Posted in Political History by earthling on January 29, 2015

Holograms aren’t real. They aren’t flesh and blood. And neither was this….





NOTE: The second article the video points to has, as part of its title “LOANS WITHOUT INTEREST”

If I need to explain this to you, you’re already not worth the effort!

If I ever found out for certain…..

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on January 29, 2015

… that you euthanised my mother (which I suspect you did), I’d fucking kill you! After all, you would have taken it upon yourself to murder her! And first on the list would be Tony Blair.


Hello Hello I’m back again!

Posted in Music artists by earthling on January 29, 2015

Sorry for the fact that this great song (and it was great) was performed by a freak but it sums things up for me right now in this point in time. So it’s just a celebratory post for no-one but myself. It’s been a long time coming!


Without Scottish jews, Scotland would not be Scotland!

Posted in New World Order Religion, Politics by earthling on January 25, 2015

AYE RIGHT! SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU “CHOSEN” PRICKS! I’m sick to the teeth of your continual bleating. It makes my ears bleed!

“Without the Jews of Europe, Europe would no longer be Europe,” he warned, echoing a statement made by French PM Manual Valls after the kosher market killings on January 9 that France would no longer be France without French Jews.

Give us a fricking break!

“Without the Jews of Japan, Japan would no longer be Japan,”

“Without the Jews of Leith, Leith would no longer be Leith,”

“Without the Jews of Strathclyde, Strathclyde would no longer be Strathclyde,”

“Without the Jews of Bangladesh, Bangladesh would no longer be Bangladesh,”

“Without the Jews of Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes would no longer be Milton Keynes,”

“Without the Jews of Penicuik, Penicuik would no longer be Penicuik,” (Aye you could be right there right enough!)

Perhaps this illustrates the jewish mentality very well: “Without the jews of the world, the world would no longer be the world” Hmmm…. that has the sound of “everyone else is expendable” to me!

You know something? You lot really piss Christ off! He told me! My trees in my back garden set alight last summer and he appeared within a burning bush. He got a bit pissed when a fireman squished water all over him mind but he had a laugh when I said “just treat it like a renewal of your baptism!” (ok the bit about my garden going up in a blaze is true though! My poor neighbour didn’t have a garden hut left afterwards! Their Insurance kept trying to contact me but when an ember from a fire happens to be blown by the wind up into a bunch of trees, I saw that as an act of god. Acts of god aren’t covered in insurance are they? ;-))

Anyhow, pretty obvious what the Charlie Hebdo thing was all about. Re-invigorate the protection of the jewish/zionist parasites of the world.

UN Anti semitism


Ask yourself a question: If there is such a thing as “Anti-semitism”, then what, exactly, constitutes “Semitism”?

The “Authoritative voice” of a liar

Posted in Political History, Uncategorized by earthling on January 25, 2015

“Ok, at least give us a million would ya?”

Here we have an article from the Times of Israel (they just can’t let it rest can they?):

Times of Israel 1

Times of Israel 2

NOTE: 1.1 MILLION! While, of course, they HAVE to account for the vast majority don’t they? They just happen to have lost about 3 million from the figure (of which, in the 4 million they used to speak of, about 3.5M were probably jews according to them) so now it’s 1.1 million, they NEED to ensure the jews account for at least into a million – anything less would just not do! “We must keep it to a million at the very least guys. A million sounds so much better than say 750,000 damn it!” 😉

So, while the above is considered “authoritative” (of course), well so was below at the time. Remember that in 1944/45, perhaps even 1946 and 47 (I need to check the latter two years while I have checked the previous two) there were absolutely no mentions in parliament of any “gas chambers” – not a one!

When you read this, think of the enormity of dealing with 35,000 bodies PER DAY! IF that were true, then the 1.1 million alleged could have been gassed and cremated within approximately a month. So, if that was the purpose of the camps then why keep them fed and sheltered at all? To work? What a waste of time and German soldiers time when they could be put to better use on the killing fields. God I hate getting sold bullshit stories by people who actually expect me to be so fucking simple minded don’t you?

Two provisional gas chambers, known as bunkers 1 and 2, went into operation next to the Birkenau construction site in 1942, when Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss was entrusted with carrying out part of the campaign to exterminate the Jews. They were adapted farmhouses that previously belonged to expelled Poles. The first began operating in early 1942, probably in March, and the second in mid-year.

The construction of a complex of four gigantic gas chambers and crematoria began in mid-1942. The Germans estimated that 1.6 million people a year could be killed and burned there.

Watch this video. This is an alleged gas chamber while it also shows two small ovens INSIDE THE GAS CHAMBER! Not only that but we are to believe, from this, that up to 35,000 people were then cremated in those style of ovens?! THINK!

OH! BY THE WAY. IN THE VIDEO, NOTE THE TWO “DANCING ISRAELIS” (quickly then edited out) I laughed my ass off at that did you?

But then there are other versions of the “ovens” story where we are told the Nazis would burn people laid across rail tracks and piled something like 20 feet high! An earlier blog demonstrates the ridiculousness of this in a video. It is all just madness and it is not until people actually take the time and effort to consider the logistics and so called “facts” which just do not stand up to scrutiny, that they come to recognise it is all bollocks!

Now, here comes the “authoritative” Mr Bowles in 1947 with his 4 million, gold teeth to improve Germany’s gold reserve! lol Are these people serious? Well yes they were. Seriously trying to make us believe make believe!


HC Deb 27 October 1947 vol 443 cc517-607

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton) The Debate so far has concentrated upon Germany and upon two approaches to it. The one is the moral approach and the second approach that of the British Government. I am going to approach Germany for a few minutes from rather a different direction. I have been in Germany. I spent some weeks there in the early part of this year, and I took some time during the recent Recess to go to Poland. It might be of interest to the House—and I am glad the Foreign Secretary is in his place—if I conveyed to the House and to him in particular some of the feelings of that people numbering some 24 million. That was the only country which really had been physically moved under the Potsdam Agreement. The House will remember that the Russians took a good deal of Eastern Poland and under that agreement Poland recovered Lower Silesia, referred to in Poland today as the “recovered territories.” They are much more industralised than the territories which she lost in the East.

The House will remember that on 1st September, 1939, Hitler started the war by an unannounced bombardment of Warsaw. The fight for the capture of Warsaw and Poland lasted 29 days and then Poland gave in. Then in 1944, there was a terrible uprising which lasted some 63 days, in which a great deal more damage was done to Warsaw in particular. In 1945, Hitler knew he could no longer remain in Warsaw and he instructed his 556 troops—75,000 that were left—to raze that city to the ground street by street. The older buildings they incinerated by ordinary fire, and they blew up those more strongly built. It might be important for the House to recollect that the Polish people lost six million of their population during those six years of war. These things might be borne in mind when we speak about the Germans, and about the state of Europe as we view it this distance away. Although we have had friends and relatives lost and cities bombarded, when we remember that Warsaw was 85 per cent. destroyed and all its bridges blown, we can understand something of the feelings which exist there.

It has also to be borne in mind that there was not a Poland in 1913. It was then in occupation by Germany, Austria and Russia, and had been for 150 years. Poland, more or less as it is now, has been fought over by the Russians and Germans for 1,000 years, and how the Poles have suffered it is impossible to understand. They have a very great hatred for the Russians because they remember how the Russians treated them only in the early years of the war, but they have a worse feeling for the Germans because in the Auschwitz concentration camp, which I visited, some 3 million to 4 million Poles, mostly Jews, were done to death in circumstances which are quite impossible to describe, though I will try.

I have been there and it is a concentration camp stretching in all directions. One particular part I visited was where the extermination took place in rather a slow manner. The people were herded into a series of bunks about six feet by six feet, and eight to ten people slept there each night. When it was cold weather there was one brazier with one pail of coal to keep the place warm, The sheds were about the length of this Chamber and when the winter was on, they opened the windows in order to make them quite cold. When the summer and the hot weather came, they kept the windows on the top of the shed shut in order to make it more horrible. In the male urinals there was no water, which added to the unpleasant smell, and in a shed about as long as a cricket pitch where the water was running 10,000 people had to wash in an hour. This will give the House some idea of the impossible task set to the people who were living in this camp 557 and none of them, of course, survived more than three months. This is something relevant to the question of how Germany is regarded in other parts of Europe outside this country and that is why I mention these facts.

The next part was the gas chamber. I saw the place where the trains came in. If a German officer were killed in Warsaw 200 people, including children, were picked up and taken to Auschwitz concentration camp. There was there a large ferro-concrete building and the people were herded into it. They were offered a towel and a piece of soap. They thought they were going to have a bath with the result that they took off their clothes, but they found they were not to have a bath. Instead, they were shoved into the gas chamber and in ten minutes they were dead. They were taken out of the gas chamber and examined by dental surgeons, who extracted any gold in their teeth to build up Hitler’s gold reserve. If any hon. Member has been to Hamburg he will have seen hundreds and thousands of rings in that city, the owners of which cannot be traced.

These bodies were burned in the furnaces and this was going on at the rate of 15,000 to 35,000 a day. There is no question about this as we have had evidence given by General Hesse—not the man who came over here—and he admitted that he gave orders and knew that 3 million people were done to death in that camp. Since then more records have come to light and the figure is nearer 3½ to 4 million, as I have said. Apart from that, those bodies which could not be burned in the furnaces were burned on large piles which were set alight with oil and petrol. I understand it could be smelt many miles away. I saw human bones, about the size of the nail on one’s finger, on the floor of the building where people had been burned to death. Then to my horror—and I think the House will agree with me—I saw one or two charabancs coming into the camp with girls between 13 and 18 years of age who were sight-seeing. When I went back to Warsaw I protested to Ministers—whose names the House will forgive me for not mentioning—and I told them that this would be intolerable in England. One Minister said, “You must understand that we cannot let our people forget.” I said, “You are a Communist,” and he 558 said, “Yes, we are Communists but we can’t forgive the Germans about this.” I said, “If Germany becomes Communist would you feel the same?” and he answered, “If it were a Communist Germany perhaps we would have a little more kindness.” The real answer is that the Poles are Poles first and Communists and Socialists next, but they are Poles, and, remembering their history, the House would do well to make some allowance for the. point of view of these people.

The Day the Earth stood still

Posted in Political History by earthling on January 25, 2015

Alternatively: The day that Great Britain became a “judeo-christian” country rather than a CHRISTIAN one! A day in 1858 that will live in infamy.


Bear in mind that while Klatu was actually a “good guy”, it was with conditions. Those conditions (and the underlying story) being a One World Government scenario

So ask yourself: Why specifically the old testament? All you bloody christians out there who believe the old and new testaments are all part of the same story – you’re so FCUKING ignorant! Probably never read the bible in your life or, if you have, you don’t have the sense to recognise they are entirely different in terms of who “God” was meant to be!

I’m no religious person so I don’t approach this whole thing from believing – but THEY do!



HC Deb 26 July 1858 vol 151 cc2105-15 2105
§MR. SPEAKER Any hon. Member who desires to take his seat will please come to the table to be sworn.
§Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD returned as one of the Members for the City of London, came to the table, and was about to take from the Clerk at the table 2106 a copy of the Oath prescribed by the 21 & 22 Vict., c. 48, passed this Session, when
§MR. WARREN rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether notice was not necessary before—[“Order! Chair!”] Sir, I rise to order—
§MR. SPEAKER Order, order! The taking of his seat by an hon. Member is matter of privilege, and ought not to be interrupted by any discussion whatever.
§ The prescribed form of oath was again tendered to BARON DE ROTHSCHILD by the Clerk,

§BARON LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD Sir, I beg to state that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, I entertain a conscientious objection to take the oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session, has been substituted for the oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.
§ Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. SPEAKER, who desired Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD to withdraw; and he withdrew accordingly.

§LORD JOHN RUSSELL My object in rising, Sir, is to move a Resolution in conformity with an Act recently passed. (21 & 22 Vict. c. 49). It is as follows:— That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.
Mr. J. A. SMITH seconded the Resolution.
§ Question proposed.

§MR. WARREN Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance and regret, and contrary to my own previously-declared determination not to open my lips again on this question, that I rise to address a few observations to the House. It has now arrived at a very grave crisis in its constitutional history and that of the country, and a sense of duty will not allow me to remain silent. I have already, and very lately, as an humble member of the great Conservative party, entered my most solemn protest against the step which the Legislature was about to take in this matter, and have but little to say upon this momentous occasion. This House is about to consummate that great constitutional change in the character of the House which it has so lately been empowered to effect, 2107 and to take upon itself the entire responsibility of admitting into the representative branch of the Legislature a gentleman who has this moment declared that he cannot take—that he cannot be bound by an oath administered on the Holy Gospels—an oath which has been so long taken by all other Members of this House, with the exception of those who, though Christians by profession, were permitted, in deference to their religious scruples, to use a different form of oath or declaration. Sir, this is to me a most painful and distressing moment—but I cannot help myself; and, in accordance with what my conscience tells me is my most imperative duty, I am resolved to take the sense of the House upon the proposed Resolution. Lest, however, any one should do me the grievous injustice of supposing that I am, at a moment so painful, actuated by considerations of a personal nature with respect to either Baron Rothschild or the ancient race to which he belongs, I beg now most emphatically and truly to disclaim any such feelings. With reference to that gentleman, I must take this opportunity of declaring, that never in my life did I hear a whisper of even an insinuation against his character—of anything inconsistent with that reputation for purity, that spotlessness of character which Baron Rothschild enjoys. He occupies, deservedly, a high social position in this country; and I can only say again, that, while compelled to oppose the Resolution of the noble Lord opposite—to resist him to the last on this question—I have not in my heart one particle of animosity towards either the Jewish race or that representative of it now seeking admission into this Christian Legislature. If it be really the deliberate will of this House of Commons, as it has undoubtedly been declared the will of the Imperial Legislature that they may, if they think fit, exercise a privilege which I for one regard as so dangerous, I have nothing more to say; but in the meantime I beg, though I should go out alone into the lobby, to meet the Resolution of the noble Lord with a direct negative.
§Mr. WALPOLE I do not think my hon. and learned Friend could have caught correctly the terms of the noble Lord’s Resolution. It is simply declaratory, in terms of the new Act, of a matter of fact which neither my hon. and learned Friend nor any one else will contest, and does not admit either Baron Rothschild or any other member of the Jewish persuasion to a seat in this House. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will not put the 2108 House to the trouble of dividing at the present stage of the proceedings.
§Mr. WARREN I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and shall not press for a division on this Resolution. I had not caught the exact words of it and was taken altogether by surprise by the whole proceedings of this morning. I therefore withdraw my Motion.
§Resolved,— That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.

§LORD JOHN RUSSELL I now rise, Sir, to move a Resolution in pursuance of the Act which received the assent of Her Majesty on the 23rd instant, and which is entitled “An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty’s subjects professing the Jewish religion.” In order that the House may be fully in possession of the words of the Act I shall now read them. By the first clause it is enacted that— Where it shall appear to either House of Parliament that a person professing the Jewish religion, otherwise entitled to sit and vote in such House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which by an Act passed or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament has been or may be substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required, such House, if it think fit, may resolve that thenceforth any person professing the Jewish religion, in taking the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid, may omit the words ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’ It is not necessary to read any further. I propose, in conformity with those words in the clause, “such House, if it think fit,” to move a Resolution as nearly as possible in the terms of the Act itself. Of course, I shall not now raise any question as to whether a Jew should sit in this House. That question has been repeatedly argued, and it has now been decided by Parliament, at least to the extent of leaving it to either House to act as it may think fit. I therefore content myself with moving: “That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'”
MR. J. A. SMITH seconded the Resolution.
§ Motion made and Question put, That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’

§Mr. WARREN Now, Sir, the time has arrived at which I may make my Motion, and state that I shall take the sense of the House upon it. It is, of course, not necessary for me to repeat any of the observations I have already offered, but must beg the House to regard them as having been offered in opposition to the noble Lord’s present Resolution, which I now meet with a direct negative.
§LORD HOTHAM Sir, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than one or two moments. My object is simply to explain the reasons of the Vote which I shall feel it my duty to give. I have always found myself conscientiously under the necessity of opposing the admission to Parliament of persons professing the Jewish religion. I have done so upon principle, and without the slightest particle of personal feeling. As Parliament, however, has decided against my views of this matter, I did not come down to the House to record any further vote on this question, but to take part in the discussion of other business; but, being here, I have to consider what course I ought to pursue. The part I have hitherto taken renders it impossible for me to concur in the Resolution of the noble Lord; while I cannot withdraw and abstain from giving any vote upon the question. I do not think it would be either an honest or a straightforward mode of proceeding, to shrink from expressing my opinion on a subject, with reference to which I think so strongly. I am therefore reduced to the necessity, without the slightest personal feeling towards Baron Rothschild, of going into the lobby with those who are resolved to meet the Resolution with a direct negative.
§MR. HADFIELD said, he had never been able to account for the prejudice which influenced hon. Gentlemen opposite in their hostility to the Jews. In his opinion the world was more indebted to that particular family of the human race than any other nation or people that ever existed. Hon. Gentlemen talked of excluding the Jews as a matter of Christian principle. He would say, let them endeavour to Christianize 2110 themselves by following the example of Him they all reverenced as the great messenger of peace, charity, and toleration, and who directed that the Gospel should be preached to all men—but to the Jew first. He regretted that this prejudice towards that family of the human race, to whom we were so deeply indebted, should have so long continued, but rejoiced in the opportunity of taking part in the removal of the Just of the disabilities which that prejudice had in this country inflicted upon them. He looked upon that occasion as a great triumph for the cause of religious liberty.
§MR. WALPOLE Sir, when first this question was brought before the House expressed my opinion, and I have never shrunk from that opinion since, that it was a religious rather than a political question. I thought from the first that the Legislature of this country, being admittedly a Christian Legislature from the earliest time, was not a body into which a person professing the Jewish religion could properly or conscientiously be admitted. I merely mention that for the purpose of showing, that now that the time has come for this House to determine how it will act, it is impossible for me not to feel, while admitting that Parliament has given us the power to seat Baron Rothschild on our own responsibility, that considering the opinions I have always held, I cannot be a party to the proposed Resolution. One or two words more and I have done, for I do not wish to raise any controversy on this occasion. I cannot disguise from myself that the person whom the House is now about to seat has this very much in his favour—that throughout the whole of this controversy he has never attempted to act in a manner contrary to the law of the land or to the rules of this House. I think it due to Baron Rothschild that I should say so much. I agree in the observations made by my noble Friend (Lord Hotham) when stating the reasons which would compel him to vote against this Resolution, and I shall go into the lobby with my noble Friend. There is one other observation that I would make. The hon. Members who advocate the admission of the Jews think that they are now closing this matter; but in point of fact they aro not. The course taken by Parliament in reference to this question is a course which in my opinion cannot be too much deprecated. I, for one, am extremely sorry that if Baron Rothschild, and those who like him, profess the Jewish religion, were 2111 to be admitted into the Legislature at all, they were not admitted frankly, plainly, and honestly, by a declaration made by Parliament in the form of an Act of the Legislature, instead of in a mode which I am afraid we shall hereafter find cause to regret.
§MR. SPOONER Sir, the hon. Member for Sheffield has charged those who oppose the admission of the Jews into Parliament as so acting in consequence of a prejudice against the Jewish people. I, for one, utterly deny that. The Jews are a most interesting nation—interesting, if we look to their past history, and more so if we contemplate their future destiny. No, Sir, we are not actuated by any prejudice against the Jewish people as a nation, or from personal objection to the respectable individual who now presents himself for admission. There cannot be a second opinion with regard to that gentleman personally. He has the respect and esteem of all who know him, and especially of those who possess his friendship. What does actuate those who oppose such admission is the full and decided conviction that a Christian assembly like this Legislature should be wholly Christian, if we expect what we pray for—the blessing of Almighty God on our exertions to properly direct the affairs of a free and Christian people. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) who so much rejoices at the House of Lords having given their consent to the admission of Jews to this House by a simple Resolution, has not made one word of objection to the Reasons which came down from that House for having rejected that clause of the Bill which permitted the Jew to take his seat in this House—which Reasons declared, in emphatic terms, that the Jew was morally unfit to sit and legislate in a Christian Legislature. I beg to express my full concurrence in those Reasons, and therefore I cannot give my vote for admitting a person whom those Reasons declare to be totally unfit for admission into this House.
§MR. NEWDEGATE I confess, Sir, I was not aware, till a few minutes ago, that this Resolution was to be proposed to-day; and having had no notice that such a course would be taken, I arrived rather hastily. It is not my intention to detain the House by any lengthened observations; but I wish to say one or two words before the Resolution is put from the Chair, in reference to the conduct of the House of Lords, which I think has been very much misunderstood. What the House of Lords have done, Sir, is this:—They have placed this matter, 2112 which affects the constitution of this House, entirely in the hands of this House, at the same time retaining the strong conviction which that noble assembly has consistently and conscientiously acted on for eleven years. They have recorded the fact that their conscientious opinion on the subject of the admission of Jews was unchanged, at the same time that they thought it quite consistent with their duty and quite consistent with the constitution of the country to cease to interfere with what concerns the composition of this House alone. I think it due to the House of Lords that their conduct should not be considered as disrespectful to this House, when they thought fit to place the constitution of the House of Commons in the hands of its Members. With regard to my own course, deprecating as I do any attempt to admit the Jews into this House, I shall continue to act on those views which have hitherto influenced me, and record my vote against the Resolution.
§MR. FOX remarked, that the well-merited acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that Baron Rothschild had never throughout the whole of this controversy attempted to contravene the law, might with equal justice have been applied generally to the body to which he belonged, for it was a principle of the Jewish religion that, wherever they might be carried away captive, or in whatever country their lot was cast, they must respect the law as established, and pray for the peace and order of the country serving as their temporary home. To that rule they had always adhered. With regard to their moral unfitness he would remind the House of Lords, and those who used that argument, that the moral law of Judaism was the moral law of Christianity. For himself he would rather that this concession had been made upon the simple and broad ground of religious toleration instead of as a matter affecting the constitutional right of the House of Commons to make rules for the admission of its own Members. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the question was not closed. It must again come under consideration upon the direct ground of religious toleration. But in the mean while it was most absurd to talk of constitutional government while Her Majesty remained the ruler of 180,000,000 of people, not one of whom was qualified to raise his voice in that House to state the grievances of his fellow-countrymen, They 2113 talked of the Christian character of the Parliament. There were two different ways of showing their Christianity. One way was by their words and oaths, the other and better way was by their deeds; and he was satisfied that, whatever their professions, they would never act up to the spirit of a Christian Legislature until they were influenced by feelings of toleration and respect for the opinions of others.
§LORD JOHN RUSSELL It is not my intention to detain the House, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has made one or two observations which seem to call for some remark on my part. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has objected to the mode in which this question has been settled by Parliament. I beg him and the House to recollect that that mode of settlement was not proposed by the advocates of the admission of Jews, by those who have rested the question upon the ground of civil and religious liberty, but by those who have hitherto been the chief opponents of the measure which has now happily proved successful. It was supposed—I know not for what reason—that it would prove more acceptable to those who still oppose the admission of Jews than any other mode that could be suggested; but, I repeat, it was not our choice, but the choice of the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made another objection. which I should be sorry to think well founded. He said that this was not the end of the question. After the discussions that this subject has under- gone—after so strong an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons as we have had during the present Session—I do trust none will hereafter attempt to deprive the Jews of the privilege which we are about to confer upon them. Undoubtedly it will be in the power of anybody to do so by moving to rescind this Resolution or by some other mode; but I trust that what we are now doing, being in conformity with the general wishes of this House as representing the country, there will be no change in the policy of Parliament upon this subject. I have nothing further to say. The right hon. Gentleman having frankly and truly acknowledged that Baron Rothschild has never attempted to infringe the law, I am hound to state, on the other hand, that those who have opposed the admission of Jews have done so from no personal or unworthy feeling, but simply in the discharge of a duty imposed upon upon them by their consciences. I rejoice 2114 at the success which has attended our efforts this question, and believe that the principle of religious liberty has made great progress.
§ Question put, That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’

§ The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 37; Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E. Grey, R. W.
Akroyd, E. Hadfield, G.
Anderson, Sir J. Hamilton, L. C.
Ayrton, A. S. Hayter, rt. hon. Sir W. G.
Bagshaw, R. J. Headlam, T. E.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Henniker, Lord
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Hope, A. J. B. B.
Bass, M. T. Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Kelly, Sir F.
Bonham-Carter, J. Kinglake, A. W.
Brady, J. Langton, H. G.
Buchanan, W. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Byng, hon. G. M’Cann, J.
Calcraft, J. H. Melgund, Visct.
Calcutt, F. M. Osborne, R.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Rich, H.
Clifford, Col. Ridley, G.
Codrington, G. Roebuck, J. A.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Russell, Lord J.
Cox, W. Russell, A.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Crawford, R. W. Smith, A.
Cubitt, Mr. Alderman Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Dalglish, R. Stapleton, J.
Davey, R. Thompson, Gen.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Dillwyn, L. L. Vane, Lord H.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Duff, M. E. G. Westhead, J. P. B.
Dunbar, Sir W. White, J.
Duncombe, T. Wickham, H. W.
Dunlop, A. M. Williams, W.
Elphinstone, Sir J. Wilson, J.
Forster, C. TELLERS.
Fox, W. J. Smith, J. A.
Greer, S. M’C. Knatchbull-Hugessen.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Knatchbull, W. F.
Arbuthnott, hn. General Knightley, R.
Bernard, hon. Colonel Knox, Colonel
Blackburn, P. Manners, Lord J.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Miller, T. J.
Cairns, Sir Hugh M’C. Mills, A.
Cecil, Lord R. Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Collins, T. Newdegate, C. N.
Cooper, E. J. Nisbet, R. P.
Cross, R. A. Noel, hon. G. J.
Du Cane, C. Peel, rt. hon. General
Du Pre, C. G. Spooner, R.
East, Sir J. B. Taylor, Colonel
Egerton, W. T. Vance, J.
Fellowes, E. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Gard, R. S. Whitmore, H.
Hamilton, G. A. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Hardy, G. TELLERS.
Hodgson, W. N. Warren, S.
Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. Hotham, Lord

§Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD being again come to the Table, desired to be sworn on the Old Testament, as being binding on his conscience:—Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.
§Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD was sworn accordingly, and subscribed the Oath at the Table.
Back to MINUTES.
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament


Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Political History by earthling on January 25, 2015

Who runs Germany? Not Germans that’s for sure.

You have been re-educated after the second World War to believe you genocided a people which you did not. Since then, that people and others have rewritten your Constitution, coerced you into keeping your mouths shut IF you DO your homework and recognise the truth and put you away if you dare speak out.

“Je suis Charlie” = “I am Israel”.

This lady is approaching the end of her life (I hope she is around to a very ripe old age) and your government will not have the guts to arrest her and put her on trial because, then, there would be an outcry and her story would get out – the last thing they wish for.


But the truth is, yes, there is going to be a huge anniversary of “Auschwitz liberation” where the Red Army are going to be heralded as liberating a “Death Camp” which didn’t exist PLUS what is going to be ignored is the little fact, fully admitted in 2010 by the Russian state, that the Katyn Forest massacre – blamed on the Nazis by Stalin and his jewish politburo – was actually carried out BY the Red Army.


You have your German economy, your BMW and Audi, Bosch and AEG, your “exacting standards” of precision in design and production and the pride which goes with it.

What’s missing is your soul. You gave that away almost 70 years ago and you’ve forgotten what it is.

A Brit! Speaking on behalf of Germany? I must be insane!

No. Not at all!


Posted in Music artists, Uncategorized by earthling on January 25, 2015

And they were of a similar age.

How absolutely bloody peculiar Leon! (and convenient)

Posted in Paedophilia, Political History by earthling on January 22, 2015

When has anyone ever said they had a “convenient cancer”.

You COULD say 10CC: Number 10’s convenient cancer.

How peculiar! 😉

So now, await the media having their obligatory feast and a field day while they now have the guts to probe deeply into Leon as he probably probed deeply himself in one or two ways!

Leon dies

But hey, Savile’s dead so all that paedophilia and necrophilia just doesn’t exist anymore and, now that Brittan is dead, don’t worry, all that other parliamentary paedophilia happened in the 1980’s. It was just a fad we were going through. It doesn’t happen today for goodness sakes! You must be a Conspiracy theorist to think that!

Leon cover up


Good riddance to a dirty bastard! Death takes them all but others follow in their footsteps unfortunately. But Britain doesn’t really wish to know about Brittan and if the media and the government tell you it’s racist to speak of jews being creepy bastards but it’s entirely ok to speak of muslims all being terrorists, then those same government and media can have you believe in anything (and they do).

God bless the Queen!

Tagged with: ,

Katyn Forest – the truth.

Posted in Political History, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on January 17, 2015

WHY THE HOLOCAUST STORY IS MAINTAINED – Because there are so many, now admitted, lies which are NEVER spoken of by the British or American or Western governments regarding the reality of these massacres and who actually did them. It wasn’t Germany you see!

Germany never gassed a jew and neither did it massacre them. History is written (and obfuscated) by the victors and that is precisely what we did.

Katyn forest

Stalin’s government was filled to the brim with jews and yet it was orders from Stalin’s government which led to this slaughter in Katyn which the Russian government tried to frame Germany for. It all came out in the end but very few British and Americans will have even heard of Katyn. They read their history books at school and watch BBC documentaries about the war and they swallow it all hook, line and sinker.

Has there ever been a Spielberg movie about Katyn? No and there never will be.

Shrunken heads, lampshades from human skin, etc etc etc. ALL of it now admitted as total shite but we still had Richard Widmark telling us it was true in Hollywood movies (jewish owned) and Spielberg keeping it going and, in amongst that, to justify the 1991 Iraqi invasion: Bush senior talking tripe (proven later) about babies being thrown out of incubators.

Why, after WW2 did the jews become “Nazi hunters” to bring them to trial for warcrimes? Yet they never went Soviet hunting and neither was there a single soviet in the Nuremburg trials (or Brit like Churchill for instance). Well the allies won didn’t they? Can’t get any simpler than that and it wasn’t in the jewish interests to bring it to their people’s attention that Russian jews massacred their own.

You see, the idea of jewish massacres and a “holocaust” was precisely what the elite jews wanted. It gave them “currency” to demand Palestine and, ultimately, Israel.

They truly are a disgusting breed in my opinion but then so are our “elites”. They truly are a different breed of human.


The Katyn massacre was a series of mass executions of Polish nationals carried out by the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), the Soviet secret police, in April and May 1940. Originally the term “Katyn massacre”, also known as the Katyn Forest massacre, referred to the massacre at Katyn Forest, which was discovered first and was the largest execution of this type.

The massacre was prompted by NKVD chief Lavrentiy Beria’s proposal to execute all captive members of the Polish Officer Corps, dated 5 March 1940, approved by the Soviet Politburo, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000. The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons, and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, and the rest were arrested Polish intelligentsia the Soviets deemed to be “intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests”.

The government of Nazi Germany announced the discovery of mass graves in the Katyn Forest in 1943. When the London-based Polish government-in-exile asked for an investigation by the International Red Cross, Stalin immediately severed diplomatic relations with it. The Soviet Union claimed the victims had been murdered by the Nazis in 1941, and continued to deny responsibility for the massacres until 1990, when it officially acknowledged and condemned the perpetration of the killings by the NKVD, as well as the subsequent cover-up by the Soviet government.

An investigation conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Soviet Union (1990–1991) and the Russian Federation (1991–2004) confirmed Soviet responsibility for the massacres, but refused to classify this action as a war crime or an act of genocide. The investigation was closed on the grounds that the perpetrators of the massacre were already dead, and since the Russian government would not classify the dead as victims of Stalinist repression, formal posthumous rehabilitation was deemed inapplicable.

In November 2010, the Russian State Duma approved a declaration blaming Stalin and other Soviet officials for having personally ordered the massacre









Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on January 17, 2015


Or for being right for that matter. No matter whether there is a gun at your head or you’re about to be sentenced for “Contempt of court”. NEVER bend.

If those you are simply being honest to become irritated with you or decide to launch an attack on you personally, drop them. It may not be your preference and you may still hold them dear but the alternative is to give in to their pressure.

Is this being “stubborn” or is it retaining your integrity?

To me it’s the latter. Always will be.

But remember, if you’re wrong OR you are not 100% assured of your ground, have the grace to compromise.

What happens when you’re very rarely wrong?

Ah! It becomes rather lonely but then you don’t have to listen to shit or put up with it and, as long as you are a being who can be content with their own company. it can work quite well.

It’s never a preference especially when you love rather deeply but if that love means compromising your own integrity, then the love is not sufficiently reciprocated.

‘Uncle’ Joe just Biden his time…

Posted in Paedophilia, Uncategorized by earthling on January 17, 2015

Just to say, I’ve seen other similar kind of posts and videos showing what the uploader suggests is questionable and, generally, I think “ok, we’re stretching a bit here” but this lot just creeped me out.

I think he’s gone just a little (or a lot) too far in his “friendly, touchy feely” way. If they were MY kids I’d have them stand well away from him but then, even if requested, I wouldn’t be in that guy’s company anyhow. I question the families as much as I question him. To want to be in the presence of that guy and part of that “gang”, in my mind, you’d probably let him (if you know what I mean?).

It’s under “paedophilia” by the way because it seems “paedophilia” is “just a love for children” (really? then I must be one right?) and Biden does state outright that he likes children more than people. Interesting that since I have always worked under the assumption that children ARE “people”, “PERSONS”. Hmmm 😉

Tagged with: , ,

Siggy Stardust and the Muslims from Mars

Posted in "Terrorism" by earthling on January 16, 2015

Ok, first thing first: I take 24 hours out for a business trip and, when I arrive home and stop off at my local shop and speak to the woman behind the counter who has as much disdain for our state and the police as I do but doesn’t quite understand (by any stretch of the imagination) what is going on (while I try and feed her elements of it which she listens to and takes onboard); she tells me there’s been another “hit” in Belgium. So excuse me but I have been flying and dealing with shit at the airports security again (and it pissed me off enough to make a scene) and I haven’t had a moment to watch the news or even see a paper.

Next: At the airport on the way out, my shaving cream (Body shop £8, almost full because I just bought it a few weeks ago) was confiscated because it was a tub over 100ml (I think 150ml, not sure but not more). The security person saying it was to be confiscated got a mouthful – not of shaving cream but a very pissed off guy and he said “I can have someone speak to you” and while I stated “What the hell difference will that make?” I said “sure ok.” Of course, you get the same old shite from the “Security higher up the chain of shite guy” and he got the mouthful too.

It went something like this:

“So what are you confiscating my shaving cream for?” as I opened the tub to show him how harmful a dangerous terroristic type substance it was.

“You’re a frequent flyer aren’t you sir?” he asked as he saw my attire and that I was obviously on a business trip.

“Well no actually, I’m not. Well I have been but not since I got back to this god forsaken country which I now hardly recognise as the one I left”

“Well sir, it has been the rules since 2006” as if he considered I had just been out of the country for a short spell and, therefore, I would in fact know.

The fact is that I had taken the exact same airline, from the exact same airport just a matter of weeks before for a trip to Germany AND I had the same bloody tub of cream with me which they saw and never confiscated. I advised him of this (by the way, you can’t get smaller tubs of it so what they’re asking me to do is buy special small tubes of shaving cream just specifically for flying) but he had none of it.

“That would not happen sir” (calling me a liar then and I HATE that!)

“Yes it bloody did” I said as I felt my face go somewhat red with the sheer disdain I was feeling for all these jobsworths.

Anyhow, we moved on as I said: “I’m sick of this bullshit”

“What bullshit is that sir?”

“The bullshit where I have to conform like all the rest of the lemmings who are just wandering through this airport accepting the crap they get fed about a bogeyman called ‘Al Qaeda’ or ‘ISIS'”

“Bullshit sir?

“Yes bullshit and, while it’s not your fault – well part of it is because you take this crap from government and just enforce it because you’re jobsworths – unlike 99.999% of the lemmings walking through here, I’ve had my fill of this shit”

“Well I think I know more about this issue than you sir…since 9/11…” he said and I laughed.

“You’re gonna tell me 9/11 was done by a man in a cave with a laptop and a mobile phone and a bunch of young muslim Saudi Arabian guys with a death wish?”

“Look sir, my personal view of this…”

“Exactly! And you can’t speak about that right because then no job!”

“Sir, what do you wish to do? You can certainly take your bag and check it in with the shaving cream…”

I looked at him and said “Yeah? And pay over £30 for the privilege of taking my own shaving cream with me to my destination? You’re kidding right? Tell me, if this stuff is so dangerous why is it not dangerous in the hold but it is in an overhead locker in the cabin?”

“It’s the rules sir”

“But NOT a law!”

So then I decided ok, I’d check a bag in and pay over $30 because it would be expensed anyhow. Guess what his reaction was? “Oh well no problem then!” Do you see the issue with that?

So I was escorted out of the security and back to the check in by a another guy with a very grim face. I had just said something humorous which I can’t remember for now and I turned to this new guy and said ” Have a sense of humour”

“I don’t possess humour” he flat out retorted and I pissed myself and said “Yep, that was well funny!” – It’s his job you see. Not to have a sense of humour at an airport security if anyone is causing a bit of friction. He’s like one of Buckingham Palace’s guardsmen in that respect. You’ve got to play the game, put on the act and stick with it. You can’t BE real and acknowledge the shite while these people KNOW it’s shite.

However, we get to the check in and guess what? “Bag drop closed 4 minutes ago”. GREAT!

So, I said to the girl behind the counter: “Here, you can have this then (the shaving cream). Give it to your boyfriend, I’m sure he’ll like it. You know the funny thing when I think about it? I left it with her and she didn’t scream “POTENTIAL BOMB! HELP!” You’d think she’d handle the tub very carefully wouldn’t you? You see? They don’t even think about that. You know why?


Last thing on this though is this: I go back through security – you know? Belt off, shoes off, laptop out the case (these fricking x-rays aren’t very good then if they can’t penetrate a laptop and its case!) oh! and the colgate toothpaste and nivea underarm deodorant roll on and yet, on the way back from a different UK airport (obviously but just pointing out it was a UK airport still), I DIDN’T have to take off my shoes! Belt, yes, shoes, no. The reason I’m sure would be “Different kind of x-ray machines”. The point there being – where they tell you it is all law in the UK to remove this that and the next thing (next it will be your trousers of course), it’s not. If it were LAW, it would be precisely the same at all UK airports. But we KNOW it’s not fricking law and we KNOW it’s all SHIT!

Ok, that part of rant over.

Next thing (and the main topic of this particular post:



I don’t know their name so we’ll call them Bill and Ben.

Well, like all UK police (but these guys were actually pretty cool), when a member of the public actually approached them, they are somewhat “surprised” let’s say. A strange affair really but that’s how our boys are.

“Hi guys, do you mind me asking what type of guns those are you have?”

“Sig Sauer 566(?)” – I’m not sure about the number but they were Sig Sauers.

“Ok, to me they look pretty much like an AK47” I said.

“Tell me? If they were AK47’s and you shot a guy in the head from close range – let’s say at most 3 feet – what would happen to his head?”

“It’d blow his head off… an AK47 uses 7.62mm rounds” said Bill (he wasn’t old though he was a younger type of Bill)

“Yeah that’s  what I heard and what I thought” as I smiled sardonically.

Let me tell you – take it or leave it I don’t care – these two Police KNEW exactly what I was on about and I left them with this:

“You know where I’m going with this don’t you?”

They smiled slightly and said “Yes”.

And indeed they did know exactly what I was talking about!

Now, as I went through security and out the other end, there was a podium of sorts (Police again) and a guy sitting by it but not in uniform and I appraoched him too and asked if he was a Policeman to which he replied “Sort of”. Interesting reply isn’t it?

So I said flippantly, “Oh well, MI5 them?” to which he didn’t reply and I didn’t expect him to. Of course he wouldn’t be but you know? I just take none of these buggers seriously anymore.

This guy, however, wasn’t quite as “open” as Bill and Ben.

I said “I’ve just spoken to a couple of cops with Sig Sauers out there about what would happen if they shot someone in the head with an AK47 at close range. What do you suggest would happen?”

His answer: “The bullet would create a very neat hole on entering and a VERY large one on exit”

“So, it would basically blow his skull open?” I said.


Again, I said “So you know what I’m getting at?”

“No.” he replied.

“Paris” I said

“What do you mean?” he asked.

Well, did you see the policeman getting shot?” to which he didn’t actually reply but said

“Well the policeman is dead”

“Really?” I replied, “Did you see the body?”

By this time, this guy was showing slight signs of ‘Ok, I’m not really interested in listening to this’. So I left it at that.

Now, what I’m telling you is this – take it or leave it:

Our Police KNOW. They are not stupid. They know their guns and the effects and Bill and Ben knew fine damn well what I was saying and they very subtly acknowledged it while making damned sure they said nothing to incriminate themselves so to speak.

What I wish to know is:


But then it’s always been the case throughout history hasn’t it?



The Muslims from Mars: They can fly planes and their wings through steel buildings (and their passports can withstand fireballs) and they can shoot guys in the head with special Martian AK47s which don’t leave a trace (while, once more, leaving their identity cards behind in their car). They’ve got spectacular technology, brilliant planning but they’re just not very good at keeping their passports and ID safe.

It’s a funny old world innit?


Son of Pink Floyd!

Posted in Music artists by earthling on January 14, 2015

dunes in Namibia, nearby Walvis Bay

Well, I don’t know if there are many (or any) progressive rock fans out there who may stop by this blog from time to time but, if you do, this may just be a little present for you (or may not).

I’ve been a big Yes, Genesis, Floyd, Rush etc fan in my day but, since these bands have withered away over the past decade or two (more depending who you speak to), I haven’t really stumbled across any real good progressive stuff – maybe I haven’t been looking too hard of course. But this just popped up on my Facebook and, i have to say, I’ve just played it twice and thought “Wow! Now that’s good shit!”.

Dave Kerzner and our Dave is, quite obviously, a big Floyd fan and this and other tracks off this album scream it because you can hear numerous Floyd influences scattered through this track and others. He even has a track called “The Traveller” which, if you’re a Floyd fan, you will recognise straight away which Floyd track influenced it.

So, with that, I hope you enjoy. It’s always a good day when you uncover a little gem.

And a short clip where Kerzner’s talking about what influenced the track “New World” led me to think of Miranda (Eckhart Tolle) so you may just enjoy the music and the messages Miranda. It’s a concept album but then I guess you’d have to buy it! LOL

I just might get around to it.


Just glad he didn’t include the word “Order” in the album name!

Freedom of s….. “Shut the fuck up unless you support the jews!”

Posted in Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on January 14, 2015

ISIS zionist plan

It is now believed that she has been suspended from her position.

The country’s Ministry of Security and Justice and the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV) later said in a statement: “Security and Justice and the NCTV distance themselves from her remarks.

“And since [the comment] relates to the work of the NCTV and the National Cyber Security Center, cause is shown to terminate her assignment NCSC/NCTV and outsource her work with immediate effect.”

However, Ms Haifi said in a radio interview that she refused to withdraw her statements.

She said: “Freedom of expression is apparently only for certain groups.

“I have taken the liberty to express myself and obviously I have to pay for it. I do not know why I should take it down; this is what I think.”

Dutch MPs Joram van Klaveren and Louis Bontes said that they believed that Security and Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten should take action against Ms Haifi.

In a joint statement they said: “A person who propagates such ideas and is working with state secrets could be a threat to national security.

“ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. It’s part of a plan by Zionists who are deliberately trying to blacken Islam’s name”
Yasmina Haifi

IS, an off-shoot of al-Qaeda, has taken control of much of Iraq in recent months including the country’s second largest city of Mosul.

The militant group, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, also controls areas of Syria.

IS is believed to be responsible for brutally killing many of its opponents and images reportedly posted by members of the group posing with decapitated bodies have sent shockwaves around the world.

Many members of the Yazidi community still remain trapped on Iraq’s Mount Sinjar, surrounded by IS militants, prompting Britain to carry out humanitarian action in the area.


BBC reporter




Ch hebdo sacking



Is this a case of “Je suis Chayim!”?

You hypocritical bastards! But you can afford to be right? After all, you’re the only subset of humanity which has it’s own European Parliament set up.

How DO you get away with it?