked favourite porno grooves along with narration by ‘the legend’ himself. As the publicity blurb gushes, ‘Out of the brown paper wrappings and into the mainstream’.

Seymore Butts, aka Adam Glasser, is everything that Jeremy is not: young, handsome and toned. Glasser, a 39-year-old New York Jew, opened a gym in 1991 in Los Angeles. When no one joined, he borrowed a video camera for 24 hours, went to a nearby strip club, recruited a woman, then headed back to his gym and started shooting. Although the movie stank, with a bit of chutzpah and a few business cards he wangled a deal with a manufacturer and started cranking out films. Within a few years, ‘Seymore Butts’ – his nom de porn which is simultaneously his sales pitch – became one of the largest franchises in the adult-film business. As the king of the gonzo genre (marked by handheld cameras, the illusion of spontaneity and a low-tech aesthetic meant to suggest reality), he is today probably the most famous Jewish porn mogul. Seymore Inc., his production company, releases about 36 films annually, most of them shot for less than $15,000, each of them grossing more than 10 times that sum. Glasser employs 12 people, including his mother and cousin Stevie as respectively genial company accountant (and matchmaker for her single son) and lovable but roguish general gopher. Glasser currently even has his own reality TV show (also broadcast on Channel 4), a ten-episode docu-soap calledFamily Business, whose opening credits show Glasser’s barmitzvah photo.

In search of a buck

Jews became involved in the porn industry for much the same reasons that their co-religionists became involved in Hollywood. They were attracted to an industry primarily because it admitted them. Its newness meant that restrictive barriers had not yet been erected, as they had in so many other areas of American life. In porn, there was no discrimination against Jews. During the early part of the twentieth century, an entrepreneur did not require large sums of money to make a start in the film business; cinema was considered a passing fad. In the porn business, it was similarly straightforward to get going. To show ‘stag’ movies or loops, as they were known, all one needed was a projector, screen and a few chairs. Not tied up with the status quo and with nothing to lose by innovation, Jews were open to new ways of doing business. Gertzman explains that

“Jews, when they found themselves excluded from a field of endeavour, turned to a profession in which they sensed they could eventually thrive by cooperating with colleagues in a community of effort . . . Jews have for a very long time cultivated the temperament and talents of middlemen, and they are proud of these abilities”.

The adult entertainment business required something that Jews possessed in abundance:chutzpah. Early Jewish pornographers were marketing geniuses and ambitious entrepreneurs whose toughness, intelligence and boundless self-confidence were responsible for their successes.

Of course, the large number of Jews in porn were mainly motivated by the desire to make profits. Just as their counterparts in Hollywood provided a dream factory for Americans, a blank screen upon which the Jewish moguls’ visions of America could be created and projected, so the porn-moguls displayed a talent for understanding public tastes. What better way to provide the stuff of dreams and fantasies than through the adult-entertainment industry? Performers did porn for the money. As ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman commented, ‘Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.’

Secular sex

Adam Glasser aka "Seymour Butts"

Adam Glasser aka “Seymour Butts”

Like their mainstream counterparts, Jews who enter porn do not usually do so as representatives of their religious group. Most of the performers and pornographers are Jewish culturally but not religiously. Many are entirely secular, Jews in name only. Sturman, however, identified as a Jew – he was a generous donator to Jewish charities – and performer Richard Pacheco once interviewed to be a rabbinical student.

Very few, if any, porn films have overtly Jewish themes, although Jeremy once tried to get several Jewish porn stars together to make a kosher porn film. The exception is Debbie Duz Dishes, in which Nina Hartley plays a sexually insatiable Jewish housewife who enjoys sex with anyone who rings the doorbell. It has sold very well, spawned a couple of sequels and is currently very hard to buy – perhaps indicating a new niche to exploit. Indeed, according to an editorial on the World Union of Jewish Students website,

“there are thousands of people searching for Jewish porn. After things like Jewish calendar, Jewish singles, Jewish dating, and Jewish festivals comes ‘Jewish porn’ in the list of top search keywords that provide”.

Sexual rebelsFamily business

Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? There is surely an element of rebellion in Jewish X-rated involvement. Its very taboo and forbidden nature serves to make it attractive. As I written in these pages before,treyf signifies ‘the whole world of forbidden sexuality, the sexuality of the goyim, and there all the delights are imagined to lie . . .’ (‘Reel Kashrut: Jewish food in film’, JQ 189 [Spring 2003]).

According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazineCulture Wars (May 2003), ‘the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools’. The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.

Furthermore, as Orthodox Jew and porn gossipmonger Luke Ford explains on his website ( ‘Porn is just one expression of [the] rebellion against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to Torah that marks a Jew living Judaism.’ It is also a revolt against (often middle-class) parents who wish their children to be lawyers, doctors and accountants. As performer Bobby Astyr put it on the same website, ‘It’s an “up yours” to the uncles with the pinky rings who got down on me as a kid for wanting to be musician.’

As religious influences waned and were replaced by secular ones, free-thinking Jews, especially those from California’s Bay Area, viewed sex as a means of personal and political liberation. America provided the freest society Jews have ever known, as manifested by the growth of the adult industry. Those Jewish women who have sex onscreen certainly stand in sharp contradiction to the stereotype of the ‘Jewish American Princess’. They (and I’m speculating here) may have seen themselves as fulfilling the promise of liberation, emancipating themselves from what feminist Betty Friedan in 1963 called the ‘comfortable concentration camp’ of the household as they set out into the Promised Land of the porno sets of Southern California. It signified their economic and social freedom: they were free to choose to enter, rather than coerced into it by economic and other circumstances. Once they had lain down, they could stand on their own two feet, particularly as female performers typically earn twice as much as their male counterparts.

Sexual revolutionaries

Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on, ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the ‘what the Butler saw’ voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic. As new sexual positions are portrayed, the desire to shock (as well as entertain) seems clear.

It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the ‘beautiful cultural consequences’ that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would ‘ennoble all our art’ and ‘humanize sexuality’. Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich’s intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx (

“Before I got my first part in an adult film, I went down to an audition for an X-rated film with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich’s Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, ‘love and sex’.”

As Rabbi Samuel H. Dresner put it (E. Michael Jones, ‘Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos’ Culture Wars, May 2003), ‘Jewish rebellion has broken out on several levels’, one being ‘the prominent role of Jews as advocates to sexual experimentation’. Overall, then, porn performers are a group of people who praise rebellion, self-fulfilment and promiscuity.

What are we ashamed of?

The likeness is stunning don't you think?

The likeness is stunning don’t you think?

This brief overview and analysis of the role and motivations behind pornographers and performers is intended to shed light on a neglected topic in American Jewish popular culture. Little has been written about it. Books such as Howard M. Sachar’s A History of the Jews in America (New York: Knopf, 1992) simply ignore the topic. And you can bet that the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the Jews in the United States did not include any celebrations of Jewish innovation in this field. Even the usually tolerant Time Out New York has been too prim to deal with it, although the more iconoclastic Heeb plans an issue on it. In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously.

Nathan Abrams is a Lecturer in Modern American History at the University of Aberdeen. He has just completed a book on neo-conservatism in the United States.


Well, As ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman commented, ‘Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.’ Our Abe will see nothing wrong with our Ron’s depiction of a christian cross spearing him through the throat so I guess our Abe can’t see anything wrong with this little ditty:

Star of david cutting throat



Our Abe, like a great musician but who I now recognise as a prick – Peter Gabriel – thinks Femen and Pussy Riot is all about “free speech” and there’s nothing hateful in that right?

So Abe and friends don’t see anything wrong with shit like this:





Femen Al Qaeda




From a little slut jewish Princess no doubt! (a non practicing secular one of course)

But I think Zappa says it best:

Of course David Icke and The People’s Voice will jump at the chance of having any of these jewish porn magnates on the shows. Give them a voice David! 😉

Strange how he speaks of Rothschild Zionism then promotes porn on his station isn’t it? Or isn’t it?


Posted in Finance by earthling on December 28, 2013

Ok, the word is out. I’ve been wondering for quite a while where this “bit coin” garbage has been emanating from. I now have the answer.

Barck Obama and Eric Schmidt

Barck Obama and Eric Schmidt

Bitcoin is NOTHING more than an alternative investment product – another commodity. That is all it is. This has been clear to me for quite some time now and, for the life of me, I could not understand these alternative media – so called “gurus” – such as Max Keiser (who refused point blank by the way to discuss mathematically perfected economy and who is, in fact, a Wall Street investor. That is all he is and all he ver shall be and he is pushing his “alternatives” to benefit himself).

ANY purported “money” of ANY type, be it gold, silver, fiat or bit coin, is a commodity in and of itself. It is a traded commodity like anything else and why? Because it is falsely represented as “money” rather than purely an exchange mechanism which REPRESENTS value (or “money’) that you and I and everyone else creates. UNTIL SUCH TIMES THAT MONEY IS RECOGNISED FOR PRECISELY WHAT IT IS, THIS FALSE ECONOMY, REPRESENTED BY WHATEVER TRADABLE COMMODITY WILL PERSIST!

Meanwhile, here is the fact: THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS IS BEHIND THIS NEW CURRENCY AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS BRINGING A WORLD CURRENCY IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR. If what this “Strategic Tech Investor” newsletter is correct (and it is NOT any form of “Conspiracy related” media after all) then China is jumping on the bandwagon. Once you have China in on the game (essentially, then, the entire far east following suit) and you have the west, through the Council on Foreign relations, adopting it, it’s endgame. Barack Obama is not “worried” about this at all. He does what he’s told by the CFR and his “mentors” such as Brzezinski and Kissinger.

And now we know why Eric Schmidt and Google have been so high profile within the Bilderberg set up in recent years. It’s all about Google being primed for creation of a new international electronic currency.

Bitcoin strategic investor


If you wish to listen to the “presentation” related to this newsletter on the subject, then click here:



And lo and behold, the likes of your “guru” Max Keiser is getting you all to “buy into” the entire idea. I’ve never trusted that guy and his bile for a few years now. Your “alternative” heroes are selling you all out lock, stock and bit coin! Even David Icke and Alex Jones and so many others. No, Icke has not pushed bit coin (Icke wouldn’t know what to push except saturnial aliens) but Jones on the other hand, has, once more, been another “guru” who will not entertain anything in the realm of the REAL solution: MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY. He pushes gold and silver and why? Because he’s funded by people who’s interests are in such (at the moment). I haven’t seen Jones do TOO much on bit coin and there’s a good reason for that – the gold thing. Once bit coin takes hold however, you can be sure he will.



Warning: David Icke & Alex Jones – use them intelligently

Posted in Gross stupidity within society by earthling on December 20, 2013

Because you are getting 90% facts mixed with pure fiction. That is a “deadly dose”.

You are NOT going to beat this thing by being so vacant-minded that you allow arseholes like these two to fill your brain with nonsense, misinfo and diversion.

By all means, however, if you are so sold on these people then you’re already lost and there’s nothing anyone can say to redeem your brain.

David Icke: “Everytime we open our mouths….”

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Media by earthling on December 10, 2013

Just taking the man at his word!



“But these are facts” say his faithful. Are they? Prove Savile was a necrophiliac. Prove Diana was ritually abused at Balmoral. Prove George H W Bush is a child abusing paedophile. I’m not saying they are not true but I am also saying that Icke DID NOT claim anything anywhere about Savile until after it came out. What I AM saying is that there is no proof for these allegations yet you take them as facts. That is scary. I cannot imagine what you would be like in a court as a member of a jury having to make a decision of life or death based on “facts”.

Yet Mr Icke gets away with all of this while he states that when one opens one’s mouth to speak of others, one is speaking more about themselves. Then the video simply takes him at his word. Not MY word (I think he talks shit actually) but HIS word.

So here are some FACTS (no inverted commas) which I have already stated about Mr Icke. But because I state THESE facts against HIM, I am somehow speaking more about myself? But he’s not when he states HIS “facts” against others? What a STRANGE duality of thought you Ickeans (and Icke and his cohorts themselves) live in.

1. He has stated that disabled and handicapped people have brought their lot in life upon themselves due to past actions in past lives. Mr Icke, therefore, must have beaten the crap out of someone with arthritis when he was Socrates then.

2. He told all the local IOW poll tax protestors that they should not pay up and he would join them but, quietly, pays up.

3. He states that The People’s Voice is a “Not for profit” enterprise and there will be no shareholder return ( a “Not for profit” is normally a Charity status company or a Private Limited company by guarantee and not share capital). TPV Limited is a Private Limited Company WITH share capital and, therefore, there ARE shareholders. Your donations build the value of that company with every single £1 you donate. Guess who the shareholder is but he doesn’t want any other shareholders?

4. He states that TPV will not be regulated and controlled but then, when he should be doing the “non comply dance” and telling OFCOM to stick it, he does the opposite and complies – just like the poll tax issue then.

5. It is clear from all the previous TPV videos leading up to launch that he had no intention of divulging that the equipment cost him £20K. He consistently stated things like “This doesn’t come cheap you know” (check out the videos for verification of what I am saying.

6. He has £104K CASH at the bank for David Icke Books Ltd but he doesn’t use a cent of that when he could have paid for the entire equipment and have over £80K left cash in DI Books Ltd (and that is not his personal cash savings and investments).

7. He doesn’t tell you that TPV OBVIOUSLY had every intention of getting an OFCOM licence. Obvious because his son gave it away when he stated – even before TPV went live – that the intention was to become the mainstream and broadcast on terrestrial and/or satellite networks such as SKY. If that was the intention (which it was and is) then there was every intention of getting a licence.

8. He dictates that people should not comply while he then complies at every turn. He’s like the general telling his troops to get up out of the trenches and “be men” while he sits back with a cigar.

ALL of the above (and more) are FACTS about David Icke yet, because it’s me stating them against YOUR demigog, I am “persona non grata” and because I open my mouth, I am speaking of myself? When David speaks he isn’t of course speaking about himself. David icke hates exposure (as do the people he exposes, or suggests he exposes) so I am his enemy. What do you do about enemies? You use ad hominem attacks and demonise them among your followers and you suggest that they are speaking about themselves even though they are simply stating the facts.

It’s precisely what the mainstream media and establishment do to their enemies. Would David Icke give me a voice on his network? No chance. He and his goons delete my blogs which other post on his website forum to ensure nobody reads what I have to say about him.

Now consider this: The establishment tend to use D notices and any other tactic to shut their enemies up (a little like what Davey does on his forums) but guess what? That same establishment give him a LICENCE to promulgate his shit.


Why do you think he needed to suggest an all out cyber attack on TPV and DI websites?

Our Dave’s studied his subject for a long time. So long he is using precisely the same techniques as his “mortal enemy” from getting money created for him out of nothing to false flag events.

And me and people like me who know better are sitting pissing ourselves laughing at people like you while David keeps taking your money to the bank and increasing the value of that Private Limited Company with share capital!


Icke yoda



In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the GOYIM lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. 

It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace: but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness. 

I beg you to note that among those making attacks upon us will also be organs established by us, but they will attack exclusively points that we have pre-determined to alter.

Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them. 

The part played by the liberals, utopian dreamers, will be finally played out when our government is acknowledged. Till such time they will continue to do us good service. Therefore we shall continue to direct their minds to all sorts of vain conceptions of fantastic theories, new and apparently progressive: for have we not with complete success turned the brainless heads of the goyim with progress, till there it not among the goyim one mind able to perceive that under this work lies a departure from truth in all cases where it is not a question of material inventions, for truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress. Progress, like a fallacious idea, serves to obscure truth so that none may know it except us, the Chosen of God, its guardians.

When we come into our kingdom our orators will expound great problems which have turned humanity upside down in order to bring it at the end under our beneficent rule.

Who will ever suspect then that all these peoples were stage-managed by us according to political plan which no one has so much as guessed at in the course of many centuries?  


David Icke & Jimmy Savile: It doesn’t add up!

Posted in Media, Paedophilia by earthling on December 10, 2013

Here is an article on David Icke’s website:

Icke savile 1

NOTE: ” But I have known about Savile since the 1990s…” AND “I knew that Savile supplied former Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath with young boys – I have been exposing Heath since 1998…”

Now listen to his interview on Liberty Tactics:

“I was first told that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile in 1997/98….”

So, get this: He writes about Heath in “The Biggest Secret” in 1998 but he makes NO mention of Savile which he admits he was told about at the very same time. Not only that but over the course of the next decade and the books he then wrote, he did NOT, in any one of them, mention Jimmy Savile. YET, he knew about Savile at the same time he knew about Heath? In his OWN words! So what’s the score David? IF you knew about Savile as you say you did, then why no mention of him in the books? You can’t use the excuse that Savile was alive because Heath was alive too.

I don’t give a flying dogfart about your mind challenged “protectors” who will make up ANY and ALL excuses for you. There is NO excuse.

Further, Lou Collins, like any other of the alternative media people who will interview Icke will not (and did not) question him on any of his assertions. Why? Is he the man that shall not be questioned? Question anyone and everyone else in mainstream and alternative but NEVER question this schmuck? Is he the “Godfather” of the alternative media or something? You ALL lick the bastard’s ass!

But this is a good time to include one last point. In an earlier blog of mine – before I had even heard of Sonia Poulton (which having now heard her I wish I hadn’t – my ears bleed for one thing) – I actually “thanked” her for covering a certain topic and here it is (taken from my blog re “Tony Blair, D notices, Princes, Popes, Politicians, “Pop pickers”, MI5, AND PAEDOPHILIA!”:

Dated October 28th 2012. So we can readily assume there was already significant contact between Icke and Poulton at this point (or is it just a synchronistic coincidence?).

Note: Poulton makes the following assertion on behalf of David Icke – “Savile’s BBC colleague David Icke, who went from respected broadcaster to laughing stock, was at the forefront of such claims in the Nineties when he named Savile and others as paedophiles.”

Ok Ms Poulton, NOW show us your journalistic integrity which, I have to assume, had you do due diligence on such an assertion and that you checked exactly when and through which media David Icke made these allegations regarding Savile at that time. Which book, press media or other broadcast media did Icke use for this and exactly when?

If you are unable to provide this then it proves two things: He never did claim such and YOU did not check your source(s).

Are YOU a repeater also Ms Poulton? A repeater of someone who then just so happened to become your paymaster less than a year later.

Or is this all just conspiracy theory on my part?

Whatever your answer, tell it to your faithful because it just doesn’t wash anywhere else.

So while that “paedophile infested establishment and its servile media sought to hold the line at Savile’s own abuse of young girls…” so, in fact, did David Icke because he did not expose Savile in ANY of his books from “The Biggest Secret” up until Savile’s exposure by the mainstream. WOW! Isn’t he ahead of the curve?

So unless PROOF to the contrary is forthcoming, we either take it that David Icke kept mum on Savile just as everyone else did OR David Icke knew nothing about it. His choice. I wonder which one he will make?


One final thing on Ms Poulton: If she has, as she claims, lists of pedophiles and, as she says, some may be alleged by people on the bandwagon but she seems to know there are some that are definites, then why is she not releasing the names? After all, TPV just had a mad barrister on the other day who did say something correct for once: If you are telling the truth and have facts on your side, releasing the names CANNOT be against the law. He then went on to say he couldn’t release names himself because the suspects were still alive – thereby, totally contradicting himself (as all of these so called “truthers” tend to do – even mainstream “real journalists” it would seem) but what do you expect from a pompous self serving, barrister who holds himself in such high esteem and believes the “gerries” are still out to get us?

Jesus Christ! This alternative media is a bigger joke than the mainstream!

Money physics & the transference of power.

Posted in Finance, Gross stupidity within society, Law, Politics by earthling on December 9, 2013

Well, many years ago, I happened to study physics during my university years. Did it ever occur to me to apply physics (and it was “Applied Physics”) to the issue of money? Of course not! Did it even enter my head that there could be any connection? Nope! I didn’t want to be an economist or an accountant for god’s sakes. I wanted to be a physicist. My head was in Astronomy and space science and all that stuff which makes me read David Icke and his followers posts and say “Oh for christ’s sakes give me a break!” I keep saying you don’t need science degrees to recognise shit is shit but then, perhaps you do. Perhaps science degrees actually create conspiracy theorists? For instance (and this is the perfect example from my perspective). The law of momentum – as well as a few other laws – simply doesn’t allow the wings of a 767 to slice through a steel building like butter. What amazes the hell out of me is that there are hardly any physicists actually coming out and saying “Just wait a goddamned minute here! THAT is just not possible!” So, when you know it isn’t possible and you know there are substantial numbers of physicists in the private/public and educational sectors who seem to be keeping their mouths shut about elementary physics on the day of 9/11, then you lose all respect for these people.

However, that’s not what this blog is all about. It’s about money and applying physical concepts to it. All very simple so don’t have a heart attack over it. It’s just, once more, I haven’t seen this done either and yet, to an extent, it stares us all in the face yet we ignore it and allow these criminals to continue crimes on humanity by starvation (for one thing).


Bodies at rest and in motion

A body at rest has its entire energy stored and is considered to have POTENTIAL energy. Simply, then, the body has the potential to do a certain amount of work but, currently, is not. Imagine a slingshot or a gun. The stone has the potential energy stored in it provided by the tension applied by the stretching of the rubber which will, eventually, release it. The bullet’s potential energy will be converted to KINETIC energy (movement of a mass) when the bullet is loaded into the barrel and the trigger creates the explosive FORCE which then propels it. When either the stone of bullet is released, they will do “WORK” and work is equal to Force multiplied by distance or W = Fxd.

So, the energy expelled from the point of release of the stone or the bullet until it, once more, comes to rest (hopefully in a Rothschild’s skull) is the Work done on the bullet or stone. The energy of either projectile is calculated by E = 1/2mV² where E is energy, m is mass and V is the velocity. Note that velocity is not the same as speed since the former is a vector quantity whereas the latter a scalar quantity. For the purposes of this blog however, we can take velocity as meaning speed since we assume the bullet or stone to be travelling in a singular direction. Simple then!


Take all that expended energy then, that work done, and divide that amount of energy by time and what you arrive at is POWER. Now POWER can be expended OR it can be absorbed. In either case, it is a measure of work done over time. Tell me something? Why, if you were to work 24 hours a day while someone else played a round of golf for 3 or 4 hours and did nothing else, would you not assume to be more powerful than them?

Answer: You’ve EXPENDED your power while they, on the other hand, have ABSORBED your power. Muhammad Ali was good at that. He’d get his opponent to spend much of their power by absorbing the shocks of their punches (IF ever they actually landed one while, even throwing a punch expends energy and it’s lost. It tires his opponent).

So how does the politician or the banker absorb your power? You know the answer to that! They have you expend your energy constantly running after what they control – MONEY! MONEY is POWER! Yet money is literally only pieces of paper with very little mass and it doesn’t really do any work now does it?

Ah but it does!

Money (the paper) represents the very work (real work through expended energy) that you and I and everyone else does to make our living. If it truly represents that however then how is it that the CEO or Chairman of a company or the Head of state of a country or anyone of their Directors/politicians etc who, generally, don’t expend any energy whatsoever comparatively speaking, have more money than you who works every hour god sends just to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. Not only that but you may work in a vocation such as nursing – saving lives – or as a cleaner of whatever kind – thereby ensuring that our world does not decay and we’re over-run by rodents. Is it because of IQ? That’s what Boris Johnson would have you believe but let’s take him and George Osbourne for a moment.

Boris achieves a 2:1 degree in the classics at Oxford University. A second class degree in a “mongrel” course. What I mean by “mongrel” is that it covers everything from English literature to Archeology. A master of nothing then and finds IQ tests a bit of a problem.

George, meanwhile, is another 2:1, 2nd class achiever in History of all things. George has never run a business in his life. I’d be surprised if he knows how to read a spreadsheet – think about that. Yet, he is the Chief Financial Officer of the nation of the United Kingdom! A coke snorting, kinky black prostitute lover with a 2:1 in history. But then he does have experience of folding towels in Selfridges and entering date of dead people on a database.

Dumb and dumber

But let’s see, how could two dumbfucks like that end up as power absorbers? Well, you just need to look at their parentage and then the fact that Boris gets a King’s scholarship and George a Demyship, both at Magdalen College.

Oh and they’re both, along with the present PM, ex Bullingdon boys rubbing their dicks up against the likes of Nat Rothschild.

Take a look at this article re the PPE students who just know, even as they enter college (they’ve achieved nothing so far but know they will – it’s pre-determined) that they will end up in the power absorption business in one way or another….

“The thing is this,” one graduate laughs, “PPE is such a big subject that no one can ever know everything, so we all have to bullshit like mad at times to cover up our ignorance. And we by and large get away with it. So we carry on bullshitting once we leave Oxford and most of us are still getting away with it.”

But let’s stay on the subject of the idea of IQ being the basis for one’s “success” – that “success” being measured by the British government (and other governments) in terms of economic success.

This is worth a read, if not purely from the perspective of reading the final conclusion which is:

“The results of Terman’s longitudinal study of gifted children suggest that IQ can play an important role in determining life success; but high IQ alone is not enough. Variables such as family background, socioeconomic status, and educational experiences as well as personality factors such as motivation, the willingness to work hard, being committed to goals, creativity, and emotional maturity are also strongly linked to success in life.”

Basically, your success in life is a product of your environment. Your environment also teaches you whether you will “go along to get along” or whether you will stand for what you believe to be right. These politicians and businessmen generally have two things in common: They drop from a fallopian tube which has, in one way or another, provides the “right background” – Osborne: Data entry clerk and folding towels in Selfridges. Think about it – plus their character has been moulded by influences which create either the “go with the flow” attitude or the opposite. I agree it isn’t quite as “black and white” so don’t go off on one but, as a general rule, this IS the case.

Now let’s consider the reality of what money is MEANT to be: A representation of one’s debt to another and a means of exchange of such obligations for the purpose of making it easier for a large society of people to buy and sell various goods without having to first find a specific person who requires the particular good/product/asset you wish to sell while that same person having physical goods or services (resources) which are a precise match in terms of value of what he wishes to purchase from you, thereby resulting in an exact exchange of value. The “Resource based economy” fans are totally missing this point and would hate the very thing they promote! It would be a bloody nightmare and would lead to the world being less connected and “one”. Do these people actually think before they open their mouths I wonder? I think not.

In this precise exchange of value (however achieved) you actually have an exact exchange of POWER. Mr X has exchanged Energy of Fxd with Mr Y’s energy of an exact equivalent. A fair exchange then. This is achieved even with the use of an exchange mechanism called “money”. The entire human race will then interact upon the exchange of debts which, across the entire 7 billion people on earth, cancel out. There is NO “Global debt” where, somehow, the entire human race is in debt to the tune of $trillions to some “unknown” entity – who is that entity? God? Martians? No, you KNOW who that debt is owed to – the Central banking system which, in itself, is controlled and owned by a cartel of private individuals NOT “the public” 😉


The answer: They have created a system which WE support wherein pieces of paper (now, actually, simply 1’s and 0’s in a computer) become the wealth and power.


The second answer: No. You SHOULD be able to but not in the present system you can’t.

How obvious is this? Quite. Who digs the roads? Who builds (or even designs) the buildings and the bridges? Who saves the lives? Who keeps the streets clean? Who creates products or art/beauty? Who drills the oil? Who digs the gold/silver/uranium etc? Who manages the corporations or organisations which carry out these tasks? Who protects whether by way of Police or Armed forces? Who does all of this and everything else?

Answer: You, me and every last one of our “brothers and sisters” who actually find and are lucky to find employment.

Now you may say “Well a person working in a bank is employed and does a service too”. Yes, they do but the problem is they “provide a service” which is entirely unnecessary and does nothing more than prop up a fundamentally corrupt system of money. They could also be employed in a system which is entirely non corrupt and provide SIMILAR services.

The people who own this system only, in fact, have POTENTIAL ENERGY. They have never expended one ounce of that energy for the betterment of mankind. NOT ONE OUNCE! While, what’s even worse, is they absorb other people’s energy constantly and over time. Absorbing that energy and work done over time = Work Done/time = POWER. They are energy vampires – literally.

Let’s take a look at a recent release of the M2 money circulation in the USA by the St.Louis Federal Reserve. It actually tells us a lot when it’s considered in terms of physical equations and graphical analysis:

M2 Money circulation

Now let’s apply the physical equations to this graph which represent what’s really going on:

M2 work done

1. Straight off the cuff you’ll notice the line itself is curved. This demonstrates that there is an acceleration of the amount of work being done (the increasing dollar amount of assets being procured) over time. Throughout the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, the slope of the line was fairly shallow and by the mid 1990s, it was levelling off. This levelling off was a representation of the fact that the economy was stagnating – there was no growth which would allow increase asset purchase. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the vast majority of people because, hopefully, what I will show is that the subsequent acceleration of asset purchase (change in “Work done”) does not represent, in any way, an increase in wealth for the broader population but is, in fact, the transference of wealth/POWER to a tiny fraction of the population.

2. I’ve used the green areas superimposed onto the graph to show the massive change of area displayed between 2 years (late 1990s) and the 2 years (start of 2012 and end of 2013). Note that the grey columns represent recessionary periods (the last one starting in late 2007/early 2008 through to mid 2009). Ask yourself how it is possible that, during that recession of 2008/2009, there was a very significant inflexion point representing a massive acceleration of “WORK DONE”/increase in financial assets held when the market and the economy was crashing through the floor! HOW is that possible? Well, it’s possible because the was enormous sums of money being gained by a very few people through bail outs and government/public money being privatised (put into private hands) allowing those private individuals to then buy up very substantial amounts of assets. Further, the hedge funds which bet on the housing collapse (not a bet at all because it is insider knowledge/trading) then pumped even more profit from others misery into these same small few’s hands and allowed even more asset purchases.

3. How is it possible that the amount of work done by 300 million people in America could rise from the green area representing 2 years, in the mid/late 1990s to the size of the green area representing the last 2 years? Has the US suddenly had an enormous boom in manufacturing and production in the last decade and a half? No. Quite the opposite. While surely, the line should have fallen from 2010 until now pretty significantly but it hasn’t, it just keeps on growing! Impossible right? Well no, it’s not. It’s called “quantitative easing” and that QE is representative of “WORK DONE” which hasn’t been done at all! But the purchase of assets by this small few continues because of it and what the graph doesn’t show is that, as those assets are accumulated by the private banking/business cartel,  the American government is sinking deeper and deeper into debt which means it has to find MORE ways of squeezing MORE “productivity” (money) out of you!

4. The green areas also represent something else however: Power!

Remember: Work Done (ΔEnergy)/time = POWER. Power can be expended and it can be absorbed. In this case, both are happening. The vast majority of people are expending their energy while it is being absorbed by the small few. AND IT IS ACCELERATING! Look at y2 – y1 in each case. The slope of the line has massively increased in recent years in comparison with the slope during the 1990s. This represents an acceleration of the transference of power from the vast majority of people (the 99% so to speak) to the minority (the 1%).

y2 – y1 (1990s) = $400billion. x2 – x1 = 2 years. The slope (acceleration of power transference) = 2

y2 – y1 (2013) = $2000billion. x2 – x1 = 2 years. The slope (acceleration of power transference) = 10

Now you may be able to understand, from a physics/maths perspective, why the following has occurred:

Forbes rich


While Michael Meacher ( a blithering idiot and/or a “gatekeeper” – even if the latter then that is still proof he’s a blithering idiot) gives you the following data:

Meacher billionaires in the UK


So why do I say Meacher is a blithering idiot? After all he “spoke out” about Bilderberg didn’t he? Forget he’s been in politics for decades and it took him to 2013 to eventually “speak out” at a time when it is so in the public’s consciousness and awareness anyhow that it gives the IMPRESSION that he is, in fact, doing something “dangerous” LOL If you had pointed it out to him even as few as 5 years ago or less, he would have replied (as Clarke and others did to me) in some condescending “palming off” fashion.

Here is why he’s a blithering idiot however: “instead of a more sensible Keynesian approach”.  Again, he proves that our political “friends” cannot think outside the box and they work on the basis of “left and right” and “Keynes and Friedman and Austrian” economics – ALL of which support the existing paradigm of interest bearing debt. DEBT is not a problem – I have said before and will keep on saying it: We ALL are indebted to one another in each and every interaction we have which includes money or not. For example, I have a debt to you reader who I feel an obligation toward in replying to your comments if they are a question of me or on my writing. To reply is keeping to an (albeit unstated but nevertheless real) PROMISSORY OBLIGATION. Without such, there could be no interaction. All that money is (or should be) is a means of exchange of PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS which represent the exchange of assets and value between people. INTEREST only occurs in this existing, corrupt (and unnecessary) system where the banks (again, unnecessary) are given the power to ISSUE money (not create it) and act as middlemen who then RE=PUBLISH our debts between ourselves and add on a NON EXISTENT “debt” called interest. They have created a system where their “money” has become, not an ‘idea’ for the representation of exchange but a tangible commodity in of itself. This is why people like George Soros and so many others “bet” on (or hedge) against currencies. In a REAL economy devoid of interest, they could not do this because there would be no such thing as inflation or deflation.

So Meacher stays in the box and tries to find a solution to a problem based upon a system which IS the fundamental problem. Speak mathematics and logic to the likes of Meacher and he’ll glaze over. Why? Because he’s invested in the existing system. His entire being is invested in that system and, additionally, he would have no idea of what you are talking about because once you say “it is the system which is wrong” that scares the living daylights out of him. George Osborne cannot possibly even understand today’s economics nevermind have a mind that can grasp an improvement. The man is an imbecile.

But back to the graph for a moment because here is the bottom line:

What happens when that slope becomes a vertical line?

No more work is being done and ALL power has been transferred.

As that slope increases and the time (years) narrow to months and weeks and days as the M2 circulation goes spiralling upward, what happens is that, eventually (theoretically but also in reality except for the fact they manage it) you are left with ALL power transferred – no “kinetic”energy left and it is all transferred to “potential” energy in the hands of a very very small few. And THAT is the goal for these people. Once they have all power absorbed by them, they no longer need money because they OWN every last resource which they have captured through governments coming good on their promissory obligations (Government bonds) to them. There is no activity left in the private economy from which to derive the payment of the debt because ALL resources (human and capital) have been absorbed by the central banking private owners.

Now, finally think about the proverbial “Free Energy” because this is exactly how it works. “Free energy” in the sense of a perpetual system which feeds off its own energy, is impossible. I really do hope you know this. Free energy in other ways such as harnessing the sun’s energy is another matter altogether but creating a machine which provides its own energy input from its own energy output, is going to come to a very quick demise.

In a self-powered system, due to the losses in the circuit, the input energy decreases thus decreasing the output energy, which results in lower input energy. That is, a slow decay, ultimately ending in zero power output.

Now, apply that to the monetary system. It is self powered because we get the money from the same source – central banks – right? THEN you have losses in the system because you introduce the loss by the addition of INTEREST right? Adding interest is exactly the same as, say, offering someone £100 but giving them only £90 because you have applied the charge upfront. It comes to the same result when he has to pay you back £100 even though, in real terms, only receiving £90.

Thus the “input energy” decreases, which decreases output energy which results in lower input energy. Slow decay resulting in zero power output because, due to having to make up for the “losses” we are selling off our very resources to pay the “loss” (the interest). We then end up with no resources which results in zero output. The system collapses in the sense we are left paupers and the central banks have all resources and all laws.

ALL our WORK DONE over time has ALL of our POWER expended. That POWER does not disappear. Energy/power is always conserved – the Conservation of Energy principle. The energy/power is simply changed into another form. What the people who own the world’s monetary system have done is exactly that. They have had us expend our energy and they ave absorbed it. The power is simply displaced. It still exists it is just it exists in THEIR hands. The thing is, they have achieved this through fundamental fraud by way of the interest bearing system they have introduced and still support. Indoingso, they have committed crimes against humanity that far outstrip anything we have ever experienced by a two bit dictator. But they own the system which has them own the law.



That’s why I have a section named “Gross stupidity within society.

David Icke: Problem, reaction, solution

Posted in Media by earthling on December 9, 2013



“What they do to get people on their side to support their cause is they “attack” themselves or create the belief of there being such an attack, thereby stimulating the people into supporting and rallying around the “flag””

Problem(s): TPV having massive credibility problems while also outputting really poor content and having one technical hitch after another. Meanwhile, not getting the level of donations that they want.

Reaction: Create a false flag “attack” on the station and DI website thereby getting people like Charlotte Hughes’ reaction and improving your credibility through their naivety.

Solution: “They’re attacking us because we’re scaring them. We’re having an effect. If you want to continue scaring them, then donate!”

Icke false flag

But David will say that what one says about someone else is more to do with what the one saying would do. Strangely, David has spoken about others setting up false flag events (and it’s fact) for years now. By him saying it however, does that mean he is speaking of himself?

Dave: You’re an idiot. Only the non discerning will take every word you say as that of a man pursuing truth rather than profit.

Almost every word you utter David can be turned against you. Now why would that be do you think? My attacks on you have not been based upon what I would do. They have been based upon reported and researched facts about what you have done!

Further, when it comes to profit, I’m no simpleton David. Profit comes in all forms and you have sufficient income form your books that you do not need to take a salary or profit at this point in time (and for some time to come) from TPV BUT, contrary to your statement about TPV being “Non profit” and “there are no shares” – you’re a liar David. That’s not an allegation, it is a fact: TPV is a Private Limited company with SHARE capital.

Now, I just watched part of an interview with Lilou someone or other just from Saturday 7th December. In it you make the statement (as you have before) that “If a pharmaceutical company (etc) came along and offered a billion for TPV, I’d tell them to……” whatever. The Private Limited Company with SHARE capital then, is once more exposed by that statement (not that it needs be exposed because a fact is a fact). You resigned your Directorship in TPV David. You, on the face of it, have no say as to what TPV would or would not do then. Ah! but that WOULD be true if not for the fact that it is a Private Limited Company with SHARE capital and you are, without a doubt from what you say here, the majority shareholder.

And one day in the future……. 🙂

David Icke: TPV triple XXX

Posted in Media by earthling on December 6, 2013

Funnier and funnier: But we’ve got to give ‘the people” a voice (all walks of life). Sure, do that. I don’t disagree. But what you’re doing TPV is playing to your audience, that’s all. Your audience are “The Sun” and “The Mirror” readers while you know that Nathalie Rowe and pornstars are going to capture the attention of those readers. They love scandal so if you can mix scandal with conspiracy well…. sex sells. Good lad David. You’re stupid but you ain’t THAT stupid. Decadence is what it truly is all about after all. This isn’t about giving this girl a voice. It’s about audience titillation.

Sapphire Blue

And I thought I’d finished with blogs about TPV and Icke but they just keep dishing up more transparent shit to point to.

If you think, as a “thinking” and “awake” human that a porn star has any valid opinion to present to you regarding what you suggest it is you are all trying to achieve, then you must be a raving lunatic or so full of BS. I can see all you male (and female) porn lovers rushing up to Wembley with the mindset there’s a chance of giving her a conspiratorial gang bang post interview! 🙂 Or, perhaps, just a question and answer bukkake session:

“Did Osama Bin Laden and buddies do 9/11?”


“Wrong. Ok next facial!”

“Who carried out 7/7?”

“A bunch of muslims who caught the wrong train”

“Wrong again, next facial please!”

She’ll probably get all the answers wrong on purpose of course! 🙂

Then again, perhaps Sapphire is a part-time psychic and is coming on the show to read people’s semen stains once they land on her face. Who knows? Perhaps she connects with the DNA and can read sperm once it lands on her nose, lips and eyes. Does she charge for the service I wonder?

So, ok TPV, get a balance to the debate. Invite “Jenna Presley” and Monica Foster on the show too. Don’t have Sean interviewing though or anywhere near them. He might tweet he just met a bunch of slags and ex slags after all and we could’t have that could we? Will the studio be filled with the smell of fish too? Ah but you won’t want to hear from those two will you? After all, they’re not pagans, they’re christians. But they’re speaking about the satnic porn industry. I thought you were against satanism David? I guess only to an extent: It’s bad when it’s using and abusing children but ok otherwise right? Even though it is clear that 18 yr olds through to even their 30s really don’t understand the world around them. You’re a nasty freak Icke. You’re a capitalising bastard of the worst kind in my view.

What you are doing Icke is precisely what you’re doing re the externalisation of the occult nature of Blavatsky’s and Alice Bailey’s teachings. You say the info can be used for good or bad but that is total bullshit Icke and you know it. The sheer action of bringing it into the public consciousness is to give it validity. You are doing the same with porn. From Tatchell’s beliefs to now, a porn star on the show. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no prude. I’ve been there, done it, got the t-shirt mate but, through having done so, I recognise the sheer emptiness of it all. But that takes experience and, yes, along with experience, age. Your shout out for the Banned and its decadence and looking for people who look as though they know how to party, is all wrapped up in this. You’re doing the very job the people you say you are against, want done.

You’re helping it all along – destroying the family. YOU’RE A FUCKING JERK!

The Pornographic Conspiracy:

“Destroy the family and you destroy society”

You piece of human filth! Yes you’re pushing boundaries alright. I just hope to god you’re thick audience can recognise where you’re pushing them to!

How long do you think this freedom of speech will last?….

TPV gone porno

David Icke: Is TPV breaking the law?

Posted in Media by earthling on December 6, 2013

Following on from a comment on my last blog. The law regarding Internships is that the intern must be paid. Is this journalist that David Icke “synchronistically” stumbled upon being paid?


Mr Baker said that interns should know their rights.

“Companies are taking advantage of the fact that there is a high level of graduate unemployment and we advise people to know there rights. They have a right to claim money even if they have finished working with a company,” Baker added.

The National Union of Journalists, which has run a  campaign against exploitative unpaid work, gave us a statement from the NUJ’s general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet: “This practice continues to exploit dreams and exclude new talent, undermining the diversity of our profession, just when we should be nurturing and supporting the people coming into the industry.  Employers in the media should be warned; we will continue to take on those who seek to exploit young people and new comers to the industry.”

Furthermore, are the likes of Deanna Amato and Elissa Hawke being paid? And, if they are, do they hold the correct visas (working visas) to be paid? If they are not being paid then how do they possibly live while working for the People’s Voice?

These are BIG questions folks because you have no idea how, in fact, your donations are being used. If you’re simply not interested, while you throw money at a Private Limited Company run by a guy you have no idea about (Sean ADL Tabatabai) then, frankly, you’re incredibly stupid.

From “we need £300K to pay for all the cost of the amazing equipment we need to buy” to “Well it cost us £20K” and everything else which this patently amateurish set up has had you swallow in the name of “truth” while they use your money but don’t allow transparency of how that Private Limited Company is using it – and now they’re thanking you all for further donations? Somehow I doubt that suddenly they are receiving a mass of donations since Icke’s begging video. I believe (and it is just my belief) that they already have funding which will keep them running but they have to make out that they are suddenly receiving a great influx of donations from you – again, let’s see the books Icke! Or should I say Tabatabai? – plus they don’t pay expenses for volunteers but pay an inner core of people. WHO is getting paid by you and how much? It’s YOUR money folks! How many of you are out of a job?

How STUPID are you?

David Icke: Funding the People’s Voice

Posted in Media by earthling on December 5, 2013

Save us

He’s not looking too happy is he?

Well David, let’s just lay it on the line shall we? You told your audience you needed £300K for the top of the range equipment. You led them to believe that is how much, at a minimum, was required (where we know it requires £millions). BUT you always knew you were getting the kit for £20K. That £20K, by the way, could have been paid out of YOUR own pocket for YOUR own television network venture because David Icke books has that much cash in the bank then some. But you chose to use other people’s money (therefore, calling it “The People’s Voice) when you needn’t have. You would have kept the £20K a secret too but some of us didn’t let you. You also told your audience – the people who funded you- that you would be free of control. No regulation, no OFCOM, and yet what do we have? Moments later TPV applying for an OFCOM licence and David Icke not walking his talk. And you expect people to continue funding someone who’s misled them on two very large counts?

But you know David? If I’m right – and this is just speculation on my part – I think you’ll probably come through in the end because I still have a sneaky suspicion that there’s money coming from elsewhere which you haven’t told your audience about. Why do i believe that? Because people like Sonia Poulton moved house for the sake of TPV and, therefore, she must have got a promise and guarantee from somewhere (unless, of course, she is a very gullible and trusting, naive soul and I sort of doubt that).

The further thing is this: You originally said £100K would be enough to get you on air. Well you’re JUST “on air” a couple of weeks max (and by the way, sorry but it is a joke – the amateurism is pathetic and Alex Jones must be pissing himself at your attempt – he, at least, has a polish of professionalism with less resource than you do) and you got £300K. Where has £280K gone David?

Listen mate. Don’t kid a kidder. People don’t invest their time, energy and even other people’s money in a venture that they think, for one moment, could collapse within a month or two of starting. It just doesn’t happen Ickey. Unless, that is, you are a total, incompetent. Make your choice Dave.

The people are also probably thinking to themselves “Wait a second, we’ve already given you £300K for nothing” and what do they get? Pure amateurism, poor/shit sets and find out the kit cost £20K. Further, you’re actually biased in your programming and all you’re doing is wheeling on the same old names propagating the same old shit.

It could have been all so much more professional David but it isn’t. Do you know what you’re doing as you beg for more money and make people feel guilty?

You’ve shown your true self Dave. I told you people would get pissed off when they saw the real David icke mate and it seems they have.

Just one last thing: What have your reporters and researchers worked on so far because there has been absolutely nothing new (except your reading of mainstream media papers) come out of your station and do you think people need you to read the papers for them these days?


It’s also interesting that Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars mentioned an idea by Alex Jones to have an Infowars UK branch just in the last few days. Plus Alex didn’t appear on your launch show to congratulate you. Interesting omission I thought.

Oh and a final final thing: Dave, what are YOU doing begging for money for the People’s Voice for? You also use the term “we”, thereby including yourself in the “we”. David, you are not part of The People’s Voice. You started it with Sean and then you resigned (your audience wonder why but you don’t feel it’s necessary to tell them and be transparent with the people who funded it). So, having nothing to do with the Private Limited Company (WHICH, by the way, is NOT a “Not for profit” company at all – yes you heard it first here. Another lot of bull David is feeding you) and Sean being the only Director of the company; Don’t you think it should be Sean on screen begging for money from the population? It’s his business after all isn’t it? The entire business being controlled and run by a nobody who hates christianity and thinks women smell like fish and are slags. Hmmm…. perhaps not the best face to put in front of the people you want to fund you then right? But what are you getting from it Dave? Why are you so pissed off about it? Oh and PLEASE don’t give me this shit about it being for the benefit of all mankind. Most people just ain’t as gullible as you think.

Fund it properly Dave or piss off. People have enough on their plate at the moment but then religions prey on the poor too. Just a pound a month from the congregation and look at the jewels and the property and the gold and the money that the catholic church has. They wouldn’t have that wealth if it wasn’t for the naivety and trust of simple people giving their last cents in desperation. And that is what you expected to tap into too. But you see, the very thing you want – the destruction of all religions – is what is happening in this country mate. People don’t like being used and abused by religions in this country. You still have a potential source to tap in America though – they’re still gullible and pay their televangelists but we’ve never really had that as part of our culture and it’s doubtful that we’d start now. Now had we still had people of faith and people wanting a church, a religion, you just MAY have gotten your donations ongoing from the faithful but, ironically once more, the very thing you preach against removes the very mindset which you need to tap into. It’s really quite humorous and entertaining Dave. 😉

The “Trial” Of Kenneth Clarke MP

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 2, 2013
A Clarke Evasion

A Clarke Evasion



The following email was sent to Clarke, by me, in 2009.

Dear Mr. Clarke,

I wonder if you would be kind enough to shed some light on a number of various issues which are troubling me and many of the British electorate. There are just simply so many questions – all questions. And from what I have managed to research, you may just be the man who can answer these questions. They are quite horrifying if truth be known.

You see, there seems to be a strange series of events over the course of decades which seem to be inextricably linked and would have much of the UK electorate wonder if there is something at play from forces whose goal is to attack and deconstruct the sovereignty of our nation (and all nations) thereby, in effect, being at war with our nation. Could this possibly be the case? And could it possibly be that our representatives in government and shadow government are inadvertently enabling such to be achieved?

Please allow me to explain. I am sure that the details of this and the impact it seems to be having on the UK will come as a deep shock to you.

This group called “Bilderberg”.

While you, Mr. Clarke, have attended many Bilderberg conferences in the past, it concerns me greatly that you may have no idea of what the Bilderberg agenda is so I thought I would enlighten you. It may then have the impact of having you reconsider whether you attend any future conferences. Of course, it may just be that you attend on the pretext of working with such a group when, in fact, you are simply engaging in some form of covert checking on those of our government and others who may be supporting the Bilderberg agenda.

I am sure you know of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families. The International bankers and “philanthropists” who have built up such considerable wealth over the centuries that the overall wealth of these families eclipse the likes of Mr. Gates’ billions by an order of magnitude. Their “charities” and foundations are countless in number and, more often than not, they have tax free status. Meanwhile Mr. Rockefeller is one of the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Rockefeller, in fact, within his own memoirs, states the following:

“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.”

I also include here, a link to a very well researched and 100% factual article re David Rockefeller:

That said, I believe I need to bring it to your attention that Mr. Rockefeller was one of the founding members (along with Dennis Healy) of Bilderberg in 1954 and is on the steering committee.
Further to this, Mr. Rockefeller is also a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Americas; These “Think Tanks” having their “cousins” in the UK and Europe with organisations such as the European CFR and the RIIA (Chatham House) plus others.

You see, while Bilderberg state and restate (ad infinitum) that NO policy is made at such conferences, this of course would be the case since many of the attendees are not a party to the overall agenda. Meanwhile, the policy is simply communicated through the great number of “Independent Think Tanks” as mentioned above. One can see many examples of reports and papers from the CFR, for example, finding their way into the UK Parliament and being used as “very well researched and highly thought of” organisations’ reports which should steer government thinking. It really is not at all difficult to work out what is happening here. For those in government and political circles who understand what Bilderberg is (and the interconnectivity between Bilderberg and the “Working Groups”), such reports will be given significant attention and weighting even though they are provided many times by non-UK, national sources.

What is further of interest re Bilderberg is that, under Chatham House rules, it never divulges what is discussed and presented and never attributes anything said to any of the participants. This seems to create a major issue when considering the persons who attend the Bilderberg conferences from the UK as I am sure you can imagine.

Mr. Clarke, just think of how such meetings/discussions could be construed. To apply Chatham House rules to a conference which includes statesmen and women from a vast number of different sovereign nations could be seen in the same light as there having been members of the UK government having clandestine private meetings with Adolf Hitler during the 2nd World War. To have such meetings is simply a breach of our Constitution.

I would therefore appreciate your consideration of such and your comments.

UK Parliament questions re Bilderberg

What is of further concern is the following. For, as I am sure you are aware, although the following were simply allegations based on Mr. Blair and yourself having forgotten all about the expenses which were paid during what you describe as a “political conference” in 1993; the greater impact of our ministers attending such conferences was not picked up on by the investigation:

86. That leads me to my second question which is, at the moment, a serious allegation will be of course investigated but should we put an onus on those making allegations that they should provide a threshold of evidence for those allegations? At the moment, if the allegation is serious enough, an investigation may well follow.

(Mr. Clarke) “I suppose you could apply the test of whether there is any prima facie evidence or any evidence to support this allegation and I imagine that the Committee do throw out cases where you are met with a vehement denial from the Member of Parliament and where there is no indication whatsoever of there being anything to support the allegation. I do not remember one happening quite like that where someone has been accused of something without there apparently being the slightest grounds. The ones I had in mind were where the allegation, so called, is probably true but the answer that most politicians and most sensible Members of Parliament would give is, “So what? What influence can this possibly have had on the conduct of a Member of Parliament if what you say is true?” I hesitate to go on about my own case but that was my reaction to the allegations against me. The only reason that anybody knew that I had not paid my hotel bill was because somebody wrote to me asking what I had paid for. The Bilderberg conference is surrounded by slightly green ink conspiracy theories so people write to you about it and somebody asked me the question and I wrote back saying that I had paid my own air fare and then discovered that some Greek sponsors, whom I could not recall, turned out to have paid the hotel bill for everybody so that, when I came to pay my hotel bill, it had been paid and I left. If you like, that was true. I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained with Tony Blair and Ken Clarke when they found that, fortunately, this conference was sponsored and they did not have to pay for the hotel?” Especially when certainly I had paid my own air fare to get there in the first place. I had attended a political conference and flown home again. I had done nothing else. I did not even know the identity of the company, no doubt, which had paid the hotel bill.”

Now, fully appreciating your point that you, personally, trusting your unimpeachable integrity, would anticipate no political advantage by attending such a conference as per your statement: “..I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained”, may I suggest, with the utmost respect, that such a statement may be somewhat naïve of you in regards to others who may have attended. Since, although flight costs of perhaps a few hundred pounds were incurred – and even if you had incurred accommodation costs – such a small investment from those within your circle of influence, when compared to their income, is extremely small change when that investment could result in a very comfortable position within the hierarchy of the EU for instance. Or, alternatively, as some kind of advisor status, let’s say, within a company such as…. Who could we say?… JP Morgan Chase for example?

And the following:
Examination of Witness (Questions 78 – 99) 



I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”.

It’s perhaps, sensible that you did not protest further for it may well have shed greater light on the subject and could have caused greater issues for you, which I am sure would have been unwarranted.
For, you see, it is definitely valid to suggest that, given the goals of the Bilderberg Group and understanding the various connections between the Bilderberg Group and its working groups such as the CFR, to continue an association with such would be akin to treasonous activity would it not? Perhaps I am wrong, but if so, please do me the courtesy of enlightening me.

Now, with respect to other issues which are clear from the UK Parliament Hansard text and other Parliamentary notes:

Mr. Blair’s denial of Bilderberg attendance.

Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group. [93240]
The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally.

Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997. [95308]
The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings.

Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past. When questioned, as will be seen below, the answers provided offer no illumination on the subject (if answered at all).
Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with yourself) while not wishing to divulge such information. A “canny” scot indeed!
Further, while Mr. Blair answers in the negative, it has been strongly reported that Mr. Blair did, in fact, attend the Bilderberg Conference in 1998 also.

Bilderberg 1960s:

Roy Jenkins 

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8th and 9th October to Holland to attend a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Conference; 148W what was the object of the Conference; and what other activities were undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during this visit. 

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the meeting on 9th October in a personal capacity as one of the two British members of the Steering Committee. The other member on this occasion was the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett). The Steering Committee discussed the agenda for the next Bilderberg Conference, which is a forum for discussion of various international questions. No other activities were undertaken during this visit.

An example, dating as far back as the 1960s, of the ever continuing wish of our Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers to steer well away from answering questions relating to Bilderberg in any significant way at all. What could possibly be the issue Mr. Clarke considering it is consistently stated that Bilderberg is just an opportunity for tea and crumpet and a jolly good chat?

1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference:

HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W 

Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement. 

§ The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty’s Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.

As previously stated, Adolf Hitler wanted a European state. Let us not debate the detail of how he went about trying to achieve it or we may have to go into the detail of how, also, he was financed wouldn’t we?
The point is, “personal capacity” or not; such a meeting with Hitler by any one of our MPs would have constituted treason given the objective.

Bilderberg mentioned in relation to EEC policy:


§ Mr. Skinner When the Agriculture Ministers meet, will my hon. Friend convey to them the fact that there is a large body of opinion in this country, represented in this House, who would pay scant regard to these Continental laws? Will he tell them that, so far as we are concerned, they can get stuffed with all their regulations about pigmeat and so on? Will he also make some inquiries about the meeting last weekend at Leeds Castle? Since we contribute nearly 20 per cent. of the total income of the Common Market, I want to know what I am getting for my money. I want to know what took place at that meeting. Why did the Commissioners hold their meeting in secret at that castle? What were they talking about? It is all right for the Minister to come here and trot out a few remarks about odd meetings about nothing in the Common Market, but what is happening at Leeds Castle and at Bilderberg Conferences and the like?

§ Mr. Judd I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend’s concern on the last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. On the first point, thanks to the very forceful performance on behalf of British food producers and consumers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I think that the Commission and all our colleagues in Europe are well aware of the concerns of the British people.

My concern here is obviously with the issue that the EEC (and latterly the EU) has been foisted upon the British public commencing with the sedition activity of Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1972, aided by many others including the FCO of all organisations! Again, however, Bilderberg, with its globalist objectives have been linked with the commencement of the EEC and continuing support of the EU which brings us, along with NAFTA/NAU, ever closer to global government, contrary to both the American and British constitutions. While aspects of both constitutions are being repealed (and laws such as the Treason law), they have been repealed AFTER what have essentially been treasonous events and activities. This, then, supports the entirely valid conclusion that such repeals are themselves, treasonous and therefore void.

e) Classified Bilderberg documents under the 30 year rule
Now, let’s take a look at a couple of documents which are held with “Portcullis” within the UK Parliament:

Portcullis: UK Parliament website.

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/214

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1979 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2010 
Location 36

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/228

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1977 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2008 
Location 36

Both documents are under the 30 year rule! Why on earth would this be for a simple discussion forum which creates no policy? Note that the second document should have been opened in 2008. It seems it has been kept closed even after the 30 years are now over!
“Just tea and crumpets and a chance for people to talk openly”; yet, not open to the public or to any media scrutiny whatsoever. Democracy and a free society exists I see. Ironically, we speak of democracy allowing freedom of speech yet the Bilderberg feel they are not free to speak freely? What a bizarre “twist” of reality we have here.

The EU Question:
Now, since the Bilderberg Group and its affiliates have been in existence since pre – EEC and EU, as we have covered, and it is very well established, the EU and the forthcoming NAU are both in keeping with the overall Bilderberg agenda for the destruction of the nation state (not by politicians for the benefit of their electorate but for the benefit of a group of people with no interest in nation states but every interest in profit); It is absolutely clear that the EU has been constructed for that very purpose.
The problem is that we have very clear evidence, from other documentation, which was held under the 30 year rule from public view, that the Conservative government formed under Edward Heath, along with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the BBC and others, committed the crime of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC.
The documentation supporting this allegation is plentiful and extremely precise. It makes incredible reading. Our own government fraternising with “the enemy” and make no mistake, where the British Constitution is under attack and the sovereignty of our nation usurped by our very own government and shadow government officials, this is fraternising with the enemy.
I attach a copy of a letter from Leolin Price CBE QC regarding the veracity and seriousness of Mr Albert Burgess’s investigation of the evidence surrounding the Heath government’s entire procedure regarding the EEC.
I, therefore, feel it is necessary to bring to your attention (and the attention of all your parliamentary colleagues) the danger in collaborating with not only the Bilderberg Group but any and all organisations associated with such. This can extend to organisations such as the EU itself and, on a lower level, a very strange “charity” by the name of Common Purpose.
Meanwhile, the Fabian Society and Demos and many other “Think Tanks” do “excellent work” in communicating the socialist “values” to the electorate.

4. “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
There is a book which is named “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
An online copy of this book may be found here: HYPERLINK “”
The book made enough of a furore in the 1970s to be brought up within Parliament on more than one occasion.

DEFENCEHL Deb 26 June 1979 vol 400 cc1357-476 


”Nor is it just for money. How many people know another American book of yesteryear by Garry Allen called None Dare Call it Conspiracy? It has sold over 3½ million copies in the United States. Its contents are one reason why more and more young Americans just are not going to play, if a war comes. This book points out not merely that it was the German bankers, Warburg Brothers, who put up £25 million to put Lenin in power in Russia, and who also assisted Trotsky to go from the United 1450 States to join him, but that they also sold nuclear armaments to Russia, not just to get money but to control the Communists so that, if they gain permanent power, the bankers will control them by the vast sums which they are owed back by Russia. The book is, chapter and verse, about foundations; it is chapter and verse about persons, well-known names; it is chapter and verse about the Council of Foreign Relations; and it is chapter and verse about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought. The address where that book can be obtained in this country is: KRP Publications, 245 Cann Road, London, E.11.”

I repeat: “..about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought” 

The question is: Why have these libel cases never been brought??…
Considering the BBC’s involvement in 1972 when the Heath government took the UK into the EEC stating such a move would never threaten UK sovereignty, one may also look at and consider the media involvement within such issues as we see today and wonder, again, at how reports such as the most recent “Summer of Rage” can be disseminated to the general population, suggesting an events (or events) which have yet, and may never, take place. One could almost suggest that the media are being rather careless in reporting such possibility since it could be construed as “planting the seed” of unrest – almost in fact, an act of terrorism according to today’s “thinking”.
One could further consider there to be a purpose (a “Common Purpose”?) to spreading such fear and anxiety.
It is interesting, at this juncture, to note the complete blackout of media journalism when it comes to reporting the Bilderberg Conferences to the point of card carrying journalists being arrested (on some trumped up “charge”) while trying simply to cover the conference in Turnberry for instance; The only media being allowed as “rapporteurs” at the conferences being “Economist” journalists. Other journalists have been invited (hand picked) of course but they are then covered by the Chatham House rules. It may be added that such journalists would not wish to break those rules for various reasons. I have personally contacted one such journalist who simply offered me the same old story that the conference was “utterly harmless”. Of course, this may have been the case for Ms Mary Ann Sieghart, not being one of the “inner circle” of course. “Utterly harmless” yet documents pertaining to Bilderberg are locked up for 30 years!!

Meanwhile, I have spoken with other so called “journalists” on this subject and while they are initially “all ears” and promise to return calls, those calls never come. I contacted the Scotsman for instance who continued to ask more and more questions on the subject of Bilderberg and when I mentioned “Common Purpose”, all communication ceased. It wasn’t until I checked the ownership of the Scotsman and found it was owned by the Pearson Group, did the reason for the cease come into view. Sir David Bell is Chairman of Pearson Inc, Non-Executive Director of The Economist and Chairman of Common Purpose International.
‘The Economist’, in a rare reference to it in 1987, said that the importance of the meetings was overplayed but admitted: “When you have scaled the Bilderberg, you have arrived.”

Please see the attachments which detail the communication (or lack thereof) with Mary Ann Sieghart and also a copy of the report by Nic Outterside at the time of the Bilderberg meeting in Sintra, Portugal. The latter makes for very enlightening reading.
At the end of this document, I bring to your attention a report from May 2003 from the Asia Times. While the entire western media (at least those which are not truly independent) are unwilling to cover anything to do with Bilderberg, Asians have, generally, never been invited to attend Bilderberg. It is no surprise then that such a report was generated from a mainstream publication within Asia!
People, generally, like to keep their jobs and, with that in mind, one could postulate that this may be the reason for the lack of willing to discuss and/or cover Bilderberg in Western media. This, however, then allows the agenda of Bilderberg to continue and for most people to be entirely in the dark as to their overall purpose (which I shall not expand upon in this document) or to even have heard of the group.
However, as will be seen from the attachment entitled “BBC Correspondence”, simple interrogation leads to revelations of remarkable incompetence that, I would suggest, would not occur if such an organisation was entirely independent. And we pay a licence fee for our TV which is purely based on the upkeep of a BBC which is either entirely incompetent or entirely controlled. Take your pick!
Once one can enjoy TV without payment of a fee to support such incompetence, I may decide to let go of my hard-earned salary. Meanwhile I do not wish to conditioned by deceptive news reporting while paying for the “honour”.

Pen ultimately:
Written questions, with evasive answers, tabled by Patricia McKenna MEP [Green Party – Ireland] to the European Commission, 3 Dec ’98, in response to previous answers (see below)

Bilderberg Meetings: (Priority question)
Can the Commission explain more clearly its answer to my question H-0933/98, where it insists that participants attend Bilderberg *in a private capacity*, against all the evidence that these are far from being purely private meetings. If they are such, why does the Commission announce them in its Press Communiqués, published by Reuters – would it announce a Commissioner attending a conference on stamp-collecting, if that were his or her personal hobby?
And why is it that the Commissioners attending tend to be relevant to items on the agenda – Commissioner Van den Broek for Enlargement, Former Yugoslavia and Turkey, Commissioner Bjerregaard for Global Governance (applies to climate), Commissioner Monti for the European economy (Internal Market), or Commissioner Brittan for the EU/US Market Place. And most recently, at Turnberry, Minister George Robertson was ferried by military helicopter, on the clear understanding that he was present in an official capacity, just as happened in the past with Prime Minister Blair and then Minister Kenneth Clarke, now a member of the Steering Committee.
[Is this correct Mr. Clarke? That you were (and possibly still are?) a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg? If so, then that would surely make it improbable that you are not aware of the ultimate goal of these people and how it is in direct conflict with the British Constitution. It would also suggest that it is highly unlikely that you would not know specifically who the sponsors were who covered the hotel bill in 1993. This is simply a suggestion however as it seems implausible that you could be a member of such a steering committee.]
Does the Commission actually expect Members of Parliament to accept that British Ministers are attending these meetings in their official capacities, while Commissioners attend the same meeting in a private capacity?
And, why would the police exclude, and even arrest and charge, card carrying journalists if these were genuinely private meetings, whereas, if that were actually so, it would be the responsibility of the organizers to control access to the meetings by journalists, and the police would merely provide security checks to ensure the safety of the participants.
Since former Commissioners have continuing rights from, and duties to, the European Union, surely it behooves them to answer questions on these meetings, should the Commission so choose to ask them, and will the Commission now undertake to ask all former Commissioners still living whether they attended these and other similar meetings during their time as Commissioners.

Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1999)
The Commission’s reply that Members of the Commission who attended Bilderberg meetings expressed their personal views means that they were not representing the Commission, that they did not speak on behalf of the Commission and that their comments were not binding on the Commission. Naturally they were invited to attend the meetings mainly on account of their functions. The Commission considers that its Members should be free to express their views on subjects relating to the work of the Community, in particular during exchanges of views in international forums, without their participation being in any way binding on the Commission.
And finally:
While we have been led to believe that this present Financial Crisis was never expected (view any interviews you wish with any of the UK cabinet or the US Executive Branch) while Alistair Darling is on record in 2008 saying he did not anticipate this even as late as 2008; I would most appreciate your considered response on the following – reported from the Bilderberg conference way back in 2003, of which you were an attendee:

ASIA TIMES 22ND MAY 2003: “An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.” Full article: HYPERLINK “”

What an incredibly accurate report from as far back as 2003.
There is simply no way, without accepting some people have a crystal ball; that this could have been reported without inside knowledge by those who participated in the Bilderberg 2003 conference. Note also that it says “..the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West…”.
Not a suggestion that we have a problem that needs resolving but simply telling what is going to happen!
To anyone with some modicum of intelligence, this would suggest an orchestrated planned event/series of events. However, surely that is just not possible Mr. Clarke.

Who are these “minions” that the report speaks of? After all, the Bilderberg conferences are surely only attended by the so called global elite of industry, BANKING and politics. So, this leads to the question that if these so called “elite” are simply “minions” then who is dictating policy?

Meanwhile, if you know the location of this crystal ball I refer to, I would appreciate it if you would advise the coordinates since I would wish to pay it a visit before taking my first ever trip down to Ladbrokes.

From what I understand, this year’s Bilderberg Group Conference will be held in Greece. It may be worth all the copied MPs to consider their decision on whether to attend such a conference (if “lucky” to have been invited) considering all that I have just brought to your, and their, attention.

I look forward to your response. I am only a simple man as I’m sure you can tell; Just one of the “dumb electorate” as some may say. So please pardon my incapacity to recognise all of the above (and so much more) as just coincidence and of no significance whatsoever.

Kind Regards,


This is the reply I received:

A Clarke Evasion

And now, with regard to the latest news on Clarke and a possible Lisbon Referendum:

UPDATE 5th October 2011. Mr Clarke you are outed by your very own treasury as one lying son of a bitch!

FOI Act: Paragraph 35 (1) a: information relating to the formulation of government policy.

I gotcha Clarke! It took two years but I knew that letter and your reply would sink you. And you were sunk by your very own treasury’s response to an FOI request! How wonderful!

Now, what does all this result in?

Well read the following and you will see the CLEAR indictment of Ken Clarke (and it goes for Ed Balls, George Osbourne, David Cameron, Tony Blair and those who have all gone before them):

This “Code of Conduct” has been broken by all on so many levels it is astonishing –

Code of conduct for MPs Duties of Members Integrity Openness Honesty Financial gain

Ken Clarke attended this 2003 Bilderberg Conference when all participants were advised as follows –

Asia Times May 2003 Asia Times May 2003 2

Ken Clarke then joins Centaurus as an advisor (how does he know what to advise this Hedge Fund group? well, it is abundantly obvious is it not?). It is PRECISELY what Alan Greenspan did shortly before the Mortgage crash also in joining John Paulson’s Hedge Fund. Paulson then went on to make a KILLING in the mortgage default market –

Ken Clarke Centaurus

Remember particularly here, the MP’s Code of Conduct: Financial gain

And, finally, where Ken Clarke LIES to a member of the Public by saying NO POLICY was made at Bilderberg, Her Majesty’s Treasury blatantly contradicts this lying assertion by Clarke by quoting EXEMPTION 35 (1) a

FOI Bilderberg 1 FOI Bilderberg 2




Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons – Prime Minister Tony Blair’s written answers (20 May 1999) Bilderberg Group

Mr. John Bercow MP: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 7 May 1999, Official Report, columns 476-77, on the Bilderberg Group, what official (i) transport and (ii) funds have been used to facilitate attendance at Bilderberg meetings of members of his Government; which members have attended meetings; what reports they have made on the meetings; and what subsequent communication they have had with others attending on subjects discussed at the meetings. [84213] [John Bercow MP]

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, only one member of this Government–the Defence Secretary–has attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group. He provided a detailed account of his attendance in answers to the hon. Members for Ludlow (Christopher Gill MP) on 23 July 1998, Official Report, column 609, and for Hereford (John Keetch MP) on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 434.

And now, on Monday 10th June 2013, Ken Clarke, once more repeats his lies in Parliament:

It isn’t only Clarke, of course, who is involved in what is, ultimate and in actual fact, treason. It is the entire British parliament and you can include the monarchy also because the monarchy’s job is to keep their oath to the British people and maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom FOR the people. But getting simple stuff like this through most people’s heads is practically impossible.

As for the “communications” with Bercow and Meacher: Read from the bottom up ( I can’t be bothered to copy and paste each in a top down mode):

    • Bilderberg Association’s charitable status!‏

    Dear “Mr Speaker”,

    Please reply….

    Please DO NOT suggest you cannot comment due to having to remain “politically impartial” about what is consistently promoted as a “Private gathering”. That is simply ridiculous, evasive and, as a Parliamentarian, you are bound to the Parliamentary oath. I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with it.
    Now, in your own words, I wish to hear your justification of a Private Association which is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP and which has SECRET documents locked up by the 30 year rule being given Charitable status in this “democratic” nation of ours.

    If you refuse to answer this, I wish to know who it is who I can complain to about your evasion and your disrespecting your Parliamentary oath? Thank you.

    A serious complaint has been registered against the Bilderberg Group’s charity, the ‘Bilderberg Association’, with the UK’s Charity Commission.

    The complaint was launched by a member of the public on the basis that the ‘Bilderberg Association’ could bring the Charity Commission into disrepute and damage public trust in charities, by allegedly not complying with UK charity law.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and engages in one sole ‘charitable activity’ – funding the Bilderberg Meetings.

    The Bilderberg Meetings are annual, private conferences attended by 140 of the world’s most powerful people, including bank bosses, CEOs, high-ranking politicians, and royals.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ claims that its objectives are “to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences”.

    In furtherance of its objectives, the Bilderberg Association claims that it “organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means” (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012).

    However, as one of the most prolifically secretive meetings in international politics, the Bilderberg meetings have no known role in “public education”, despite this claim. The Bilderberg Group has also consistently refused to ‘publish reports of such conferences’, despite this being another of their claims to charitable status.

    A Bilderberg meeting is, according to the official website, “a forum for informal, off-the-record discussions about megatrends and the major issues facing the world”, and is of an entirely “private nature”. After the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, attended the recent Bilderberg Meeting 2013 in Watford, UK, Downing Street refused to publish minutes of his discussions within the group.

    Tax-free corporate funding of a private talking shop between politicians and the meeting’s benefactors cannot be identified as an activity for ‘public benefit’ – particularly since the contents of Bilderberg meetings are withheld from the public. Without discernible public benefit, the Bilderberg Association would not meet the statutory requirements for charity status.

    From the ‘Bilderberg Association’ Annual Report and Accounts, 2007

    To claim for charitable status in the UK, and thus benefit from tax-free funding, a charity must demonstrate that their aims are for public benefit – broadly, to “advance education or religion or relieve poverty”.

    Furthermore, the Charity Commission deems that “a political purpose cannot meet the public benefit requirement and so cannot be a charitable purpose”. A ‘political purpose’ means any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party; or securing, or opposing, any change in the law or in the policy or decisions of central government or local authorities, whether in this country or abroad.

    Of significant concern is that the Bilderberg Association’s committee member and trustee, Cabinet minister Kenneth Clarke QC, MP, claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a trustee of the charity when questioned in parliament.

    The Charity Commission must respond to the complaint within 15 days.

    Details of the complaint sent to the Charity Commission are shown below:

    Please provide a summary of the evidence:

    I am concerned that ‘The Bilderberg Association’ is misleading the Charity Commission, and thus the public, as to its stated ‘Specific objectives’ and ‘Activities’. It’s actual objectives and activities would be highly unlikely to qualify for charitable status. Therefore, large amounts of money, it would appear, are possibly being unlawfully exempt from tax.  Full details are set out below.

    Please set out any additional facts and information about the serious issue that you wish to report:

    The Bilderberg Association engages in one single charitable activity, which is ‘Contributions to the running costs of Bilderberg Meetings’, which are the controversial (having come under recent parliamentary scrutiny and allegedly breaking the Ministerial Code) private meetings between politicians (including the Prime Minister) and heads of corporations and banks. However ‘The Bilderberg Association’ claims that its ‘Specific objectives’ are ‘to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences’; and under ‘Activities’ the Association claims that it ‘organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means’ (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012). However, the Bilderberg Meetings, as entirely secret meetings, have no role at all in public education, as the results of meetings are not in fact disseminated, and no reports are published. Bilderberg Meetings are in fact, by their own admission, characterised by ultimate secrecy. Therefore, it would appear that the objectives and activities of The Bilderberg Association (at least in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 for which I have been able to obtain accounts) are identifiably false and misleading. 

    The most recent identification of Bilderberg Association funding comes from their 2008 accounts, whereby the Association claims to have received £50,000 each from Goldman Sachs and BP. However, only £50,000 appears in their yearly income (although 2 x £50,000 = £100,000). I am concerned about the real objectives of the Association since they clearly do not match their falsely stated objectives and activities; and since the Association is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and goes on to fund the private meeting of Goldman Sachs’ and BP’s CEOs with MPs and Cabinet ministers. This bears the hallmarks of illegal lobbying.

    Details of attempts you have made to get the charity to address this issue. Please provide details of when you reported this issue to the charity and the outcome: 

    The Bilderberg Group is uncontactable. I have contacted several Members of Parliament who share my concerns including some of those subsequently mentioned. 

    Michael Meacher MP, Dennis Skinner MP, and Tom Watson MP have questioned Bilderberg Association’s Committee Member and trustee, Kenneth Clarke MP in parliament. It concerned me greatly that the oversight of the charity is desperately lacking – in response to Tom Watson MP’s question, Ken Clarke MP claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a Committee Member and trustee of the Bilderberg Association.






    FW: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.


And when one is treated like an idiot by our “esteemed” Parliamentarians, please do not expect an ounce of respect in return.

If Mr Meacher enjoys Ken Clarke supercilliously lying to his face in Parliament (because one is removed from the House if one has the audacity to state that the other is actually lying) and abides by parliamentary rules – which ensure you never can say what you mean – then that’s his choice. I’m not in Parliament so, ironically, while you all believe you have “parliamentary privilege”, in this particular case, I have greater privilege. Among all the lying creeps in that building, Ken Clarke far outshines most! Then you have little bootlickers like Bercow……

Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:22:23 +0000

Dear Joanna,

Having received Mr Bercow’s reply:

A question for you: Do you enjoy being treated like a fool? Is it a fetish developed by the people who work for these idiots who “lord” over us yet are only our representatives?
The reason I ask is because the replies which I receive from the likes of “Mr Speaker” are so incompetent and transparent in their attempts to evade and also to deceive, that I have to scratch my head in wonder that people such as yourself may actually kiss their feet for all I know.
The evasions and deceptions they apply to questions posed by me and so many others, are actually applied to you also (assuming you understood the nature and essence of what is being asked and referred to). In your assumed choice to ignore the utter crap that emanates from these people, I have to assume that you do not understand much of what is being asked?
So, with that, please pass this follow up question to “Mr Speaker” (who doesn’t appear to speak much in his initial reply):
IF, as Ken Clarke suggests in answer to Michael Meacher’s questions, the Bilderberg conference has nothing to do with Parliament and it is purely a private occasion, then how on God’s earth can Mr Bercow respond saying that, due to his position requiring him to be politically impartial, he cannot comment?
Bilderberg has “nothing to do with politics” according to Clarke! How then would Bercow commenting on it be “politically partial”?
We’re not all logical incompetents Ms Nurse!
So, again, please ask “His Speakerness” to reply in a less incompetent manner and answer the original questions I put to him.
Thank you and Kindest Regards,


To: NURSE, Joanna

Hi Joanna,

Thanks for advising. Yes I certainly do wish to receive a full reply to all points referred to both, in my email and within the letter I sent to Mr Clarke originally but which received a stock reply from him. I say stock reply because I am aware of others who received precisely the same letter from the MPs they contacted but, simply, with their MPs signature on the bottom. Evidence the, if such were needed, that the public is given lip service by their representatives and that a general template had been supplied to all attendees (and perhaps others) to reply to constituents’ and the public’s questions. Specific questions, therefore, being entirely ignored and simply a standard answer as reply which doesn’t answer anything at all.
My address is:
Thank you and regards,

Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:38:38 +0000

Thank you for your email, which was sent to Mr Speaker’s constituency office email address.


If you would like to receive a reply, please provide me with your postal address, as that is the Speaker’s preferred method of correspondence.


Due to the high volume of emails and letter received by the Speaker, please understand that there is often a delay before a response is sent.


Sent: 22 June 2013 13:03
To: MEACHER, Michael
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg


Mr Meacher,


What else would I have expected? The UK Parliament is a corrupt hotbed of criminals. There is not ONE of you which I could point to and say “I 100% trust that man”. If you remember, while at the Bilderberg protest, I mentioned to you that you spoke of the Conservative attendees in your speeches but never once referred to Ed Balls (you saying that Ed Balls was not a government minister – which actually matters not one bit). While you all play your “tennis game”, Mr Meacher, you all swerve the issues when they lie at your door and evade and all of your evasions, whichever side of that phoney left/right fence you are on, maintains the status quo. But then that is what your actual job is. To maintain that status quo.

However, I will offer you something to think about: Whilst you play your games and maintain the paradigm – looking after your own interests as a whole – in the future, whatever family you may have (offspring) are going to inherit what you tried so hard to maintain for yourselves today. If you think your family will be protected from this New World Order Mr Meacher, then you are very naive. The people running this show eat you up and use you and then they spit you out just as quickly. Your offspring means NOTHING to them. By all means ignore my words Mr Meacher but, trust me, you will forever regret doing so.


Lastly, the reply from Bercow: Again he plays the game but he makes a big mistake (you all do for those of us to whom you are all transparent). His point that “his position requires him to be politically impartial”, I hope you recognise for what it is. Mr Clarke states in answer to you that this Bilderberg conference is a private gathering and has nothing to do with Parliament therefore. If it is “private” and in no way “political” (embarrassingly transparent as it all is), then Bercow’s comment is senseless. But then what’s new?


Parliament: Parler – to speak, Mentir – to lie. A House full of it!


So, my point: Let’s see what you’re really made of. If it’s anything like my own MP (Damian Green), then I already know! A man in abject fear of being put on the spot and on the record…..


 Bercow letter 2


RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
MEACHER, Michael (
To: Earthling

Dear Mr Earthling,

Thank you for your email which I will bring to Michael Meacher’s attention.


Monica Masson



Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP

Oldham West & Royton

House of Commons

020 7219 6461


Oldham Office

11 Church Lane

Oldham OL1 3AN

0161 626 5779


Sent: 11 June 2013 12:46
To: BERCOW, John; MEACHER, Michael
Subject: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg


Dear John,


I spoke with Michael Meacher at the Bilderberg protest on Saturday. He advised me that I can, and should, contact you and that I would receive a reply from you regarding this issue with Government Ministers attending Bilderberg conferences.

I wrote a letter to Ken Clarke in 2009 regarding his attendance and I put quite some detail in it as you will see. I received a “stock reply” from Mr Clarke (others have received exactly the same replies from their MPs who have attended) which evaded ALL of my questions, points and detail.

In 2011, there was a Treasury response to an FOI request which then entirely contradicted Mr Clarke’s assertion that the conferences are attended in one’s “personal capacity” when it stated George Osbourne attended in his official capacity.


Now, the blog also mentions you John because, before becoming Speaker, you asked a number of times about Bilderberg to Tony Blair. Why did you ask such questions? What was your concern? Your concern was precisely the same as mine and all the Bilderberg protestors who attended on Saturday and the other days. You know what the problem is John and, whether attended in a personal capacity or not, the attendees are not invited on the basis of their golf handicap. They are invited on the basis of what they can achieve within their Public function!


My demand is, therefore, that Ken Clarke (and all other UK Parliament attendees) be brought up on the charges which you know apply due to the subversion of their Code of Conduct oath and Constitutional law. And since when did a private meeting with “no policy objectives” require that documents relating to it be locked up under the 30 year rule of secrecy?


John, understand that, if you want and demand respect for your position then so do I and the citizens of this country since, after all, you are the public servant who is meant to be representing us!


I would, therefore, ask (but in asking I fully expect) a considered, detailed reply once you have read the blog. I send you the blog to read rather than “reinvent the wheel” and re-write it in this email.


Thank you and Regards,




PS: I make NO apologies for the language on the blog or videos.