Positive Money, Martin Wolf & Bilderberg

Posted in Money by earthling on April 29, 2014

You know what? I’m getting bloody sick of transparent, obvious shit where people are in bed with other people and promoting all of the “need for change” across all fronts AND YET, if you are at all quick on the uptake know who is who and have done ANY amount of homework, you can see, quite clearly, that the elite of this world WANT this “awakening” and they WANT us to scream for change and demand change and march and shout about it all. They are creating the conditions and they are publicising and propagandising about it all as they have their “actors” in place to be the pied pipers who will offer the solutions and make them SOUND just exactly what people want – like “The Reset’s “TEAL TAX” for instance. All they need say is “What if you didn’t have to pay tax but all the Corporations did at 1%? Then instead of the inland revenue taking in £500bn a year, they’d raise upwards of £1.4 TRILLION.” People will go ape about this because, on the surface, it sounds great.

IT ISN’T! The people shoving this idea toward you don’t expect the vast majority of you to think past the “headlines” (because people generally don’t in any circumstance). However, that’s another story for another time.

What is it that is staring us in the face now?

Positive Money wolf

POSITIVE MONEY! God they don’t half get around huh? They don’t half get the foundations and charities funding them also. So much so that it isn’t just the UK Parliament they are into with their ideas and having MPs listen to them, they are spanning countries now.

What they’re also doing is bringing Martin Wolf to your attention and saying “Isn’t it great that this issue is finally getting attention and being debated”.

SURE it is! BUT, as I have said time and time again (it’s even the case with “everyone’s favourite” Max Keiser), the elite are pushing this information out there into the mainstream while, at the same time, they have their placemen (and that includes the likes of Keiser and Positive Money) to tell you what the solution is. Just like it is the same elite who own the world’s energy companies who are promoting Climate Change and Ecoscience etc.


I attended a POSITIVE MONEY conference in Edinburgh a few years back. I was positive about going and my thought of supporting it in any way I could. I walked out that night having been effectively silenced for questioning them on one or two specific points and, of course, my support went no further. THESE PEOPLE ARE PLACEMEN.

I can’t help you see this if you do not fully, as yet, understand money and what it is. If you don’t then you will never get it – the penny will never drop (excuse the pun).

Rockefeller et al WANT their new currency system. The guy has admitted wanting a supranational banking government. There is NO NEED for banks to exist. Period! In fact, it is the existence of banks which is the problem along with their loaning you your own value and charging you interest on it.


Martin Wolf Bilderberger 1 Martin Wolf Bilderberger 2











Stop being so fucking lazy and expecting to be spoonfed! You want spoonfed? POSITIVE MONEY AND MARTIN WOLF (in sheep’s clothing) will be happy to spoonfeed you – CRAP!

You wanna get fucked in the ass again and again? Be my fucking guest!


Don’t worry I can hear you now: “How can such an uncouth character with language like that expect to be listened to?”

I’m uncouth bud because I’m bloody sick of your laziness and/or your ignorance. While if you wish to be spoken nicely to then you go ahead and listen to the Tony Blairs and David Camerons of this world. Heck! Listen to Her Majesty! They’ll massage your fragile little ego for you


You’re so fucking easily fooled. You’d rather someone smile in your face and screw you without your knowing than have someone say you’re a fucking idiot while trying to help you out!

Make your choice!

I think I might be just about to step back into the matrix anyhow. I’ll leave the blog up for posterity or, alternatively, you can stick it up your posterior.

Learn Mathematically Perfected Economy or forever be bullshitted!

MH370: Obama just drops in!

Golly gosh!! How timely!

The first American President in decades to visit Malaysia. What a coincidence! And just 7 weeks after MH370 flies off the radar. Enough time, then to let things settle down to a great extent and see where the cards lie.

But also, a US President’s calendar isn’t such that they just decide to pay a “State visit” to Malaysia and book their flights through Thomson holidays a few days before because they got a cheap deal. This visit has been planned and prepared a long time ago. Does no-one else consider that absolutely perfect, coincidental timing of such?

Barack Obama is the first US President to visit Malaysia since Johnson in 1966. How about that?

Obama Malaysia

The article goes on to say:

Malaysia is a growing partner of the United States, which seeks to deepen that relationship, Rhodes said.

Topics of discussion between the two leaders will include trade, security and regional issues, he said.

Trade being the Trans Pacific Partnership and security and regional issues, of course, shall be “Hey Najib my man! Have you found that plane of yours?” with a big beaming Obama smile on his face. “Now let’s discuss our mutual interests shall we? 1. We don’t like this Warcrimes tribunal you had. 2. We don’t like this anti TPPA rhetoric. 3. Your plane COULD be found with passengers and crew alive and you all made into heroes if you just follow the plan. What do you say Najib?”

One of the security detail then whispers into Obama’s ear (a little like that day at the school for George Bush) “Sir, we’ve already shot them all”.

“Strike that” says Obama. “We’ll find the plane but if there are any bodies we’ll just bring up the chinese ones because, as you know, it’s a muslim thing to be buried at sea anyhow. Well that’s what we told the world in relation to us getting rid of the evidence… I mean burying Osama Bin Laden. Best let dead dogs lie right Najib?”


Once upon a time….

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, New World Order Religion, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on April 27, 2014

In Britain:

Cameron racism

10 white Englishmen, 2 poles, 2 turks, 3 Iraqis, a pakistani and a trinidadian went to a job interview for the position of Electrician.

8 of the 10 Englishmen had full Electrical qualifications while 2 of them only had domestic installer grades with zero experience. Of the two, however, one was gay.

The two poles were plumbers, the turks had no qualifications at all, the 3 iraqis had just arrived in the UK from Baghdad and couldn’t speak a word of English, the pakistani was a chef and the trinidadian was just very cool man!

There were 6 jobs to be filled and because Lenny Henry felt there was a need for a larger ethnic minority representation in the number of electricians in the country, one englishman was given a job, one pole, one turk, one iraqi, the pakistani and the trinidadian.

Because neither of the non white englishmen were qualified, the government provided them with free electrical courses and the company had to wait for their completion of the course before they could fill the roles.

The Englishman also had to complete the course because he was one of the two who didn’t have full qualifications. The company chose the gay candidate to ensure that their stated policy – in line with legislation – that they did not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour, sex, disablement or sexual orientation, was proven in practice. Also, Peter Tatchell was keeping a close eye on the decision and the company shit itself at the prospect of having a lawsuit on its hands.

So not a single fully qualified Englishman got any of the jobs. Equal opportunities you see! Multicultural Britain.

The company was sued for not employing an adequate number of iraqis.

David Cameron was asked to comment on the situation and said “This isn’t UKIP or BNP Britain you know! This isn’t a homeland for white British people only you racist bastard!”

Globalism! And the little jewess smiled!


In Israel:

10 jews, 20 Palestinians, 3 ethiopians went to a job interview for the position of electrician.

The 10 jews were ex bankers, the 20 palestinians were all fully qualified and the 3 ethiopians were too.

There were 12 jobs to be filled but the company had to re-advertise for 2 of them because they only had 10 jews to employ while the palestinians were shot and the ethiopians jailed without trial for 3 years before being kicked out of Israel.

David Cameron was asked to comment on the situation and said “Israel is Britain’s friend. It is the only democratic nation in the middle east and it is the jewish homeland. Mr Netanyahu assures me that all the palestinian and ethiopian candidates were terrorists. No, Israel has never apologised for the King David Hotel bombings because it never happened!”

Homeland for the jews Rock solid


Yep, have the entirety of Europe and the UK “multicultural” brought into being by the jews and anyone complaining is a racist, bigot and anti semite BUT make sure, at all costs, that the jews have their very own patch of dirt all to themselves.

Aye David you’re a wanker as are all your predecessors.

Christian country my arse! “Christianity” slips off your tongue as you suck judeo dick!

The Reset, the Barrister and the Legal person

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Vaccinations by earthling on April 27, 2014

The following was originally published in 2014…. Nobody listened!!

NOW “The Great Reset” is trending on Twitter: Too little too late suckers!

There’s something called “” and people like Michael Meacher MP are offering their name in support.

In addition, there is also a Barrister (or ex Barrister) by the name of Polly Higgins who has written a book called “Eradicating Ecocide” and has proposed to the United Nations law(s) to be considered in battling such.

Polly Higgins - Barrister.

Polly Higgins – Barrister.

Proposing anything to the United Nations, in my view, is dangerous (as I’m sure many of you out there who have your finger n the pulse are aware of). We’re all very aware of who funded and still funds the UN. If not, here’s your answer:

But I’ve brought the above up in many previous blogs so that’s nothing new but is included for anyone new to the information anyhow.

Now, Rockefeller also created and funded the Club of Rome (“Limits to growth” and “The first global revolution”) which first promulgated the concept of Global Warming and they explain in the second book, why they did so. There for all to see.

Due to that, we now have “Sustainability”, the U.N.’s “Agenda 21”, 350 million people in China relocating from their homes in rural communities to cities (the largest movement of people in the history of the human race) where the building of entire cities and blocks of flats to house them is progressing at a devastating pace. We then also have issues in the USA ala Cliven Bundy and the BLM. Again, all part of Agenda 21. Meanwhile the human race – as it is getting shoved into smaller and smaller areas throughout the world like sardines – is complaining there are too many people on the planet. Well they would think that wouldn’t they? If they are being herded by the millions into cities while the governments are being paid off by the bankers and corporations to gather up more and more “protected land”. Protect it for whom? Tortoises?

No. To protect it for them. So they may spread themselves out across their vast tracts of land they buy up and then use for their own purposes – either their palatial, multiple hectare homes or for their corporate interests.

Meanwhile, Rockefeller (and globalist friends) give speeches about population control:

Listen to his first minute or two of speech and compare his concern re population growth based upon better health with Bill Gates (his “best buddy”) talking about population reduction based upon ….. better health! How bloody strange is that? Ah but it’s not. These people are psychopaths – not very bright but extremely wealthy. They can completely contradict themselves from one minute to the next and then simply deny it or explain it or completely ignore it. Because NO-ONE challenges them on it. They are surrounded by governmental, banking, corporate and media arse lickers.

While Bill Gates isn’t a climate scientist or any kind of scientist. He’s now a fully fledged politician and corrupt bastard. Bill has an agenda and it’s Agenda 21 just as Rockefeller’s is and just as Rockefeller’s U.N. and Club of Rome’s is.

But Bill says vaccinations and, therefore better healthcare (reproductive health services means abortions of course – Bill is another one who likes to murder non legal persons. Humans but they’re non legal – get the picture?). You can’t murder something which is deemed as not existing. A great little “legal fiction” they capitalise on and get away with genocide by using. Aren’t these philanthropists great? 😉

So what’s the “Reset”? Well, look it up if you don’t know. Basically, it’s another one of these ideas to bring the human race to “freedom” of the banking/government fascist corruption. Nice website and nice logos. The trouble is it seriously smells to me like another “grassroots movement” that is anything but.

The thing I have the issue with is you have two people: Polly Higgins, Barrister and Michael Meacher (Fabian socialist and MP) involved and already manoeuvring within it while throwing THEIR ideas at the United Nations (Rockefeller central and an institution which supports the legal person and the corruption of it).

Now, let’s take a closer look at a book that Polly Higgins wrote in 2010 on the subject of “Ecocide” – something close to her heart and also close to the globalists’ hearts for reasons I gave above. They want to “protect” the vast swathes of the planet which THEY buy up. 😉

Eradicating Ecocide Corp fiction 1 Corp fiction 2 Corp fiction 3 Corp fiction 4 Corp fiction 5

She speaks at “TED talks” and at the London School of Economics and she talks about “Earth Law” – a real little scottish, tree hugging barrister then.

“In service to something greater than myself” she says. Hmmm. Echoes of George Bush and his talk about 1000 points of light and serving something greater than ourselves.

Don’t dare to be great Polly because all you are doing is regurgitating the same propaganda of those you suggest you are rallying against. Sorry girl but you’re rather stupid. And you laugh a lot don’t you? Laughing at what you think is funny about what YOU say. But it isn’t funny at all. You’re telling people on that stage what YOU think of the world as if it is what everyone should think. You are VERY dangerous. Prima facie, you sound so “lovely” – all about “journeys” and from “independence to interdependency”. Oh and the soft voice which puts it all over. Like a female Tony Blair. You’re a “Friend of the Earth” – “bring these ideas forth”, “how do we do this from a place of peace than from anger”, “How do we co-create that world” – Oh how you “ask” each and every one of us to “dare to be great too”.

Transparent as hell Polly. But ever so “sweet”.

Oh you’ve learned SO WELL dear! Really, your projection and delivery is “lovely”, How could anyone question you?

Well sweetie, it’s easy! Pardon me but you’re filled with conditioned shit! But you love it don’t you? To be on that stage, To create your “name” on the global stage. Perhaps even to be invited, at some stage, to a Bilderberg conference. You’re perfect for it Polly! Pretty Polly! Pretty Polly! Squawk!

While in the above book, Ms Barrister, you discuss the legal fiction and the legal person. So you’ll be up for the debate then while most of you peers will ignore it all and laugh it all out of court any chance they get, YOU acknowledge it all. But you do so because, in this case – your “Earth law” – it is useful to raise the issue (applied, in this case only to the corporation of course). But let’s widen the perspective Ms Higgins shall we? Let’s analyse the “Natural person” also which, after all, I have already proven over and over in other blogs, is every bit as much a legal fiction as is the corporate person.

Or is it that you’re not interested in people Ms Higgins? Just the Earth? Does that “sweetness” fall apart when you are faced with someone wishing to debate the entire law of persons with you rather than just that tree hugging Earth law?

Do you wish to be one of the “meek” Polly? What part of the earth do you wish to inherit Mme Barrister?

You can’t fight the power Polly, you took an oath remember?

Anything you achieve will have been given the power’s blessings.

Is it you who’s naive or is it you think I am?

MH370: PM Najib Razak – “Yesterday and today”.

The Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak, is being steered by US and British interests.

While Malaysians and Chinese are throwing their venom at the Malaysian government, they are throwing it all in the wrong direction. Sure the Malaysian government are going along with it but why? Do you think that, politically, the Malaysian government have a strong hand as compared to the British and US governments? Or the Chinese government for that matter?

Here is Najib just a couple of weeks ago:

Here he is on CNN just a day or so ago:

In the first video he’s telling you that he’s relying on Inmarsat and the AAIB in the UK. He’s got no choice. He didn’t have to accept it did he? But then IF he hadn’t informed at the “earliest opportunity” and the media came out and stated that Malaysia had been provided with such analysis but hadn’t accepted it, then he would have to deal with people assuming he and his government were hiding this also. So the man is between a rock and a hard place. He gives a press conference stating the analysis’ results and, to give such results he can hardly then state “But I don’t believe them” can he? So what the hell do you expect him to do? He’s being TOLD to believe them

In the second video, however, while then “couching” his initial disbelief, he is sowing seeds of that disbelief. At the same time it makes no sense whatsoever that we are now told that primary radar picked up an aircraft turning back but they don’t know if it was MH370. If it wasn’t MH370 then they must know which aircraft it was because, if they did not know what type of aircraft and where it was originally heading (therefore have an understanding of the, as yet, unidentified plane’s flight path) then how would they know it had “turned back”? Yes they could say they saw a plane on radar making a 180 degree turn BUT, if they didn’t know the purpose or the destination of that plane, how could they conclude a “turn back”? They also state it wasn’t a threat. How could they know this without first identifying what type of plane it was (civil or military) and how would they not consider something wrong whichever type of civil aircraft it may have been? So they MUST have known what plane it was. If it wasn’t MH370 then which airline was it? And what’s the story behind THAT “turn back”? All of this is ignored.

None of this holds water. So PM Najib is holding back something here but WHY is he? I doubt it’s because he and Malaysia wish to.

However, additionally, in the second video (the most recent with CNN) he will not state outright the plane has been lost (and yet we’re talking about death certificates?) because, as he says, he is considering the families feelings in this. No, he’s not. IF he knew 100% the plane was lost and it was where Inmarsat said it was (forgetting it cannot be found for the moment) then he would be bringing closure to the families (as he already tried to do based on his statement a month ago) then it would be that (and the proof) that would be considerate of the families’ feelings. He’s not stating it’s lost because can’t. The “authorities” have not done a good enough job yet to achieve that level of confirmation needed.

“We are as sure as we can possibly be” says Inmarsat and the “experts” from UK and the US. So that’s a “NO” then. It’s not a yes and when faced with such a direct question “Are you sure?” It’s a yes or no answer. Anything else automatically defaults to “NO”.

There are people who know exactly where that plane is and what happened to it. The rest is a wild goose chase as I’ve said from the beginning. IS it Diego Garcia? Who knows? I don’t. I have only said I have strong suspicions of it being so and why the globalists would carry out such a ‘project’. The ONLY reason why that scenario is deemed “crazy” and not investigated by any “authority” is because the “authority” IS globalist! Why do you think Najib is now submitting his document to the United Nations before releasing it to the people? Why does the United Nations ICAO have to give its “blessing” to the Malaysian government for such a release of information?

Who owns the United Nations? And please don’t say it’s a few countries on the Security Council. Please don’t give me that naivety when it is, with a little research, obvious to anyone who runs that show.

Here’s another thing from Sky News. Notice anything?

MH370 death certificates

It goes on to say:

“A public opinion poll published last week found that more than half of Malaysians believe their scandal-prone government – which has controlled the country for 57 years – is hiding the full truth about the plane’s disappearance.”

A subtle little addition to suggest that the Malaysian government is a “regime” of sorts. Well they all are aren’t they? I’m not making excuses for ANY government. They ALL have their drive for power (and corruption) and the biggest of them are Her Majesty’s government followed closely by the American government (which is just the brawn of Her Majesty and the City of London anyhow).

I have said from the beginning that, at least in part, this whole episode is to destabilise the Malaysian state. I stick to that 100%.

Glad to see, however, that the relatives are not accepting the death certificates. It’s quite obvious that Najib understands why. He IS in between a rock and a hard place and every last word he comes out with while pressured, is going to be twisted by one faction or the other. He can’t win.

Another one:

Search widens Sky

And it goes on to state:

“The Malaysian government, which has primary responsibility for the investigation, has been accused of mismanaging the search, concealing information about the tragedy and of being too slow to update families of the missing on developments.”

Every shot is being fired at the Malaysian government but very few at Inmarsat, AAIB, UK and American governments. Yes questions may be being asked of how accurate the analysis has been but NO-ONE is suggesting that the information provided could be being provided for nefarious reasons. And yet, not an ounce of evidence or debris to back it all up. 95% of the search area has now been completed and nothing. And yet, it was based upon Inmarsat’s analysis and Australia talking about one ping after another (having the first “ping” seemingly detected by China). Narrowing down and narrowing down the search zone based on so called “pings” yet, in this narrow searched zone, nothing found. Now some are saying (again unidentified US defence personnel) that the search could take years. If that is the case then these pings were not pings from a black box, so what were they? We will never get the answer to that because answers are NOT what they are looking for.

This is a study in trying to cover up a real story and trying to stitch together an “official story” while wearing down the families and interested parties to a point where the official story is accepted (once more) and years later, when it has all died down, a headline or a 7th page news item or news item at the end of the 6 o’clock news, states that debris and black boxes have eventually been found. The actual black box recordings will never be released but perhaps transcripts will – written by officials of course – and the entire event will, like so many others, continue to be discussed here and there as if the official story was real, correct and anyone questioning it, a nutter.

Wear them down. Just keep wearing them down. Add a great deal of confusion and unidentified, anonymous statements and opinions by “experts” to deflect from fundamentals which the majority view as reality because officialdom says so but which, from day one, were highly questionable.

And once more we have people murdered for an agenda and the perpetrators walk away scot free because they are officialdom. The perpetrators construct the story after all.

As they say “History is written by the winners”.

MH370: We’ve narrowed the search and narrowed it again…Oops! We don’t know where the hell it is!

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on April 23, 2014

The international team searching the Indian Ocean for the Boeing 777 are now considering the seemingly impossible scenario of the aircraft having ‘landed’ somewhere, instead of crashing in the southern Indian Ocean.

The Malaysian-led investigation team, along with experts from Inmarsat and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, had to rely on an Inmarsat communications satellite, which did not provide any definite details, including the aircraft’s direction, altitude and speed.

One of the sources told the New Straits Times: ‘A communications satellite is meant for communication…the name is self explanatory.

Where the hell is it?


Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

“Inmarsat have done sterling, incredible work and we are certain it crashed into the sea where they said it did……. well, ok maybe not”

And people laughed at me. 🙂

Don’t you love it when what you’ve been saying and showing for weeks proves to be correct? Sorry, I do.


which did not provide any definite details, including the aircraft’s direction, altitude and speed

I hate hugs don’t you?

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on April 23, 2014

Yes folks, this blog is all about hate and anger. I have no idea why you would wish to partake in something as pathetic as this. I’d rather see you all beating the shit out of one another (especially gays). But do you see the exact same thing again? That which I REALLY hate? The state getting their thugs to put a stop to people loving one another. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO SIGN PETITIONS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HUG ONE ANOTHER! THAT IS HOW DEEPLY FUCKED UP THIS WORLD HAS BECOME! We’re all registered to them and they want control and we actually go the lengths of PETITIONING them to ask for their ALLOWANCE for us to hug one another! And the straights and the gays are literally asking – by way of legislation – for a right to be recognised as a “person”. The gays can be legislated FOR now but they can now be legislated AGAINST. SERIOUSLY! ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE HELL IT IS I’M SAYING TO YOU? WHAT THE HELL IS IT YOU DON’T GET? Let’s say, for example, that David Cameron had been a TRUE christian or that a government came along in the near future and legislated AGAINST gay marriage and gays recognised as persons. Where would you, as a gay man, stand then? You can say all you wish that that is never going to happen. Are you so damned sure? THINK about it!

By giving them the RIGHT to legislate at all you are giving them the power to go either way! Whereas, if you did not accept “personhood” and this goes for everyone – they’ve lost the power to dictate either way! THEN you are FREE you idiot and ONLY then! But it takes SOCIETY to wake up and stop wishing to impose its beliefs upon you. Governments and the politicians totally capitalise on our own bigotry and hate and fear and they always will because you refuse to understand it.

I’ll say AGAIN – I can’t stand little perves like Sean Tabatabai BUT, given his agreement to keep out of my face and impose his shit on me (which is carried out THROUGH the system as it is and this “legal person” shit they have manipulated in law), I’d happily stay out of his and anyone like him (Tatchell for instance). But I don’t go about waving the hetero flag in people’s faces demanding recognition by a corrupt system. Tatchell and Tabatabai DO! And they never stop! Have you read Tatchell’s rants about heterosexual males? I don’t even wish to be recognised by the bloody system. I despise it. Ironically, so he would state, Tabatabai despises it too (otherwise why TPV?). But the fact is Tabatabai is a change agent. If he despised the system so much and is so “enlightened” (which he clearly is not) then why would he wish to be accepted BY the system? WHY would he wish to be splashed across the front pages he purports to despise, as “the first gay marriage in the UK”?

He is a change agent. As is Icke! Sorry but if you do not see that you’re an idiot. You seriously are. From getting an OFCOM licence to taking a trip to LA and coming back with a “bride” having spent lavishly on YOUR money while out there. And how on earth – given all of the thousands of gays who would wish to be first to be married, did wee Sean and his boytoy get to be first past the post? THINK about this shit otherwise you’re as unawake as you ever were.

Adoption rejections   And here is the propaganda displaying the destruction of heterosexual parenthood: “You don’t choose to be parents, it just happens, while gays make a conscious choice.” Gay parents “tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,” said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. “That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.” Do you notice anything about the psychologist’s surname? Are you at all surprised it is a surname associated with a particular sect? How is it that it is enormous the number of times such attacks on the fundamentals of society come from people of that sect? Haven’t you noticed? Are you that blind? Or are you just scared of acknowledging it? Gay parents Then read the following and just think: Who is it that makes up these rules? And why? Are all the people in the council gay? Or gay supporters? No-one who works in the council (or in the adoption agencies) hold any ideology similar to this couple? Are the workers not allowed to be christian? Or is it like the police when they say “I’m not paid to have an opinion I just carry out orders”? I’m 100% positive it is the latter in general. Although I’m sure to get such jobs, you will be screened to ensure as far as possible that you have the right attitude. So that leaves the question: Who is screening and why? Well when you get right down to the bottom line, it is the state who is doing the screening. The question remains why? And why aren’t the couple allowed to have a baby rather than up to 10 years old? It is social engineering and it all flows down from the top – the government and civil service and Her Majesty. How do they attribute themselves the right to discriminate in these ways when they proclaim discrimination coming from any other quarter is a crime? Because THEY are the law and that is what 99% of the people in this country are simply accepting. Outright discrimination by those who create law for the purposes of control of social engineering. EVERY SINGLE CENSUS and “EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES” form that we complete is used NOT for equal opportunities but to discriminate and socially engineer. “More women” are needed. “More blacks” are needed. “More gay couples/parents” are needed. None of these decisions are actually based on capability to do something, they are based upon statistical, social engineering requirements. And they are achieved by utilising the LEGAL PERSON”. You are not being treated as a human being or an individual. You are being grouped and segregated into preference groups for various positions in society. The vast vast majority just do not recognise it and don’t wish to. Then PLEASE stop complaining!     Telegraph idealism   However, it wasn’t just our reaction to the “faeces question” that went down badly with the social workers. We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind. We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father. The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose. In our social club we have gay and bisexual people: they’ve had problems with their families and we’ve supported them. If they are not following a faith that says that their lifestyle is wrong, then we shouldn’t and wouldn’t condemn it. We are not homophobic and yet the social worker warned us our views would prejudice our chances of adopting. At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child? Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality. It was a devastating time: to be turned down after being grilled by social services for a year and a half, and also made to feel we were so much in the wrong. We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them. I wish now that we had gone through a Christian adoption agency that might have looked on us more favourably. We felt that in dealing with the local council our faith was a liability and we were discriminated against because of it. We know people who adopted via the same council 10 years ago who were not asked similar questions. Once, the government used to respect the religious views of the electorate. Now the Catholic Church and the Church of England are under attack. I agree with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, who have written to the Prime Minister saying that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”. If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith. People should be allowed to choose how they live their lives, so long as they don’t affect others. I feel that, as Christians, we are being denied our freedom to choose and are being persecuted for our faith – while a child who would benefit from all that we can give is missing out.   THIS IS WHAT SOCIAL ENGINEERING RESULTS IN: Now, I watched this chinese couple and I cried. I hate admitting it but I cry with anger and frustration a lot these days. No-one would know that however because it’s hardly “socially acceptable” is it? But the tears don’t arise for nothing. What you see here is an audience getting a laugh out of a guy who sits on a panel and freely states that he is all for mothers killing their children if they wish to because HE believes the world is overpopulated. If he seriously believes that then – courage of convictions time again – he shouldn’t bring even one child into the world right? But that would be HIS (and his partner’s choice based on THEIR belief). However, what he is then saying is he would even consider banning people from having ANY children for 30 or 50 years (I forget which number he used). The audience member laughs, the audience as a whole laughs and he sits quite content with his eugenics-based, holier than thou, social engineering and population control stance while a woman and her husband in China have had the chinese authorities break into their house, kidnap the woman and inject her to murder her baby because of “SOCIAL ENGINEERING”. Social Engineering in China which was actually introduced to China by the ROCKEFELLER FAMILY.

What gives a group of human beings the right to murder the child of another human being?

WHAT? YOU FUCKING TELL ME? And yet you are complaining about MY anger and hate toward those who believe they are fucking gods and would slit your throat in a microsecond if it suited them? You get bitchy at ME for despising these bastards? You suggest this blog is full of hate? NO I think you have your priorities TOTALLY fucked up myself! Sorry for despising those who I know are doing you and everyone else immense harm! You fucking idiot!

They took her baby, after injecting her to murder it because THEY didn’t want her to have it, and they threw it in a bin while a guy in America casually suggests he’d go further than that!

I DARE this little bastard to have to sit in a room in such a hospital in China and watch as dead foetus after dead foetus are thrown in bins encircling him and as the mothers and fathers scream and cry their eyes out for their babies being murdered. Let’s see how this guy would then act!

To be a social engineer you HAVE to be a sociopath because you are taking it upon yourself to be, in essence, “God”.



Meandered in this one? Not a bit. It is all part of the same issue. Humans dictating to other humans. And remember this, while they have their police and their other state actors to do their bidding (whether in “healthcare” or local government) you are basically talking about a few hundred people dictating their wishes upon tens of millions (just in this country. In the US it’s a few hundred dictating to hundreds of millions. Their social engineering being propaganised via TV and other media. And we swallow it. “It’s the law”. Yes and the “law” applies to LEGAL PERSONS. If it were enough to be human being to qualify as a person, there would ONLY be one question to answer (and no need for these forms): Form Form 2   But no, we ALL fill them in because we’re told we must and everyone complies. “Are you a human being?” “Yes” “What TYPE of human being are you?” Answer me this: What the hell difference should it make? Anyone who wishes to say there is a valid reason for such, you are part of the problem.

Meanwhile, this guy can be a little “off” at times (no disrespect there bud. I’m sure you will have the same view of me at times) but, in this case, he’s got it right (although the “acappella” could be deleted in my opinion) .

A mother’s love eats itself

Posted in Law by earthling on April 21, 2014

Do not read further if you are unwilling to read this with an inquisitive, logical, educated, aware and open mind.

This is intended to challenge you and your very belief system. It is not intended to offend but, if it does, I offer zero apology for it. You choose to be offended rather than to consider the quite obvious outcome. Your prerogative is to ignore if you so wish. My prerogative is to present this for your consideration. There will be many of you mothers out there who simply will not wish to consider it because it will have a similar effect to giving a new software program to a robot which conflicts with its existing logic and the robot breaks down repeating “Cannot compute….cannot compute…”.mothers-love-quotes-pictures

I am a father. I lost my children to lies and corruption and I simply will never overcome the pain and anger associated with that. No matter how many days go by, how many birthdays, christmases and just every single day of life – I will never lose the pain of losing my children’s hearts to lies and corruption. I gave my children everything a father could – not just in terms of financial stability, wonderful birthdays and christmases, an international lifestyle and education but also through the hours and days and years I spent bathing them, reading to them, listening to them, playing with them, teaching them, up in the middle of the night with them for months on end while having work in the morning, returning home from exhausting business trips to park the car and then get them ready for bed, teaching them to swim, cycle, listen to their stories and their secrets and wishes, listening to them breathe in the early mornings just after midnight while sitting at the bottom of their beds, being the “umpire” in their fights and arguments together, knowing that “look” when they wanted to wrap me around their little finger – just loving the ground they walked on.

a-mothers-love-jane-brackI understand the ideology women have behind this “A mother’s love” idea. But I really do take offence to it in many ways because, while I appreciated my own mother’s love and have to question my father’s (no doubt about that), I, personally, could not have loved my children anymore than I did (or do) and there is not one man or woman on this planet who loved their children any more than I did. Their own mother would suggest that she did and what I state is trash but then she has to. She has to maintain the fiction.

However, the point of this blog is to illustrate how that very “mother’s love” (seemingly unconditional – I say seemingly because there is no such thing as unconditional love no matter what your emotions may wish to believe) is, itself, poised to destroy the very ideology inherent within it.



Many of you (a great majority in fact) – whether a mother or a potential mother – are politically correct, rabid supporters of “love” whether that love is between a man and a woman OR a man and a man. Your arguments for such a stance (having been brainwashed by political correctness AND, also perhaps, having a gay son of your own as we seem to be breeding them like rabbits these days OR is it due to environment? Government legislation based on agendas, promotion of it in literature and pop art – especially the latter where all today’s “heroes and heroines” seem to be sexually ambivalent at best and sheer raving gays at worst) vary from “how can one be anti “love” in whatever form it takes?” to “you’re back in the dark ages”, “you’re a homophobe” etc.mothers-love-is-deeper-than-ocean

If you’re a mother of a homosexual you’ll protect that choice in life by your son (or daughter) viciously. You’ll justify it in any and every way you possibly can because it is YOUR child. That is very commendable of you and it is a reflection of that deep “mother’s love” you hold so dear. However, the irony is immense. Remember the term politically correct? Ask yourself something – it doesn’t take too much thought I promise you. If something was “marginally correct” or “somewhat correct”, “legally correct”, “morally correct” even or “mathematically correct”, you’d consider the fact that, having the descriptor r adjective before the word “correct” would diminish its absolutism of being “correct” in all circumstances. a-mothers-love-kathy-yatesAfter all, if something is “correct” then it is correct. Period! But here we have “POLITICALLY correct”. Was the Iraq war “politically correct”? According to Tony Blair and the majority of politicians it was and still is because no-one has been brought before the courts on charges of war-crimes. So it MUST have been correct right? No? Are you arguing with the politicians on this? Isn’t “politically correct” correct after all? Isn’t it “politically correct” – and, therefore, correct – to protect murderers, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists under the Human Rights Act? The politicians say it is. These people have rights just like you and I. Are you disagreeing with that “politically correctness”?


mothersloveYet political correctness is precisely what has driven the homosexual community to the point that two men can now get married. It is this political correctness which has said that two men can adopt and bring up a child as their own and you, as a mother, are all for that – particularly if your own son is gay while you also like to watch all of these TV personalities and pop stars etc who are gay. They’re “cool and fun” aren’t they? They make you laugh and they do no harm to anyone – they’re just little funny gays with good dress sense and can make for fun friends and also have the added “extra” of making you – a straight woman – feel cool and bask in the reflected glory of their “friendship”. Who knows? You may even, as a woman, have suppressed sexual fantasies of your own (I’ve met a few) and it allows you to be “part of the scene” so to speak. Plus, you may be a girl in her teens or twenties or thirties even and have yet to hit that “motherhood” urge. Or you may never have the urge. Additionally, you may be a woman who’s had her fair share of violent or abusive men and it draws you closer to the gay community where you feel less fear and more comfortable. There could be a never ending number of reasons for your support and acceptance of homosexuality. While I have made my own views clear on a few posts on this blog, this particular one is not to dwell on my views but to bring something very real to your attention:

That is the irony of your position.

Here are two little gay boys – now married and now with the “rights” to adopt children – just like Elton John and partner and many others.


Our Prime Minister, David Cameron, was provided with this headline in the Independent newspaper to accompany this:

“Gay marriage: ‘When people’s love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change,’ says PM as first same-sex couples tie knot”

Isn’t that nice of him? Isn’t that nice of the government? He and they decide to recognise that, all along, they were wrong to disallow gay marriage and control who has the right to love and who doesn’t and who can love who and who can’t. Isn’t the government and the Prime Minister so enlightened? Well aren’t they?

mothers-love 2Well let’s consider their decision in the true light of day. What they are saying is that THEY decide and THEY control who has rights and who doesn’t and who has the freedom to live and love as they wish. The PM and the government are bestowing kindness upon our little gay friends. They’ve bestowed such kindness upon heterosexuals for a long time while, I should add, that religions don’t. A muslim woman marrying outside the faith is frowned upon at best and, at worst, she is ex communicated. Similar with judaism. Christians don’t give a shit simply because christianity no longer exists and, if it does and one lives by its rules then like the muslim and jewish extremist, one is a “christian fundamentalist” and to be reviled as such. If a christian points to the teachings of jesus and his references to the “synagogue of satan” (in the King James bible which the present Queen took an oath to uphold) or points to Jesus’ “cleansing of the temple” –

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

—Matthew 21:12–13

then one should be frowned upon in this ecumenical, accepting, politically correct society of ours.

And yet David Cameron is referring to himself these days as doing Jesus’ work with the “big society”. He speaks of his faith in christianity while proclaiming his “jewish values”. Which is it Dave? They are two VERY different religions otherwise they would be the same wouldn’t they? Don’t talk to me about this “judeo-christian” shit. That’s purely for political expediency and based on bullshit political correctness and business and geo-political strategy.rbrs_0240

But back to your “kind consideration” to offer homosexuals the same “rights” as heterosexuals. Up until 1927, the UK government hadn’t even given rights to women who, at that time, were considered the property of their husbands. So what is it that changes David? What is it the government, in their graciousness, provides to “free people” in the “free world”? If we’re “free” then why do we need your permission? I’m a heterosexual and I don’t WANT your permission or your acceptance! If I were to turn gay tomorrow (god forbid) and wish to be with a man, I wouldn’t come running to you for permission David. I wouldn’t ask for the “right” to love or to marry and, in fact, if I were to wish to be with a woman in my life from tomorrow onward, I wouldn’t come running to you then or the courts or any institution.

You can literally fuck off David. I choose to love who I wish.

Marriage? What is that? It is a contract and a REGISTRATION with the state. It provides the state with control over my and everyone else’s decisions just like the registration of a car or of a child. I don’t want you or anyone else involved or dictating my life and my actions. You don’t decide how many children I have and if I wish not to register them with you then I don’t do it! Ah! But it’s the law is it? And when registered, if I bring my children up in a way that YOU deem inappropriate, that registration gives you the right to intervene with my family. If my marriage dissolves, the registration of it gives you the right to determine who gets what from the economics to the children.

And that is what our little gay compadres want too. To be controlled by the state. And here, of all people, is little Sean and his boy wishing for the state to take on that authority over their life when Sean is meant to be an “enlightened truthseeker” – haha don’t make me laugh!

So what do we have here? Elton and David.

DSC_0257Where is “MOTHER” in that photo ladies?

Mother is non existent.

So what do you say to Elton and David ladies? Do you STILL hold to that ideology of a “Mother’s love” when speaking to them as you fully support the idea of gay marriage and the raising of children by a gay couple? Do you? I don’t think you can. I think fat little gay Elton and his lover/husband will be very offended by your suggestion that a “mother’s love” surpasses that of all others don’t you?

So where does that leave you as you have bleated for years/decades/centuries about how a “mother’s love” is unsurpassed and that it is YOU – the mother – who bears the child?

I’ll tell you where it will soon leave you: NOWHERE!

Because that thing called “political correctness” is going to rear its ugly head once more and the state will have to say (it will HAVE TO because it has given itself no other choice) that it is unacceptable to suggest that a mother’s love is worth more than a gay father’s love.

And when that becomes apparent to you mothers out there who are so accepting, politically correct and supportive of gay marriages and gay families, remember:


You will no longer have that proud pedestal to put yourself on. The question is: Do you even care anymore?

So while you proclaim that YOUR love is so much stronger than a father’s, it seems either it isn’t, because you are currently denying it by your acceptance that children do not need a mother OR you never really believed it in the first place. You see, one needs to have the courage of one’s convictions. You as a mother who accepts and supports the gay agenda, does not have that courage nor conviction. Your “love” is killing the very fabric of what you suggest that love is based upon. And you can’t even recognise it!

I never believed in the “Mother’s love” anyhow. It varies from one human to the other and I, as a father, had and have far more love for my children than their mother ever did. Some men will love their kids that much, some men won’t. But it is the same for women.

However, what you’re doing, as women, is destroying your argument and the government and state will take every advantage of that as we move in to this new paradigm. A politically correct “Father’s love” = “Mother’s love”. Oh the irony! 🙂


[But then he doesn’t exist either. Tell me? What DO you believe in these days ladies? The power of your vagina?]

Remember it was men who gave you your “emancipation” and the majority of you have no concept as to why.

That is because most of you are idiots. And before you say that is misogynist of me. No, no. I hold the same view of my own sex too.

A mother's love FB page

How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women

February 1, 2007
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.

I will expand on the Rockefeller’s role, but first we need to remember that for a woman, love is an instinctive act of self-sacrifice.

She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and receiving their love, respect and gratitude.

A woman makes this supreme sacrifice to only one man who will cherish her and provide for his family. Men instinctively want to fulfill this responsibility. This is the essence of the heterosexual contract (i.e. marriage): female power in exchange for male power expressed as love. Sex is the symbol of this exclusive bond. Marriage and family may not be for everyone but it is the natural path for most.

Feminism has trained women to reject this model as “an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype” even though it reflects their natural instincts.

On Thursday a British writer reported overhearing two young women:

“All men are useless these days,” one said. “Yeah,” said the other. “The trouble is that they haven’t risen to the challenge of feminism. They don’t understand that we need them to be more masculine, and instead they have just copped out.”

That’s their logic? If women are less feminine, men will be more masculine? Men aren’t designed to fight with women. They need to be affirmed by a woman’s acquiescence and faith. When women constantly challenge them, men will “cop out” of marriage and family.

Now that love and marriage have been “discredited,” women have nothing left to exchange for love but sex. Thus, many are unnaturally obsessed with appearance and pathetically give their bodies to all and sundry.

Permanent love is not based on a woman’s sex appeal, or personality or achievements. Ultimately, it is based on self-sacrifice. We love the people who love us.

People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive.

Recently Aaron Russo, the producer of Bette Midler’s movies and “America: From Freedom to Fascism” identified all three confirming what I have been saying.

While trying to recruit Russo for the CFR, Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women’s liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. He admitted they want to “chip us.” Google “Rockefeller Foundation” and “Women’s Studies” and you’ll get a half million citations.

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

A drastic paradigm shift is required to make sense of the world. The Rockefellers are part of the private world central banking cartel that also controls media, defence, pharmaceutical and other cartels. To protect their monopoly of credit and wealth, they are instituting a world police state (“world government”) using the bogus 9-11 attack and endless war as a pretext. Rockefeller told Russo about this plan a year before 9-11.

The poet Charles Peguy said, “Everything begins in faith and ends in politics.” The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati.

Modern Western culture is Masonic. Based on Luciferianism, Freemasonry teaches that man and not God determines reality. (Naturally, they need to overrule natural and spiritual laws in order to assert their own control.) They have noticed that people are diffident malleable creatures who prefer to believe what they are told than trust their own reason or perception. Thus, for example, the media successfully promotes homosexual values that conflict with our natural instincts.

Every facet of the mass media (movies, TV, magazines, music, commercials, news) is used for indoctrination and social control with the ultimate goal of enslavement. There is a connection between what happened in Communist Russia and what is happening in America today. In both cases the central banking cartel is asserting its totalitarian control.

The mass media’s function is to distract us from this, and the imminent Iran war and North American Union. Currently they are using the global warming fracas for diversion.

In order to destroy the family, the media convinced women that they could not rely on the heterosexual contract.

Myrna Blyth was the editor in chief of Ladies Home Journal from 1981 to 2002. In her book “Spin Sisters” (2004) she says the media sold women “a career in exactly the same drum banging way that the Happy Homemaker had been ..sold to their mothers.” (38)

The Illuminati undermined women’s natural loving instincts using the following mantras:

1. Men can no longer be trusted. Using the Lifetime Network as an example, Blyth concluded “all men are 1) unfaithful rats 2) abusive monsters 3) dishonest scumbags, or 4) all of the above. Women on the other hand were…flinty achievers who triumph despite the cavemen who…want to keep them in their place.” (62-63)

2. Women are victims by virtue of their sex. Blyth says the media sends “one message loud and clear. Because we are women, we remain victims in our private lives, at work, in society as a whole.” (156) Thus women must have a sense of grievance, entitlement and rebellion. The same tactic was used to manipulate Jews, Blacks, workers and gays. (See my “Victim as Moral Zombie” )

3. Women should be selfish. “Liberation and narcissism have merged,” Blyth says. Leisure now means, “time for yourself, spent alone, or perhaps with one’s girlfriends but definitely without spouse and kids…Endless articles preached the new feminist gospel, that indulging yourself is an important part of being a healthy, well adjusted woman.” (65)

4. Sex is not reserved for love and marriage. Magazines like Glamour and Cosmopolitan urge young women to “put out on their first date,”ogle men openly” and be an athlete in bed. There is no discussion of marriage or family. (160) Such women can’t trust a man enough to surrender themselves in love.

5. Self-fulfillment lies in career success and not husband and family. “The social rewards of holding down a job are critical to one’s sense of dignity and self worth,” Betty Friedan pontificated. In fact, “most work is deeply ordinary,” Blyth observes (35-36.) (I’m not saying women can’t have jobs, only they shouldn’t be tricked out of having families if they want them.)

Thus many women are schizophrenic as they attempt to reconcile their natural instincts with constant exhortations to do the opposite. The wreckage — broken families and dysfunctional people — is strewn everywhere.

At the same time, Playboy Magazine etc. aimed a similar message at men. You don’t need to get married to have sex. Marriage and children are a bore.

This consistent media drumbeat is organized brainwashing. Society has been totally subverted by the central banking cartel, using a Satanic cult, Freemasonry as its primary instrument. Most masons are unaware of the truth but the owners of the mass media certainly are.

We used to say, “as American as motherhood and apple pie.” Only satanists would trash motherhood. Far from empowering women, feminism has unsexed many. It has deprived them of a secure and honored role and reduced them to sex objects and replaceable workers.

Luciferians promote rebellion because they are defying what is natural and conducive to happiness. Like their symbol, Lucifer, they wish to play God.

God’s love can be seen in a woman’s dedication to her husband and children. Thus the bankers must destroy it.


But you just don’t wish to accept any of this as real do you? Even when it is presented to you today by the following realities:

Two school named person

The Rockefeller President’s review and annual report of 1984 (2003 is the copyrighted copy date):

Rockefeller foundation annual report

And the Rockefeller Feminist work continues to the present:

Rockefeller feminism


Now you may say that women’s position in society needed to be improved. A right minded individual would not argue with that but remember, it was not the man in the street, your husband or your father who legislated against you as persons up until 1927. It wasn’t men per se who did any of that. It was the men (and women) in positions of political and financial power through their agenda for social engineering.

What I’m trying to point out to you is the fact that, while equality between sexes was required, it was law, and those who control law, which stifled it for so long and then these same people have developed your “feminism” for reasons NOT to your benefit. It is manipulative and it is for the destruction of the family. By all means embrace such manipulation if this destruction of the fabric of society is what you wish for but, word in your ear – you’re going to seriously regret it one day.

I have no hatred toward gays. Their sexual preference makes me sick but then a lot of things make me sick – like George Osborne’s face for example. Nick Clegg talking shit and lying to you all. David Cameron talking through his ass. Paedophiles make me sick too – lots of things do. The gay issue I have is that I know it is useful to the social engineers in further destroying the family and the gays will embrace that destruction because then there is no “norm” to point at their abnormality.

The state then has our children from two years old with a state “named person” – NOT their mother or their father – as responsible for them. The new generations then grow up not recognising YOUR authority as a mother or mine as a father but the STATE as their parent.


And “A mother’s love…”? Shut up! You can’t say that, it’s discriminatory and will make children without a mother but with two fathers think there is something wrong with them and their family. That becomes hate speech. So ladies,


Mark my words, it’s coming and you’ve opened the door to it!



MH370: The “managed” contract

They really have very few places to go now with this MH370 issue.

Their lack of transparency, lack of logic and scientific honesty, their outright lies and propaganda have all served to put them in a bit of a bind. They’re taking this “search” to the last possible step and they can either come up with a black box (looking more and more unlikely) and/or debris (also unlikely given it would have been found by now floating) or they can say they took the bluefin down as far as it could go and it either malfunctioned or they couldn’t take anymore chances with it.

But here’s where the real story is:

The Malaysian government and the Australian government (think “Her Majesty’ Commonwealth”, the US, Australia and perhaps even Singapore) are now negotiating a contract. A “treaty” in a sense which transfers all (or some) liability for the “story” to Australia.

Mirror W Oz Malaysia MOU Malaysian deal


Haha. The people are offered no involvement in this decision. This is international law at work between two “legal persons” in the form of the Malaysian government (a legal person) and the Australian government (another legal person). The victims families are given no say in this matter because these two “legal person” authorities have decided that their interests outweigh the interests of the people. Malaysia is saying “if you want to go with this story Australia and the west, then we’re happy to allow you to as long as you provide the Malaysian government with legal protection regarding any and all lawsuits which may arise out of this and, if your story unravels, we are in the clear legally.”

Further, the Malaysian government can now say to both, its own citizens and chinese that they do not have authority over any of the found black boxes and plane parts (if ever found which, I would imagine, will be “found” at a much later date). So the chinese cannot hold Malaysia responsible. I wonder if Malaysian Airlines will also be covered by this “insurance”? Somehow, I think not. Just the government. MAS might just be held out to dry on this.

The Australians, British and the US will now simply come up with the story, present whatever they wish to the world in the ongoing weeks, months and years and the whole thing will be wrapped up nice and tightly.

IF there were actual persons lost on that flight, their families will now be told a little story and told to shut up just like the 9/11 families. You weren’t loud enough folks. “Philip Wood’s fiance” did a good job too.

Not much else to say on this topic. It’s transparent as it is.

Globalists 3 World’s population 0

Noah and a question for our dear Rabbis!

Posted in New World Order Religion by earthling on April 17, 2014

“And the animals went in two by two”

The story of Noah and his ark is carried on by all three major religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Essentially, they all stick to the same story. However, knowing the “jews” as we do, I’m sure Noah was a jew (everybody was after all weren’t they? Well according to our old Torah friends they were), So, once having read the basics of the story once more AND considering our lovely “chosen ones'” demands that their traditions and beliefs are upheld and respected, I only have a couple of questions for our dear old Rabbis and people of that sect.

However, first, we have a stupid fucking question from Irene Munroe of “Hollywood Progressive” – loaded, as usual, with a political motive:


I got a reply for you Irene – directly from Russell himself:

Russell Crowe's Noah


What did you want Aronofsky to do Irene? Write in a subplot about all the gays who were around at that time being left to drown by Noah because, as he said as the ark set off: “What fucking good are you to procreation you bunch of queers?” while God looked on saying “You tell ’em mate. Bunch of depraved bastards!”



Talmudic tractates Sanhedrin, Avodah Zarah and Zevahim relate that, while Noah was building the ark, he attempted to warn his neighbors of the coming deluge, but was ignored or mocked. In order to protect Noah and his family, God placed lions and other ferocious animals to guard them from the wicked who tried to stop them from entering the ark. According to one Midrash, it was God, or the angels, who gathered the animals to the ark, together with their food. As there had been no need to distinguish between clean and unclean animals before this time, the clean animals made themselves known by kneeling before Noah as they entered the ark. A differing opinion said that the ark itself distinguished clean animals from unclean, admitting seven pairs each of the former and one pair each of the latter.


According to Sanhedrin 108B, Noah was engaged both day and night in feeding and caring for the animals, and did not sleep for the entire year aboard the ark.[26] The animals were the best of their species, and so behaved with utmost goodness. They abstained from procreation, so that the number of creatures that disembarked was exactly equal to the number that embarked. The raven created problems, refusing to leave the ark when Noah sent it forth and accusing the patriarch of wishing to destroy its race, but as the commentators pointed out, God wished to save the raven, for its descendants were destined to feed the prophet Elijah.

According to one tradition, refuse was stored on the lowest of the ark’s three decks, humans and clean beasts on the second, and the unclean animals and birds on the top; a differing interpretation described the refuse as being stored on the utmost deck, from where it was shoveled into the sea through a trapdoor. Precious stones, said to be as bright as the noon sun, provided light, and God ensured that food remained fresh.[27][28][29] Some more unorthodox interpretations of the ark narrative also surfaced: the 12th-century Jewish commentator Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted the ark as being a vessel that remained underwater for 40 days, after which it floated to the surface.[30]

Interpretations of the ark narrative played an important role in early Christian doctrine. St. Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) sought to demonstrate that “the Ark was a symbol of the Christ who was expected”, stating that the vessel had its door on the east side – the direction from which Christ would appear at the Second Coming – and that the bones of Adam were brought aboard, together with gold, frankincense, and myrrh (the symbols of the Nativity of Christ). Hippolytus furthermore stated that the ark floated to and fro in the four directions on the waters, making the sign of the cross, before eventually landing on Mount Kardu “in the east, in the land of the sons of Raban, and the Orientals call it Mount Godash; the Armenians call it Ararat”.[31] On a more practical plane, Hippolytus explained that the lowest of the three decks was for wild beasts, the middle for birds and domestic animals, and the top level for humans. He says that male animals were separated from the females by sharp stakes so that there would be no breeding on board.[31]

The early Church Father and theologian Origen (c. 182–251) produced a learned argument about cubits, in response to a critic who doubted that the ark could contain all the animals in the world. Origen held that Moses, the traditional author of the book of Genesis, had been brought up in Egypt and would therefore have used the larger Egyptian cubit. He also fixed the shape of the ark as a truncated pyramid, square at its base, and tapering to a square peak one cubit on a side; it was not until the 12th century that it came to be thought of as a rectangular box with a sloping roof.[32]

Early Christian artists depicted Noah standing in a small box on the waves, symbolizing God saving the Christian Church in its turbulent early years. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430), in his work City of God, demonstrated that the dimensions of the ark corresponded to the dimensions of the human body, which according to Christian doctrine is the body of Christ and in turn the body of the Church.[33] St. Jerome (c. 347–420) identified the raven, which was sent forth and did not return, as the “foul bird of wickedness” expelled by baptism;[34] more enduringly, the dove and olive branch came to symbolize the Holy Spirit and the hope of salvation and eventually, peace.[32] The olive branch remains a secular and religious symbol of peace today.

Ussher’s chronology, one of the most prominent attempts to date events according to the Bible, calculated that Noah would have lived from 2948 until 1998 BCE, with the deluge occurring in 2349 BCE. Calculations based on figures in the Hebrew Bible place the flood in 1656 AM (Anno Mundi); those based on the Greek LXX Bible in 2262 AM; and those based on the Samaritan Pentateuch, in 1308 AM. The Book of Jubilees, by a different calculation, also yields the date 1308 AM for the flood.

Miniature from Hafiz-i Abru’s Majma al-tawarikh. “Noah’s Ark” Iran (Afghanistan), Herat; Timur’s son Shah Rukh (1405-1447) ordered the historian Hafiz-i Abru to write a continuation of Rashid al-Din’s famous history of the world, Jami al-tawarikh. Like the Il-Khanids, the Timurids were concerned with legitimizing their right to rule, and Hafiz-i Abru’s “A Collection of Histories” covers a period that included the time of Shah Rukh himself.
Noah’s ark and the deluge from Zubdat-al Tawarikh
In contrast to the Jewish tradition, which uses a term which can be translated as a “box” or “chest” to describe the Ark, surah 29:15 of the Quran refers to it as a safina, an ordinary ship, and surah 54:13 describes the ark as “a thing of boards and nails”. `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas, a contemporary of Muhammad, wrote that Noah was in doubt as to what shape to make the ark, and that Allah revealed to him that it was to be shaped like a bird’s belly and fashioned of teak wood.[35]

Abdallah ibn ‘Umar al-Baidawi, writing in the 13th century, explains that in the first of its three levels wild and domesticated animals were lodged, in the second the human beings, and in the third the birds. On every plank was the name of a prophet. Three missing planks, symbolizing three prophets, were brought from Egypt by Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants permitted to survive the Flood. The body of Adam was carried in the middle to divide the men from the women. Surah 11:41 says: “And he said, ‘Ride ye in it; in the Name of Allah it moves and stays!'”; this was taken to mean that Noah said, “In the Name of Allah!” when he wished the ark to move, and the same when he wished it to stand still.

Noah spent five or six months aboard the ark, at the end of which he sent out a raven. But the raven stopped to feast on carrion, and so Noah cursed it and sent out the dove, which has been known ever since as the friend of humanity. The medieval scholar Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn Masudi (d. 956) wrote that Allah commanded the Earth to absorb the water, and certain portions which were slow in obeying received salt water in punishment and so became dry and arid. The water which was not absorbed formed the seas, so that the waters of the flood still exist. Masudi says that the ark began its voyage at Kufa in central Iraq and sailed to Mecca, circling the Kaaba before finally traveling to Mount Judi, which surah 11:44 states was its final resting place. This mountain is identified by tradition with a hill near the town of Jazirat ibn Umar on the east bank of the Tigris in the province of Mosul in northern Iraq, and Masudi says that the spot could be seen in his time.[27] [28]


If there was another flood and another Moses and his ark today, would he have to admit pairs of homosexuals too?

If he did, would he have to split them up like all the other animals to ensure they didn’t “procreate”? I guess not. But then wouldn’t that be discriminatory against all the other pairs since the homosexuals, while not procreating, they’d obviously fcuk each other senseless right?

Also, what level would they be on? Human and clean animals or the the unclean animals deck?

Interesting questions don’t you think? 🙂

Any Rabbi out there with an answer?

Did Noah get it wrong or were there a few homos we don’t know about on the ark?


Don’t tell me! There were a couple of gay Giraffe’s!


Oh and another thing Rabbi: What’s worse? A jew screwing a non jew? Or a bloke screwing a bloke? If the blokes are both jews does that make it kosher? Would the Lord approve? What about a gay jew with a gay gentile? What about a muslim gay with a straight jewish female?

Basically, what are the “rules” made up these days Rabbi?

Or has your entire shit just flown out the window proving it was all a heap of shit from day one!

Ah! I have the answer: It’s whatever the government says it is isn’t it?

And it always was!


Oh and last and final thing: What the hell is a “Queer” now?

First it was Lesbian and gays. Then along came the bisexuals pretty quickly. So then we had the LGB community. THEN the trannies started making a noise so now it’s LGBT… but no, it’s actually LGBT and Q now? Does Queer now just cover anything you  haven’t thought up yet? Like vacuum cleaner shaggers? Or bestiality lovers? You’ve already got a B after all. When will you introduce “P” for paedophile? A year from now? 5 years?

It’ll soon be the ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ community!


The BIG question: U.N. or Fulton policy?

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law by earthling on April 17, 2014

Here’s the big question which will be answered by the situation in the Ukraine:

Will the world’s powers fall in line with U.N. policy or the stated “Fulton” policy by Winston Churchill in 1946?

Fulton policy

Winston Churchill. Alongside F.D. Roosevelt, a traitor to his country and yet heralded as a hero.

Winston Churchill. Alongside F.D. Roosevelt, a traitor to his country and yet heralded as a hero.


HC Deb 04 November 1947 vol 443 cc1790-800 1790
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, “That this House do now adjourn.”—[Mr. Popplewell.]

§ 4.10 a.m.

§Mr. Zilliacus (Gateshead) I want to raise the question of Britain’s position in the United Nations, which is the point where defence policy and foreign policy coincide. The fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter is the principle that the permanent Security Council members must always appease and never fight each other. That principle is the result on the one hand of article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter, which binds all the members of the United Nations to settle all their disputes by peaceful means, and in no circumstances to resort to force or the threat of force in their mutual relations, and, on the 1791 other, it is the result of the unanimity rule, the so-called veto power, by which the Security Council can decide to take action to coerce a peace breaker only when the Great Powers, its permanent members, are unanimously agreed. The effect of this principle of the Charter has been described by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his first report to the General Assembly, as follows: The fact that the Charter gave the right of veto to each of these permanent members imposes upon them an obligation to seek agreement amongst themselves. I should be failing in my duty in presenting this report if I did not emphasise the absolute necessity that the powers should seek agreement amongst themselves in a spirit of mutual understanding and a will to compromise, and should not abandon their efforts until such agreement has been reached. This principle of mutual appeasement and non-fighting does not exclude disagreement or deadlocks arising out of disagreement. What it does exclude is the use of force or the threat of force as a means of breaking a deadlock and seeking to reach agreement.
The first question I want to ask His Majesty’s Government, since they claim that our policy is based on the United Nations is, do they accept this fundamental principle in our relations, not only with the United Slates but also with the Soviet Union? As far as the Labour Party is concerned it has accepted that principle. The Party’s report on The International Post-War Settlement states: We cannot dictate to the U.S.A. or to the U.S.S.R. nor they to us. We can only pool our ideas and hopes, and seek the widest possible measure of agreement. So far as the declarations of the Government are concerned they also accept the principle. In particular the Foreign Secretary on 21st February last year said: I cannot conceive any circumstances in which Britain and the Soviet Union should go to war. I cannot see about what we have to fight. And certainly it never enters my mind and I am certain it does not any of my colleagues in the Government. I approach America in the same spirit. I would never think of, and I never could see—and I am sure no party in this House ever sees—the possibility of war between us and America. I do not think of it in the other case either. I say this very emphatically that in considering in our minds all organisations or states there can be no policy or anything else which will lead to a conflict with either of these great Allies. 1792 On 6th March I asked the Prime Minister whether he would confirm that declaration, and he did so.

So far as declarations are concerned the situation is satisfactory. Most unfortunately the facts of the situation and the facts of the Government’s policy point to a very different conclusion. They point to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition is quite right, when he claims, as he has done on several occasions, that the policy of the Government is, in essence, the policy he first outlined at Fulton, and which as he truly says, the United States Administration has since adopted, that is, the policy of an Anglo-American bloc prepared to use the threat of war as an instrument of policy in its relations with the Soviet Union.

§Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King’s Norton) On a point of Order, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to refer to the President of the United States in language which suggests that he is desirous of promoting war?
§Mr. Speaker I did not know that the hon. Member mentioned the President of the United States. I thought he referred to the administration of the United States.
§Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central) My hon. Friend did not say the President of the United States.
§Mr. Zilliacus The attempt of the hon. Member for King’s Norton to emulate the noble Lord, the Member for Horsham, has fallen to the ground.
That policy has been described correctly by the Diplomatic Correspondent of the “Daily Herald,” Mr. W. N. Ewer, in a pamphlet just published by the Fabian Society and entitled “Foreign Policy.” It is described very ably, lucidly, and persuasively, and I will give a short quotation from it: The present world situation is not the result of a Soviet-American conflict in which Britain has no direct part or direct interest. On the contrary, the Soviet-American conflict is the result of a situation in which, initially, Britain has been more directly concerned than the United States. It is, except in the Far East, the result of Russian pressure, of suspected Russian expansionist tendencies in Europe, in the Eastern Mediterranean area, in Persia. And in the last two certainly, resistance to Russian expansion has been a canon of British policy 1793 for a century or more. Whether that policy is right or wrong is another matter. My point at the moment is that this is not a new American policy which Britain is being asked to support.

§Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.

§House counted, and 40 Members being present—

§Mr. Zilliacus The end of this quotation by Mr. Ewer is as follows: It is an old British policy which the United States has decided to support. The ‘Truman doctrine’ is no American invention. It is, in effect, simply the announcement that the United States is prepared to support, or even to take over material responsibility for, an already existing British policy. He then goes on to argue the necessity, in his view, for continuing a close defensive alliance between Britain and the United States, to resist Soviet alleged or hypothetical or putative aggressive and expansionist tendencies by means of armed force. That is the Fulton policy. It is a return to power politics. It is a repudiation of the fundamental principle of the Charter. The same doctrine is preached in that interesting pamphlet somewhat misleadingly called, “Cards on the Table”, the origin and status of which are shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. When it was published it was announced as being an official and authoritative exposition of Labour policy, and as such it was splashed in the Press not only of this country but of the world. However, when questions were asked at the Margate conference the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied—if I may put it in this way—that intimacy had taken place between the Foreign Office and Transport House, and asserted that this pamphlet could not be regarded as the lawful brain child of the National Executive. Nevertheless this pamphlet is still circulating as an interpretation of the Government’s foreign policy, although its central thesis is the repudiation of the Charter as the basis of relations between the Great Powers. Here is the quotation: Here we come to the crux of the problem. The United Nations Organisation is by its very constitution formally prevented from dealing with disagreements between the Big Three. … The Veto power does in fact commit the Big Three to appeasement of one another so long as action is confined to the United Nations—a situation which puts a premium on aggressive action. 1794 The pamphlet goes on to argue the suggestion that we should not line up with the Soviet Union in order to restrain any possible aggressive action by the United States, but that we should line up with the United States against any possible aggression by the Soviet Union. I am grateful that this first insanity of an Anglo-Soviet line-up against the U.S.A. is not proposed. But I regret that an exactly similar insanity is proposed, namely, that we should line up with the United States against the Soviet Union. That is a return to power politics. It is not the policy of the United Nations, not the policy of the Charter. It is the policy of Fulton.
I should like to know whether or not that does denote the fundamental principle of the foreign policy of the Government. I fear it does. I should be very grateful if I could, have a clear repudiation of the principle of power politics as applied to the relations between our country on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other. I fear that what in fact has happened is that, as Mr. Ewer correctly pointed out in his pamphlet, when the Labour Government came in they never attempted to review the fundamental assumptions on which British foreign policy was founded. They took over unexamined the traditional Tory concepts of what are our interests throughout the world. Instead of applying Labour’s view of our national interests, the Labour Government have followed the Tory policy, and as a consequence we find ourselves committed in the Middle East to what I call the Crimean War foreign policy, which assumes that Russia must be kept out of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, whereas the Labour Party is clearly and expressly pledged to the view that the U.S.S.R. as well as the U.S.A. shall be invited into partnership on the basis of the Charter, and that we should work for an international settlement of the Middle East problem, with international control of oil resources, international control of economic development, and international control of the Suez Canal as well as of the Dardanelles.

Similarly in Europe, again as Mr. Ewer points out, the Labour Government have accepted the Truman doctrine that capitalism must be restored in Europe as the basis for a revival of democracy The Labour Party believe and are officially 1795 pledged to the view that Socialism is essential as the basis for economic reconstruction and for the revival of democracy and political freedom in Europe. I think we need to go no further than this failure of the Labour Government to apply a Socialist foreign policy and their continuation of Tory foreign policy to find why it has been impossible hitherto to reach agreement with the Soviet Union. I am not suggesting that the diplomatic manners of the Soviet Union could not be improved. They could. I am not suggesting that Soviet official control of news and views is not a handicap in reaching international agreement. I believe it is. I believe our free democracy is not only superior as a system of government and a way of life, but also as a medium of international intercourse.

But I suggest there is urgent need, before we are faced with the splitting of the world into two, of abandoning this long-continued and ill-starred attempt to bash our way through with a Tory foreign policy by reverting to the methods of power politics and abandoning the Charter. On these lines we are being drawn further and further into vassalage and dependence on the United States, which today is ruled by men whose interests are not our interests, whose attitude towards civil liberties, trades unions and Socialism is certainly not our attitude, and who have made no secret of the fact that they want to make use of the threat of war as an instrument of national policy in their dealings with the Soviet Union. I hope that in the reply tonight we shall get some explicit repudiation of the principle of power politics, and a specific re-affirmation that the Labour Government base their relations with the Soviet Union, as well as with the United States, on the fundamental principles and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It is high time that the Labour Government tried to act on the Labour Party’s election pledges and Socialist principles in world affairs, before disaster overwhelms us.

§ 4.26 a.m.

§Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King’s Norton) The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus)—I certainly do not describe him as my hon. Friend—has been to the Soviet Union and also to Warsaw and has represented himself throughout the world 1796 as a friend of what he calls the Eastern democracy. He is an individual, despite the fact that he is a member of the Labour Party, who has gone with his friends thousands of miles away from this country and tried to suggest that we in the Labour Party believe in a concept of democracy which includes concentration camps and the terrors of whole parties of secret police which we fought against in the war.
§Mr. G. Thomas I am quite sure, since I heard what my hon. Friend said when he was abroad, that there is not a shred of evidence to support what the hon. Member for King’s Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has said. Perhaps he would like to withdraw his remark.
§Mr. Blackburn May I say that I have no desire to attack the hon. Member personally, or those hon. Members who went with the hon. Member for Gateshead, but I am perfectly prepared to do so if I am challenged. All I want to say is that on the very occasion on which the Cominform was formed, and when the Prime Minister of this country and the Foreign Secretary of this country were designated as traitors by men of the highest rank in the Soviet Union, I did not hear the voice of the hon. Member for Gateshead raised in protest in Warsaw. What I read was a statement purporting to emanate from the hon. Member for Gateshead which agreed with the Soviet statement. I also heard that they were forming what they called a Socinform, this being apparently to represent those who were prepared to suck up to the Soviet Union, and who represent themselves as Socialists when really they are Communists, like the hon. Member for Gateshead and his friends. It seems to me absolutely disgraceful that when M. Petkov was under sentence of death for being a friend of Britain and America and standing up for the democracies for which we have stood in this House of Commons for century after century—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), who now makes a “yah”—
§Mr. Platts-Mills (Finsbury) May I draw attention to the fact that it was a “bah” and not a “yah.”
§Mr. Blackburn It is characteristic of the hon. Member for Finsbury that it 1797 should be a “bah” and not a “yah.” It is entirely in accordance with his traditions of having fought so gallantly against Fascism during the war, like the rest of his friends—who showed himself so active in the cause that we had to fight against Fascism—and having as a young man fought so gallantly in the air, or wherever else it was. It is characteristic that he should now talk about “bahs” and not “yahs.” Let those who fought against Fascism fight against the next form of totalitarianism which arises, if it arises.
I say that there is no reason why there should be another war. We can stop another war provided that the freedom-loving democracies make it perfectly plain that the lesson which we had so bitterly to learn last time is learned this time, and that never again do we appease totalitarianism in any form. I have no desire whatever to suggest, as some people suggested, that we could offer any form of threat to the Soviet Union. On the contrary, I still believe that we can achieve peace with the Soviet Union. I quite believe that such a state of peace is possible with the Soviet Union—but it will not be possible if hon. Members come into this House as they have this morning at 4.30 and give Stalin the impression that he has a Captain Ramsay of the Left here today, as I believe the hon. Member for Finsbury certainly is—and the hon. Member for Gateshead, and some others are. I have nothing to gain by telling the truth.

§Mr. Scollan (Renfrew Western) Is it in Order to refer to any hon. Member of this House as a “Captain Ramsay”?
§Mr. Speaker I do not think it is out of Order, but I do not think it is a very pleasing remark.
§Mr. Blackburn With great respect, Mr. Speaker, Captain Ramsay has never been tried and nothing has ever been proved against him.—[Interruption.] I fought against him when you did not. I fought against the Germans when you did not.
§Mr. Orbach (Willesden, East) I think that the imputations of the hon. Member ought to be stopped at some stage.
§Mr. Blackburn I am referring to hon. Gentleman none of whom but one, fought against Fascism.
§Mr. Platts-Mills When the hon. Member indicates that he has nothing to lose in his reputation, should we worry in the least what imputations he choses to throw against others?
§Mr. Blackburn I do not consider this is the sort of case the Government ought to reply to at all. I believe that this is an occasion utterly unworthy of the House of Commons. It may be occurring at 4.30 in the morning, but that means nothing to me. I am glad at any rate that I prevented an answer being given to anyone who can put up a bogus crypto-Communist case in this House of Commons.
An Hon. Member Totalitarian.
§Mr. Blackburn Certainly. Why did they let Petkov down? Why is Mikolaczyck our friend? Why is he in this country? Is it suggested that our Minister over there has invited these people, and had actuated them to produce a military conspiracy against their own Government? Can anyone seriously believe that nonsense? Do they believe that? They either think that or they believe these people have been either murdered or would have been murdered by judicial process. They can have it one way or the other—either my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have incited these people to war—or on the other hand these people are innocent. If you look at the history of it, if you look at Stalin, if you look at the people who were with him when he was starving, you will find that about 75 per cent. of the lot were murdered. What about Yagola, chief of the O.G.P.U. for ten years? What happened to him? Try to study the literature of Nazism itself and do not make the mistake we made with Hitler. The mistake there was that we did not study “Mein Kampf.”
§Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough) May I raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? Is it not the practice and courtesy of the House to allow the Government to make its own case by answering statements which have been made? Should not there be a reply from the Front Bench?
§Mr. Speaker It is not for me to decide. Hon. Members speak when they are called and no one else rose.
§Mr. Blackburn All these people believe in the foreign revolution, and they say the Soviet state is the model for revolution all over the world.
§Mr. Zilliacus Will the hon. Member have the courage to say outright that he is encouraging preparation for a third world war against the Soviet Union?
§Mr. Blackburn No, I do not say that. What I say is that we should refrain from making the mistake we made with Hitler. Fascism, Nazism, and Communism all use the same methods; all use the secret police and the concentration camps, and all talk of reactionaries. I suppose I shall be called a reactionary. Let us remember that the third line of the “Horst Wessel” song is, Kamarader der rote front und reaction erscheerson—the Red front and reaction, and this fight is against “reactionaries.” Whether one is a Fascist or a Communist makes no difference. Nothing would be more horrifying to me than another war of any kind, and one can stop a war with this country and the freedom-loving countries by doing as the Foreign Secretary has done, by telling the truth about the terror which strikes into every home and to say that Petkov did not die in vain. I remember the last time I talked about Petkov. The hon. Gentleman in- 1800 terrupted me to say that Petkov was not in danger. Now he has been killed. One might wonder if the hon. Gentleman expects rewards if Communism should come.
§Mr. Zilliacus On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the hon. Member should not withdraw the suggestion that my political line is dictated by expectation of reward from Communism. That is a reflection on my honour.
§Mr. Speaker I think that, early in the morning, or late in the morning, whichever it is, there is difficulty in hearing exactly what hon. Members say or mean. I do not think that the hon. Member for King’s Norton intended to injure the honour of the hon. Gentleman.
§Mr. Blackburn Petkov’s death seems to mean so little. I am surprised to see that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary is smiling. Let us remember that Petkov continued to—
§The Question having been proposed after Ten o’Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Five o’Clock.

MH370 Co-Pilot call

Very simple:

Contact the mobile operator and ask.

So the intelligence services are saying there was a call and the Malaysian authorities saying there wasn’t. This is something they would have known within the first few days of the event.

Which mobile carrier did he use allegedly? Maxis? Telekom Malaysia? DiGi? There’s only a handful of them.

Then if you get a “Yes” then have the carrier publicly state it and also advise which base station in the network it connected to.

Otherwise, be quiet. Whoever are feeding these stories anonymously should be charged with some form of obstruction of an investigation. At best, they are sick little bunnies.

Meanwhile, the media should not even print anonymous sources and information they cannot verify but they do and why? It writes the narrative and causes the confusion wanted.

Alleged call

MH370: George Galloway pushing tripe.

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Politics by earthling on April 10, 2014

Why is George Galloway pushing this story?

I once spoke with George Galloway on his radio show and I just had time to mention “The Grand Chessboard” of Zbigniew Brzezinski and he cut me off for being a “Conspiracy theorist”. I simply asked the man if he had read the book – that is all. As soon as I did that, he cut me off and referred to me as a “Conspiracy theorist”.

And YET “Gorgeous George”, who thinks every word that is uttered from his tonsils should be taken as fact, is pushing THIS “theory”. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?

Hey George: You’re an ASS! You talk a lot of truth mate but don’t kid a kidder. All your “truth” also has an agenda behind it. 

George Galloway


Yes, I have strong suspicions that that plane went to Diego Garcia (if the story is real at all) but I’m a “Conspiracy theorist” George so what do you expect? You’re not! You’re an “upstanding politician and member of the UK Parliament!” You don’t DEAL in conspiracy theory George! You don’t even talk about REAL books!

But here you are pushing Jim Stone’s story of a totally black iphone photo taken somewhere on Diego Garcia by some passenger who STUCK his iphone up his rectum? Excuse the pun George but don’t talk SHIT!

So let’s consider the possible scenarios here:

1. An actual physical hijacking.

What did Philip Wood do George? Put up his hand and ask to go to the toilet then ram his iphone up his ass? Did he ask a stewardess if she had some KY jelly on her?

Or did he just decide to drop his keggs in front of the passengers and hijackers or sat quietly in his seat with a blanket over him and shove a rather hard, unforgiving, quite large rectangular metal phone up his anus? Does Sarah Bajc, his girlfriend know about this George? Have you called her to tell her how real this is? Go on George. Call Ms Bajc and tell her that you are absolutely certain this is what her boyfriend has done and he’s still alive on Diego Garcia!

2. The flight was remotely hijacked and Philip Wood had all the time, patience and consideration that, when they landed, he would have to have his phone stuck up his ass in case he was searched by American forces personnel.

So then what? He’s in a cell by himself? In the pitch black. While these professional American forces hijackers or CIA never thought of using “wands” on the passengers to ensure they had no metal on them? A wand that can pick up a sliver of a piece of cigarette foil paper stuck in the corner of the back pocket of a pair of jeans (I know this because, due to that, I almost received an anal examination at Los Angeles Airport a few years ago until I finally located a tiny sliver of the stuff right in the corner of my jeans pocket).

So then Philip whips out his phone and send a picture message. Ok, so we assume that Diego Garcia is totally open to all and that every telecommunications network operator is on that island. Philip lived in China – about to go to Malaysia but he retained an AT&T mobile line JUST IN CASE he was hijacked right? Or SPRINT or any one of the other American based mobile operators. Ok, let’s assume that too. Because we certainly couldn’t assume China Mobile had a network connection on Diego Garcia could we George?

So then we assume that Philip, in a pitch black (no windows) room was able to get a signal. We then have to consider why he would wait 10 days before sending this pic (dated 18th March) AND, if we assume it was because he was, somehow, never alone out of the sight of his captors, we then have to believe that in those 10 days, his captors (American soldiers or CIA) did not find his iphone on his person or up his ass! He has had to go to the toilet how many times in that time? Let’s say once a day (assuming they’re getting fed) so, each time he goes, he has to shit out the phone and then stick it back up his ass am I right?


George Galloway: PISS OFF you idiot!

Go collaborate with Wood’s “fiance” and both of you go on record with that story.

You know this entire MH370 story is bullshit so you’re just playing the game. You don’t care that you’re talking shit because you know the whole story is shit.

Gallow's humour!

Gallow’s humour!

Rothschild’s Iran-Iraq War

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, The illegal wars by earthling on April 9, 2014

Iran-Iraq War

HC Deb 11 July 1995 vol 263 c527W 527W
§Mr. Llew Smith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. [32888]
§Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. [29465]
§Mr. Freeman [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.

Nice eh? To make sure they didn’t have any problems with British export licencing and to keep their name out of the Iran -Iraq war issue as far as possible, the Rothschilds sent arms (Chemical WMDs? Although it doesn’t matter what they were) to Iran/Iraq (probably both) from their globalists little outpost in China. And you think, when thinking about world geopolitics and wars, that it’s all to do with the west versus the east, the US or UK versus China or Russia?

Listen and listen good! It’s a globalist V the rest of us issue. The globalists get the job they want done from anywhere on planet earth! That’s why they’re CALLED “GLOBALISTS” and that’s why Rockefeller speaks about “conspiring with others (internationalists as he calls himself and them) around the world”.

Meanwhile, here’s another Rothschild thing from Parliament archives:

Note how Tam Dalyell (and this goes for all other parliamentarians) shits himself at the idea of stating what he has stated outside of parliamentary privilege because he knows Rothschild would come after him in litigation. And you wonder why these guys keep their mouths shut most of the time? If Rothschild doesn’t know they shag babies then the Rothschilds will destroy them in court. NOT by necessarily winning but by the sheer knowledge they have the money to keep the case going on and on and bankrupting the other party.



Official Secrets Act (Prosecution Policy)

HC Deb 06 February 1987 vol 109 cc1291-8 1291
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter LLoyd.]

2.41 pm
§Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent 22 minutes of the previous debate on human rights deploying the same arguments as I anticipate he is likely to deploy in the Adjournment debate. Is it possible, in those circumstances, that those of us who were not able to make a speech on the Human Rights Bill because of the hon. Member for Linlithgow’s actions should be able to take part in the Adjournment debate and deploy some of the important arguments that we were seeking to deploy on the Human Rights Bill?
§Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I cannot rule or make a judgment on a hypothesis.
2.42 pm
§Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will be disappointed, because there is another, different aspect to the issue.
Charmingly, the Solicitor-General began his speech this morning with what he said was a platitude. I should like to start with a non-platitude. While not being his easiest parliamentary colleague, and, trying though he may find me from time to time, being over-inquisitive, I have had every courtesy from an approachable and forthcoming Attorney-General. It is no platitude to wish him a speedy return to full health.

I heard the Solicitor-General this morning and I thank him for attending the Adjournment debate. In my opinion, in the 1950s he was the most eloquent Oxford president ever to come to the Cambridge Union. He was extremely eloquent this morning.

May I say at the outset that I gave the Attorney-General a copy of my speech in relation to the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild and Mr. Bernard Sheldon on Monday, since it raises issues of byzantine difficulty and daunting delicacy, which should not be sprung out of the blue on any Minister. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I am sure that he will respond to this in the same spirit of considered seriousness.

The purpose of the first part of my speech is to give the Law Officers an opportunity to tell Parliament—these issues are ultra-party— what on earth they propose to do to clear up the Augean stables of inconsistency in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. The Law Officers will understand that my deep interest in these matters was born during the 11 days that I spent in the Old Bailey, in Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan’s court, during the trial of Clive Ponting.

Why prosecute Clive Ponting and dither, understandably—I do not use that word in a pejorative sense—over prosecuting Victor Rothschild? Why send Sarah Tisdall to prison for months and do nothing about Bernard Sheldon, albeit he is approaching retirement, in relation to Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West? Why fail to prosecute Bernard Ingham for the selective leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter? It looks as if there is one prosecution policy for the influential, the famous and the distinguished and another prosecution policy for the more junior, hitherto less famous, civil servants.

1292 Compared with what Victor Rothschild set in train, with Peter Wright and Harry Chapman Pincher, anything that Clive Ponting put in my way melts into insignificance, in terms of national security, if not political embarrassment. There is an apparent inconsistency of policy, and it would be helpful to the House to know on what principles those discriminating practices are justified and on what basis discrimination is authorised by Ministers.

It is to the position of Lord Rothschild that I wish to refer. If, for the first time, I shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, it is because Lord Rothschild can be a litigious man and, secondly, I do not think that what I am saying is to his discredit. I refer to 26 November—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait and hear what I shall say. I refer to 26 November, when I asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to proceeding against …. Mr. Arthur Franks, formerly head of MI6, and …. Lord Rothschild for breach of confidence in relation to information on matters of state security given to authors. The Attorney-General replied: I am considering with the Director of Public Prosecutions the allegations made in respect of the two named individuals.”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol 106, c. 268.]

I returned to the subject on 1 December 1986, and the Attorney-General said: The matter remains under consideration.” — [Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]

On 18 December 1986, I asked the Prime Minister whether she will now release Lord Rothschild from his obligations of confidentiality as a former member of the security services; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister replied: All present and former members of the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. They may not make unauthorised disclosures of information acquired in their work. Any requests for authorised disclosure would be considered in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 613.]

Let me offer necessarily truncated points. First, in the 1930s, international Jewry, of which the Rothschilds were one of the leading families, were aghast at the anti-semitism that was then rampant in Germany. Secondly, Victor Rothschild may, as the author Douglas Sutherland suggests, have recruited Guy Burgess for a minor role in one of the Jewish intelligence services. Thirdly, as an understandably passionate anti-Fascist, Victor Rothschild may have had relations with Comintern agents. Talk of spying is jejune nonsense. Anyhow, a good agent is one who gets from foreign powers more than he gives.

Fourthly, the events of long ago fade into the past. Sleeping dogs from the 1930s and 1940s were rightly, in my view, allowed to lie. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But in 1979, Britain gets a new species of Prime Minister. On 15 November 1979, the new Prime Minister makes a statement on Blunt, against advice, with the aplomb of a cow in a china shop. Sir Charles Cunningham tells me that Sir Anthony Blunt’s activities as an agent of both sides many years previously were fully known to successive permanent secretaries at the Home Office.

Fifthly, I believe that Lord Rothschild was extremely angry about the Prime Minister’s reaction on Sir Anthony Blunt. Some of us believe that Sir Anthony Blunt’s memoir, given to his brother, and now lodged in an institution in London, will reveal a complex story, part of which is that Sir Anthony Blunt was asked by a former member of the security forces whose name I have given to 1293 the Attorney-General, and by Guy Liddell, to help get Burgess and Maclean, by that time embarrassments both, out of the country.

Sixthly, in the summer of 1980, Lord Rothschild had the Prime Minister to his flat in Saint James’s. He is subsequently quoted in the press as saying: She does not understand intelligence matters.

Seventhly, Lord Rothschild then came to believe that his own reputation was at stake, especially after the Prime Minister’s statement on Sir Roger Hollis on 23 March 1981, which appears in the Official Report at column 1079. At his own expense, Lord Rothschild brought Peter Wright from Australia. He discussed with Wright certain material which appeared to constitute a contravention of section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Section 7 states: Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour or a summary offence according as the offence in question is a felony, a misdemeanour or a summary offence, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offence. If the Attorney-General would decide to prosecute Lord Rothschild in open court, it would be possible to ask questions which are causing much public concern and which Lord Rothschild would then have to answer on oath. These are some of the questions that might be asked. First, how does Lord Rothschild explain his involvement with Sidgwick and Jackson over the Pincher-Wright book? While it is possible that Sidgwick and Jackson would consult Sir Arthur Franks about possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, that would not explain Lord Rothschild’s involvement.

Secondly, why should Lord Rothschild expose himself by suggesting an unlawful enterprise to Mr. Wright, namely that he should breach the Official Secrets Act and then procure a writer, Mr. Pincher, to act as a channel for royalties?

Thirdly, why should Lord Rothschild fly Wright to London if, as has been suggested, all he needed was a testimonial to protect himself against suggestions that he had been a Soviet agent?

Fourthly, why pay Wright? Why introduce him to Harry Chapman Pincher? Why should Mr. Pincher pay him half the royalties?

Only by proceeding in open court on oath can obscurities be made less obscure. Only by proceedings in open court can there be an end to doubt and to the suspicion of discrimination.

I ask the Law Officers why they will or why they will not prosecute Victor Rothschild. If they decline to prosecute, apologies should be winging their way to Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting.

Even more clearly, the Law Officers owe Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting an explanation as to why they take no action against Mr. Bernard Sheldon for briefing Mr. Rupert Allason — alias Nigel West — who incidentally, and I do not intend to make much of this, is Conservative candidate for Torquay, for his books. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to enter the argument about Mr. Allason being Conservative candidate for Torquay.

If I am asked in general terms after my comments this morning about sources, part of my reply would be that 1294 there is an urgent need for an appeal body to which civil servants, policemen, service men or people in the intelligence services can go without jeopardising their careers if they believe that they have been abused. That is the official policy of the Labour party put down by the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment at the party conference at Bournemouth on the Sunday. I was interested to hear on the radio that Nigel West — alias Rupert Allason—said at 8.15 am on 5 February that he supported the idea of such an appeal body.

Finally, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the Interspace articles with regard to Zircon. The question was whether the knowledge of Zircon or Skynet IV was in the public print at least two years ago. The Leader of the House said that he would draw that matter to the attention of the Solicitor-General.

I will leave the matter there, because the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have a very serious interest in these matters.

2.54 pm
§The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind good wishes for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for his kind remarks about him, which are much appreciated. May I also thank him for his kind reference to me. I am grateful to him for having given the Law Officers advance notice of the contents of his speech, which was a helpful gesture. Even so, he made several allegations to which, as I shall explain, I shall be unable to respond.
The main theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was whether Lord Rothschild should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1986, the police were requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate allegations that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Chapman Pincher had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act. The police investigation is continuing and no decision can be taken until the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the police report, which will then be sent to the Attorney-General, or to me if the Attorney-General has not yet returned to his duties.

In those circumstances, and in accordance with the normal practice of the Law Officers, I cannot comment, except to say that I am satisfied that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the police officers who are carrying out the investigations. As far as I can recollect, most, if not all, of the allegations formed part of the evidence given by Mr. Wright in the proceedings in Sydney and, as allegations, they are common knowledge.

I emphasise once again that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no discriminatory policy in considering cases submitted to him under the Official Secrets Act. Each case is considered openly upon exactly the same criteria, and there is no foundation for a claim that importance or seniority in rank provides a person who is under investigation with any advantage.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question today which is already the subject of a question on the Order Paper for priority written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It relates to the publishers of the Interspace newsletter in respect of an article or 1295 articles that might be considered to refer to the Zircon project. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter raised in the written question and which he has raised today will be the subject of consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, on having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter” — [Official Report, 23 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 451] —that matter being the one raised by the hon. Gentleman a considerable time ago relating to the Westland affair. I mention that in relation to the name which he mentioned today of Mr. Bernard Ingham. I do not recall that, in the copy of the speech which he furnished to the Attorney-General, he said that he would make allegations against Mr. Bernard Ingham to the extent that he has done today. The words that I have just uttered formed the basis of a statement on 23 January 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

In the context of remarks about the book, “A Matter of Trust” written by Mr. Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Bernard Sheldon, who is an official. He asks why the Attorney-General has not prosecuted Mr. Sheldon. The answer is simple and I trust that it is welcome. I am informed that there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Sheldon has committed any offence under the Official Secrets Act. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mr. Sheldon in connection with the recent searches of BBC premises. I am informed that neither that official nor the security service had any involvement at all in any decisions or actions relating to this matter. During the last debate the hon. Gentleman made allegations about my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his Department in connection with the search of BBC premises. Having had no notice of the allegations made in that debate, perhaps I may be permitted to say that in his answer in another place on Wednesday 4 February my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate set out the circumstances in which the search warrants were applied for and granted.

I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation that the Crown Office, alarmed at the enormity of what it was being asked to do, made a direct or indirect approach to the Prime Minister’s office and that the Crown Office was told by the Prime Minister’s office to allow special branch officers to take everything and anything from BBC Scotland. I am informed that at no time was the Crown Office in communication with the Prime Minister’s office. I understand that yesterday the hon. Gentleman told my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would not expect him to be in his place today for this debate. Therefore, I find the allegations made earlier today a little surprising.

§Mr. Dalyell That was simply because as a Scottish Member I know that it is difficult to be here on Friday.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that, and no doubt it is an explanation. When officials enter the public service they know that throughout their service they will be unable to speak in their own defence to answer criticism and that they must rely on their Ministers to do that for them, especially when 1296 criticism is unfounded. The hon. Gentleman thinks it justifiable to allege that named officials should be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I have already repeated the Prime Minister’s words about Mr. Bernard Ingham and I should now like to say something about Mr. Bernard Sheldon.
The hon. Gentleman earlier made a speech about human rights, but has not provided a scrap of evidence to support his allegation about Mr. Sheldon. Either he has evidence, as The Independent reports him as claiming he has, in which case it is disgraceful that he has not provided it, or he has none, in which case it is disgraceful to allege an offence.

§Mr. Dalyell This is part of the problem and the reason why I said in my speech that it is of great urgency to institute some kind of appeal body to which civil servants, service men, intelligence officers or policemen who think that they are being maltreated can go without jeopardy to their careers. That is important and that is why I raised the subject at my party conference and was one of those who made it helpful to be the policy of the party.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew Civil servants must be defended by their Ministers when they have no means, at present at any rate, of speaking in their own defence. However, officials are entitled to rely on more than defence by their Ministers. They are entitled to expect that hon. Members, protected as they take pains to be by privilege, will treat officials fairly. I regret that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Ingham, both of whom have had careers of great dedication and distinction with successive Governments, have been unfairly treated in the Chamber.
§Mr. Dalyell Before the Solicitor-General sits down, may I remind him that I am talking about men of considerable power. I worked closely with the late Dame Evelyn Sharp and know how civil servants should properly be treated. The difficulty arises when civil servants become so powerful that they are not accountable in the normal sense of the word. That is why I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister’s press officer, saying that we were dealing with the most powerful “man” in British politics. Later several of the Solicitor-General’s colleagues vouchsafe to me—that I was quite right arid that he is the most powerful—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention. He cannot speak for a second time.
§ 3.5 pm

§Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Solicitor-General to speak?
§Mr. Dalyell Most certainly.
§The Solicitor-General Yes.
§Mr. Cash I am most grateful for an opportunity to speak. We have just had a debate on human rights in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a speech which stretched the procedures of the House. He has now made a series of apparently groundless allegations against certain people. I was not privy to that speech and I can only form a judgment on the basis of what he said. He said nothing specifically and he substantiated nothing with evidence.
1297 There are times when we have reason to be worried that the hon. Gentleman is as much interested in grabbing headlines as in getting at the truth. I suspect that that is true of what happened earlier this morning.

Campaigns such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an appeal body, which was apparently endorsed at the Labour party conference, raise central questions about the nature of authority and where it resides.

§Mr. Dalyell That is absolutely right.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman says that I am absolutely right, but I suspect that we disagree fundamentally about where the centre of gravity must remain.
Self regulation and the constraints that people impose on themselves to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities and, by contrast, the right to speak, are issues which go to the heart of the matter. We have become increasingly fed up — I am sure that is true for the country as well — with people who believe that their unsubstantiated opinions which appear in the media or here, and which are drawn from a fairly limited range of information, can be used to make assertions and inferences—

§Mr. Dalyell rose—
§Mr. Cash I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later. Such clashes of opinion ought to be resolved in the proper and normal way, which is within the framework of law prescribed by our procedures and Acts of Parliament. We are increasingly fed up with invasions of privilege.
§Mr. Dalyell The hon. Gentleman says that I have made unsubstantiated allegations. That was the type of speech which was made against me for 18 long months before the Old Bailey Clive Ponting trial substantiated everything that I had tried to say.
I named Colette Bow in the House and there was the matter of the Solicitor-General’s letter. Who has since been proved right about that? The Solicitor-General will not comment but, with regard to his letter, I was attacked time and again by Conservative Members, but who now thinks that I have been wrong?

§Mr. Cash I have a straight and simple answer. If the hon. Gentleman was proved right in the courts before, he should make the unsubstantiated allegations that he made today outside the House and prove his point in the courts. That is my direct and simple answer to him. Will he reply to that?
§Mr. Dalyell If I go to a court of law and name names, people’s careers are in jeopardy — not mine, other people’s careers. I have to make a judgment whether what I have been told is the truth or not. From my inquiries in Scotland, I believe that every word that I am saying is true.
§Mr. Cash The record has to stand for itself. The only person’s reputation that will be harmed by what has been going on here this morning is the hon. Gentleman’s. I have offered the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, which he is not prepared to take up. If he thinks that making statements and allegations within the privilege of the House will enable him to be able to justify what he has to say, when what he is doing—because he knows perfectly well that everything he says will be splashed over the newspapers tomorrow — is not damaging people’s reputations when they cannot reply to him, then he is absolutely wrong and we are fed up with it and the way that he carries on.
§Mr. Dalyell If there is going to be anger, I am exceedingly angry about what was done in BBC Scotland, which was a wholly un-British thing to do. What happened in Glasgow was horrific. That was something that has never happened in Britain before. I have been here for nearly a quarter of a century and previous Prime Ministers — the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Mr. Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home—know that I have behaved impeccably towards them. This is a different kind of Government and a new species of Prime Minister. As a Member who has been here for a quarter of a century, I do not like it.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is shielding himself behind the privileges of the House.
§The question having been proposed after half-past Two o’clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

§Adjourned at eleven minutes past Three o’clock.


Ever wondered why these sorts of people intermarry? Well, when you combine wealth you protect yourself enormously because those who would wish to attack you don’t dare because they know you can spend them into bankruptcy. Whereas, if you were to marry a pauper, you just have what YOU have and your spouse brings no further protection to the table. If you wish to maintain your class as the ruling class, you continue to marry within it.

Rothschilds 2 Rothschilds


Arms Exports

HC Deb 20 June 1995 vol 262 cc231-2W 231W
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; [29463]
(2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. [29474]

§Mr. Freeman In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. [29464]
§Mr. Freeman As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. [29466]
§Mr. Freeman The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. [29467]
§Mr. Freeman It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. [29468]232W
§Mr. Freeman It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. [29469]
§Mr. Freeman The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. [29471]
§Mr. Freeman All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.
In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.

§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; [29472]
(2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. [29473]

§Mr. Freeman The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.


Malaysian Airlines MH370: A proven script start to finish

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Media, Politics by earthling on April 9, 2014

Ok. Where do I start?

How do I PROVE to people who do not wish to accept that what I am telling them is absolute fact?

If we really do have families of missing MH370 passengers then do these families just want “closure” (it would increasingly appear so) given by people who are lying to them from start to finish, OR do they want to step up the discussion to find out what TRULY happened to their relatives? Or do they just not care because, perhaps, this entire story has been a hoax from the beginning?

It’s up to the families to prove they are actually REAL families! This may sound crazy to people reading this that I am saying this BUT, ask yourself (I have asked myself): Would you, having a loved one on a flight and being told it just “disappeared”, while then being “guided” by one contradiction after the other and amazingly fortunate occurrences, to a conclusion that your loved one ended up at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and NEVER being given proof of this, accept it? You KNOW (because if you don’t you seriously are really quite inept, I’m sorry) that there has been political turf wars going on and intelligence agencies crawling all over it while these same intelligence agents have been “feeding” the story and conflicting messages (precisely for the required confusion which all leads to people simply saying they want “closure”) since the day it disappeared.

Me? I don’t understand you if you are one of those families. I either don’t understand you and, therefore, can never sympathise with you, or you are actually non existent because, knowing what I know and seeing clearly what I see, I KNOW – if it were my relative – that they did not end their lives at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

So who ARE you people is what I want to know?

1. Inmarsat: Triangulation from a SINGLE satellite! 

This is triangulation –


In trigonometry and geometry, triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly (trilateration). The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles.

You need at least TWO reference points – in this case, it would have to be a second satellite OR another plane which spotted MH370 or SOMETHING – a boat at a known set of coordinates. BUT YOU CANNOT TRIANGULATE WITH ONE SATELLITE AND THEN BY ANALYSING OTHER BOEING 777’s FLIGHTPATHS ON COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DAYS AND HAVING NO GEOSPATIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MH370! If someone did this they should be winning the Nobel prize for physics!

I’d PAY to hear this explanation of how they did it! Even then I wouldn’t believe it!

Watch this IDIOT try and speak to you like a weather forecaster about Inmarsat’s amazing analysis:


2.  Black box pings

I wrote about the fact that, to detect such pings, the Haixun or the Ocean Shield would need to be within a mile or two of the position of the plane underneath.

I provided this is back up for my claim:

Signal range

I further support this statement by the following now…

CBS report BB frequency

What does the above tell us?

Quite a few things actually.

1. I mentioned in a previous post re Angus Houston that I did not believe this claim that ocean depth and, therefore, pressure, would have such an impact upon the Black box frequency. What we see now is that it is being said that “older equipment can make the frequency drift”. This is bullshit for one major reason: The manufacturer is suggesting that they have sold a black box to an airline with no “lifetime guarantee” that, throughout the stated lifetime, the frequency will not drift? Then that company should be out of business. It should state in the specification and support agreement that the equipment should be operationally checked at certain intervals. I would then doubt that such servicing checks were not carried out. You DO NOT just casually make a statement like this. Find out who the manufacturer was and ensure Boeing never use them again IF it is, in fact, Boeing who contract out this item. To supply into the airline industry and to people like Boeing, you must go through the most rigorous testing and quality procedures. I know! I can assure you of that!

2. They have introduced the above excuse (no excuse at all as I have just pointed out) along with the pressure excuse AND the battery lifetime excuse (battery lifetime has ZERO effect upon an electronic equipment’s frequency of transmission. It either has enough power to transmit or it dies and doesn’t transmit. It doesn’t act like Robbie the bloody Robot!). Again, they are clouding the issue to cover ever possible way out. BUT they’ve screwed up. You know why? Because, listen to this video once more. It says that the Haixun picked up the signal at 37.5KHz! So, we have a perfectly working 37.5KHz at such ocean depth pressure from chinese analysis but we have a 33KHz signal (a frequency used in ocean echo sounding)  from Ocean Shield because the manufacturer has said at such pressure, the frequency would drift! Caught out in a lie once more! This is incredible stuff!

Now I’ve already said the Haixun and the Ocean Shield HAVE to be picking up completely different signals because they were about 500+ kilometres apart – therefore impossible to be the same source. As it says in the last paragraph above: “It is designed to detect signals at a range of (only) 1.12 miles”. IMPOSSIBLE that the two ships can be picking up the same signal. AND YET, Houston and friends have used those two entirely different signals (if signals at all because I 100% believe this entire thing to be a scripted story) to “narrow down” and, once again, “triangulate”. So now we have two reference sources for the black box being two different ships. The PROBLEM being they are suggesting “triangulation” of ONE target when it CANNOT be the same target!! This really is a joke and it is transparent to any scientist on planet earth!

Here is what they have done by using absolutely incorrect and totally misleading CRAP to have people believe they have narrowed down the search corridor for the black box:

Black box search Black box search 2


Points 1 and 2 are about 400Km apart (in these diagrams although, elsewhere, it was stated the ships were 300 nautical miles apart and about 560Km). The ping locator on Ocean Shield has a range of 1.12 miles and the black box is about 3 or 4 Km under the surface. This means the ship has to be directly above the wreckage to detect. So think about that for just one microsecond.

1. The impossibility the two ships have detected the same source so to then draw a line between the two and suggest this line represents where the black box is, is just pure voodoo junk trash! The black box can ONLY be located directly below where either ship is. Now, if you located a 37.5KHz signal (Haixun) and a 33KHz signal (Ocean Shield) and the black box was known to transmit at 37.5KHz, which one would YOU suggest had picked up the right signal? So WHY are they going with the Ocean Shield one at all and almost ignoring the Haixun?

2. IF the box can only be detected by a ship directly above it (which it can only be) then WHY has Houston suggested this ridiculous, misleading strip between point 1 and point 2? Why has he said they have to get even closer to decide to send down a submarine or UAV or divers?

Not ONE ounce of this makes sense and it doesn’t because we are getting fed total bullshit!



“Honeywell Aerospace, which made the boxes in the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, said the Underwater Acoustic Beacons on both the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder operate at a frequency of 37.5 kilohertz plus or minus 1 kilohertz.” Not 33KHz then! Even so, I am very surprised at the lack of precision of such a device.