The Chinese singularity

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

How the international bankers own the Chinese.

There is the theory (and that is all it is: Theory) that the universe commenced with the “Big Bang”, created from what we refer to as a “singularity”. Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density  and temperature at a finite time in the past. The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.

After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang are hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

“WTF are you talking about Earthling? I thought this was a blog about how we own the chinese? Have you lost it completely? Do you need a doctor son?”

Well no. I don’t. You see there is a fundamental parallel between the theory of the big bang, the expansion of the universe and the chinese situation today. Think about the singularity which commenced the big bang as having (or being) a catalyst for the expansion and think, then, about what is the catalyst for the expansion of a corporation, an economy, nation or empire.

What happens when the big bang results in the universe’s expansion? Well it started off with the creation of the most abundant element – hydrogen. Hydrogen has the atomic number 1 due to the fact it is composed of 1 proton, 1 neutron and 1 electron. But it was also the first element in the universe, which makes sense. Now, as the universe expanded, imagine you were the owner of all the hydrogen from the beginning and every other element formed from the original hydrogen belonged, therefore, to you since it was your original “investment” of that hydrogen which resulted in all other elements. If you removed the hydrogen from the universe, there would be no further manufacture of any other element while the universe would, effectively die.

Now consider the scenario where you do not own hydrogen but you own a significant sum of money. Think, then, of how money is equivalent to the hydrogen. Think of that money being the catalyst, or the singularity, that starts a corporation (or an economy or nation) and it is from that original investment, that the corporation, or economy, then expands.

How do venture capitalist investors own corporations? Do they tend to sit on the board of Executive Directors in the company? No. But what do you consistently hear from the Executive Directos – the CEOs and MDs of such corporations? “Our investors require a certain return from the investment within a certain time” and, for example, where the company (which may have commenced as a Private Limited Company) then progresses toward an IPO (Initial Public Offering of shares), the value on an exchange will, generally, cause an exponential expansion of the corporation’s assets and market value. The original seed money (“hydrogen”) expands in line doesn’t it?

The original investors demand their return (and get it) from the expansion of that company into a public corporation. Now, you can apply precisely the same analogy to the situation which founded the United States of America. It was the British Crown (not the monarch on his own but the Crown in its entirety) which invested, originally, in the establishment of the USA’s 13 colonies. It was the Crown’s money which funded those who made the journey to the new land and set up the corporations which became these colonies under British law.

[A charter is a document that gave colonies the legal rights to exist. A charter is a document, bestowing certain rights on a towncityuniversity or an institution. Colonial Charters were empowered when the king gave a grant of exclusive powers for the governance of land to proprietors or a settlement company. The charters defined the relationship of the colony to the mother country, free from involvement from the Crown. For the trading companies, charters vested the powers of government in the company in England. The officers would determine the administration, laws, and ordinances for the colony, but only as conforming to the laws of England. Proprietary charters gave governing authority to the proprietor, who determined the form of government, chose the officers, and made laws, subject to the advice and consent of the freemen. All colonial charters guaranteed to the colonists the vague rights and privileges of Englishmen, which would later cause trouble during the revolutionary era. In the second half of the seventeenth century, the Crown looked upon charters as obstacles to colonial control, substituting the royal province for corporations and proprietary governments.

The Massachusetts and Virginia charters were given to business corporations. Regular meetings of company officers and stockholders were the only governmental institutions required. The Virginia charter, issued in 1606, was revoked upon bankruptcy of the sponsoring and organizing Virginia Company of London in 1624. The second Colonial Charter was granted to Massachusetts Bay in 1629, settling at Boston and Salem, a decade after the first “New Englanders” at Plymouth Colony further south towards Cape Cod. In 1684, the Chancery Court in England voided the charter and changed it to a royal colony. Charles II placed Massachusetts under the authority of the unified Dominion of New England in 1685. After William III came to the throne, he issued Massachusetts Bay a new liberal charter in 1691.

Charles II granted Connecticut its charter in 1662 with the right of self-government. When James II ascended the throne in 1685, he tried to revoke the Connecticut charter and sent Sir Edmund Andros to receive it for the Crown. Captain Joseph Wadsworth spirited the precious document out a window and stole the charter and hid it in a hollow oak tree, the “Charter Oak,” until James was overthrown. Connecticut temporarily lost the right of self-government under the unification of the several colonies into the Dominion of New England in 1687, but it was reinstated in 1689. The last charter by Charles II was issued to Rhode Island in 1663. Connecticut and Rhode Island attained colonial charters as already established colonies that allowed them to elect their own governors.

As a result of political upheavals, especially after the three English Civil Wars in the 1640s, and the later “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 with their Roman CatholicProtestant/Anglican conflicts which also transformed into struggles between the King and Parliament. As these conflicts traveled across the Atlantic Ocean, most colonies eventually surrendered their charters to the Crown by 1763 and became royal colonies as the King and his Ministers asserted more centralized control of their previously neglected and autonomous Thirteen Colonies. By the late 1600s, the colonial Maryland, had its Proprietary Charter to the Lords Baltimore revoked and had become a royal colony with its Governor of Maryland appointed by the Monarch with the advice of his Ministers and the Colonial Offices and Board of Trade of members from Parliament. By 1776, when the Pennsylvania and its lower Delaware Bay counties remained proprietary colonies under a charter originally granted to William Penn and his heirs. The Province of Connecticut and the Province of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations continued as corporation colonies under charters, and Massachusetts was governed as a royal province while operating under a charter after the unifying of the older “Massachusetts Bay” colony at Boston and the “first landing” colony, Plymouth Colony at Plymouth, Massachusetts, with its famous “Mayflower Compact” from 1620. Further south, the Provinces of VirginiaNorth CarolinaSouth Carolina, and Georgia to the undefined border with Spanish Florida, all had their original charters dismissed with different opinions about the role and powers and taxing authority between the Royal Governors and their increasingly restless and defiant colonial Assemblies. The Royal Authority reasserted itself and becoming governed more directly from London with increasing friction as the 18th Century progressed to its revolutionary climax.]

These two flags clearly indicate that the “new land” and the colonies and governments formed within it, were British owned.

The Grand Union flag of the American Revolution and the United States as of July 4th, 1776.

The Grand Union flag of the American Revolution and the United States as of July 4th, 1776.

Flag of the British East India Company, 1707 - 1802.

Flag of the British East India Company, 1707 – 1802.

Now, come the American Revolution of 1776, the “Treaty of Paris”, signed on september 3rd 1783, stated the following:

Preface. Declares the treaty to be “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,” states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to “forget all past misunderstandings and differences” and “secure to both perpetual peace and harmony.”

  1. Acknowledging the United States (viz. the Colonies) to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;
  2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America;
  3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;
  4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;
  5. The Congress of the Confederation will “earnestly recommend” to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands “provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]”;
  6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;
  7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);
  8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;
  9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;
  10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.
Jay Treaty, (Nov. 19, 1794), agreement that assuaged antagonisms between the United States and Great Britain, established a base upon which America could build a sound national economy, and assured its commercial prosperity.Negotiations were undertaken because of the fears of Federalist leaders that disputes with Great Britain would lead to war. In the treaty Britain, conceding to primary American grievances, agreed to evacuate theNorthwest Territory by June 1, 1796; to compensate for its depredations against American shipping; to end discrimination against American commerce; and to grant the U.S. trading privileges in England and the British East Indies. Signed in London by Lord Grenville, the British foreign minister, and John Jay, U.S. chief justice and envoy extraordinary, the treaty also declared the Mississippi River open to both countries; prohibited the outfitting of privateers by Britain’s enemies in U.S. ports; provided for payment of debts incurred by Americans to British merchants before the American Revolution; and established joint commissions to determine the boundaries between the U.S. and British North America in the Northwest and Northeast.

By February 1796 the treaty, with the exception of an article dealing with West Indian trade, had been ratified by the U.S. and Great Britain. France, then at war with England, interpreted the treaty as a violation of its own commercial treaty of 1778 with the U.S. This resentment led to French maritime attacks on the U.S. and between 1798 and 1800 to an undeclared naval war. Finally, the commissions provided for by the Jay Treaty gave such an impetus to the principle of arbitration that modern international arbitration has been generally dated from the treaty’s ratification.

On November 19, 1794 representatives of the United States and Great Britain signed Jay’s Treaty, which sought to settle outstanding issues between the two countries that had been left unresolved since American independence. The treaty proved unpopular with the American public but did accomplish the goal of maintaining peace between the two nations and preserving U.S. neutrality.

John Jay

Tensions between the United States and Britain remained high after the Revolutionary War as a result of three key issues. British exports flooded U.S. markets, while American exports were blocked by British trade restrictions and tariffs. The British occupation of northern forts that the British Government had agreed to vacate in the Treaty of Paris (1783) as well as recurrent Native American attacks in these areas also frustrated Americans. Finally, Britain’s impressments of American sailors and seizure of naval and military supplies bound to enemy ports on neutral ships brought the two nations to the brink of war in the late 1700s.

The French Revolution led to war between Britain and France in 1793. Divisions emerged in the United States between those who supported the French, including Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and those who supported the British, including Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Fearing the repercussions of a war with Britain, President George Washington sided with Hamilton and sent pro-British Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate with the British Government. Jay looked to Hamilton for specific instructions for the treaty. Hamilton recommended an approach that would both stabilize relations with Great Britain and guarantee increased trade between the United States and Great Britain.

Jay’s only significant bargaining chip in the negotiations was the threat that the United States would join the Danish and the Swedish governments in defending their neutral status and resisting British seizure of their goods by force of arms. In an attempt to guarantee good relations with Britain, Hamilton independently informed the British leadership that the United States had no intention of joining in this neutral armament. Hamilton’s actions left Jay with little leverage to force the British to comply with U.S. demands.

The resulting treaty addressed few U.S. interests, and ultimately granted Britain additional rights. The only concessions Jay obtained was a surrender of the northwestern posts (already agreed to in 1783) and a commercial treaty with Great Britain that granted the United States “most favored nation” status, but seriously restricted U.S. commercial access to the British West Indies. All other outstanding issues, including the Canadian-Maine boundary, compensation for pre-revolutionary debts, and British seizures of American ships, were to be resolved by arbitration. Jay even conceded that the British could seize U.S. goods bound for France if they paid for them and could confiscate without payment French goods on American ships.

Jay’s Treaty was immensely unpopular with the American public, but it squeaked through the Senate on a 20 to 10 vote on June 24, 1795. President Washington implemented the treaty in the face of popular disapproval, realizing that it was the price of peace with Great Britain and that it gave the United States valuable time to consolidate and rearm in the event of future conflict.


HC Deb 28 October 1912 vol 43 cc3-74

§2. Viscount WOLMERasked whether it continues to be the policy of His Majesty’s Government to assure their exclusive support to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation in loan negotiations with the Government of the Republic of China, and whether this policy is due to a definite agreement with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation; and, if so, what was the date of this agreement and on what date does it expire?

§Mr. ACLANDThe text of the assurance of support given to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation will be included in the Papers which it is hoped to lay before the House to-morrow.

§3. Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what guarantees are, in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government considered adequate for the proper and useful expenditure of the proceeds of loans to the Government of the Republic of China and satisfactory security for the repayment of principal and interest; and whether he is prepared to communicate confidentially to British financial houses of repute, if they so desire, the conditions on which the support of His Majesty’s Government in loan negotiations with the Government of the Republic of China may be obtained?

§Mr. ACLANDI must refer the Noble Lord to the answer returned to the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow on the 14th instant. The negotiations between the Chinese Government and the six-Power group being regarded by His Majesty’s Government as merely in abeyance, they are not prepared to give support to any other parties desiring to lend money to the Chinese Government.

§Viscount WOLMERWill the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

§Mr. ACLANDThat is covered by the answer.

§4. Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that by an agreement under seal, dated the 9th March, 1912, and made between the President of the Chinese Republic and the group of international bankers supported by His Majesty’s Government, a firm option was conferred upon 5the bankers to provide the monthly requirements of the Chinese Government for the months of March, April, May, June, and possibly July and August, 1912, and the assurance by the Chinese Government to the bankers, provided their terms were equally advantageous with those otherwise obtainable, of a firm option of undertaking the comprehensive loan for general reorganisation purposes then already proposed; whether he is aware that the note to the Chinese President was signed only by His Majesty’s Government and the Governments of France, the United States of America, and Germany, or the financial groups representing them, respectively, and not by the Governments of Russia, or Japan, or their financial representatives; will he say whether the conversion of the four-Power group into the six-Power group was before or after the 9th March, 1912; and, if before, what was the date of the admission of Russia and Japan?

§Mr. ACLANDThe answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Russian and Japanese groups entered the international consortium under an agreement signed on 18th June last. This agreement had retrospective effect so far as concerned participation in the advances already made to the Chinese Government.

§Mr. NORMAN CRAIGWill that further agreement form part of the Papers which the hon. Gentleman has promised to lay on the Table?

§Mr. ACLANDI am not quite sure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question it there is anything not included in the Papers which he would like to have.

Sir GILBERT PARKERCan the hon. Gentleman say when the Papers are likely to be laid on the Table?

§Mr. ACLANDI have already said that Ave hope they will be in the hands of Members to-morrow.

§5. Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether any agreement was ever made after the 9th March, 1912, between the Chinese Government and the six-Power group, or their financial representatives, in regard to any loan to be made to the Chinese Government; and, if so, at what date?

§Mr. ACLANDA subsequent agreement was made on May 17th by which the Chinese Government formally accepted 6the terms prescribed by the group—at that time a four-Power group—for the supervision of the expenditure of provisional advances. In accordance with the stipulations of this agreement an advance of 3,000,000 taels was made on May 22nd.

§Mr. NORMAN CRAIGCan the hon. Gentleman say whether any agreement has come into existence by which the six-Power group take the place of the four-Power group so as to make that binding on the Chinese?

§Mr. ACLANDI would ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that question.

§Mr. GINNELLMay I ask whether Russia or Japan has any interest whatever in the six-Power group?

§6. Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the four-Power group or the six-Power group supplied the monetary requirements of the Chinese Government for the month of June, 1912; and, if not, whether His Majesty’s Government contend that the agreement dated the 9th March, 1912, remained in force as against the Chinese Government, although not complied with by the other parties thereto?

§Mr. ACLANDAdvances were made to the Chinese Government up to the third week in June under an agreement entered into on 9th March, and reaffirmed on 17th May, when regulations governing the supervision of the expenditure were added. Advances were suspended after it was officially reported to the groups by their auditor, appointed under the agreement of 17th May, that it was impossible properly to carry out his duties under the said regulations owing to want of co-operation on the part of the Chinese authorities. Inasmuch as a party to an agreement cannot free himself from it by a failure to observe it, the groups hold that the Chinese are still bound by the terms, of the agreement referred to.

§7. Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement dated 9th March, 1912, and made between the Chinese Government and the group of international bankers supported by His Majesty’s Government, contained any reservation to the effect that the Governments concerned would not support, and that the group of bankers would not undertake, the provision of moneys to the 7Chinese Government unless assured that the proceeds of the loan would be effectively spent?

§Mr. ACLANDThe agreement of 9th March was confirmed and supplemented by that of 17th May. The latter agreement stipulated conditions for the supervision of the expenditure of advances.

Bloomberg’s Business week Magazine:

Jennifer Yu Leads Rothschild’s China Push

By  and  August 05, 2010

When Jennifer Yu, Rothschild’s top executive in China, wanted the firm to advise Chinese carmaker Zhejiang Geely on its bid for Volvo, some colleagues at the bank’s headquarters in Europe were skeptical. A senior banker asked her how a “mouse” like Geely could swallow an “elephant” like Volvo. “There’s a dragon behind this mouse, and it’s China,” Yu recalls answering. She and the team handling Geely won the argument, and Geely won the bidding. It completed the takeover of Volvo from Ford Motor (F) for more than $1.3 billion on Aug. 2.

Rothschild, the more-than-200-year-old family-controlled banking dynasty, is making a big move in China, and Yu is leading the charge. It plans to add 15 merger advisers there by March, giving it 55 in all, more than any foreign investment bank, says Olivier Pecoux, co-chief executive officer of Rothschild. Today, the merger business in China is still relatively small. So far this year, China has accounted for about 9 percent of the $1.1 trillion in deals around the globe, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The potential, though, is enormous. China has $2.5 trillion in untapped foreign currency reserves and is mandating that state-owned companies expand abroad to secure natural resources such as oil and metals. “The economic balance of power has already changed, and it is moving to the East,” says Yu, whose title is head of greater China. “There will be an increasing number of Western companies selling assets to China.”

The firm hopes to build on the momentum of the Geely deal, which catapulted it to No. 8 among merger advisers in China so far this year, from 19th in 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s nine places higher than Rothschild’s ranking in North America, where it employs 150 bankers. Rothschild this year helped Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) on its joint $3.1 billion bid for Brisbane (Australia)-based Arrow Energy with PetroChina (PTR), (RDSA) China’s biggest offshore energy explorer. Rothschild is advising Beijing-based Citic Securities, the mainland’s largest brokerage by market value, on creating a global equity brokerage with France’s Crédit Agricole. “Clearly, under the leadership of Jennifer, and with the support of the senior management team, we are making meaningful progress in China,” Chairman David de Rothschild writes in an e-mail.

A Shanghai native, Yu, 47, graduated from the Shanghai University of Finance & Economics. Her decision to study in China and work there after graduation gave her time to build connections, or guanxi, with government officials and corporate executives, many of whom were her classmates and friends, she says, declining to identify them.

Yu joined Rothschild in 2003 from BNP Paribas, where she focused on underwriting initial public offerings. She became head of China operations for Rothschild in 2005 and was promoted to her current role three years ago. In a country where the government often plays a key role in mergers and acquisitions—deciding, for example, which companies can bid for overseas assets—Yu’s deep roots and extensive connections make her an effective dealmaker. “She knows what is doable or not in the Chinese environment,” says Pecoux.

Yu’s first major client at Rothschild, Shanghai Automotive Industry, bid for U.K.-based MG Rover, which was ultimately bought by Nanjing Automobile in 2005. Yu told her client not to worry—it would eventually own the Nanjing carmaker because the government would force consolidation in China’s eastern region. Two years later, Shanghai Auto agreed to buy Nanjing’s carmaking business in a government-brokered deal.

One challenge for Rothschild, Yu says, is that the firm doesn’t have an equity underwriting business that could help clients raise money to fund acquisitions. The two leaders in Chinese M&A, according to Bloomberg data, state-backed China International Capital and Zurich-based UBS (UBS), both offer underwriting. Rothschild has been trying to overcome that disadvantage by advising clients on debt structuring and equity raising plans, says Mark Florance, Rothschild’s head of Southeast Asia investment banking and a 22-year veteran of the firm.

The China merger market does not generate big fees right now. Chinese companies pay up to 0.7 percent on deals valued above $500 million, compared with 1.2 percent in Western Europe and 1.5 percent in the U.S., according to New York research firm Freeman & Co. Fees on M&A deals in mainland China through May totaled $181 million, compared with $3.1 billion for Western Europe and $4 billion for the U.S., the data show.

That doesn’t mean the investments Rothschild is making today won’t have a big payoff down the road. “People forget that in the 1980s, the U.S. banks came to Europe and got fewer fees than on Wall Street while building up the necessary infrastructure teams and systems,” says Mark Bentley, a former HSBC (HBC) banker now with SDC Group in London. “Why should China be any different?” To Rothschild, it’s not. And it’s Yu’s ambition to see Rothschild’s reputation become as formidable in China as it is in Europe, where the firm made its name financing the Duke of Wellington’s campaign against Napoleon. “In 10 years’ time, Rothschild in China will become the Rothschild in Europe,” she says.

The bottom line: Rothschild is building up its operations in China and sees the country becoming an increasingly lucrative source of dealmaking fees.

Got that? 🙂

My dear Prime Minister,

My father began his colonization work in Israel 75 years ago. The work which was then begun has been continued to this day. When in 1924 my father set up the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association – P.I.C.A.- he assigned to it the task of colonizing all his landholdings. It fell to me to preside over P.I.C.A. ever since its inception.

In the years that followed, the marshes were drained, the rocky hills and barren wastes were turned into fertile soil. All these lands were then colonized by P.I.C.A. Today there is no cultivable land left to P.I.C.A. for further colonization. The task set to P.I.C.A. has been fulfilled.

As I cast my eyes back over our work, I think that I may fairly say that we have adhered to two principles which well bear restating: The first, that we did our work without regard to political considerations and the second, that we endeavoured to give to Israel and her people all that we could, without seeking anything in return – neither profits, nor gratitude, nor anything else.

The colonizing task of P.I.C.A. having been fulfilled, the question that lay before me was to decide on the future of P.I.C.A. The State of Israel has since been created and the national institutions have emerged to take over the major colonization effort in Israel.

Weighing all the elements, I have reached the conclusion that, with the completion of its task, the right course would be to terminate the activities of P.I.C.A. instead of duplicating the work which is done now, on a far larger scale, by the national institutions.

P.I.C.A. is a private association but all its efforts have been directed to the benefit of the public. For this reason I thought it right to inform you of my decision first. For the same reason, I also propose to transfer now all the remaining P.I.C.A. lands (leased and not leased) to national institutions.

I look upon the termination of P.I.C.A.’s work as a mark of fulfilment, not as a withdrawal. I would like to underline this by a special act of identification with the aspirations of Israel and her people. We intend to provide the sum of IL6 million for the construction of the new Knesseth building in Jerusalem which, I understand, it is proposed to set up. Let the new Knesseth building become a symbol, in the eyes of all men, of the permanence of the State of Israel.

With this done, P.I.C.A. will withdraw from the scene of Israel in the knowledge that the work which was begun 75 years ago is being carried on by the State and the people, supported by world Jewry.

With this letter I meant to inform you of my decision. I do not intend, with this letter, to take leave of you or of Israel. My interest in the development of Israel is abiding, even if P.I.C.A. must cease to operate, I shall remain as close to you all as I have always been, your cares will be my cares and your happiness will be my happiness.

Indeed, I shall want to examine whether I shall be able to make some modest contribution, in the future, towards the advancement of science, art and culture in Israel – all matters which, I know, are near to your heart. However, these are but thoughts for the future. I am not yet fully decided on them but may revert to them as soon as these thoughts become crystallized in my own mind.

The foundations of the State have been well and truly laid. I am confident that, by the grace of the Almighty, the new chapter in the history of our people, which began with the creation of the State, will be glorious and enduring.

Yours Sincerely,

James de Rothschild

South China Morning Post:

Jardines returns to banking with Rothschild stake

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 23 June, 2005, 12:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 23 June, 2005, 12:00am

Tom Mitchell

Deal reunites groups in a relationship that dates back to the days of Empire
Jardine Strategic Holdings will pay US$185 million for a 20 per cent stake in the parent company of NM Rothschild & Sons, in a deal that reunites the hong with its 19th century European peer and marks Jardines’ return to the investment banking sphere after a seven-year absence.
Jardines Strategic is buying the interest in Rothschild Continuation Holdings (RCH) from British insurer Royal & Sun Alliance, which has been a passive investor in the Rothschild family’s investment banking arm since 1980.
It is one of two Singapore-listed holding firms, alongside Jardine Matheson Holdings, through which the Britain-based Keswick family controls an Asian business empire encompassing Hongkong Land Holdings, Mandarin Oriental International, Dairy Farm and Jardine Cycle & Carriage.
Jardine Matheson left a 28-year investment bank venture with Robert Fleming in 1998. Two years later it sold a residual 13 per cent stake in Robert Fleming to Chase Manhattan for a US$1.03 billion gain.
Jardine Strategic will appoint two executives to RCH’s board but will not take an active role in Rothschild’s operations. ‘They will be a shareholder but not involved in management,’ RCH chairman David de Rothschild said, adding: ‘The [Rothschild and Keswick] families have been friendly for many, many years.’
In a statement, Jardine Matheson Group chairman Henry Keswick welcomed the reunion of the two firms, whose relationship dates back to the early 19th century. ‘In making this strategic investment our group is renewing a relationship that began in 1838 when we first acted as agents for Rothschild in China,’ Mr Keswick said.
Andrew Rickards, the head of Asian investment banking for NM Rothschild, and Jardine Matheson company secretary Neil McNamara both pointed to Jardines’ experience and extensive networks in Asia, where NM Rothschild is trying to build up its financial advisory business. ‘Jardines’ biggest impact will be in Asia,’ Mr Rickards said.
According to Bloomberg data, the niche investment bank ranked 16th in M&A advisory work in Asia last year. But its regional client list is growing, most notably in China, where it is advising CNOOC on a US$20 billion spoiler bid for California-based Unocal Corp and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp on its Hong Kong offer.
While Jardines’ focus remains in Hong Kong and southern China, it moved its stock listings to Singapore from Hong Kong before China resumed sovereignty in 1997. The company makes little effort to hide its colonial heritage – the telephone system at its Hong Kong headquarters treats callers to Scottish bagpipe music when they are put on hold.
It also has a politically incorrect mainland past – its involvement in the 19th century opium trade and Mr Keswick has previously criticised the Beijing leadership.
‘There might have been some tensions there but I think it’s past history now,’ Mr Rothschild said.
Jardine Strategic’s shares fell 1.9 per cent to S$10.30 yesterday ($47.87), but remain up more than 25 per cent on the year.


Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

What we have here is ANOTHER “WOMAN” supporting the legal rights of PAEDOPHILES!

If YOU are a woman with ANY morality whatsoever, you will vigorously attack this woman, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt as well as any other woman who is following this SICKENING “PROTOCOLS”- based attack on the family, parents and promoting the homosexual/paedophile agenda!

Now, I’ve blogged until I’m blue in the face (and language) regarding the LEGAL PERSON. You had BETTER start understanding that it is this “legal person” which allows for the state – and the PROTOCOLS-based, Trotsky/Marxist/Zionist/Jewish agenda – to absolutely control YOUR child, YOU and your family.

The “law” is a minefield of contradictions and political agendas. What I find hilarious is that, when you approach an MP to point out serious anomalies or issues with law, they suggest you take it up with a lawyer and court since they can have “no influence” over the courts. However, the reality is that the UK House of Commons (even though the House of Lords can delay a bill) is the LEGISLATIVE house who are responsible for our laws (they have the equivalent of “parental responsibility” in effect without accepting the accountability – see video for a discussion of this re parents by Reece). Law EMANATES from politics! However, my point regarding the “minefield” is that, for example, while Reece speaks of Parental Responsibility rather than what was Parental Rights, what is unsaid here – even though the argument sounds balanced and we wish to ensure children are protected and safe – is that, by changing the emphasis in 1989, what we have seen since and ongoing, is a “grab” by the government of our children. YOU brought them into the world and, while I agree they are not our possessions per se, I strongly advocate that, as a minor, a parent should have (“should have?” it’s obvious!) full control over their child(ren) as opposed to the State, UNLESS it is proven (by a JURY of peers, which we no longer have either!) that the child has been harmed in some significant way. I say “some significant way” because the reality is, we are ALL harmed to some degree or another as children by our parents (and, I may add by society). The government harms children by having them born with a debt over their heads! Nobody says a word about that though! I could go on for a long time on this and expand but the blogpost would become a book.

Edwina Currie, as you will hear in my blog related to Sonia Poulton just yesterday, makes a comment – rather out of the blue since the organisation had not even been mentioned in the discussion – regarding the “conspiracy” being equated with the LSE (London School of Economics). You have to simply ask yourself why she even considered raising the LSE in that context in her condescending fashion. Well, it’s because she is more than aware that the LSE is fundamental to the subversion in this country. However, to understand how real that is, you would have to research the LSE, the number of connections it has had with global politics, terrorism and how substantial funding was given to it and the University of London, by the Rockefellers.


Someone asked me yesterday whether I was aware of the “Responsible person” being introduced in Scotland for each and every child born in the country. At first I said no I had not heard of it but, when explained, I realised I had but just had not connected with the phrase since, at first, it wasn’t mentioned as being connected to children when the person mentioned it.


Helen Reece is a middle-class Sexual Bolshevist and radical feminist agitator in the United Kingdom. She is a barrister and a reader in law at the London School of Economics. Her specialised field is attempting to undermine the family and subvert law in regards to the “regulation of the family”. In her earlier period, she was known for agitating to have innocent children placed with sodomites as part of adoption. This has naturally developed into her agitating to have children handed over to convicted pedophiles and rapists.[2]

She is involved with the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent, a critical theory style, cultural Marxist association, founded by Frank Furedi and Ellie Lee. The former a Trotskyist Jew,[3] red professor and pro-pedophile activist, who previous founded and led the Revolutionary Communist Party. The latter a sociology ideologue and apologist for the Abortion Holocaust with the Pro-Choice Forum.

Reece drew the attention of anti-child abuse groups in 2010, when she began to openly agitate to hand children over for adoption to pedophiles.[2] At the time of her agitation laws are in place to stop pedophiles and sex offenders from getting their hands on children. In an article in the Child and Family Law Quarterly, she called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to lift laws automatically banning sex offenders from getting their hands on children, invoking the human rights hoax and so-called “discrimination”.[2] She claimed that under article 14 of the so-called European Convention of Human Rights, governments who are not pro-pedophile enough may be challenged legally.[6]


Frank Furedi:



Update: Since writing this blog in 2014, it has just come to my attention that Helen Reece died of cancer last year at the age of 48. I wish to say that, while I attacked the woman, her connections and her politics – which all disgusted me and I will continue to attack anyone with the same mindset and agenda or who do work which, knowingly or unknowingly, promulgates the overall agenda – I get no satisfaction out of the death of anyone (except for, perhaps, Rothschilds and Rockefellers, Kissingers, Clintons, Bush’s, Blairs etc etc). Ok, I’m not perfect – wouldn’t want to be in this case!



Psychoanalysis of Judaism

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014


Western Perspectives on Man, Culture, and Politics

MAR 22, 2010

By  | 28 Comments | Print Print


Ryssen2Translated by John de Nugent

Judaism is not merely a “religion,” as many Jews are overt atheists or agnostics, and they do not consider themselves less Jewish for all that. Jewry is also not a race even if it is true that a “trained eye,” most of the time, can recognize a Jewish appearance, that is to say, a characteristic pattern which is the result of their strict observance of endogamy for centuries. Jews see themselves as the “chosen ones” of God, and marriage outside the community is strictly frowned upon. However, mixed marriages do exist and have also helped to renew the blood of Israel during all the centuries spent in the various ghettos where the Jews preferred to live, separately and apart from the rest of the population. The essential condition for such mixed marriages is that the mother be Jewish, since Orthodox Rabbis recognize as Jewish only the child born of a Jewish mother. However, having just a Jewish father or grandparent can suffice for a person to identify completely with Judaism. Jewishness is therefore a “mental race” that has been shaped over the centuries by the Hebrew religion and the universalist project of Judaism.

Judaism is a Political Project

Judaism is essentially a political project. It is important for Jews to work toward the emergence of a world at “peace,” a peace meant to be universal and permanent. It is therefore not a coincidence that this word “peace” (shalom in Hebrew) is found frequently in Jewish discourse worldwide. In the perfect world that they are building, all conflicts will disappear between the nations. This is why Jews have been militating tirelessly for many years for the abolition of all borders, the dissolution of national identities and the establishment of a global empire of “peace.” The very existence of separate nations is considered to be responsible for the triggering of wars and turmoil. so they must be weakened and eventually replaced by a world government, a “one world government,” a “New World Order,” one single world-ruling authority that will permit happiness and prosperity to reign, Jewish-style, on earth.

We find this idea more or less developed both in the writings of certain intellectual Marxists such as Karl Marx himself and the Jewish-French philosopher Jacques Derrida and also in the discourse of liberal thinkers such as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman and France’s Alain Minc. The idea is to unify the world by all means necessary and to generate cultural conflicts that will weaken nation-states. It is for this One World that intellectuals Jews labor tirelessly all over the world. Whether they call themselves left- or right-wing, liberal or Marxist, believers or atheists, they are the most ardent propagandists of the pluralistic society and of universal miscegenation, that is of racial mixture.

Thus, all their strength the Jews – basically, ALL the vocal Jews in the world – encourage non-white immigration into every country in which they are located, not only because the multicultural society is their fundamental political aim, but also because the disintegration of national identity in each nation and the massive presence of anti-white immigrants is designed to prevent the original white population from succeeding in any nationalistic outbursts against the Jewish sway over finance, politics, and the media. All Jewish intellectuals, without any exception, are focused on this question of building the “pluralistic society” and for this they practice constant “vigilance against racism.” In France, influential writers and journalists such as Bernard-Henri Levy, Jacques Attali, Jean Daniel, Guy Sorman, and Guy Konopniki agree on pluralism and anti-racism despite their political divergences in other areas. This obsession, which is very characteristic of Judaism, is also manifested in movies, where many producers and directors are influential Jews. As soon as a film starts defending and promoting interbreeding, “tolerance” and pluralism, we can be sure that the producer of it is Jewish.

Now we can understand better why the former communists and leftists of the 1970s did not have to make such a big leap to become today’s “neoconservatives.” They have merely switched to a different strategy to achieve the same goal: the rule by racially pure Jews over a racially mixed society.

The fact is that after the Palestinian intifada began in October 2000, the Jews in France and the rest of the Western world have realized that nowadays the danger to their interests and their project comes primarily from Islam and from young African immigrants, both Arabic and black. Their aim is to strengthen the modern race-mixing and race-blending society, which they have contributed so much to establish in our country of France. But this mosaic now threatens to break up into separate communities, and this the Jews do not want. They want no separate identities or separateness at all, except a separate Jewish identity and Jewish separateness. Former Marxists in France such as Alexandre Adler, André Glucksmann, and Pascal Bruckner thus support nowadays, along with Alain Finkielkraut, the right-wing, pro-Washington, pro-Zionist party of Nicolas Sarkozy. And yet they have not become French patriots. They react only for the exclusive benefit of Jewry, asking, as American Jews proverbially do on every issue: “Is it good for the Jews ?”

“Tolerance” as a Weapon

The members of the Jewish sect are the most proselytizing people on earth, but unlike Christians or Muslims, who dream of converting all peoples of all races to their faith, the Jews have no plan to convert the world to their own faith, Judaism, but simply to encourage other nationalities to give up their national and religious identities – and live only for the goal of “tolerance.” The unceasing campaigns to blame all Whites for slavery, colonialism, the plundering of the Third World or for Auschwitz have no other purpose than putting the opponent on the defensive, and getting him on his knees not by violence but via guilt. When the Jews are the only people left on earth who are keeping their faith and their traditions, they will finally be recognized by everyone as God’s “chosen people.”

Their “mission” (and Jews frequently use this term “mission”) is to disarm the other peoples, to dissolve anything which is not Jewish or Jewish-controlled, to grind the people down to a powder for making a new identity-free work force, and thus to favor a universal “peace” among the peoples who have no more “divisive” identities.

As their prophet Isaiah said: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the tiger will rest with the kid, the lion and the ram shall live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah 11: 6-9). The Messiah, coming from Israel, and awaited for three thousands years, will establish anew the kingdom of David and will give the Jews an empire over all the earth. And certain Jewish texts explicitly call for this.

Jews are therefore continuously encouraged to campaign, in whatever society they inhabit, in order to promote the unification of the world – and thus to also hasten the arrival of their promised and cherished Messiah. Propaganda is a Jewish specialty, and it is no coincidence that Jews become so influential in all the media. In their hands, the concepts of “tolerance” and “human rights” have become incredibly efficient weapons of white guilt and accusation against the majority culture. In fact, it is not through Jewish-sounding names or a Jewish physical appearance that we can best recognize Jews, but rather from what they write and say wherever they are on earth.

Selective Amnesia and Fabulation

Many Jews, as we know, played an absolutely huge role in the Soviet tragedy 1917-1991 and the thirty million deaths that marked this era. Let us remember that Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family and that Lenin himself had a Jewish maternal grandfather, that Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik founder and head of the Red Army, was born a Bronstein, while Kamenev (real name: Rosenfeld) and Zinoviev (real name: Apfelbaum) were running the two Bolshevik-conquered capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg. But the list of Jews who stood out in the mega-crimes of Communism is endless. It must be said and it must be repeated: Jewish officials and Jewish torturers bore a very heavy responsibility in this tragedy. The “perfect” world they concocted and which was supposedly “historically inevitable” turned out from the very beginning to be a nightmare for the Russian population. It was not until 1948 when the Jewish intellectual elite Jewish began distancing itself from the Stalinist government, and this was only because Stalin had launched his “anti-Zionist” campaign, meant to purge pro-Israel Jews from senior leadership positions.

This indisputable Jewish guilt for the gigantic crimes of Bolshevism is now systematically being shoved down the Memory Hole (the phrase from George Orwell’s 1984). In Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 2002 book Two Centuries Together, the Nobel Laureate and 11-year veteran of the Bolshevik gulag expresses outrage that Jewish intellectuals were still refusing to recognize their ethnic responsibility in the slaughter of millions of Christians. Solzhenitsyn also denounces modern Jews who pose as victims of an “antisemitic” Bolshevik government when that government was in fact heavily Jewish and Jews were among the worst perpetrators.

This selective amnesia is necessary for a people who ceaselessly proclaim their “innocence” of any provocative acts, as we regularly note in their writings, for example in an editorial inIsrael magazine of April 2003, “the first Israeli monthly magazine in the French language” written under the name of a certain André Darmon.

He wrote: “To kill a Jew or a child makes God cry, for we are exterminating [in the Jew] the bearer of universal ethics and innocence.”

No less!

With this mindset of absolute innocence Jews cannot conceive bearing any responsibility for their atrocities. Jews are only victims, only “scapegoats” in an evil and hostile world. But very soon the Messiah will punish the “wicked” and will restore the victimized sons of Israel to their full rights.

Nevertheless, in this same Israel magazine editorial, a certain Frederick Stroussi asserted that the Nazi government was worse than the Stalin regime. He quoted the cruelties he claimed were perpetrated by certain SS men. For example, we learn from Stroussi that the Latvian SS man Cukur’s hobby was to toss Jewish babies in the air to shoot them in their head as in skeet shooting. He also writes of other episodes, such as the rape of children by the SS before they killed them. The Second World War has certainly stimulated the fertile imagination of the children of Israel.

Or perhaps this imagination is once again a case of the Jews’ own “projection” syndrome, that is, accusing others systematically of one’s very own crimes as a matter of consistent PR policy: always attack. We know in fact – even if the media never speak about it – that many Jews and their rabbis are involved in the felony crime of pedophilia (see Psychanalyse du Judaisme, 2007).

And murdering a child would seem to be more a Jewish specialty than a characteristic of the SS mind. The revelations of tenured professor Ariel Toaff of Bar Eilan University in Israel – the son of the former Grand Rabbi of Rome – and buttressed in February 2007 by his 147-page, heavily footnoted, scholarly work Pasqua di Sangue [ Blood Passover] – reveals proof of ritual murder among some Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of Eastern European origin).

jews_whining_montageEmotional Fragility

We outsiders are thus supposed to understand that the sufferings of Jews cannot be compared to those of any others. As a consequence, we are supposed to get as indignant as they do when a serious historian such as Stephane Courtois states (in the preface of his famousBlack Book of Communism): “The death of a Ukrainian child of Kulak origin [ from the independent farmer class] who is deliberately forced to starve to death by the Stalinist government is as significant as the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto.” These simple words were enough to provoke the ire of Frederic Stroussi who declares he was “stunned” by such an affront. Such a remark, according to him, was “despicable” and represented a vulgar attack against Israel: “What does this comparison have to do here?” he writes. “Why do we have to use the slaughter of a Jewish child to transmit this underlying, false and hateful rumor that the Jews overshadow all other victims of totalitarianism and monopolize all the attention on themselves?”

The author of the article, as we can notice, reacts in a outraged and totally disproportionate way to the modest and certainly justified intentions of the level-headed historian Stephane Courtois. Stroussi demonstrates here the “great intolerance to the frustration” which are so characteristic of the Jewish intellectual. Such reactions are clearly not “normal.”

We note that Israel magazine is a monthly magazine designed for the Jewish community and that, consequently, one can hardly accuse Frederick Sroussi of lying to goyish readers, or hiding from the goyim the true nature of Bolshevism and the supposedly malefic cruelty of the SS. His discourse here does not correspond to any false dialectic, as anti-Semites claim, but here, in this magazine by and for Jews, he is reflecting, as a Jew among Jews, writing to Jews, the very essence of their soul: 1) We are always innocent – and 2) Jewish lives are more valuable than those of others.

There is an “attack anti-Semitism” that stems from a failure to understand the Jewish identity and only sees deliberate perfidy where there is in reality a genuine existential anxiety, one generated by a deep psychological dysfunction.

jews_whiningHysterical People

The Jews have never dared to collectively approach the mirror on their inner lives represented by Freudian psychoanalysis, a prism through which the Jews claim to see all humanity, but which, on closer analysis, sheds far more light on the specific neuroses of Judaism. Psychoanalysis, like Marxism, is a “Jewish science” and a product of the Jewish mind. It was therefore logical to wonder how this Freudian “discovery” corresponds to Jewish specificities.

The answer was not initially obvious to the author, and it took the reading and analysis of hundreds of books of all kinds, mostly written by Jews themselves, for him to realize that the searing question of incest stands at the throbbing heart of the Jewish question, and not theoretically either.

Jewish mothers do love their sons, as is well known, but outright incest is at the origin of a well-known mental illness – one that especially afflicts Jews – called “hysteria.” Incest attracted early the attentions of Freud while he was developing his theories. The parallels between Judaism and hysterical pathology are quite natural.

Jewry is well-known for these syndromes: Hysteria, depression, introspection, amnesia, manipulation, pathological lying, ambivalent identity, prophetic deception, sexual ambiguity, and so on. Every Jewish symptom is found in hysteria.

Freud, as a loyal Jew, merely projected the traits of a specific community onto the rest of humanity. In reality, there is no “Oedipus complex” but rather an Israel complex (all Jews together technically being Israel, not just the Near Eastern state). In fact, Jews do not seem to really wish to discuss the topic of incest within their families. On the other hand, all the psychiatrists mention: “The hysterical woman so much wants a child from her father or her doctor that she can persuade herself that she is pregnant by one of them and thus develops a ‘nervous pregnancy.’”

It is interesting that all Jewish writers use the same term to refer to the coming of their Messiah, namely, the “delivery” of the Messiah. The whole Jewish community, we must understand, is “the wife of God” (the Shekhinah of the Kabbalist) who is some day supposed to give birth to the Messiah, and thus the whole of Jewry is indeed suffering from a “nervous pregnancy” not unlike that found in nervous, hysterical women.

Karl Kraus, the Austrian Jewish journalist who did not agree with Freud, wrote sarcastically: “Psychoanalysis is the mental illness of which it claims to be the cure.” But the right and the best formula can be stated in ten words: “Judaism is the disease that psychoanalysis is meant to cure.”

Ryssen4The Sexual Revolution

After Freud, other Jewish thinkers came along who produced a symbiosis between Freudian doctrine and Marxism. Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse preached sexual revolution in order to break down the patriarchal family and unleash “free sex.” Their theories largely inspired the student riots of May ’68. The 1970s saw a new wave of Freudo-Marxism and Jewish women were in the forefront (such as Gisele Halimi and Elisabeth Badinter in France and Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem in the USA). As time passed, a series of Jewish-inspired laws appeared, one after the other, designed to dissolve the family. In France, a Neuwirth-promoted law legalized the contraceptive pill (1967), then came the challenge to the authority of the father as head of the household (1970), then divorce by mutual consent (1974) and the “right” to abortion promoted by “Holocaust survivor” Simone Veil (1975). A great wave of movie porn accompanied this “liberation” from traditional family values. Here we are compelled to note that Jewish producers and film directors play a very important role in the sex film industry. (See my La Mafia Juive[The Jewish Mafia], 400 pages, 2008). Parallel to this, the Freudian concept of bisexuality favored the acceptance of overt “gay pride” and homosexuality.

A War Machine against Humanity

In fact, the only tangible results of this moral “liberation” was the systematic demoralization and criminalization of the white man, who is denounced tirelessly in movies, literature and history as the cause of all the planet’s ills and of the collapse of the West. The appeal of egalitarianism – as intended by Jewry – tends to level all ethnic differences and identities and brings about their slow destruction.

Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

You read it right : Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity – except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.

The Neutralization of the Devil

The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the antisemitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.

Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.

Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity.

Only then we will become free from this grip, and at the same time, they will free themselves from the evil inside them that threatens all mankind.

Autumn 2007

The Crown v Crown Estate

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Myth busting

We are a unique organisation with a long and complex history, and sometimes our business is not always clearly understood. For information on some common misconceptions about The Crown Estate, please read on.

The Crown Estate makes profits from shale gas fracking in the UKshow/hide
On a number of occasions, and by way of example the edition of Countryfile broadcast on 4 August 2013, The Crown Estate has been cited as a ‘land owner’ in articles concerning ‘fracking’ or that it will benefit financially from fracking that takes place on peoples’ land.In the particular instance of Countryfile the presenter says: “Unlike their counterparts in the United States it (fracking) won’t make them (farmers) a fortune. There are different laws in Britain and America, over there the gas is owned by the landowner whereas here it belongs to The Crown Estate and the farmer just gets paid for leasing the land that the well-head sits on.”

This is incorrect, please find our official statement on the facts as they are below:

Recent policy changes regarding the method of shale gas extraction known as ‘fracking’ has led to widespread public interest in the matter. In particular, driven by stories from the United States of the income that land owners have received from permitting fracking on their land, land owners and media outlets have examined the nature of UK land rights and the potential allocation of profits from the process in this country.

There is a distinct contrast between land rights in the UK and the US in that an American citizen has full rights to all the minerals beneath the surface of their land. In the UK, under the Petroleum Act 1998, ‘The Crown’ retains all sub-surface rights to hydrocarbons, such as shale gas; so landowners will not benefit directly from the oil or gas found underneath their property.

In the context of shale gas and as with North Sea oil and gas, the rights of ‘The Crown’ are managed by the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change who, on behalf of Her Majesty, grants licences for hydrocarbon extraction. The Crown Estate does not have a role in shale gas extraction and is no different from any other landowner in the UK in this respect.

It is important to recognise the difference between the ‘The Crown’ as a concept, and ‘The Crown Estate’ as an organisation. The Crown Estate is an £8 billion asset management business tasked by Parliament with managing a diverse portfolio of assets commercially and paying all profits to the Treasury. This portfolio includes the UK seabed, London’s Regent Street and much of St James’s, together with one of the nation’s largest rural estates. It does not include any hydrocarbon rights.

The Crown Estate created or funds the coastal community
The fund is a government mechanism for determining and providing support to coastal communities administered by the Big Lottery’s Big Fund. The value of the fund, administered annually, is linked to The Crown Estate’s annual income from our Energy and infrastructure and Coastal portfolios. We have no involvement otherwise and continue to pay all of our profits to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation.The coastal community fund should not be confused with our own marine stewardship fund. Part of the marine stewardship programme, the fund supports coastal and marine community initiatives that further good management of the coastal portfolio.

Further information

Big Lottery Fund – coastal communities fund

Marine stewardship fund

Under the Sovereign Grant, the Queen receives 15 per cent of the profits from The Crown
This isn’t correct. The Crown Estate continues to pay its entire revenue surplus (or profit) to the Treasury. The Sovereign Grant simply sets the level of funding the Queen receives from the Treasury by reference to 15 per cent of The Crown Estate’s profits.As quoted in…

The Guardian

“Under the new grant the Queen receives 15 per cent of the profits from The Crown Estate, but from funds two years in arrears.”

The Crown Estate is the Queen’s property
No, this is misleading. Whilst The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’ and the monarch remains the legal owner, it is The Crown Estate which has the powers of management and control – i.e all the powers of an outright owner. This contrasts with the Queen’s private estate, which includes Balmoral and Sandringham.The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners).

As quoted in…

The Guardian

“The Queen’s property company is putting the finishing touches to a £300m project to restore one of the most historic buildings in central London”.

The Crown Estate is a
This is misleading.  Quango is the acronym for ‘quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation’.The Crown Estate is a public body, but we are different from most other public bodies in a number of important and practical ways.

Firstly, we are a net contributor to the nation’s finances, each year sending our profit to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation.  Last year this was £252.6 million.

Secondly, whilst we work with the grain of government policy, we are not a delivery vehicle for government policy. So we are not a quango in this sense.

Thirdly, we are a fully independent organisation with a separate legal identity and accounts. The Treasury is our sponsor department, but we are separate from them. Our role is set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961 and not by the government of the day.

As quoted in…

The Press and Journal: “Community representatives in the far north are continuing to press the Crown Estate to reinstate its staffed presence in the area. The quango’s defence of its decision to axe its former office in Thurso has failed to silence critics.”


HC Deb 16 July 1992 vol 211 cc867-8W867W

§Mr. Mackinlay

To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to bring the administration of the Crown estate within a Government Department and subject to Ministerial responsibility.

§The Prime Minister

No. The Crown estate is administered by the Crown Estate Commissioners under the terms of the Crown Estate Act 1961.

HC Deb 21 June 1922 vol 155 cc1301-21301

§61. Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the League of Nations has made any inquiry of His Majesty’s Government as to the traffic in opium conducted by the British North Borneo Company for consumption by the labourers on the plantations; and whether His Majesty’s Government proposes drawing the 1302attention of the company to the undesirability of any administration under the British Crown profiting by this traffic?

Mr. WOODNo, Sir, no inquiries have been received from the League of Nations relating specifically to North Borneo; but at my request the British North Borneo Company has from time to time furnished for the League of Nations information relating to that territory similar to that supplied regarding the Colonies generally. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that apart from the limitations imposed by the Charter, the administration of North Borneo is a matter for the company, and I would add that so long as the complete suppression of opium smoking in the Far East cannot be attained, it is, in ray opinion, essential that the traffic should be under strict Government control and that any profits should accrue to the administration rather than to private persons.

§Mr. RAFFANIs it not extremely undesirable that this company should engage in this traffic?

Mr. WOODHowever undesirable that may be, it must be regarded as less undesirable than that this traffic should pass into private hands.

HC Deb 01 March 1973 vol 851 cc414-5W415W

§Mr. Skeet

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the fact that rights to explore for and exploit minerals on the Continental Shelf vest in the Crown by virtue of Section 1 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, what is the position and ownership of oil and natural gas in place on the shelf.

§Mr. Tom Boardman

I have been asked to reply.

Ownership of oil and natural gas existing in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf is vested in the Crown.


Stupid fracking protestors!

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Instead of going our protesting fracking companies who have been given licences to frack, why the FRACK don’t you listen when you’re told that the Crown OWNS the minerals and hydrocarbons under your homes and attack the fundamental source which is your FRACKING QUEEN! Your protests are IMPOTENT and always shall be because you are IGNORING the basic issue (as all you protestors always do!). The Queen OWNS your ass and everyone else’s and her and the Crown are going to continue to do whatever the frack they wish to while you go out in your wells “protesting” at companies who, under the present regime of law, are legally being given the licences to frack!

You need to attack the source just like you need to attack the Ant Queen in an anthill! What is it you do not understand you fracking idiots?





From Reuters:

COLUMN-Frack on Your Majesty, you may be a shale gas winner:Kemp
Fri, Dec 14 15:22 PM GMT


By John Kemp

LONDON, Dec 14 (Reuters) – Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II could be in line for a windfall now that her government is prepared to start granting licences to frack for shale gas again.

In her capacity as the Duke of Lancaster, the Queen owns more than 50,000 acres and subsurface rights to tens of thousands more across northern England, the part of the country that has drawn the most interest from companies hunting for shale gas. Fracking firms will have to pay to put wells on her property or to drill through the subsurface mineral layers that she owns.

Potential payments to the Duchy are just one example of a wider phenomenon. The prospect of widespread fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has helped set off something of a rush among the owners of ancient mineral rights to register them ahead of an October 2013 deadline set by the Land Registration Act, in order to claim possible compensation.



The Duchy of Lancaster, which dates back to the 14th century, is separate from the Crown Estate, historical land holdings and other royal possessions. Revenue from that property goes to the government in exchange for an annual payment to help cover the costs of running the monarchy.

The Duchy holds assets in trust to provide an income for the Queen and her successors as sovereign. In March 2012, it had assets valued at 405 million pounds ($653.5 million) and was providing an annual income of 13 million pounds, which the Queen uses to meet her private expenditure and official expenditure incurred as sovereign.

The Duchy has valuable commercial property in central London (clustered around the ancient manor of the Savoy around the Embankment and the Strand) as well as in northern England.

But the major part of its landholding, in terms of surface area, is held as rural estates spread across the counties of Lancashire (10,000 acres), Yorkshire (16,000 acres), other parts of northern England and the Midlands.

In addition, over the centuries when the Duchy sold off some of its holdings, it reserved ownership of the subsurface mineral rights. As a result, it also owns mineral rights beneath tens of thousands more acres across the north of England, even though the surface is now owned by others.



Mineral rights and royalties produced an income of just $270,000 in the year ended March 2012. However, like other major landowners, including the Church of England, the Duchy has been busy registering its historic ownership of these mineral rights ahead of the deadline set by the Land Registration Act.

“Mineral interests are a relatively small element of the Duchy portfolio, but windfall opportunities do emphasise the importance of protecting these interests,” the Duchy explained in its annual report.

“The Land Registration Act has necessitated mineral owners to register their titles with the Land Registry, and the Duchy has been doing this in respect of both its surface and mineral ownership.”

Fracking has set off a modern land rush. According to the “Daily Telegraph” newspaper: “The Duke of Northumberland, Duke of Bedford and Earl of Lonsdale have all registered manorial rights. Ordinary people who live in manor houses or old rectories may also have ‘lordships of the manor’ and therefore own mineral rights in the area.” (“Lords of the manor to cash in on fracking” November 2012)



Like other private landowners, the Duchy of Lancaster does not own the oil and gas found under its estates or as a result of its reserved mineral rights.

In contrast to the United States, where oil and gas deposits are in private ownership and the owner receives royalties from fracking firms for extracting them, in the United Kingdom petroleum resources are in state ownership.

Under the 1934 Petroleum Production Act, all oil and gas deposits are owned by the Queen in her official capacity as “the Crown”, which in practice means they are government property.

Section 1 of the Act states: “The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum”, which means oil and natural gas.

Licences to explore and exploit oil and gas resources onshore are granted by the government. But “the rights granted by the landward licences do not include any rights to access, and the licensees must also obtain any consent under current legislation, including planning permission,” according to the British Geological Survey.

So anyone wanting to get at the oil and gas must negotiate with the surface owner for permission to drill a well and build other facilities such as access roads and storage tanks. If the surface owner refuses, the driller must apply for a court order under the 1966 Mines Act to acquire the ancillary rights needed to get access to the oil and gas and pay what the court rules to be appropriate compensation.

As a major landowner in the north of England, the Duchy of Lancaster will be able to charge anyone who wants to drill on surface land it owns. Under a recent court ruling, however, it may also be able to charge anyone who wants to drill through the underground areas it owns, even if they build surface facilities on someone else’s land.



In 2009, in a case that pitted Star Energy against Bocardo, a company ultimately owned by well-known businessman Mohammed Al-Fayed, the Court of Appeal ruled that Star had to pay compensation for trespass for drilling a deviated (angled) oil well under Bocardo’s property, even though the well started on someone else’s land and was at least 800 feet below the surface when it entered the area under Bocardo’s land.

“I reach this conclusion with reluctance,” the judge explained. “The trespass is purely technical, because it did not interfere with Bocardo’s use or enjoyment of its land one iota. Moreover, Bocardo has lost no rights because it neither owned the oil that has been removed from strata within its land; nor did it have the right to search, bore for and get such petroleum. Those rights belonged exclusively to the Crown and its licensee (Star)”.

Nonetheless, even though Star possessed a licence, it still needed to negotiate Bocardo’s permission to drill through all the other layers and minerals Bocardo owned underneath its property or apply to court and pay compensation. Having failed to do either, Star was ordered to pay £1000.

But that was for using three pipelines beneath Bocardo’s land at depths between 800 and 2800 feet below the surface, and extending just 500-700 metres below Bocardo’s Oxted estate. Fracking will employ much longer horizontal wells and affect much bigger areas of the subsurface. The compensation required could be correspondingly larger.

Since the Duchy of Lancaster owns the mineral rights across large swathes of the north of England, frackers will have to negotiate appropriate payments to drill through all the strata it owns (including for example the coal deposits it has been busy registering).

In contrast to conventional oil and gas fields, which have a fairly limited impact on the surface and cover a restricted underground area, fracking involves drilling a much larger number of wells with horizontal sections extending thousands of feet. It has a very large footprint on both the surface and the subsurface, and a corresponding increase in compensation payments to a large number of land owners.

Revenues from fracking are unlikely to put the Queen’s personal income on a par with the sultan of Brunei, and she should probably not starting ordering a new Royal Yacht, but they could make a small addition towards the cost of running her household.

MH370 and the Independent scam

Posted in Disappearance of MH370, Media by earthling on May 14, 2014





Sack your journalist and your Editor! This is either sheer incompetence and they shouldn’t have a job OR this is sheer propaganda on your part for the purposes of promulgating a narrative which has a dangerous and insidious agenda behind it.


OBVIOUS FAKE, COMPOSITE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TWO “IRANIAN” FAKE PASSPORT HOLDERS There is now, without a doubt, an agenda going on here regarding this MH370 flight. You’d have to be dead from the neck up not to recognise it. We have two separate photos taken of the so called “Iranians” who “boarded the plane with fake European ID passports”. The two photos shown above having one small problem however. The legs and feet of each individual are precisely the same kegs and feet! Now I’ve heard of and seen co-joined twins before but I have never seen two entirely facially different twins who are not co-joined but have precisely the same legs and feet. Whoever this man is holding these photos, he’s a first class plonker! A total moron! Fake legs However, for a so called Independent journalist to actually write a piece around this photo and he is so incapable to see what is in front of his eyes, he should either be sacked on the spot or shot! This is the height of incompetence or, a deliberate agenda. Take your pick Independent. Ah but you can’t sack him can you? He’s a Freelance. No bloody wonder! He’ll be lucky to sell another article after this! Mark Fenn

Skills: Researcher? Have you ever played “Spot the difference” Mark?

You can sack the Editor who accepted this however!

Negative money!

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

I received the following from “POSITIVE MONEY” today in my email. I think it is important that we look at exactly what these people say, who they collaborate with, how they gain access to The Bank Of England in the first place and how they gain access to Parliament. Also, who funds them and what their overall message is. Then we must also recognise that the bottom line of “Positive Money” is to maintain the Banking System, the Bank of England, Government spending/borrowing and, therefore, government debt. For even if they were to remove Private debt from the equation and have money spent into the economy by the government, they still promote the maintenance of the Bank of England, a tax regime, the control of the money issuance to those who a small group of people decide to issue to and, we have to assume, they do not intend, then, looking at the ownership of property, the legal control of money and property and how, still, those who have created and maintained this system of money (which “Positive Money” themselves know has been a corrupt creation from the beginning, otherwise they would not be doing the work they do) will continue to benefit from a still existing Central Banking system they created.

I’ll make comments throughout in blue and discuss the video and what is said while trying to point out the obvious (but unstated) result/reality of what is being said.


Dear Earthling,
We have some seriously big news to announce!

1) Huge milestone in our campaign

When we launched the Positive Money campaign 3 and half years ago and started talking about the fact that banks create money, we were faced with disbelief and shock. A common response was: ‘I don’t believe you. I think you just made that up.’ We had to spend a lot of time and energy to convince people that this is the way the system works. And there is the first and most basic piece of misinformation – that the Banks create money. They do not create it, they are given licence to ISSUE it. This is an absolutely fundamental and important point to fully understand. It appears a subtle difference but it is not.

At that time there was no official document by the Bank of England describing how the money system really works and serious factual misinformation in economics textbooks.

That was a time when we could only dream of these kind of tweets from the Bank of England:

B of E tweetsYES, it looks like it was copied from the Positive Money website… and NO, this is not a spoof …These are real tweets from the real Bank of England’s twitter account!

Now, after 3 and half years of hard work, after we teamed up with the New Economics Foundation and wrote “Where Does Money Come From?” in order to have something to back our arguments, now – at last – the Bank of England has released official papers explaining that money is created by commercial banks! And there’s even an official video about it!

[As an aside but perhaps an important one nevertheless, notice that this guy is reading from a script. It doesn’t appear as if he is from what you see but what you hear from his answers and the intonation of his voice and the deliberate, slow way he is speaking, he IS reading from a script. He is like an auomaton. There is another “interview” with another guy from the B of E and he is doing precisely the same. The Bank of England itself is wanting this change in the monetary system as are many “charities”/Foundations such as The New Economics Foundation and The Hadley Trust who fund “Positive Money”. However, they want to control how that change is effected and what it leads to. I suggest you look very closely at these Foundations and “Charities”. “Positive Money” while telling you 90% truth, is once more, a change agent still keeping within the remit of “Banks create money” in one way or another. Yet, they explain pretty much how it all works but still in the hope that that penny doesn’t drop]

The Bank of England is the first major central bank in the world – that we know of – to publish something as clear and explicit as this.

This means a huge milestone in our campaign for a just and fair money system. Finally, there’s a simple video and a paper to send to all those economists, academics, politicians and anyone shaking their head in disbelief! It should reduce drastically the time wasted in persuading people of all types to accept our analysis of the problems.

We’d like to say a BIG Thank you to all of you who helped us to get to this point!


2) Positive Money’s Chief Economist leaves now that Bank of England knows where money comes from…

In March 2011, Andrew Jackson joined our team and has led our research ever since. He co-authored the books “Where Does Money Come From?” and Modernising Money and several Positive Money publications.

Andrew is now starting a full-time PhD with the highly regarded Professor Tim Jackson (author of Prosperity without Growth)and will be stepping back from work with Positive Money.

In a strange coincidence, on Andrew’s last day in the office, the Bank of England published the new paper mentioned above explaining exactly how money is created in the modern banking system. The paper actually references “Where Does Money Come From?”, the first book that Andrew worked on. That’s a great finish to 3 years of hard work to educate people about the reality of money!




The Peerage:

Positive Money: Change Agents

Posted in Finance, Money by earthling on May 14, 2014

I received the following from “POSITIVE MONEY” today in my email. I think it is important that we look at exactly what these people say, who they collaborate with, how they gain access to The Bank Of England in the first place and how they gain access to Parliament. Also, who funds them and what their overall message is. Then we must also recognise that the bottom line of “Positive Money” is to maintain the Banking System, the Bank of England, Government spending/borrowing and, therefore, government debt. For even if they were to remove Private debt from the equation and have money spent into the economy by the government, they still promote the maintenance of the Bank of England, a tax regime, the control of the money issuance to those who a small group of people decide to issue to and, we have to assume, they do not intend, then, looking at the ownership of property, the legal control of money and property and how, still, those who have created and maintained this system of money (which “Positive Money” themselves know has been a corrupt creation from the beginning, otherwise they would not be doing the work they do) will continue to benefit from a still existing Central Banking system they created.

I’ll make comments throughout in blue and discuss the video and what is said while trying to point out the obvious (but unstated) result/reality of what is being said.


Dear Earthling,
We have some seriously big news to announce!

1) Huge milestone in our campaign

When we launched the Positive Money campaign 3 and half years ago and started talking about the fact that banks create money, we were faced with disbelief and shock. A common response was: ‘I don’t believe you. I think you just made that up.’ We had to spend a lot of time and energy to convince people that this is the way the system works. And there is the first and most basic piece of misinformation – that the Banks create money. They do not create it, they are given licence to ISSUE it. This is an absolutely fundamental and important point to fully understand. It appears a subtle difference but it is not.

At that time there was no official document by the Bank of England describing how the money system really works and serious factual misinformation in economics textbooks.

That was a time when we could only dream of these kind of tweets from the Bank of England:

B of E tweets

YES, it looks like it was copied from the Positive Money website… and NO, this is not a spoof …These are real tweets from the real Bank of England’s twitter account!

Now, after 3 and half years of hard work, after we teamed up with the New Economics Foundation and wrote “Where Does Money Come From?” in order to have something to back our arguments, now – at last – the Bank of England has released official papers explaining that money is created by commercial banks! And there’s even an official video about it!

[As an aside but perhaps an important one nevertheless, notice that this guy is reading from a script. It doesn’t appear as if he is from what you see but what you hear from his answers and the intonation of his voice and the deliberate, slow way he is speaking, he IS reading from a script. He is like an auomaton. There is another “interview” with another guy from the B of E and he is doing precisely the same. The Bank of England itself is wanting this change in the monetary system as are many “charities”/Foundations such as The New Economics Foundation and The Hadley Trust who fund “Positive Money”. However, they want to control how that change is effected and what it leads to. I suggest you look very closely at these Foundations and “Charities”. “Positive Money” while telling you 90% truth, is once more, a change agent still keeping within the remit of “Banks create money” in one way or another. Yet, they explain pretty much how it all works but still in the hope that that penny doesn’t drop]

The Bank of England is the first major central bank in the world – that we know of – to publish something as clear and explicit as this.

This means a huge milestone in our campaign for a just and fair money system. Finally, there’s a simple video and a paper to send to all those economists, academics, politicians and anyone shaking their head in disbelief! It should reduce drastically the time wasted in persuading people of all types to accept our analysis of the problems.

We’d like to say a BIG Thank you to all of you who helped us to get to this point!

2) Positive Money’s Chief Economist leaves now that Bank of England knows where money comes from…

In March 2011, Andrew Jackson joined our team and has led our research ever since. He co-authored the books “Where Does Money Come From?” and Modernising Money and several Positive Money publications.

Andrew is now starting a full-time PhD with the highly regarded Professor Tim Jackson (author of Prosperity without Growth)and will be stepping back from work with Positive Money.

In a strange coincidence, on Andrew’s last day in the office, the Bank of England published the new paper mentioned above explaining exactly how money is created in the modern banking system. The paper actually references “Where Does Money Come From?”, the first book that Andrew worked on. That’s a great finish to 3 years of hard work to educate people about the reality of money!




The Peerage:

MH370: The TPPA connection

Posted in Disappearance of MH370, Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Look, I’m sorry if I cannot quite get across, in a single or even a few blogposts, how this MAJOR TPPA Corporate deal is what this MH370 disappearance is all about. Yes, many people will say “WTF is this guy going on about? How can he connect a Trade agreement with the possible hijacking of a plane and suggest it has been taken to Diego Garcia? He must be nuts!”

But he’s NOT asshole! He’s just read and analysed a whole hell of a lot more shit than you have! Trying to compress that amount of knowledge is bloody difficult! It’s MUCH bigger than a plane disappearance or even the trade agreement itself. You need to cover one hell of a lot of ground to be able to “see” the connections, however subtle they are. You need to look at organisations such as the UN, the IMF, the EU and you need to understand the geopolitical importance and context within which players like China and Malaysia play. You need to understand who is connected to who and why and what their micro agenda is while looking at a macro agenda. You need to study history. You have to analyse trade flows and capital flows and investment and look who (which country and which individuals) are working for who and whose side they are on.

You need to understand the monetary system and how it works (or doesn’t as the case may be). You need to recognise BIG answers to BIG questions such as: How is the world in debt? How can a single entity (the Earth and its inhabitants as one symbiotic whole) be in a net debt? It CANNOT unless there is another organisation it is in debt to! But if that organisation is composed of people (which it is) then they comprise part of the symbiotic whole do they not? Yes and no is the answer to that but the BIG answer is: They have, with respect to the global monetary system, disconnected themselves from the symbiotic whole and it is THEY who the world is in debt to!

There will be some of you who read this who are still living in that “box” where you listen to economists telling you about things like the US buys chinese goods and Russia exports to Brazil and sells gas to the EU etc, thereby causing there to be “creditor nations” and “debtor nations” and that is how the world is in debt! BUT you (and they, purposefully because they damned well know better than that) are missing the point!




The TPPA to these people is of fundamental importance to their agenda of achieving the next step toward world government! They want, essentially, 4 or 5 trading blocks. They have one called the EU (now breaking at the seams but they will do whatever it takes to maintain it no matter what and that is what Ukraine is all about). Breaking up the UK also works into the plan because, then, they can pick off each of the individual states within it, each with a more manageable population which, by the way, has been “diluted” by the introduction of masses of immigrants. That dilution reduces the ability of the population to speak as one voice toward government and the EU because it breaks itself into “tribes” and fights among itself based upon whatever “bones” the government/establishment throw it to fight and divide itself over.

NAFTA is another of those trading blocks which will, in time, become an american “EU” and it is why Obama and the american governments before, now and after, are allowing the immigration across its border from Mexico, filling the US with legal and illegal immigrants. They are doing precisely the same as the British, French and German governments are and it IS an agenda!

Next is TPPA. Obama and the globalists he works for, want that TPPA and it has nothing to do with “free trade” for the benefit of PEOPLE (just as the EEC wasn’t to the ultimate benefit of the populations of each European country. Each of these trade blocks, which then become superstates are for the benefit of the “old wealth”. The corrupt banking and monarchical families. Until you get this through your head you will understand NOTHING of the world you live in and you will NEVER be able to analyse events and understand the significance and the purpose of them.

I wrote about this TPPA/Anwar/CIA/Malaysia component/connection to MH370 long before any of it hit the press. Then the press come out with the “political maniac” story re the pilot. A couple of days later (just yesterday?) they then publish the fact that Anwar Ibrahim is actually related to the pilot.

Meanwhile, you have a satellite company (owned by the UK and works with UK and US defence projects) telling you that the search points should be along two arcs – one going as far a Afghanistan (how surprising!) and one going deep south toward the antarctic. Neither of which makes sense because the north arc? Not a hope in hell of a plane not being spotted by radar and the southern arc – which they now seem to be focusing on (and THAT is what worries me re the decided fate of the flight – YES DECIDED!) – leads to nowhere but some story which will suggest the pilot was probably suicidal and not one of the passengers will ever be seen again.

You see, the north arc gave them a story of terrorism if they could make it stick. The south arc is the “safety” one for them if they couldn’t make the terror connection work.

The REAL “arc” is out onto the West/SW Indian Ocean but NO-ONE wishes to “go there” (even if they were allowed to!).


The article goes on to state….

“Only the US and Japan support the proposal, while the rest expressed their objections … but the US has shown no sign of flexibility…”

The summary also revealed the unhappiness of some member states over the insistence of the US to reintroduce a “Transparency Annexe on Medicine” that had been overwhelmingly discarded in previous rounds of negotiations.

“Some countries expressed annoyance for the way [the US, Australia and Japan] resubmitted a text that had been strongly rejected in the past.”

Last month, WikiLeaks published online a secret draft of one of the chapters under negotiation for the TPPA. In it were contained passages that confirmed critics’ fear that the deal would hamper access to generic drugs and cause healthcare costs to rise as a result.

Despite the reported eagerness for the US to see the negotiations wrapped up before the end of the year, the table depicted stalemates across the 14 chapters of the trade deal.

Malaysia also either rejected or is reserving its positions on nearly as many clauses as it has agreed to, illustrating its ambivalence towards the controversial agreement that Putrajaya has so far been supportive of in public.

Trade ministers and representatives are currently gathered in Singapore for the latest round of talks over the TPPA in an attempt to sew things up before the year is out, but analysts believe the possibility was now increasingly remote as some nations rankle over the allegedly “manipulative” tactics employed by the US.

President Barack Obama has hailed the TPP as a centrepiece of renewed US engagement in Asia, saying it contains market-opening commitments that go well beyond those made in other free-trade accords.

But the complexity of the issues has already caused negotiators to miss the original 2012 deadline set by Obama to reach a deal, with the new target also looking unlikely.

The TPPA is a free trade agreement that has been negotiated by the US, Malaysia and nine other nations as part of the larger Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership since 2010.


UK Parliament:

Human Rights Annual Report 2008 – Foreign Affairs Committee Contents

2  Rendition Definitions of rendition and extraordinary rendition

17.  Some of our witnesses expressed continuing concerns about US policy. Kate Allen told us that “we still see the ability to use rendition in transitory detention, so although there have been some progressive moves, we have not seen the complete end of rendition and its use in temporary and short-term measures.”[19] Benjamin Ward expressed concern about “the military commissions and proposals for administrative detention”.[20] Clive Stafford Smith told us that there was still much that needed to change:

there is an awful lot that he is not doing. He is one person who has a lot of poisoned chalices to deal with. Let us be clear: rendition is still going on and it will continue to go on. The business of closing CIA prisons is chimerical because the vast majority were not CIA prisons and they still exist. For example, the two people rendered by the British to Afghanistan are still being held in secret detention, and we don’t know what their names are. President Obama is no more likely to make that public than President Bush was. An awful lot of work remains to be done, and a lot of the prisons that we have dealt with—that in Djibouti, for example, and I am sure that we will talk a little about Diego Garcia—still exist. They are not CIA prisons but are very active. We delude ourselves if we think that Obama’s first few pronouncements have solved the problem.

22.  It has been alleged that the UK Government has not fulfilled these commitments. In July 2007 the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) reported on rendition in the wake of:

allegations that the UK Government has not done enough to ensure that the UK is not involved in such operations, and, furthermore, that it has not sufficiently investigated these allegations, which might be counter to its obligations under UK and international law […] There have also been allegations of direct involvement in these operations by the UK intelligence and security Agencies and by Her Majesty’s Government more widely.[25]

Clive Stafford Smith was emphatic that “there is zero probability that the British officials did not know about rendition and were not complicit in it.”[26] Kate Allen was less categorical, concluding that:

I think that at a minimum what we see is a complete lack of grip by the British Government in terms of who is passing through British territory. We see a lack of control. We have seen false information given to Parliament on this issue, and we see a rather passive response by the UK Government in asking the American Administration, but not being able to look at their own records, being very minimalist in the questions that they are asking and the definitions of rendition that they are using.”


26.  The Government has claimed to have only limited information about the flights that landed on Diego Garcia in 2002 and the individuals in question. When we questioned the Foreign Secretary about why details of the cases had not been published by the Government he answered that “we have no confirmation of their names, and that is why we have not put them into the public domain”.[40] In answer to a Parliamentary Question by Andrew Tyrie MP, the FCO Minister of State, Bill Rammell MP, stated that “We have very limited specific information about these flights and, despite enquiry, have not been able to establish further details that would be essential for purposes of further investigation.”[41] Mr Tyrie told us that “the implication is that the US is withholding information about these flights” and that this information would be essential for investigation of whether criminal offences were committed.[42]

27.  From the information provided, Reprieve believe that have identified one of the men rendered through Diego Garcia in 2002 as Mohammed Saad Iqbal Madni. They urge that the Government should clarify further what it knew of his apprehension, transfer and treatment, whether British personnel had contact with him and provide details of assurances sought by the UK regarding his treatment.[43] Clive Stafford Smith told us that evidence for this assertion was “pretty much indisputable” but that the Government had failed to respond to the claim. He believes the second prisoner was Shaikh Ibn Al-Libi but told us that “we are by no means certain.”[44]

28.  We conclude that it is unacceptable that the Government has not taken steps to obtain the full details of the two individuals who were rendered through Diego Garcia. We recommend that the Government presses the new US Administration to provide these details, and that it should then either publish them, or explain the reasons why it considers it would not be in the public interest to publish them.


In our 2008 Report on Overseas Territories we noted that the US lease on Diego Garcia is due to expire in 2016. The FCO told us that the 1966 Exchange of Notes which established the agreement would “continue in force for a further twenty years beyond 2016”, unless it was ended by “either government giving notice of termination, in accordance with its terms”.[45] However, at that time, Ministers had not discussed the possibility of terminating the lease or altering the terms of the agreement to increase UK oversight of activities on the Island.[46] Referring to the acknowledge rendition through Diego Garcia, Andrew Tyrie MP has argued that “if the agreements in place were not breached, then they appear inadequate for the purpose of preventing British involvement in extraordinary renditions.”[47]  Clive Stafford Smith also told us that

there is no doubt that it violated that agreement, but it violated a lot of other things. British law applies in Diego Garcia, notwithstanding what some other people have said. It has very interesting aspects. In fact, the law provides for a Diego Garcia supreme court that is meant to apply British law, of which there is no such thing. […]The whole process has been one to skirt the law[48]

29.  We questioned the Foreign Secretary about whether the use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights would breach the terms of the agreement between the UK and the US on the use of the island. He told us:

In our view there should be consultation. I think there was consultation about a previous case—there were a couple of cases in the 1990s. That is certainly the procedure that now exists […] the US Administration have said that they will consult us if they ever want to use it. So they obviously share that view.[49]

He did not believe that there were grounds to examine the terms of the agreement that govern the use of the island, adding:

If the American Administration were now saying that they did not need to consult us, that would be a prima facie case for reviewing the arrangements. I am sure in 2016 we will want to look at whether they are adequate for the times; there is no limitation on that. In respect of the use of Diego Garcia for rendition there is an absolutely clear position from the British Government and the American Government about the appropriate way to act. In that respect, there is no lack of clarity.[50]

30.  We conclude that the use of Diego Garcia for US rendition flights without the knowledge or consent of the British Government raises disquieting questions about the effectiveness of the Government’s exercise of its responsibilities in relation to this territory. We recommend that in its response to this Report, the Government indicates whether it considers that UK law has effect in British Indian Ocean Territory, and whether it considers that either UK law or the agreements between the US and UK over the use of BIOT were broken by the admitted US rendition flights in 2002.


31.  The Intelligence and Security Committee’s July 2007 report on rendition commented that:

We are concerned that Government departments have had such difficulty in establishing the facts from their own records in relation to requests to conduct renditions through UK airspace. These are matters of fundamental liberties and the Government should ensure that proper searchable records are kept.[51]

The Government has admitted that flight records from Diego Garcia covering the period during which renditions are known to have occurred through the island have been destroyed.[52] In its submission, Reprieve questioned why accurate records were not kept and argued that the Government should make available details of how, why and by whom records were destroyed.[53] When we asked the Foreign Secretary whether the Government would be willing to do this, he replied: “”I have never been asked that before and there is no proposal to do it.”[54] He stated that on Diego Garcia since 2008 “all flight records are now held by the British representative”[55] and outlined his intention to make improvements in record keeping:

The record-keeping systems that have to be improved are partly a matter of what happens on the base and partly a matter of what happens back in London. In respect of all detainee issues, there is now a central point in the Foreign Office for arranging that, and I think that is the right way forward.[56]

32.  Non-commercial, non-state flights do not require permission to land in the UK.[57] Redress has previously suggested that the law covering the use of civil aircraft for rendition and the procedures for authorising the entry of ‘state aircraft’ into UK territory should be assessed.[58] They comment in particular that although many rendition flights are designated as ‘civil’ flights, they might more accurately be described as ‘state’ flights and therefore should require more explicit authorisation.[59] Benjamin Ward was

supportive of the initiative by the all-party parliamentary group on rendition to create a permission system for rendition flights, including for overflights, similar to that which exists already in extradition cases under the European Convention on Extradition. That proposal was put forward to the Government in 2006 and, as far as I am aware, nothing ever came of it. Obviously that would not entirely eliminate the risk of transfers, but effectively requiring a transferring state to certify, in advance, what opportunity the prisoner had had to challenge any risk of human rights abuse that they might be subject to would make it much more difficult and much less attractive to use UK territory and UK airspace for such transfers. It would be a very important and symbolic change and it is not clear to me why that was not taken up.

33.  We conclude that, in the light of the controversy over the use of British Indian Ocean Territory for purposes of rendition by the US, it is important that full records of flights through the territory are kept, and retained for an indefinite period. We conclude that it is to be welcomed that the British representative on Diego Garcia now keeps flight records. We recommend that the Government discloses how, why and by whom the records relating to flights through Diego Garcia since the start of 2002 were destroyed. We further recommend that the Government provides, in its response to this Report, full details of its record-keeping and record-disposal policy in relation to flights through British territory, particularly BIOT, and state for how long it now retains such records. We recommend that, in its response, the Government addresses the question of whether it considers that current aviation law and aircraft identification procedures are sufficient to identify flights which may be carrying out rendition both through Diego Garcia or elsewhere through UK airspace.


34.  The lack of historical flight data makes it very difficult to test allegations that the two flights in 2002 do not represent the full extent of Diego Garcia’s involvement in the rendition circuit. It is claimed that the island was used by the CIA as a ‘black site’. During our inquiry into Overseas Territories it was further alleged that ships in or near the island’s territorial waters had been used to hold detainees and facilitate rendition.[60] Such allegations include the following:

  • US Army General Barry McCaffrey, former head of Southcom, has stated twice in public that Diego Garcia has been used by the US to hold prisoners, stating in a radio interview in May 2004 “We’re probably holding around 3,000 people, you know, Bagram Air Field, Diego Garcia, Guantánamo, 16 camps throughout Iraq.”[61]
  • In October 2003 Time magazine reported that the Al-Qaeda operative known as Hambali had been interrogated on the island.[62]
  • A former senior American official told Time magazine in July 2008 that “a CIA counterterrorism official twice said that a high-value prisoner or prisoners were being held and interrogated on the island. The identity of the captive or captives was not made clear.”[63]
  • In August 2008, the Observer reported that former American intelligence officers “unofficially told senior Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón that Mustafa Setmarian, a Spanish-based Syrian accused of running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, was taken to Diego Garcia in late 2005 and held there for months.”[64]
  • Reprieve allege that Abu Zubaydah and Khaled Skeikh Mohammed, currently held at Guantánamo, were also held on the island.[65]
  • The Observer has reported that Manfred Novak, the United Nations special investigator on torture, told the paper that “he had talked to detainees who had been held on the archipelago in 2002, but declined to name them.”[66]

35.  In its 2008 Annual Report on Human Rights the FCO stated that:

The US government denies having interrogated any terrorist suspect or terrorism-related detainee on Diego Garcia since 11 September 2001. They have also informed us that no detainees have been held on ships within Diego Garcia’s territorial waters over that period, and that they do not operate detention facilities for terrorist suspects on board ships.[67]

36.  We asked the Foreign Secretary whether this assurance extended to the use of Diego Garcia as a victualling point for ships outside its territorial water which may have been used for renditions. He stated that “we have no information, either of vessels inside territorial waters being used for rendition or of supplies from Diego Garcia going to ships outside the territorial waters.[68] The FCO state that such re-victualling would be “highly unlikely to occur” because:

The territorial waters of Diego Garcia extend to 3 nautical miles. Replenishment at Sea […] requires a stable transfer system between the two vessels concerned. This would usually be provided by an auxiliary vessel. No such vessels are currently berthed in Diego Garcia and consequently all vessels have to come into port to be replenished.[69]

The Foreign Secretary undertook to supply us with an assessment of whether, under the US/UK agreements on the use of BIOT, the British Government’s prior consent would be required for the use of the territory as a re-victualling point for vessels outside territorial waters. He later told us that:

Under the UK/US Exchange of Notes which govern the use of the British Indian Ocean Territory for Defence purposes, the US undertakes to inform the UK of intended movements of its ships in BIOT territorial waters in “normal circumstances”.[70]

37.  We conclude that it is a matter of concern that many allegations continue to be made that the two acknowledged instances of rendition through British Indian Ocean Territory in 2002 do not represent the limit of the territory’s use for this purpose. We further conclude that it is extremely difficult for the British Government to assess the veracity of these allegations without active and candid co-operation from the US Administration. We recommend that the Government requests the Obama Administration to carry out a further, comprehensive check on its records relating to the use of BIOT with a view to testing the truth of the specific allegations (including those set out in paragraph 34 above) relating to rendition through the territory. We conclude that it is unsatisfactory that the Government is not able to give us a categorical assurance that re-victualling of ships anchored outside BIOT’s territorial waters by any vessel from BIOT, for purpose of assisting rendition, has not occurred. We further conclude that it is unsatisfactory that the US has only undertaken to inform the UK of the movement of ships in Diego Garcia’s territorial waters in normal circumstances but not in all cases. We recommend that the Government requests the US Administration to supply details of any movement of ships in Diego Garcia’s waters since January 2002 that were not notified at the time to the UK authorities, and seek assurances that at no point were these or other vessels used for re-victualling of vessels outside Diego Garcia’s territorial waters which were being used for purposes of rendition.


38.  The Government has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to accept US assurances in relation to the use of BIOT for rendition flights. A report from the Council of Europe in 2007 criticised the Government for having accepted these assurances “without ever independently or transparently inquiring into the allegations itself, or accounting to the public in a sufficiently thorough manner”.[71] The 2007 ISC report on rendition exonerated the Government from this charge, but did so before the revelation in February 2008 about the use of BIOT for rendition purposes.[72] In our own Report on the Overseas Territories, published in July 2008, we concluded that “it is deplorable that previous US assurances about rendition flights have turned out to be false.”

39.  The Foreign Secretary continues to argue that US assurances, such as those given by former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, can be relied upon:

I have had assurances, as I say, at the highest level that there are no cases beyond those two, and also that if there was any desire on the part of the United States to use Diego Garcia for so-called extraordinary rendition, or for any kind of rendition, the British Government would be consulted.

We can be confident that our closest intelligence and foreign policy ally seeks to honour its trust with us in all respects. The degree of intelligence co-operation that exists between the US and the UK is of a unique standard and standing. It is based on mutual trust. It is not only one-way traffic. The US Government understand the importance of transparency and full openness with us. When the Secretary of State of the United States gives you her word, you take it very seriously. [73]

40.  Mr Miliband argued that:

It was certainly proactive on the part of the US to notify us in the first place of this new evidence that arose in February 2008. That did not emerge because I had been in touch with them about a particular case—they came to us. They were clearly proactive in that instance. I think that they have subsequently looked hard at their own systems, but they have been clear with me, in a way that I have then reported in full to Parliament, about the limits of their use of Diego Garcia. [74]

The Foreign Secretary assured us that in future the US would seek agreement for use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights:

Just to be clear, the information came out because the Americans found it; they found it and they told us. We said, very clearly, that our understanding of the agreement in respect of Diego Garcia was that there had to be agreement. They subsequently said, “We give you absolute assurance that, in all future cases, there will be; we will see that agreement.” So there is no mystery about that.[75]

41.  We reiterate our previous conclusion that it is deplorable that previous US assurances about rendition flights through Diego Garcia have turned out to be false. We further conclude that the basis of trust in subsequent US assurances about the use of BIOT has been undermined. We recommend that the Government outline what practical action it is taking to ensure that it has full sources of information about US rendition activity on BIOT.

Globalist destruction of western jobs and wealth

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

First of all, let’s define terms:

Who/What is a globalist? Here is one (just one) of the major ones –

His name is David Rockefeller and I am about to show you exactly how he and his globalist friends throughout the world, are destroying your wealth and, in fact, your capability to live! It does not matter whether you are already on the streets (when there is no need for it) or whether you are a millionaire businessman wondering where the hell your wealth is going and how you may be close to losing that business while you follow “The News” and think you can keep up. You can’t. The cards are purposefully, and calculatedly, stacked against you. It’s up to you “Mr Businessman” if you wish to read this or if you wish to consider it the rant of a “conspiracy theorist”. It is entirely up to you. These are David Rockefeller’s words from his own memoirs. By all means, ignore them. Seriously! If you choose to ignore then do so.

David Rockefeller Pround Internationalist

He refers to himself as an “internationalist”, NOT and “American”. One can say precisely the same of all these globalists. They have NO “nationality” as such. Yes they have a passport but this is of no consequence when you are capable of living wherever you wish whenever you wish and you have homes in multiple countries. There is no allegiance to a nation (their birth nation) when you are a globalist!

Now, you may say “Well it is about time we were all “one world” and stop the wars etc”. I couldn’t agree more. The issue is, is that these globalists want that too but they want it to be a one world where they call the shots and they control the legislation and they, through that legislation – on behalf of their banking interests and corporate interests – pay no taxes (their Foundations already do not pay taxes and very few of their multinational corporations either). Their institutions and their corporations then, pay nothing toward the greater good (except when they speak of the “greater good”, they are speaking of themselves. They are the “greater” and it is for their good!) while you, Mr Businessman, trying to make an honest living and we, the working and middle class, are used as low cost workers and we do not have the opportunity to negotiate fair employment contracts because these same globalists have created immense global corporations who are taking over everything from food to basic metals and resources, energy. Everything, in fact, that you can imagine. There is, therefore, no competitive market to negotiate our labour within. Monsanto will soon own our food supply through owning the world’s agriculture. You cannot negotiate when there is no competitor to use as leverage. That is why farmers are no longer the rich people they used to be and there are fewer and fewer who can survive without acquiescing to Monsanto. It is why the British fishing industry has been destroyed. It is why there is evermore consolidation of every single commodity we consume by corporations. You cannot compete with that Mr Businessman and neither can anyone, anywhere around the world, get a decent wage for our labour. Furthermore, Rockefeller (and the others), as is in black and white (while he admits it and calls it “popular paranoia” – how can it be “paranoia” when he admits it is fact?) conspire, as globalists, to create the very “integrated global political and economic structure” he speaks of.

Now, please, by all means, ignore what is in front of your very eyes. I will certainly resort to calling you an incompetent, impotent minded asshole but I am sure you will appreciate why? After all, most people in this world wish to be recognised for who/what they truly are don’t they?

The globalists not only consist of the obvious ones such as Rockefeller and family and the Rothschild family, but they consist of the Monarchies throughout the world (including the Queen of England), our governments, particularly the Cabinets or Executive branches who do the bidding of the respective Heads of state. Plus any and all those politicians, scientists, business leaders etc who promote the ideas of globalism. All of the foregoing support such because they are in positions to enormously increase their wealth. The system then teaches the upcoming students who will be the business leaders and politicians, that there is simply no other way. The various and numerous NGOs and Think Tanks, populated by vast numbers of people who actually do not understand the big picture (plus those in lower positions of the UN and IMF/World Bank etc) just, simply do their jobs. As do the Police who protect the state (the state run by the globalists through the central banking system). As d the military – most of whom have no concept of what they are fighting for. Yes, they have a belief of what they are fighting for, propagandised to them by the upper echelons of the military who, themselves many times, have no concept of the reality is.

I will go on to explain the reality of the “DEFENCE OF THE REALM” later.

Who/What is the UN?

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization established on 24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was created following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The UN Headquarters is situated in Manhattan, New York City and enjoys extraterritoriality. Further main offices are situated in Geneva, Nairobi and Vienna. The organization is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

Sounds good doesn’t it? But tell me? Who controls an organisation or company? The Executive Directorship or the major investors and funders? The executive are only administrators. They are tasked with the job of steering the organisation toward goals set by the investors who want an outcome – whether that outcome is purely profit or political or social change (or both). Like a football manager who gets sacked because he hasn’t won a cup or the team got relegated. Or he’s just gone a run of games without a win (like a CEO going 2 or 3 quarters making a loss – forget banks, they get bailouts such that the bigger the loss the bigger the win!).

So then take old Rockefeller once more. Consider this in light of what you know about who owns who.

Then take on board this:

Rockefeller archiveRockefeller philanthropy

A CONDITIONAL $8.5M “gift”. What was that $8.5M in today’s money?

1946 dollars

Churchill & Roosevelt: A conspiracy of traitors

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Winston Churchill – Held up as one of Great Britain’s “greats” yet he was a traitor doing the bidding of the “jews”.

Franklin D. Roosevelt – Held up to America s one of their “greats” and, yet again, a traitor doing the bidding of the “jews”.

Who are these “jews”? Well you all know them and even today they slither their way around Whitehall, Parliament, the Senate and Congress. They have money to burn because they were given the “keys” to the money centuries ago – beginning, perhaps, even earlier than the founding of the Bank of England but certainly from that time to the present day.

You KNOW who they are and you SEE their actions every single day in the present. And yet, it goes on. They go on.

In 1933, as you also (should) know, they declared war on Germany – six full years before the start of World War 2. And it was these same “jews” who made sure that war went ahead. It is these same “jews” (perhaps with the higher echelons of the jesuits steering it all) who are trying to foment the THIRD world war today. They are desperate for their temple. Between them and the Vatican they want their Jerusalem and their temple.

But long ago, while we have all been taught ONE version of history and our children are still getting taught it while those who write it have omitted the “jews'” investment and declaration of war on Germany, another version MAY have unfolded but, as usual, the powers – the Crown, the Monarchy and the Vatican – couldn’t allow that version of history to unfold and they certainly couldn’t let a few good men achieve what they set out to achieve.

At this point, we introduce Captain Ramsay. Who was Captain Ramsay? A British MP who, along with others in Britain and along with Congressmen like Charles Lindbergh, opposed the U.S. participation in WW2 while Ramsay, himself, opposed British involvement. Hitler and the Nazis allegedly had no intention of attacking Great Britain and this has been mentioned in UK parliamentary archives and Lord Boothby states as much in his statements and writings about his meetings with Hitler.

A mother and father’s love

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Following on then from the last post….

Here we have a judge – who knows what it is he upholds and, therefore, is every bit as complicit no matter what he says he supports – who seems to be speaking up for traditional marriage. Ah! Even the word “traditional” now relegates the idea of a man and woman to an old fashioned concept. And once more, the ONLY sect which appears to be allowed to stick to its traditions without any interference by the state is that of the jews. For example, female genital mutilation, as it is referred to, within Islam is considered, in the west, as an abomination (and it is) but let’s call male genital mutilation “circumcision” and let’s describe all the god reasons for it while, by doing so, suggesting that, in this instance, god just got it wrong. Ah! but circumcision is a jewish practice so then that’s ok and anything and everything the jews say or do is ‘kosher’.

Anyhow, back to the judge.

Judge trad marriage 1

A judge who calls for the end of family breakdown. Why does it take a judge for one thing? Why do the families themselves simply not ensure that the breakdown doesn’t occur?

And THAT is precisely why the state feels justified in their intervention and control EVEN THOUGH it is the state itself which wants such breakdown. Isn’t that strange when David Cameron would state the opposite?

So who, then, is it who is chastising Sir Paul? And why should judges be “afraid to speak out”? And he was given a “formal warning” for his beliefs in support of traditional marriage? The man is controlled. The judiciary is controlled. The police are controlled. None of them have the “right” to say what they think. WHO is controlling them? Yet it is they, themselves, who support this very control system and carry out the “law” of control which controls them, who dish out that control to others. How can they do this? By what vehicle? From where do they harness that power to do this? From the legal fiction known as the legal person. Each one of them, however, are subject to this same control and when they are confronted by it themselves, they don’t like it.

A “good marriage” my dear Judge, is nothing which you or your peers can ensure. Are you speaking of “Marriage” or a “marriage” between two people? You see, I am sure you speak of the former with a capital M. The sort that you and your like have taken authority over. In taking that authority, you believe you have the authority to influence such. How, however, do you create a good “Marriage” between two people if there is not a good “marriage” between them? Does that even compute with you Paulie?

The Vatican’s “eye” of Lucifer!

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Of all the names to give a telescope owned and operated by the Vatican, they decided to call it “Lucifer”.

Our Roman Catholic friends and family will, perhaps, raise their eyebrows but will then make their excuses for the head of their religion and leave it at that. It’s just something they won’t understand nor care to. While, if the Vatican were ever to offer an explanation, they would simply accept it.


From WorldNews Daily.

Former pope Benedict XVI spread consternation in the catholic world this morning as he claimed in a press conference rebroadcasted live on FM german catholic radio station, Radio Horeb, that a group of jesuits had infiltrated the Vatican and were pursuing what he called an “alien agenda”. The first pope to retire from his position in 598 years expressed his feelings of deception as “a sinister group of members of the Vatican” were pushing on for the search for extra-terrestrial life through their Lucifer 2 Large Binocular Telescope based at Vatican Observatory on Mt. Graham in Tucson, USA.

The Vatican made front news earlier this month when José Gabriel Funes, an Argentine Jesuit priest and astronomer, and the current director of the Vatican Observatory, sponsored a major conference in collaboration with NASA entitled The Search for Life Beyond the Solar System: Exoplanets, Biosignatures & Instruments and announced the purchase of a new 2 M$ lens for its Lucifer 2 Large Binocular Telescope.

“Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures on earth, there can be other beings, even intelligent, created by God. This is not in contrast with our faith because we can’t put limits on God’s creative freedom. Why can’t we speak of a ‘brother extraterrestrial’? It would still be part of creation” answered Vatican Observatory director, José Gabriel Funes, when asked about the role of extra-terrestrial life in the catholic faith.

– See more at:


UKIP: Back to 2010

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Dear Lord Pearson,

Do you condone the UKIP office lying by omission on your behalf? I’m sure you will see PRECISELY what I mean!

Question: Lord Pearson,

I simply have two questions to ask of you now that you are Leader of UKIP:

Are you or have you at anytime been a member of or attended a Bilderberg meeting?
Under the same question umbrella; I would ask you if you have any association with the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, RIIA, International Institute of Strategic Studies, Common Purpose, DEMOS, Tavistock Institute?

Have you had any association whatsoever with the Rothschild family?

If not, I shall support you and the party 100%. If so, then I am afraid, as a Peer, while you may be anti EU, you are potentially another collaborator – with no interest in the people of this country – with what is the establishment and true government.

For, as I do not even have to tell you I am sure, the three main parties’ Executive Branches are entirely in the pockets of the International Banking cartel as this country has been for centuries.

If UKIP are not going to then deal with the issues of the Banking, IMF and debt and are simply going to withdraw us from the EU and sit back and think they have done their job, then again, as you know, they will not be doing the full job and, as such, will be simply carrying out another agenda.

I like to speak straight Lord Pearson – there is no other way.


Name: Earthling


post: Submit your question

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:12:21 -0500
Subject: Re: ***Web Site Question***

Dear Earthling,

Apologies for delayed response. I had a computor problem and I am only just catching up!

No Lord Pearson has no connection with the organisations you name. Indeed you may take it that he will be very unpopular with them, for the stand he takes on numerous issues.

There is much work to be done but for a start we must govern ourselves again.

Malcolm Wood
Lord Pearson Leadership Campaign.
On behalf of Lord Pearson

In a message dated 28/11/2009 01:12:52 GMT Standard Time, UnknownSender@UnknownDomain writes:
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
() on Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 02:12:33

Subject: RE: ***Web Site Question***
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:32:39 +0000

Dear Mr Wood/Lord Pearson,

Thank you for your reply but I have one or two further comments since, I hope you shall appreciate, the initial reply did not quite precisely answer my query.

You have stated that Lord Pearson has no connection with the organisations but you did not state whether he has any connection with the Rothschild Family (not an organisation as such). Can you please be more specific?

Further, I mentioned the IMF/Debt issue – basically our membership of the IMF, a corrupt institution, part of the United Nations and has absolute immunity from any and all prosecution. WHY would ANY organisation require such immunity? There is no valid reason and while I know the answer I would appreciate your comment.

Meanwhile, I have spoken with the local representative of UKIP for the Edinburgh area, as I was very interested in joining the party and helping to eradicate this establishment “tripod” of political corruption we have in this country BUT, I had one or two issues which I aired to the representative here after having been in communication for a few weeks and I have now found the communication to have completely lapsed.

My issue was this: While I have asked (below) about UKIP’s views toward Bilderberg etc (and I may add I have asked and received a number of replies from various high level political persons) I see Nick Griffin of BNP making a strong speech in the EU parliament regarding Climate Change scam while also mentioning Bilderberg. He knows the issue very well as does UKIP. But my issue with UKIP is that each time I mention that they should be shouting this issue from the rafters so to speak, they retort with “We would be concerned that the established parties and press would demonise and pour scorn upon us as Conspiracy theorists for suggesting such”. Yet the facts speak for themselves and the massive impact and influence of Bilderberg and the people behind it (one in UK political circles being Ken Clarke a Steering Committee member and traitor therefore) would support UKIP’s actions in bringing it firmly to the British Public’s attention. Yet, you won’t.

We, as a country, simply do not have the time to continue the political game and playing “party politics”. You are either wishing to win this “war” and your actions demonstrate this, or you are more interested in the life of your party. Furthermore, as I see it, on ALL major issues impacting this country today – the EU, Immigration, Integration of such immigrants, Climate Change scam and perhaps quite a few economic issues, both UKIP and BNP have similar, if not exact, views. Yet both parties, while talking of wishing to see an end to the Lib/Lab/Con era, do not do what would have a significant impact on the electorate IN YOUR FAVOUR – that is to join forces either as one party or some form of collaboration.

We have a fabian government who are neglecting the people’s wishes while they (and their Conservative and Liberal collaborators) ignore the highest laws in this country – our Constitutional law – which states NO FOREIGN STATES! They are literally breaking the highest laws in the and and between you and the BNP, you could be bringing this forcibly to the electorate’s attention and educating them as to why this is so but, again, you are not!

That leaves people like me questioning your ultimate agenda.

Now, we take this correspondence which, I hope, communicates clearly my intent regarding the answer I was searching for but never received even after a follow up chaser, and we then compare the lack of response to the very specific question posed regarding Lord Pearson’s affiliation – if any – with the Rothschilds, with the following:


And what do we have? Lord Pearson – A christian zionist (another one but then he would have to be because you get nowhere in British or American politics without “kneeling” in front of Zion) who could not possibly – in any form whatsoever – be working against Rothschild and therefore Bilderberg and the New World Order “crew”.


It was taken after Pearson was given an award by the Chernoy backed Zionist Jerusalem Summit. He received the award for ‘values and vision in politics’.British people need to get this in your heads. Every single last one of our Establishment are liars. Every last one of our politicians who are in it for their own glory, power and wealth and do not give a DAMN about you will deceive you to the hilt because if they do not bend to the Zionist code and wishes they do not flourish. Do as they are told and they will be paid handsomely. They are mercenaries and will sell your interests out in a minute.

Until this Zionist agenda (which you think only affects Israel and the Palestinian issue – and you could not be more wrong because it affects your life and everything in it as you live in Manchester or Birmingham, London or Cardiff, Glasgow or Edinburgh) is finally and forever eradicated from power in THIS United Kingdom; NOTHING for you and your little life will EVER change!


A mother’s love eats itself (Part 2)

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Following on from the post of just a few weeks ago, where in I stated:

“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:


Here we have another little inch taken by the government in that direction. But most of you mothers out there just won’t see it will you? It makes no mention of homosexuals and the fact that a child could have two adopted gay parents. The government can’t possibly come out with the argument (yet but they will and have in other ways) that “Well we can’t ask which is the mother when it’s two gay male parents can we? And we certainly can’t ask who gave birth to the child”.

What you are seeing here is just another small step toward eradicating any idea whatsoever that a mother’s love means anything special whatsoever. But you keep supporting it all girls. You keep thinking you’re being more and more “emancipated” while more and more, the government steps in to control your children and the family and every last thing we do because you, in your naivety, think they’re putting these laws in for you and for the rest of us.

A mother's love



The new Children and Families Bill also includes changes to child contact arrangements in divorces to build in an assumption of “shared” parenting rather than one – usually the mother – having residence and the other having to press for contact with their child.
There are also measures to speed up adoption including ending racial “matching” of would-be adoptive families and greater rights for young people with special educational needs.
But among the most controversial aspects of the bill will be the plan to allow couples to carve up almost a year’s maternity leave between them rather than it being open only for the mother.

At present mothers are entitled to 52 weeks maternity leave, of which 39 weeks is paid at varying rates.
Under the plans mothers must still take at least two weeks maternity leave – or four in some industries – but will be able to nominate their husband or partner to take over all or part of the remaining 50 weeks.
If they do, the father’s employer would take over paying them while they are off.
The two employers will have to work out the arrangements between themselves to ensure that couples are not taking more than their entitlement.
Workers will still have to agree the arrangements with their employers but there will be no opt-out, even for small businesses.
Employers groups have warned that the system would impose an unnecessary burden on small firms.
But Government figures show that as few as two per cent of eligible fathers are expected to take up the offer of extra leave initially, largely because men generally earn more.
Even at the highest estimate only eight per cent are expected to take up the offer or
figures published with the bill show that – just over 28,000 men a year.
The changes are estimated to cost business between £12.6 million and £42.3 million a year, but with initial start-up costs of £49 million on top.
But Ms Swinson insisted the change would be good for business.
“Employers will soon get used to more men taking time off after their child is born and more mothers returning to work earlier, shattering the perception that it is mainly a woman’s role to stay at home and look after the child,” she said.
“It is just about giving people choice rather than starting from the premise that this is what one gender does and this is what the other gender does.
“There are some physical differences that we can’t get away from, it is always going to be the case that women take more time on average than men but once mothers are recovered from that there is absolutely no reason why it should be mum rather than dad, it is going to be up to individuals and families”
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, president of the Law Society, said: “The reality is that for many couples, a disparity in pay between the father and mother will make it difficult for couples to share parental leave.
“Families will simply not be able to afford to live off the mother’s salary if it is significantly lower than the father’s.”
Plans to require divorcing couples to operate “shared parenting” have also provoked opposition from legal experts.
Last year, an official review advised against the move, arguing that a similar move in Australia had opened the way to a landslide of legal claims.
Ministers are determined to press ahead with the plan which will give both parents a legal right to spend enough time to develop a meaningful relationship with their children.
The only exceptions will be if it is thought that a child’s well – being would be jeopardised by such a relationship.
Last month peers criticised plans by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to remove legal requirements for social workers to consider placing children with adoptive families from their own ethnic background.
Ministers are also planning a clampdown on parents having contact with children who have been taken away from them.
An official Government response to a consultation on the rules on access concluded that judges should be given new powers to ban parents or other relatives having contact with children who have been adopted, if there is a history of abuse.
Meanwhwile existing duties on social workers to “endeavour to promote” contact between children in care and their family will also be scrapped.