Earthlinggb's Blog

Frank Zappa – Man of his time…. and ours.

Posted in Law, Politics by earthlinggb on July 31, 2017

Terrible quality but well worth listening to – Great interview with a great mind: You never see that today! He, however, thought the corruption and extortion was peaking in the early 80s with Reagan. I wonder what he’d have to say now.

Whether he said he wasn’t “anti semitic” but, secretly was (and I don’t think he was) or whether he truly wasn’t, I don’t know but I do know his offspring aren’t by the look of things. I simply do not understand how people – even like him – can look around and not see the issue.

I mean, he speaks of the military/industrial complex. He speaks of the educational system and politics etc etc – he “sees” all the symptoms BUT, for some odd reason, although he’s done all his homework (as many of us have), he has never picked up on the people behind it which, if you do this sort of work, it comes and hits you in the face like a double decker bus! However, he is nevertheless, a smart guy. Wish he was still around.

He even refers to Reagan as a “teleprompter president”. Whoa! He hadn’t seen anything yet had he? 🙂

The ADL came after him for this song. They’ll come after anyone for anything of course.

I want a nasty little Jewish Princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish Princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I need a hairy little Jewish Princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish Princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don’t want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish Princess
Who don’t know shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish Princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee that’s snappin’
All up inside
I just want a Princess to ride
Awright, back to the top…everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish Princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish Princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor
(Vapor-lock)

I want a dainty little Jewish Princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish Princess
With Roumanian thighs, who weasels ‘n’ lies
For two or three nights
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites

It reminds me of Alison Chabloz in a way. As Zappa says, the song was based upon mainstream news commentary about a real phenomena called the “jewish Princess”. Well, Alison’s songs are precisely that – commentary on what has been reported openly.

However, the tribe wants its “holocaust denial” laws to be brought in to the UK and the USA and, while the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) initially decided to drop the case against Alison, the “Campaign against Anti Semitism” took out a private prosecution and then the CPS took it on again! Baroness Arbuthnot was the original Judge but recused herself after Alison found photos of her attending a Conservative Friends of Israel gathering a few years back. The Baron Arbuthnot just so happened to be the Head of Conservative Friends of Israel a few years back. So, a conflict of interest. Of course, the fact there is a new judge does not mean there still isn’t a conflict of interest. After all, the CROWN Prosecution is prosecuting and who does any and all judges work for? The Crown! Also, with the number of jewish judges on the Supreme Court, how do you think this is going to work out? And to think that most idiots in this country of ours truly believe we have freedom and freedom of expression etc. It’s sad, it really is. When agenda ridden groups of people can get away – with impunity – with trying to destroy someone’s career and way of making a living (as they have done with Alison), and THAT is not blatantly impinging her human rights? Something is VERY wrong! But then you and I know something is very wrong AND we know from where it stems!

Alison’s last post/comment on her blog was June 22nd this year. Her next court date was June 23rd for discussion on the points of law. Nothing posted since so I imagine she has been advised or told to stop posting anything whatsoever. The actual trial, as I understand, was meant to have been 17th July this year, so just a couple of weeks ago. I do hope (for all our sakes) that this bullshit has been dropped. If not, we have a “war” on our hands and people better start getting savvy to this.

Alison’s song (((Survivors)))

My name is Irene Zisblatt and I come from Hungary (Fact)
Can you believe what evil Nazi bastards did to me (Poetic licence by Alison to describe what Irene is suggesting happened)
They gassed me once, gassed me twice, (According to Zisblatt, this is what happened)
But escape I did (Fact according to Zisblatt)
Over the electric fence (Camp had an electric fence so how else?)
Landed on the train (Reference to Zisblatt’s testimony that she had been saved by a young Sonderkommando (Jewish crematorium worker) who rescued her after she was thrown out of the Krema III gas chamber because the room was too full. He wrapped her in a blanket and tossed her over the 10-foot-high barbed wire fence around Krema III; she landed in an open railroad car of a train that was bound for the Neuengamme concentration camp in Germany.) Incredible strength eh?… And luck!

I saw them taking babies and tearing them in two (According to Zisblatt’s testimony)
And creepy Dr Mengele he removed my tattoo (Again Zisblatt’s testimony)
They tried to turn my brown eyes blue (Zisblatt said that she was one of the prisoners chosen for Dr. Mengele’s medical experiments. Zisblatt said “Mengele was trying to change the color of our eyes. So he injected our eyes and put us in a dungeon in the dark.)

Make lampshades from my skin (Zisblatt’s testimony)
For months I swallowed diamonds (Zisblatt’s testimony)
And shat them out again (Zisblatt’s testimony)

The point here is that Alison is taking Zisblatt’s testimony and simply raising an eyebrow. Why? Well, if you wish to swallow this, be our guest BUT it is your gullibility and naivety which will lead a lot of people who have done their homework on this whole story, into jails – it happens all over Europe and is coming to the UK unless you sit up and take notice and care about something other than Kardashians and other such shite! The rest, regarding the verses, is the same. It is all fact and reported fact. 

Tell us another
Come on, my brother
Repeat the cover
For tribal gain
Safe in our tower
Now is the hour
Money and power
We have no shame

Let’s lie and cheat on film
No one suspects a thing
Bigger the lie is better for us!
Every fake survivor
Every fake survivor’s laughing
Fake survivors’ tongues are wagging
All us frauds are busy blagging
Spin and yarn there’ll be no gagging
You shall pay
All the way
Every night and day!

My name is Elie Wiesel may I show you my tattoo
I wrote a book for US kids to study while at school
It’s full of nonsense tales of course
What do you all expect
But it made me very wealthy
As a liar I’m the best

At Auschwitz they burned
babies tho the water table’s high
Fred Leuchter’s work on ditches well it almost made me cry
Treblinka was a another one
There was no funeral pyre
I cannot speak Hungarian
But oh boy can I lie

History repeats itself
No limit to our wealth
Thanks to your debt we’re
Bleeding you dry
We control your media
Control of your books and TV
With the daily lies we feed you
Suffering victimisation
Sheeple have no realisation
You shall pay…

My name is Otto Frank and my daughter’s name is Anne
The poor girl died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen camp
She wrote an introduction
To her famous diary
The rest was penned by Levin then publishèd by me

Two thousand and sixteen the copyright came to an end
The Anne Frank trust decided once again the rules to bend
We truly had no choice although
The whole thing really stank
But the book now has two authors
Anne and Otto Frank.

Ballpoint pen:

People already knew that the dairy was written with a BIC ballpoint pen, which was only a prototype at that time and was in no way industrialized, let alone sold on the market. They were commercialized in 1951. This already permitted many people to determine the book to be a fraud

Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain in February 2015.
But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by admitting that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a “co-author” after all.

Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences”, said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.”

Bank notes let’s print some more
We love to see you poor
Let’s start a war
Our pockets to line
There is no more doubting
Every nations debt is mounting
While the bankers keep on counting
Pension fund has now gone awol
Nothing left upon your table
You shall pay..

Regarding the choruses, Alison does not, at any time, mention jews – neither in the verses – she is providing commentary on fake individuals (PROVEN fakes) and is then extrapolating from that, there being an “industry” surrounding this entire holocaust story. Is she attributing it to judaism? I see no evidence of that at all! If ANYONE wishes to take out a private prosecution, let it be Irene Zisblatt or any of the other fakes. What has this to do with “Anti semitism” and the Campaign against it? Further: What IS “anti semitism”? To understand that, one MUST ask the question: WHAT IS “SEMITISM”? Because I’ll be damned if I know! Do you? Can you define it? If not, how can ANYONE be accused of being “anti” a non defined word? And if something is truth, then truth NEEDS no legal protection!

You think if you’re not even remotely involved in anything “anti semitic” (how would you know?) then you don’t need concern yourself about this, right?

Well, just wait until they get their oppressive law(s) on this subject and you’ll see, because once they do, it’s game set and match and you’ll then see how “non anti semitic” you will be! The more they get in their favour, the more it will all become apparent to you! Those of us who already know, have had to put time and effort into studying it while you who can’t see it, doze. Once they have it all wrapped up nice and tight however, it WILL become far more apparent even to those who are asleep!

“ First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

OH THE IRONY!

THE BIG LIE!

The propagandised re-education of Germany AND, in fact, the world. You had BETTER believe it or else!

From UK Parliamentary archives…..

“There is a terrible prospect if there exists in this country now even a small body of opinion which will not accept this evidence. For if it is not accepted now there is little chance of its being remembered ten years from now…..

What are the facts? Why were these things clone? My noble friend Lord Addison and I have asked ourselves that question both during our trip and since. Why did not the Germans feed their prisoners sufficiently well to get a full day’s work out of them, and then when they were unfit any longer, from some cause or other, to do that work, shoot them? Why waste food in keeping them going for a few weeks longer? Why all these elaborate arrangements by which they were taken away in trailers to the crematorium and there put into ovens and their bodies burned?

So far as I know, there is only one of these camps, that at Belsen, within the British area; and that is obviously not one which ought to be visited, because it was discovered to be full of typhus, and we do riot want to add to our many problems in occupied Germany by spreading typhus in regions which I hope our troops are going to occupy for many years.

….when things settle down and cinemas are opened, and the curfew, which now operates at six o’clock, comes to an end, the Germans should be compelled to go to the cinemas and see the photographs taken of these camps, taken soon after their occupation by Allied troops. I think that that would be wise.

LORD ADDISON The second reflection in my mind is that if you can intensify the egotism of a nation in twelve years to the extent that the Nazis have done, so that they become regardless of the sufferings of others, that dreadful fact really gives some small ground for hope. It is an illustration of what you can achieve by intensified propaganda. It gives perhaps some little reason to think that if the Allied Nations deliberately arrange for the teaching of opposite doctrines to German children over a long period of years we may begin to have some hope that the national point of view will be improved. But I cannot help thinking that long continued propaganda amongst the Germans that the rights of others must be recognized—prompted and assisted by the occupying authority over a long period of years—will be essential.

In the second place, I consider that the Allied Nations must set up an organization which contemplates the occupation of Germany and its deliberate re-education over a long period of years. How successful that will be is a matter upon which we can only speculate. But one is impressed by the fact that well-directed, sustained propaganda, in these days, while on the one side it is an immense danger, does also, on the other side, present a certain degree of hope. It affords us ground for hoping that we may be able, with the aid of propaganda, if it is well directed, gradually to change the point of view of the German children during a long period of years. I feel no reason whatever to hope that the world will be secure in the future unless, at the same time as force is applied to prevent the recurrence of war, there is a deliberate and sustained endeavour to re-educate the German people and to remould their minds.”

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/uk-parliament-archives-no-gas-chambers-german-re-education/

Only agenda filled liars in the British courts and politics can maintain that there is no evidence to justify people questioning this entire story.

The question is: WHAT does this tribe really have on our politicians and court system? It must be something big!

 

 

Advertisements

A worldwide audience I’d like to hear from

Posted in Uncategorized by earthlinggb on July 28, 2017

Just a quick note to my readers: I get views from just about every country on the planet and yet, I hear from very very few of you. Close to zero in fact. There was a time I got comments on my posts but then I “dropped out” for a while (life can be an issue at times). I may drop out again from time to time. It can be exhausting writing these and doing the necessary research and preparation and sourcing to publish them. I’d very much like to hear your views whether you’re from the UK, the US, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Isle of Man, Australia, Singapore, India, Chile, Israel, France, Brazil, Canada, Japan, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Romania, Italy, Holland, wherever on the planet you are. You’re all very welcome and while I may not be able to answer every comment (some may not need a reply) I do read them and will answer whenever and wherever I can.

I do know law enforcement, military personnel and others read this from time to time. YOU may not get a reply unless you prove yourself, somehow, enlightened, but as for everyone else, we’re all in this boat together and whether we may disagree on elements or not, we do have a shared issue and a shared enemy. So your input is very welcome.

Open letter to Charlie Gard’s parents…..

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 27, 2017

I realise that, perhaps, there will be many people who may read this who have never visited my website before and, on further reading of blogs within it, will be outraged at some of the writings in it. I’d simply say: Do not judge until you were to understand or appreciate the research, study AND personal experiences which have gone into writing this blog. I am unrepentant for writing about substantial facts and my own opinions having extrapolated from those facts. However, if Charlie Gard’s parents or others who read, are “good, conservative, law abiding citizens”, are too busy with their lives and really just think “Oh god! Another ‘conspiracy theorist’ with a website who loves to think he knows the secret of the universe and nobody else does – just him”; and, therefore, can’t be bothered to read, consider very carefully and understand, then so be it. Also, if ANYONE chooses to form the opinion that I am “ANTI SEMITIC”, then first do me the courtesy of defining what it is to be “SEMITIC”. Once you do that, I shall honestly answer whether, in fact, I AM “anti semitic”. If you say something as inane as “it means you hate jews” then, no, I refute that allegation. I DISTRUST jews, yes, but I cannot state that I hate (or even distrust) ALL jews because I have never met ALL jews. My distrust stems from years of both, direct experience of them (although it is not only jews I distrust) and from my study of history and extrapolating facts related to such history that we were never taught – nor were many elements of history which were “flavoured” significantly by jewish manipulation. When you then study the nature and creation of the State (particularly the British State), it becomes clear as to why such elements were never discussed and taught in or out of schools.

I have been ranting on this “legal person” issue for years and yet, in comparison to articles about David Bloody Icke and friends (I should really delete those articles because I get sick of seeing how many people read them rather than read the serious articles which impact them FAR more significantly) it gets very little attention YET it fundamentally affects each and everyone of us in such a “biblically” negative fashion – IF people took the time…… ah but there I go again thinking there is the possibility that the majority of people may actually apply themselves to understanding why their lives are such a misery!

CHARLIE GARD: HIS “PARENT” IS THE STATE

The following “Guardian” article is as clear as day. It is pointing directly at what many people, who have an understanding of this dreadful fraud of the “legal person”, have been trying, desperately, to get the world to understand for years now. But it would appear the world simply doesn’t wish to know – ignorance is bliss and all that. But HOW “blissful” is your life? If ignorance is bliss, why do you complain? Why do you vote? What are you voting for if ignorance is bliss? You must be ignorant of what the government is doing to you surely? You’re not? Ah! Then that would suggest that you don’t like to be ignorant and you see what you don’t like so wish to change it and, therefore vote! But what if voting didn’t change anything? After centuries of having a vote, where are we? We’re here, in a world which is in a spiralling decline – a decline of living standards for many while a very small fraction of the world’s population grows ever increasingly more affluent (and that percentage of the population itself, forever decreases); a decline of morality and an increase in depravity; increasing divisions between people; “law” that simply does not work (for the common man); I could go on but….

I’d like you to consider something: What is far more important to the State? A single child’s life OR State authority? Keep bearing this in mind as you read this entire blog article.

The author of this Guardian article – whether he appreciates it or not – “plays” with the reader in a sense. He (“he”, assuming that is his gender preference – you can’t be too careful these days can you?) provides an example of the State (in New Zealand), in another instance, making a child, whose parents had decided they wanted care for their child to be withdrawn (turn off the ventilator), a “ward of the state” and the state decided to allow the child to live. So he’s suggesting “you can’t have it both ways” and that the State is the arbiter of all that is good. He adds “This process depends of course on acceptance of the SUPREMACY of reasoned argument over passion and the acceptance of the INDEPENDENCE AND AUTHORITY of the courts”. But while he points to these two separate judgements – thereby suggesting “each case is judged on the court’s dispassionate merits – what he omits is a “judgement” which is even more profound than a court’s arbitrary decision. That is: IS LIFE SACRED? He doesn’t touch on this because that would then make his argument re the “authority of the courts” redundant. Do you see this?

However, let’s concentrate on the first issue: The court decides to let a child die and the court decides to let a child live. Considering the rights of the child is being heralded by the author, Mr Kennedy, in support of the courts and the State, one must remember that the “Rights of the Child” are adopted from the “highest court” in the world; that is to say the Articles of Declaration of HUMAN Rights (and let us ignore, for the moment, the deception of such an article which I have previously blogged about and will refer to later):

Right to life

1Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

The above is taken from the United Kingdom’s adoption of the Human Rights Act of the United Nations. There is a lot which can be discussed in this one article and I have, previously done so. However, for now, look carefully and THINK carefully: Does it state, anywhere, that a living, breathing child (or adult) may have his or her life extinguished merely because they are disabled in any way? No, it does not. Does it state or even suggest that a child whose chances of life are small, should be allowed to just die in accordance with the dictate of a court (or anyone for that matter)? No, it does not. By disallowing a human being to fight for his/her own life, the court is effectively murdering that human being. There is NO argument here – and remember, this is in accordance with their OWN “law”.

However, the court will never accept this allegation of murder by them and there is a “lawful” reason as to why which might just surprise (or shock) you. Did the court DIRECTLY murder Charlie Gard? No. However, it has purposefully, but INDIRECTLY murdered him. The child is going to die without medical intervention. Would he die WITH medical intervention? We don’t know. Noone does for sure but the Court dictates that the child is given no chance. Life, therefore, is not sacred to this court.

What does the jewish Talmud say?:

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, ‘one must not lift one’s hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice (i.e. it is acceptable to cause death by indirect means).., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly’. He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile’s death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews. A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.

I have done my research and I can assure you that “British Law” is composed of huge swathes of Talmudic Law.

Do you think this is just more “anti semitism” on my part? Well, perhaps it is. If “semitism” is equated with judaical teaching from their Talmud then it certainly is. Consider the following (originally from “semiticcontrversies.blogspot”:

Jewish and Zionist Influence at the UK Supreme Court
The UK Supreme Court that was created in 2009 has been in the news lately, because it is to make a decision as to whether the British government can proceed with negotiating Brexit without consulting parliament on each and every element of the terms of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

This however is just the latest in a series of major decisions that the UK Supreme Court has been asked to make. Indeed it has already been criticised for acting less like a court, but rather like a powerful unacknowledged and unelected legislative body. (1)

Since the UK Supreme Court is therefore rather powerful – or at least perceived to be so – then it is of interest to examine the extent of jewish and Zionist influence therein.

In the first instance it is important to note that as early as 2010 it was disclosed that being a member of pro-Israel lobbying groups is not regarded as bias (and therefore a conflict of interest) by the court. (2) This obviously does not bode well since it necessarily suggests that the members of UK Supreme Court have special reason (i.e. they are jewish and/or pro-Israel themselves) not to regard pro-Israel lobbying as a form of bias when it clearly is.

When we examine the eleven current members of the UK Supreme Court; (3) we find that only one is in fact jewish.

This is its current president: David Neuberger. (4) Who is the brother of the prominent liberal Zionist rabbi Julia Neuberger. (5) Who also happens to be the spiritual leader of Terence Etherton’s, the current Master of the Rolls and one of the judges who rejected the government’s Brexit case, synagogue. (6)

Neuberger has also previously admitted that he only ‘skims the files’ of the cases that he is sent. (7)
Despite the fact that only one of the eleven members of the Supreme Court is jewish. Three of the current members hold pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist views or strong connections to those who do.

These individuals are follows.

Brenda Hale, Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court, who was the leader of the British-Israeli Legal Exchange in 2010. (8) In the same year she spoke of her admiration for Israel. In addition to stating that Germany should always feel guilty for the ‘Holocaust’ (and similarly South Africa is eternally guilty for the crime of Apartheid), while Israel should continue using it as a weapon to drum up more funds and support for its policies. (9)

Oh and did I mention that she also wants women to be given preferential treatment over better qualified men in order to enforce ‘diversity’ when the current UK Supreme Court members step down? (10)

Clearly Hale doesn’t have any kind of political agenda at all… does she?

Next we have Jonathan Mance whose current judicial assistant is one Jacob Turner.

In the UK Supreme Court blog Turner describes his previous work history as follows:

‘Prior to becoming Judicial Assistant, Jacob was a solicitor-advocate in the London office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, where he specialised in international litigation and arbitration with a focus on sovereign clients. He previously worked as a law tutor at Oxford and King’s College London and at the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations in New York, as a consultant legal advisor and speechwriter to the Ambassador. He studied at Oxford and Harvard Universities. Outside of the law, he enjoys playing sport and writing.’ (11)

Right… so why on earth is a former ‘consultant legal advisor and speechwriter’ for Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations the judicial assistant of a member of the UK’s Supreme Court?

How on earth is that not a direct conflict of interest or suggestive of the fact that Turner’s loyalty is to Israel not to the United Kingdom?

Then we have Nicholas Wilson who, in a case he himself cites as proof of his ideological and ethical convictions, decided that a young quarter-jewish girl had to be raised a family of purely jewish descent, because otherwise her jewishness would be lost. (12)

Wilson is also a major proponent of forcing the British people to accept ‘gay marriage’ and was part of the 2014 legal ruling which allowed homosexuals to ‘fully marry’ and not just have a form of ‘weakened marriage’ (aka a civil union). (13)

Adding Hale’s love of Israel, Mance’s Israeli Judicial Assistant and Wilson’s extreme philo-Semitism to Neuberger’s influence as President of the Supreme Court makes the overt pro-Israel/pro-jewish bloc four out of the eleven members.

The only real foe of this bloc looks to be Jonathan Sumption who is a vocal opponent of both enforced diversity in the legal profession (14) and of the concept of ‘collective guilt’ practised by the jews against both the Germans and Palestinians. (15)

In addition to this; two individuals have been tipped to be the next appointments to the UK Supreme Court when there are vacancies. These prospective appointees are Victoria Sharp and Heather Hallett. (16)

Victoria Sharp is jewish, (17) while Heather Hallett is, like Brenda Hale, an advocate of enforced ‘diversity’ in the legal profession. (18)

Thus we have another jew who is likely to sit on the Supreme Court as soon as one of the existing judges retires, which – given the ages of those concerned – is not likely to be one of the pro-Israel/pro-jewish bloc. Therefore in all probability making five out of eleven members of the court being jewish and/or pro-Israel.

This scale of jewish influence on the UK Supreme Court is nothing new. Since in 2010, one year after its creation, four out of the eleven members were jewish. (19)

These individuals were:

Lawrence Collins; (20) who believes, among other things, that there is no time or numerical limit on what Germany should pay Israel and the jewish people in ‘Holocaust Reparations’ and is an influential advocate of continued (and eternal) financial reparations from non-jews to jews for alleged atrocities. (21)

Nicholas Phillips; (22) who was, before his retirement from the post, the President of Supreme Court from 2009 to 2012 (i.e. the post has been consecutively occupied by two jews Phillips and Neuberger) and wanted to introduce Sharia into the UK as a parallel legal system. (23)
Simon Brown (24)

John Dyson; (25) who then became the Master of Rolls between 2012 and 2016 (26) when the post was taken over by his fellow jew Terence Etherton. (27)

So in other words four out of the nine former members of the UK Supreme Court have been jews.

This then gives us the figure that out of the twenty individuals that have been on the UK Supreme Court five have been jewish, while another three of the non-jews have been pro-Israel and a likely future appointee to the court is jewish.

Considering that they are half a percent of the UK population: (28) why have a quarter of all the members of the UK Supreme Court been jewish?

Think about it.

References

(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11951936/Our-top-judges-have-become-too-powerful-we-need-to-rein-them-in.html
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jun/07/religion-judiciary-supreme-court
(3) http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37874388
(4) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157838
(5) https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/14/afua-hirsch-lord-neuberger
(6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3610687/Ex-Olympic-fencer-Sir-Terence-Etherton-Master-Rolls.html
(7) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11028942/Lord-Neuberger-Britains-most-senior-judge-admits-he-doesnt-read-all-papers-in-a-case.html
(8) https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/pr_1006.pdf
(9) https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech_100507.pdf
(10) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/02/lady-hale-supreme-court-calls-diversity
(11) http://ukscblog.com/a-week-in-the-life-of-a-judicial-assistant-part-1-jacob-turner-judicial-assistant-to-lord-mance/
(12) http://www.divorceandthecity.co.uk/meet-the-judges/lord-nicholas-allan-roy-wilson-wilson-of-culworth/; https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-141113.pdf
(13) http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37874388
(14) http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rush-for-gender-equality-with-top-judges-could-have-appalling-consequences-for-justice-a2952331.html
(15) http://www.economist.com/node/12339527
(16) http://www.legalcheek.com/2016/03/lady-justices-hallett-and-sharp-tipped-to-join-baroness-hale-at-top-of-the-judiciary/
(17) Frederick Wright, 2015, ‘Solicitor v. the Establishment’, 3rd Edition, Self-Published: London, p. 145
(18) https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/5-august-2013/boys-club-justice-is-second-rate/
(19) http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/29975/new-supreme-court-justice-lord-dyson
(20) Ibid.
(21) Cf. Lawrence Collins, 2008, ‘Reflections on Holocaust Claims in International Law’, Israel Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 402-442; also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553840/Brief-encounters.html
(22) http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/how-jewish-is/how-jewish-lord-chief-justice-phillips
(23) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html
(24) http://www.thejc.com/arts/theatre/28981/how-a-clash-between-a-couple-toffs-led-birth-israel ; http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/77172/lord-dyson-named-new-master-rolls
(25) http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/29975/new-supreme-court-justice-lord-dyson
(26) http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/77172/lord-dyson-named-new-master-rolls
(27) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/master-of-the-rolls-sir-terence-etherton
(28) http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/94111/census-2011-the-jewish-breakdown

Now consider this Guardian Article:

“The dominant, indeed almost universal, approach to date in the UK has been to pay no heed whatsoever to the religious and/or cultural background of those who are appointed to the Bench, albeit that the Jewish Chronicle reports in brief that the appointment of Sir John Dyson to the UK Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by Lord Neuberger’s appointment as Master of the Rolls maintains the number of Jewish justices on the court at four.”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jun/07/religion-judiciary-supreme-court

Now, think VERY carefully about what is happening here. Do NOT make the mistake of believing that these judges’ PERSONal philosophies and religions do not influence their decisions! While, also do not overlook this: The make up of a court is of PERSONS. PERSONS are “equal before the law” we are given to believe in (haha – this is the biggest joke going) yet THESE PERSONS philosophies of life are being given more importance than YOURS! These PERSONS judge YOUR PERSON! This is where the “Supremacy of law” and Ian Kennedy’s “We must acknowledge the authority of our courts” comes in. They desperately must have you believe in that authority! Yet, as is obvious, the JEWISH CHRONICLE likes (very much) that jews occupy significant seats of power within not only our judiciary but in every nook and cranny of British (and American) life. IF their philosophy and religion is NOT of importance (which our media and judiciary would like us all to believe) then WHY is it so important to jews and the jewish chronicle? Answer: Because it IS important!

If you refuse to acknowledge that which is clear, then what can I do but simply roll my eyes in despair!

Returning to the Declaration of human rights:

Now, compare the above British version of “Right to life” with the UN Article from whence it came:

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

A noticeable difference don’t you think? Where is the U.N.’s version of paragraph 2 regarding “Deprivation of life”? Nowhere to be seen! Make no mistake: Such a difference is immense!

But here is another thing: That word “PERSON”. Here is another article in the U.N.’s Declaration:

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

It does not state “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere before the law” which, if one reads it, is entirely understandable as stated. It does not need anything added to it for anyone to appreciate fully what it means. So then WHY does it not simply say that instead of “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”?

Answer: BECAUSE A “PERSON” IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!

A PERSON IS A LEGAL FICTION WHICH IS ENTIRELY CREATED BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND, AS SUCH, IS ENTIRELY CONTROLLED BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND STATE!

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]
HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM

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

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/science-fiction-or-legal-fiction/

Now, whether we in the UK (or the US or any other State) wish to consider ourselves “Subjects” or “Citizens” matters not: As “legal persons” we are all subject to the whims of the State. The State NEVER will relinquish its power. NEVER! It ensures such by, ironically, the very Articles of “Human Rights” it deceptively allows you to think protect YOU! How does it do this? By Paragraph 2 (c) of the article “Right of Life” which then justifies deprivation of life (i.e. MURDER). Read it again:

(c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

What is an “insurrection”?

“an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.”

Who decides what constitutes such an act?

The State!

The fact is, this entire blog of mine – if the State so wished and considered it to be a threat to its existence – could consider (and would) the blog to be an act of revolt, rebellion or resistance against it. In fact, it is not outwith the bounds of reason that that day will come! IF the State starts to lose control to any extent it feels it cannot recover from without taking such action.

Another irony. The preamble to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights states as follows:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

The irony being that each and every STATE, which has adopted the UN articles, have included paragraph 2 (c) to allow them to use those very barbarous acts against each and every “person” who may threaten them and, by so doing, they have protected their right – as a “person”, because a State is ALSO a “person”, to protect itself from you! Do you recognise the convoluted brilliance in this? It is almost magical in its brilliance! I really have to tip my hat to them – it’s astoundingly brilliant!

Now, I recognise, with the above, I have, on the face of it, wandered off course but, in reality (and if you can decipher all of this) you will recognise that, in fact, I haven’t but have just expanded on the same issue which impacts Charlie Gard and his parents. Charlie Gard’s parents are legal persons and, therefore, subject to the State. Charlie Gard’s parents’ marriage is a legal contract whose main beneficiary is – you’ve go it – the State.

But back to Charlie specifically:

We’ve looked at the UN’s articles of Human Rights and seen that there is nowhere (either in the UNs version OR the British State’s version) which justifies the State (or the parents for that matter IF they had wished to) being allowed to stop a human being from attempting to hold on to life. Further, however, we must ask an even more critical question which Ian Kennedy of the Guardian does not consider in his “one court allowed life, another disallowed life” based on some “supremacy of  the dispassionate, reasoned argument and independence and authority of the courts” – the man is certainly not an anarchist! 🙂

That question is this: IS LIFE SACRED?

In answer to this, from the political, legal and current sociological world, you will get conflicting answers. Not only from separate players within it but from each individual player. For example, let’s ask the question of George Bernard Shaw:

Two things:

  1. The reference to Naziism and the holocaust: Ignore, It is not the point. Furthermore, so much of that is in dispute, whether you agree or not. The point is Shaw’s words.
  2. You may consider this just some old “twat” of a man’s viewpoint which has no bearing on today. You could not be more wrong.

A third thing may be to consider and appreciate that “The State” is not only your politicians and those who you consider to be your representatives in government. “The State” is not even that abominable monarch we call the Queen and all her little “rats” that keep churning out lifeforms who, simply by their existence, have rights you could only dream of. “The State” consists of, not only those but, perhaps even moreso, the powers that form the opinion and legislation that you see the people you THINK are “The State” implementing. These people include people like Bill Gates today, Christiana Figueres (UN), religious leaders, bankers (the $billion club) etc etc.

You might say “But the world IS overpopulated!”

But you’re wrong. What IS overpopulated is certain landmasses and, particularly, cities. And it is by design. However, once more, we wander off subject (while, again, it is entirely related). I could literally take you a journey from one global issue to another – sociological, legal, military, global economics and money; almost whatever subject you care to discuss – and relate it back to the legal person. It is very difficult not to stray when you have, in your head, a multitude of connections which build the “jigsaw” to the point of seeing the “big picture” which confronts the human race.

“Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.” – J Edgar Hoover. In its correct context, taken from “The Elks Magazine” (August 1956), he is speaking of communism, however, when one reflects on the fact that communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin (if you have done any significant research, you will appreciate this. If not, I can’t help you other than suggest you educate yourself), one appreciates that the conspiracy transcends political ideology fed to us to make us believe in choice and, as such, is even more monstrous than Hoover suggests.

So, with that, I would point any and all readers of this – IF you have the interest and capacity to consider carefully what the following articles are laying out as plainly as I possibly can AND if you have more than a 10 second concentration span and are happy to read and not just let youtube videos wash over you – to earnestly give their time and attention to the following. There are many more related articles in this blog if you wish to look for them but these two are among the most important:

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-human-rights-act-deception/

If you thought that one was long, try this one:

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/columbia-law-review-supports-earthling-re-human-rights-and-persons/

However, with the state of education today, too many people think they can have others explain things to them in a Facebook post! Sorry, but when something is as deeply rooted and “protected” and hidden as this, I’m afraid an 8 second soundbite just doesn’t cover it. If you’re too lazy (or too stupid) to apply yourself to understanding then get the hell off this blog! It’s NOT for you!

And don’t forget the girl who didn’t exist ok? Jade Jacobs Brooks. There’s been a few others around the world (and there are tons more in 3rd world countries and the like of Palestine – probably why Israel gets away with murdering so many – “they don’t exist”. Why? Well, they have no birth certificates and, thereby, are non legal persons and thereby, again, have no “human rights” – oh yes this “rabbit hole” is deep!

UNFORTUNATELY FOR CHARLIE GARD, HE DID EXIST (IN THE LEGAL WORLD) HAVING HAD A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. HAD HE NOT HAD ONE, THE LEGAL WORLD AND COURTS COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED HIM FROM SEARCHING OUT A POSSIBLE LIFE SAVING OPERATION. THEN AGAIN, HOWEVER, WITHOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HE WOULDN’T EXIST AND, THEREFORE, HOW WOULD HE COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? AND WOULD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE CARED IF HE DID? ALSO, LIKE JADE JACOBS BROOKS, HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TRAVEL WITHOUT THAT “HUMAN RIGHT” (or is it “legal person’s privilege?) TO TRAVEL WHICH IS ONLY BESTOWED ON THOSE WHO MAY GAIN A PASSPORT.

Your life is your own but your legal existence belongs to the Crown! Remember that!

You cannot participate in “The Game of life” (or “Monopoly”) without your board piece. That “piece” being your Birth certificate and the “board” belongs to the Crown just as you do!

The immense irony: Charlie, you are going to die because you exist!

Grenfell Tower your time was up!

Posted in Agenda 21 by earthlinggb on July 18, 2017

No comment…..

The BIG lie

Posted in Uncategorized by earthlinggb on July 13, 2017

What is a constant irritation to me within the so called “truth movement” is the so many references to Hitler’s statement “The bigger the lie….” and those people who then promulgate the idea that, because Hitler made such a statement, he was the liar. It is a perfect example of a quote taken completely out of context. Now, don’t get me wrong. Just as I don’t believe Gaddafi or Hussein or any world leader (that includes May and Trump and includes non leaders also such as Nigel Farage) were/are angels – they’re all ruthless and playing the game; “The Grand chessboard” and being influenced by others far more powerful than them) neither do I think Hitler was. While I may write about him and, many times, agree with him, I do not “idolise” him as I do not idolise anyone (I’m far too long in the tooth for that). What I shall always do, however, is try to put records straight when they go awry. The quote by Hitler is one of those examples.

Mein Kampf

In chapter 10 of Mein Kampf: “Causes of the collapse” (of the Reich, prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor), Hitler writes the following:

It required the whole bottomless falsehood of the jews and their Marxist fighting organisation to lay the blame for the collapse on that very man who alone, with superhuman energy and will power, tried to prevent the catastrophe he foresaw and save the nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. By branding Ludendorff as guilty for the loss of the World War, they took the weapon of the moral right from the one dangerous accuser who could have risen against the traitors to the fatherland. In this, they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very shake humanity to the foundations, the other slowly and bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposefully evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of those causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick – a fact which all the great lie virtuosi and lying clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.

The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the rise of falsehood and slander have always been the Jews; for after all, their whole existence is based on one single great lie, to wit, that they are a religious community while actually they are a race – and what a race! One of the greatest minds of humanity has nailed them forever as such in an eternally correct phrase of fundamental truth: he called them ‘the great masters of the lie’. And anyone who does not recognise this or does not want to believe it will never in this world be able to help the truth to victory.

The ever present irony of so many of our taught understanding of Hitler and the allegations made toward him, is that such allegations are brought about by the very people he was talking about! This “people” however, forever count on the goyim’s stupidity, ignorance and lack of knowledge through a lack of reading and real education. Yes, many at higher echelons of society know these truths but, let’s face reality here: If they were ever to speak of it in more than a whisper, they would be dealt with either personally or professionally or both. This maintains the silence while another irony is present: The very treatment by those who make the allegations toward Hitler, toward the Palestinians. It never ceases to amaze me how they simply have to say “if you criticise us, you are anti semitic and we will hound you” and they get a “pass” and everyone shuts up. It’s a special kind of “magic” these people weave don’t you think?

As an aside – another total misrepresentation which these people make (in their press/media and through their voice boxes we all have in our western governments) is that the muslim believes us all to be “infidels” and worthy of death. It is a blatant lie (once more) and one which I would wish the muslim community, across the world, would speak up about. In the quran, it is clearly and unambiguously stated that christians and jews who believe, truthfully, in God (and remember, all three religions share the God of Abraham – let’s ignore the jewish version who didn’t have a son called Jesus) are NOT considered “infidels”. It is only atheists and deceptive (lying) “religionists” who are considered so. This is something western leaders use (your ignorance) – such as George W Bush did for example – to have you believe that muslims believe anyone who is not muslim IS an “infidel”. In Islam, ALL believers are equal – NOT true in the judaic teachings. In jewish belief, if you are not jewish, you are goyim and goyim will, ultimately, be slaves to the jew. Further, the jew does not deem as acceptable, usury BUT this is only the case between jews. With all other “goyim”, usury is perfectly acceptable. Now get this straight in your mind: IF usury is NOT acceptable between jews, it is because they KNOW the practice is evil. Christianity once knew this too. In Islam, usury is termed “Riba” and the muslims still hold that riba is evil. We christians have been completely dumbed down and it is our ignorance which kills us. It is also that we do not have a culture which, like the jews (and, to an extent, many other cultures), protect and choose one another over a non christian. Christianity and “Jesus” have been bred out of us by constant ridicule while the jews (and, to an extent, the muslims – and this is why jews want islam attacked. This is why the jews and their western, christian and atheist counterparts talk of “muslim extremists” and “moderate muslims”. A moderate muslim is then like a moderate christian – hardly muslim at all) feverishly maintain their “clan” and their jewish identity. If you wish to talk about “identity politics”, you can’t get any more extreme than the jews. They are playing christians and muslims off against one another while we wander about on this earth like lemmings wondering what’s going on in this world. It’s as clear as day what’s going on when you take the time to LOOK!

For instance – The Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 30s, before Hitler took power. Here is a Daily Mail article which tells you, quite clearly (if you have the brainpower to recognise it) what all this “LGBTQ” stuff is about and the growing (slowly and quietly) acceptance of paedophilia as a sexual preference. The SAME people behind it in Weimar Germany are the SAME people behind it now!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2847643/Berlin-liberal-hotbed-homosexuality-mecca-cross-dressers-transsexuals-male-female-surgery-performed-Nazis-came-power-new-book-reveals.html

Now, by all means, if you want homosexuality, trans-sexuality etc and you’re a freak or pervert, go ahead and support it. When it comes to the point (and it’s getting closer and closer) where the world is so sick and decadent that you can’t take anymore, you’re going to call out for a guy like Hitler whether you believe that or not. But, when society eventually does turn against your decadence and deviance, I will not shed a tear for you. In fact, when the boot comes down on all you paedos out there, I’d be happy for it to be MY boot. Particularly if you amble around in Westminster.

Now, while on the subject of Hitler and jews, I want to bring your attention to the Swastika. This is an article I am sure many of you will not have seen before – perhaps some of you have but I guess it will be few.

This article is not from a christian periodical or a Nazi one; It is from “The Canadian Jewish Chronicle” 1940.

Surprise?

Read the article very carefully because you can easily gloss over some things. Note, it states that, in Galilee, many jewish temples and synagogues were found with swastikas on them. However, it goes on to say that it is believed that those synagogues were built during the initial centuries of the CHRISTIAN era. Note also that the swastika was used all over the world from very early days. The article is trying to suggest it was, originally, a jewish symbol however, it is far more likely the jews adopted it as did many others. Why? Perhaps because it has immense spiritual/religious meaning inherent within it. Hitler would certainly NOT adopt a jewish symbol for his reich. It is far more likely that, because he did adopt the swastika, we have been “re-eductaed” to believe it is a symbol of hate rather than what its true, original symbology means.

Perhaps it DOES represent the Sun. Once more, however, you can rest assured that the race which calls itself “jewish” have corrupted it as they do everything else which is truth.

Who was Allen Klein?

Posted in Money, Music artists, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on July 12, 2017

Well, of course, Beatles fans will know WHO he was but I wonder how many even think about WHAT he was?

I’ve never really done a LOT of research into the Beatles because I’ve never really been a huge fan of theirs. However, it’s interesting when you do look at some of the characters who were involved with their business aspects. For example, you had, early on of course, their Manager, Brian Epstein: In 1997, Paul McCartney said, “If anyone was the Fifth Beatle, it was Brian.” Epstein, of course, was a jew.

The Beatles’ unquestioning loyalty to Epstein later proved detrimental, as the band rarely read contracts before signing them. Shortly after the song “Please Please Me” rose to the top of the charts in 1963, Epstein advised the creation of Northern Songs, a publishing company that would control the copyrights of all Lennon–McCartney compositions recorded between 1963 and 1973. Music publisher Dick James and his partner Charles Silver owned 51-percent of the company, Lennon and McCartney each owned 20%, and Epstein owned 9%. Epstein would know fine well what he was doing of course. Unsurprisingly, Epstein was also gay.

Brian Epstein (far left) with the Beatles

In 1964 Allen Klein approached the Beatles’ manager, Brian Epstein, with an offer for the Beatles to sign with RCA for $2 million but Epstein wasn’t interested, saying that he was loyal to EMI. After Epstein died in August 1967, in January 1968 the group formed Apple Corps, which they announced in May 1968. They hoped it would provide the means for correcting Epstein’s unfortunate business decisions, which had both limited their incomes and ensured high tax burdens. Although “Hey Jude”, the Beatles’ first Apple release, was an enormous success, the label itself was a money pit, with little accountability for how money was being spent.

Klein contacted John Lennon after reading his press comment that the Beatles would be “broke in six months” if things continued as they were. On January 26, 1969 he met with Lennon, who retained Klein as his financial representative, and the next day met with the other Beatles. Paul McCartney preferred to be represented by Lee and John Eastman, the father and brother respectively of McCartney’s girlfriend Linda, whom he married on March 12. Given a choice between Klein and the Eastmans, George Harrison and Ringo Starr preferred Klein. Following rancorous London meetings with both Eastmans, in April Klein was appointed as the Beatles’ manager on an interim basis, with the Eastmans being appointed as their attorneys. Continued conflict between Klein and the Eastmans made this arrangement unworkable. The Eastmans were dismissed as the Beatles’ attorneys, and on May 8 Klein was given a three-year contract as the business manager of the Beatles. McCartney refused to sign the contract but was out-voted by the other Beatles.

Despite their initial enthusiasm to have him appointed to handle the Beatles’ affairs, both Harrison and John Lennon subsequently became disenchanted with Klein. Harrison’s “Beware of Darkness” from his All Things Must Pass album contained the lyric “beware of ABKCO” in an early demo version; while Lennon’s “Steel and Glass” from the 1974 Walls And Bridges album is also a thinly veiled dig at Klein. In early 1973 the former Beatles served notice that they would not be renewing Klein’s management contract when it expired in March. Klein sued the Beatles and Apple in New York, and they sued him in London.

Suffice to say there is more to the story however, the point is Klein was born in Newark, New Jersey, the fourth child and only son of Jewish immigrants. That says it all. Never trust a Pharisee! No matter what they promise you!

Klein with John & Yoko.

 

John admitting McCartney was right….

 

 

The biggest mistake a man ever makes

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 12, 2017

Oh I know, “Earthling, you’re just bitter due to what happened to you” (If I ever told the full story, however, your jaw would drop).

However, no, this is not about Earthling and about a decade ago etc etc. This is just Earthling saying “thank god others are beginning to pick up on the ‘law’ issue; not from an ‘academic’ viewpoint but in how it relates, directly, to their lives.

The legal personality, the contracts with the state, the lack of full disclosure BY the state as to what people are getting themselves into (which, by the way, makes ANY contract void – EXCEPT, of course, with the state because the state is a coercer. That’s precisely how the state works).

 

So, while I have my issues with the make up of women like John here (through vast experience of many); it is the STATE where my real beef lies. Women are being manipulated by the state to think they are as good or better and should be “idolised” by men. Women, generally, aren’t that smart. However, men haven’t been that smart either but it is the STATE which manipulates it all (as they do terrorism; as they do money and economy and anything else you can imagine – racism, sexuality, the whole thing).

A few articles I’ve posted in the past around this subject of law, contracts, state deception etc…..

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-human-rights-act-deception/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/u-n-inadvertently-confirms-freeman-concept/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/science-fiction-or-legal-fiction/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/columbia-law-review-supports-earthling-re-human-rights-and-persons/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-natural-person-and-the-matrix/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/goddamnit-its-your-children/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/the-war-on-dads/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/is-caitlyn-jenner-a-murderer/

The moral (and reality) is that you can never win against the court system because the court system created the rules. The ONLY way of beating the court system is by logic because, by logic, you expose the bullshit the law is. However, the court system does not (and cannot ever) allow these pieces of “gold” (logic) to be used against it. This is why the so called “freemen” will never win the battle. The battle will ONLY be won when, somehow, the logical fallacies and fictions used in law are exposed significantly. Perhaps by a MGTOW community in large numbers?

Can Garlic or a Cross repel a nuclear blast?

Posted in Science by earthlinggb on July 11, 2017

I think I’ve found out how Neil Armstrong and friends just may have been able to fly through the Van Allen belts with no issue. So perhaps we DID go to the moon after all? (Not!)

Perhaps not only freemasons but perhaps Neil, Buzz etc were all jesuits?

Isn’t the following VERY odd? It would appear the jesuits ARE on top and the jews just tucked in underneath because the jews need texts to advise them to get the hell out of the way when something is about to “go down” while the jesuits don’t need to. The latter are completely immune! OR (and it’s a BIG “or”) is it perhaps possible that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not Atom bombs at all but they were firebombed? Many people have suggested this and this article does (unless you believe in garlic and crosses that is) suggest there is “mileage” in such an assumption.

 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-miracle-of-hiroshima-jesuits-survived-the-atomic-bomb-thanks-to-the-rosary-69261/

 

So what do you make of that?

A jewish cabalist can create evil but a jesuit can overcome it? Or is it just all “Noetic science” bullshit?

Honey, I shrunk my clit!

Posted in Paedophilia, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on July 10, 2017

“Well thank god for that because I was convinced it was a penis!”

Unfortunately, it appears, more and more, there is a strong likelihood it is a penis!

“I thought this was a serious conspiracy blog Earthling?”

Well, it is folks but I’ve done years of posts – very long, in depth, serious posts – and what has it done? Diddly squat! They’re read, yes but, if you stop posting for any length of time, your audience disappears because it’s like a “hit” for them; a drug; they consistently need new stuff and it was never my intention to just be a poster of up to date “news” about what was happening around the world, in the news today and, like those that do (and create continuous youtubes like your “flat earthers” – and I have a lot to say about that too but no time to say it the way I’d like to) ask for “donations”. Never had, never will.

But, back to the point: You’ve just got to laugh at all that’s happening and it is only those with poorly performing synapses who cannot see it. So here is my point today and yes, I am a total “homophobe” so kiss my ass (knowing you, you’d probably like it). Oh and I guess because I am a homophobe, I’m “in the closet”.

So, I saw this today and my ire was raised because I could see quite plainly, not only the lying, deceptive POS who’s getting interviewed, but the interviewers who, you can see, are thinking “Who the F is this guy? What a bullshitting poof if ever I’ve heard one”.

Ariana Grande’s brother. OMFG what a CREEP! And where would he be without being the brother? It’s like Kardashians Part 2. Are these people being bedded, fertilized and grown in quiet greenhouses in the likes of California or are they being developed in pods ala “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”?

Now PULLEEEZ tell me you can recognise the pure fakery of this poof?

“Oh my goodness! I’m getting so emotional…umm…” he then stutters like mad, closes his eyes, looks down; can’t look at the camera as he tries to think how he answers this one.” As clear as Day is day and night is night – the poof is lying his gay little freakish head off.

“…Something that we’ll always do… yeah” then closing his eyes again and shaking his head while he internalises his completely shit reaction and answer to that one.

I get to be with you guys and get to.. hug you and be with everyone who comes to the show” smiling like the little freakish poof he is wanting the audience to say “aww what a nice little poof though eh? How could you not want to hug him. He’s like a fluffy tampon!” USING his obvious homo-ness to come across as cute while he wants to hug the world because he’s such a loving little poof.

“I fell in love with you and the UK and fell in love with all of you and seeing your resilience as a people was just incredible” – WHAT resilience you freak? Saying “We don’t care how many you kill, we’ll just keep brewing tea and posting little memes? ALL of that crap was stated to “endear” himself to his audience. These freaks KNOW how to “play” incompetent minded fools.

“Well it’s not in my mind… cos I believe that we can overcome all obstacles” (forget the deaths – not that I believe there were any: “The security guards wouldn’t let us use the exit.. they then shouted “Run!” and then the bomb went off”) – only a “starstruck” moron could not see the utter insincerity in this creep’s entire interview. “We’re gonna be alright, to quote Ariana Grande…” He quotes his sister as if she’s some philosophical giant! But, at the same time, he quotes her to LINK himself to her so that her fans will also “love” him! The mind manipulation in all of this is just fantastic (unless, that is, you can see right through it).

Then you have the big, over-exaggerated pointing “That’s it Susana, that’s it!” as he recognises he’s got away with another inane statement.

Susana then says “it hit your family hard…” and behind that freakish visage of his he’s saying “yeah yeah, get on with it. Let’s just promote my tour shall we?”

“You guys are SO strong.. thank you for being strong.. thank you!” WTF? HOW are “we” ‘so strong’? And why, exactly do you need to “thank” us for it? WTF ARE YOU ON ABOUT YOU LITTLE CREEP?

And then you have all the “Thank you’s” from Susana and him and HOW MANY TIMES does he take deep breaths and exhale exaggeratedly throughout this interview? He tries to make out (and so many will interpret it as such) that it’s his “emotional” attachment to the goings on in Manchester (which, as I say, was bullshit from start to finish), but the reality is, it is his real feeling behind it (i.e. nothing) that is pumping his adrenalin to get through this interview.

Finally, do you notice the absolute relief on his face when he realises it’s the end of the Manchester questions (and Susana’s ‘prodded’ points regarding how hard it must be for his family to have endured this – did he or Ariana die? No. However, what they got was massive media coverage and promotion out of it. No wonder he’s smiling). He can now smile and blow kisses and invite to the show and ask for all of his little poofy hugs.

Now, back to my point re the utter bullshit Manchester was.

Here are multiple screenshots of just ONE article covering the event. The utter tripe which is written within it, coming from, mainly, so called “eyewitnesses” just blows my little mind.

What a great quote eh? “People’s skin and blood were everywhere…. I’m still finding bits of God knows what in my hair”. After how long honey? Don’t shampoo often? Like an autograph you don’t wish to wash off your skin, I suppose you wanted a memento of the night huh? Just to say “Look! There’s a bit of dead flesh from last week!” – Absolute crap! Oh and “faeces” is yet to come!

 

Now we have the homeless geezer….

Perfect drama eh? “Tearfully described”; “cradled in his arms”; He even “pulled nails out of children’s faces” – Now, you give THAT a few moments thought. “Does not mean I haven’t got a heart and I’m not human still”. Oh dear god, I am dissolving in a pool of tears as I write this!

He’d like to think someone would help him if he needed it and lo and behold! After this what did he get? Oh the “Samaritanian drama” is intense isn’t it? Written to perfection to elicit the right response from the masses of gullible peasants. Why do we “spell” words? Because words are “spells”.

Now re-read that (and remember it as you read further down in this blog): “…centimetres in front of me”. CENTIMETRES! Does Mrs Mullen think that means a few hundred metres or something (“centi” meaning hundreds rather than hundredths” – it wouldn’t surprise me if so. There are a lot of not too bright individuals in this world after all).

“People’s skin, blood and FAECES were everywhere…”. I can just imagine her inspecting and sniffing. And how did faeces end up flying around exactly? Nails in people; Cuts from flying nails and bolts; but did people fly through the air and suddenly poop like pigeons? Is she saying that some people were torn apart in flight and that the contents of their bowels dropped on her head as they soared over her? How close were THESE people to the bomb? NANOMETERS? While she stayed entirely intact at centimetres? Must have been the weirdest bomb known to man that one! I have never read such trash in my life and what seriously annoys me further (as if these people’s “testimonies” were not enough) is that SO MANY swallow this shit (pardon the inadvertent pun).

“Steve” the homeless samaritan saw a little girl who had her legs entirely blown off but could tell him, quite matter of factly, that her dad was at work and her mum “up there”. Incredible really isn’t it? Ever had your legs blown off? Do you think you’d be conscious nevermind have your faculties fully in order? Amazing she never said “Can you pick up my legs for me? One’s over there and the other is hanging from that lighting fixture just above us”.

Remember 22 people dead, 119 injured. REMEMBER that!

Jane here was in the arena right? The bomb went off in the foyer AT ENTIRELY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARENA AND NOT EVEN IN THE ARENA! But she saw a man (in the arena) carrying children (plural) in his arms. “Children were running for their lives. It was blood curdling” – but the blast was in the foyer!! “It seems the explosion happened at the front” – NO Jane! It didn’t even happen in the arena! Not only that, it happened at the BACK of the arena not the front! You didn’t get the memo did you? You just like the idea of being an eyewitness but have no bloody clue.

Where the explosion happened:

Gary and his wife were just 3 metres from the blast! REMEMBER THIS TOO!

A “49 year old mother” who asks not to be named (LOL) was ALSO just 3 metres from the blast! She “immediately knew it was a bomb” (well, well, you don’t say? I guess you’d have to know being 3 metres from it. In fact, kinda redundant to say you immediately knew because, if you were just 3 metres from it – YOU’D KNOW! But you wouldn’t have the presence of mind to say “Oh my! I think I’ve just been hit by a bomb blast!”). Now, 3 metres away (again) BUT “people closer to the explosion blocked the impact of the blast” and neither her nor her daughter had any issue with nails or bolts. Hmmm. REMEMBER – 3 metres!

“It was about 40ft behind us NEAR one of the exits” Not “through one of the exits. So David is saying the bomb was in the arena. Once more – total rubbish and ANOTHER “eyewitness” falls for talking shit.

“..there was an explosion behind us at the back of the arena…. we saw young girls with blood on them”. As an aside, she could clearly see through “lots of smoke” to determine this drivel. However, how/why would young girls be covered in blood IN the arena which she could see? The explosion happened OUTSIDE the arena in the bloody foyer! Further, according to people “centimetres” and 3 metres” away, they weren’t even injured by it! For god’s sakes world, wake the hell up would you? Can’t you recognise shit when you see it? Or only when you find it in your hair?

And lastly, the “piece de resistance”:

“Those men saved our lives” (I’m screaming with laughter here). Those men shouted “Run” BEFORE the explosion happened, you say. Have you never given it ONE moment’s thought “How did they know?” Have you never given it another moment’s thought as to why those men (who “saved” your lives) were blocking the exit? Remember, no-one is meant to have known that this explosion was going to happen so these security men were not blocking the door to stop you getting injured. Furthermore, however, if they were blocking the door, why did they allow people in JUST before the explosion (those who got injured and died from it allegedly)? Any and ALL those in the foyer (blocked by these security men) were placed there. These are your “crisis actors”.

Full bullshit story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4532374/Witnesses-tell-horror-Manchester-terrorist-attack.html

But here’s another thing (from the Telegraph): Our “Steve” the homeless geezer says the following –

Mr Parker, who has slept rough in the city for about a year, said he also tended to a woman aged in her 60s who was badly hurt from the bombing with serious leg and head injuries. He said: “She passed away in my arms. She was in her 60s and said she had been with her family.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/homeless-man-speaks-cradled-dying-woman-arms-manchester-attack/

However, not a single one of the 22 people reported dead were in their 60’s or anywhere near it and that woman has never been named as any of the other “dead”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/victims-manchester-terror-attack/

Now, you remember me saying “REMEMBER” during all of that above? The centimetres and the 3 metres? Ok, then here’s the point:

The circular area of a 3m radius is just over 28 square metres. In considering this explosion, keep in mind these graphics of crowd densities ( http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd-density/100sm/Density1.html ). Now, to be just “centimetres” or, let’s seriously consider 3 metres, away from the blast (which, of course, would be a 360 degree blast – ah, perhaps it’s from the “suicide bomber” himself that the faeces came from I suppose 🙂 ); To not be injured or touched by this blast “due to other people in the way”, there must have been a high (very high) density of people between you and the blast (remember nails and bolts as well). THEN, if YOU weren’t hit at 3m away, then HOW were 22 killed AND well over 100 people injured but you weren’t? That suggests that there was something like 150 people packed like lemmings in that 28 square meters around the bomber. People do NOT pack themselves like this particularly when moving! THINK about this – it does NOT add up! It suggests that there were literally hundreds of people in the foyer (hundreds, not just 1 or 2 hundred) at the time and that about 150 of them were packed like sardines, standing inside the 3m “event horizon”. It’s simply trash. All those injured and dead were within that “event horizon” and blocked you from being hit? Now, if the people were far more spread out and less dense than that, then it is highly unlikely that you would NOT have been hit since there would have been enough room/gaps for the 360 degree explosion of nails and bolts to have hit you.

I could go on about this for a long time but you get the picture (I hope).

So back to poofs, freaks and trannies:

Here’s why this is called “Honey I shrunk my clit!”:

It’s becoming more and more prevalent. Mentally sick people who actually require professional, psychological help, are being promoted and pushed in our face left, right and centre (and no, it is not just “the left” who are pushing and supporting this agenda). It’s even getting to the point where there is an attempt to “bully” (propagandise) straight men into accepting the potential to have a tranny male (shemale) “girlfriend” with a cock, a beard and accept it as the norm! If we don’t, we’re “homophobes” and “trannyphobes” etc and need to be re-educated (I’ll come on to re-education in a different way soon in another article). We – straight, heterosexual males – need to “overcome” our bias it seems and be tolerant and appreciate a tranny male freak’s sexuality as one we will consider (obviously based on other things like what their personality is like! lol A mentally insane guy with balls – or cut off and tucked in – but a “lovely sane personality”?). He might have a degree too! A “bright tranny” then. But it will be in “Sexual psychology” and his PhD thesis entitled “Trannies r us” got him his PhD as some marxist exam board and Professor thought it was excellent research. Then the professor goes home; puts on his wife’s bra and knickers and masturbates to photos of Caitlyn Jenner which none of us have ever seen, while singing “It’s raining men”.

Yet, while heterosexual men are demonised for not appreciating a bit of cock and hairy balls with lipstick and a “Toni and Guy” trimmed beard for a girlfriend, your homosexual neighbour isn’t castigated when he’s asked “What would you say to a bit of pussy eh?” and he replies “Yuck!” Isn’t that heterophobic or doesn’t he possess “anti vaginal” hate? No no no, Of course not!

If you can listen to this shite for more than a minute then you’re a better “thing?” than me! I say thing, after all, because I have no idea if you might be a “woman with a cock” or a “man with a vagina” PLUS, the woman with a cock might self identify as a lesbian woman with a cock and the man with the vagina might self identify as a gay, cockless, dick loving lesbian with straight tendencies”. Then again, you might be into hedgehogs rather than cocks, I dunno.

Timeout: We’re really meant to take all of this shit seriously! We are you know – MEANT to that is. The thing is, the enormous amount of effort “they” are putting into this “education” is focused at the young – the VERY young. Why? Because it is only then you can form the opinions of the new generation and ensure that, in a few decades to come, your new “norms” are entirely accepted. What “they” then do, along with the brainwashing of the young, is instil the idea (and this has gone on for decades generally) that parents and the older generations are biased and “not cool or hip” or whatever the preferred designation is now. We’ve seen this in the demonisation recently of the “old, white straight people” who voted for Brexit for example. “We” don’t have anything of any worth to pass down to our younger generations but, strangely, people like Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn – plus their friends in the establishment – do! How odd! The last time I looked at these people they were old, straight, white males and females. Who can tell what Jeremy gets up to at night though eh? Probably meets his Professor chum at the karaoke singing Gloria Gaynor songs while shagging the skeleton of Lord Greville Janner as David Cameron sits in the corner with a pig’s head begging for a bacon sandwich and a blow job!

As a quick aside: I used to live abroad and one night in a club, I got speaking to two girls (yes two!) and before I knew it, their little buddy wandered into the conversation. He was a little bum boy but a harmless little guy. At this time in my life I was ambivalent toward gaydom. However, I had to quickly put him straight (which would have been impossible in the strict sense of the word) and tell him I wasn’t interested (in him). The little bugger (or buggerer? No, he was the buggered I guess) wouldn’t let it go however. He did eventually though.

He happened to be new in town having just been sent over to work for a finance company and he was looking for a place to stay. Idiot here (me) decided to offer him one of the rooms in my newly acquired apartment and we agreed from the start that he would never bring one of his hairy ass loving chums along and that, if he wished to meet them, he’d do it at their place or elsewhere. This was my home and my rules after all right? He “totally understood” and so, for about 2 months I put up with the little bugger. During that time, he’d keep trying to “playfully” hit on me while he also kept asking if he could use my laptop. I let him and set up a new ID and he put in a password. He “wanted it to keep in touch with his family” until the company gave him one. Cut a long story short, I just happened to already have a program installed that could check keystrokes and hold all details of everything done on that laptop. I didn’t think of using it to pry on him until I sensed he wasn’t using it for family contact at all. It turned out he was going on something called “Gaydar” and contacting anybody that would give him that bit of popper powered cock he craved. However, not only that, but I also found out (through reading some of the stuff) that he was bad mouthing me saying “I can’t wait to get out of here. This guy I’m living with won’t let me ‘breathe’ so I’m leaving next friday”. The not letting him ‘breathe’ was nothing more than the agreement we had. He had every other freedom in the world in the apartment (and he bloody well used it). He had even started to go back on our agreement and he would have a guy (or guys) in his room occasionally. Now, added to this, he was also always overdue on his rent saying he wasn’t getting the pay he expected from his company but that he would make it up next month – that sort of thing. So, when I read he was leaving within a few days (oh, also I had asked him to give me two months notice if he was leaving, which he replied was no issue), I gathered up his entire belongings (holding a couple of things back which he would definitely want) and put them out on the stairway then called him up to tell him to pick them up asap. He turns up at the door with one of his “friends” and wonders what it’s all about. He has no clue I could read his mails etc. I didn’t tell him. I just said I knew he was leaving on the friday and he hadn’t told me. He probably still wonders to this day how I knew! I asked for the keys back and he wouldn’t give them so I showed him a couple of items he may yet want. He stated that they were his property and he had the right to the keys and would make a “big noise” about all of this if I didn’t give him his stuff and let him stay until he wished to leave. So then I showed him his poppers. The Police where we were wouldn’t be too keen to see them!

And that was the end of that. However the point of telling this story is that the VAST amount of outright lies – constructed stories – this little bum boy came out with while staying with me and the “drama” in which they were told (paralleling what we just saw from “Frankie” – Ariana Grande’s brother) was sickening. It was vomit inducing shit! And I could see right through it just as I can Frankie here. What I do NOT understand is the vast number of people who CAN’T see this for what it is.

These homos and trannies etc – while they all work so hard to be accepted and make friends – are among the biggest, lying bullshitters on the planet. Why? Because they have got so used to having to lie internally to themselves that they are ok with what they are (and remember a large percentage end up as suicides BECAUSE they can’t handle what they are or what they THINK they are) that they can lie, without an ounce of care or remorse, consistently to anyone and everyone. In that sense, they are very similar to a lot of women (yes a significant amount of women – perhaps not all) who cannot take responsibility for their lives and actions and are prone to immense “untruths” while expecting to be “white knighted”.

Your kids are being educated to accept all of this and they are being educated at very young ages. Furthermore, all of this is leading to (if you haven’t already seen it then you’re blind) having paedophilia being as accepted a sexual preference as homosexuality. The time is coming very soon that YOUR child just may be abused by a “woman” with a cock and beard and, at the trial (IF there IS one), “it” is going to be let off because of something fraudulently referred to as “human rights”.

Check out “Queer Kid Stuff” on youtube – for kids as young as 3 years old! THINK about it as you read the titles of the vids or watch them (god forbid). This one is all about teaching your 3 year old to understand “consent”. When you watch and listen, it all seems to make sense doesn’t it? It’s not suggesting anything sexual exactly, is it? But then that is what the whole channel is about: Sex and sexuality. And, as “she” says, subtly, “It’s good to share”. NOW, imagine if you have a 3 year old child who does not have the slightest clue what a penis or a vagina actually is nor does he/she have any conception of it being wrong for an adult to touch theirs. That child is with an adult it knows and/or trusts (he/she has no reason not to after all) and the adult says “Would you like to play a game?” – Of course you know where this is going don’t you? “It’s nice to share (and say yes to friends)”. And by that, you’re giving consent. Furthermore, if the “play” is not too “insertional” or painful, it might actually be “fun” – how would a child know otherwise?

“When you’re playing with someone you should share your toys because it is a nice thing to do”. I see? Do you? Aunty Sharon or Uncle Jimmy asks little Johnny if he’d like to play with their “toys”. “You have one too Johnny! Will you share it with me?” “Well… yes ok” says Johnny, knowing it is a “nice thing to do”.

I am getting SICK of these SICK BASTARDS!

This is NOT a “left/right issue. None of our issues actually are.

 

We live in dangerous times folks and your children’s future is at stake.

But you don’t really care that much do you?

 

Addendum:

But notice that, while content creators on youtube who speak out about stuff like this and various other political/social issues (such as myself) will get strikes and barred from the likes of youtube and Facebook, Twitter etc, Youtube is STILL allowing THIS channel to be seen by all. But then, of course, we just had youtube (and the British Parliament) have an LGBTQ day/week where youtube had videos and their logo full of the “rainbow” and Westminster had Parliament lit up with the “rainbow”.

But what do you expect from a parliament chock full of paedos?

And, before you think this is just a few “odd bods” around the world, no, it’s not. It is present in VERY significant numbers within the highest echelons of this god forsaken society of our around the planet (Sorry flat earthers, I’m still not in your camp). It is in NASA (not just a handful, we’re talking hundreds here); it’s in every national establishment you know of – monarchy, government, corporate, social, police, judiciary, you name it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184951/NASA-employees-caught-buying-child-porn-site-showed-three-year-olds-abused-escape-prosecution-names-kept-secret.html

If you don’t understand that MI5 knew about Jimmy Saville (among many others) during all the years he was friendly and tight with the monarchy and government and you don’t understand that MI5 report to the Queen, then you’re a PEASANT!

 

 

Tommy: The Pinball Wizard!

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Political History, Politics by earthlinggb on July 5, 2017

He stands like a statue,
Becomes part of the machine

He’s a pin ball wizard
There has got to be a twist

How do you think he does it? I don’t know!
What makes him so good?

Tommy Robinson: Nothing but an ignorant, racist thug. And don’t get me wrong: Any terrorism or abuse in this country, I totally despise but I do so from the true perspective of what is taking place and what the agenda is. If you think that the British government, MI5/MI6 and the Police and other intelligence services could not ensure that there is no such terrorism, then you are SADLY mistaken. Just as if you think that child abuse at very high levels within our society cannot be stopped. It ALL can BUT, when the higher echelons of society want such to go on, it will. For example, take a listen to Tim Fortescue (Conservative whip during Edward Heath’s tenure – and yes, you can be assured he kept “mum” for Heath too!):

So, back to Tommy. Tommy is/was a “nothing”. He was a skinhead head of the EDL and was one of the boys in the British National Party and yet Nick Griffin read him well. However, Nick Griffin got ousted by the BNP. Why? Well previous articles of mine cover that but let’s just say it was down to “those you cannot criticise or question”. The BNP was, and is, re-oriented toward demonising muslims and ignoring the real power behind the scenes who are another religious group altogether. However, what you need to understand is that you have muslims at high levels playing ball with “those you cannot criticise or question”. One of those being Sadiq Khan.

The immigrants into this country don’t have a damned clue what the agenda is. Sure, there may be some useful idiots among them and sure again there are quite a few who will capitalise on the offer europe is giving them and many who are bottom feeders and will rape and kill etc. No doubt and I’m not making excuses for them. I will say however that, if you were given the opportunity with masses of brits to go and live in a country which was offering you a significant increase in your standard of living, I’m sure many of you would. Further, if that same country had bombed the shit out of yours and you knew who had put you in that position in your home country (where, perhaps, you had at least some family members who were now dead due to your country of adoption) how would you view that country you were now moving to? I have no doubt a large percentage of you would take advantage while there would be a few useful idiots among you who would take a little bribe or two from the host country’s intelligence services or work with countrymen who you didn’t know were working with intelligence services. Then added to that, we’ve got our share of paedos and rapists in this country so if some of you went abroad, that wouldn’t change. Every culture has its fair share of slime. Government and Intelligence services just LOVE using you to their advantage.

However, just yesterday, we have the following article from the Jewish Chronicle:

 

So how does a skinhead thug make his way up into the “limelight” of British politics (agitator politics) and, suddenly, be seen as some sort of British nationalist hero? Because he’s worked hi way into the ‘right’ circles, shown his willingness to play the game and put himself, effectively, “up for sale”. Those who “buy” him see his usefulness in bringing an uneducated (as to the real agenda) bunch of similarly minded, but ignorant, bunch of idiots who (quite rightly – I am anti sharia law and burkas etc in this country. You come here? You integrate. But who truly has integrated in all of the immigration into this country since the 1960s or earlier? Indians haven’t, Bangladeshi’s haven’t, Pakistanis haven’t, Gurkhas haven’t and muslims of course. A few more I could name but I’ll leave it there.) are quite happy to follow along and kick the shit out of anyone they deem a “raghead”.

Who have integrated? Well, jews of course. How and why is that? And, I may add, the hasidic jews and the more extreme jewish sects have not but the vast majority of secular jews have. Well, let’s consider, just for a moment, who racists point the finger at. Racists aren’t too discerning you see. They point the finger at anyone who stands out because they’re easily identified. What would you do if you wished to infiltrate an organisation or society and change it to your liking without that organisation or society seeing what you’re doing? You’d integrate. You’d become their “friend’. You’d talk the same, dress the same, use your wealth (if you had it) to “buy” their confidence etc. You’d promote your kind (and useful idiots) into positions of relative power in many areas of society. Have you looked at who the head judges are in the UK? Have you looked at who controls essential media positions in the UK? Have you looked at the number of “those you cannot criticise or question” in the House of Lords and the House of Commons? Have you looked at the number of major politicians in the UK (Cabinet members etc) who are also members of “Friends of” societies in the UK? Friends of who? How is it that it is generally thos who are “Friends of” who climb the ladder. Have you not noticed that?

Have you never stopped to wonder why ISIS, while they attack muslim countries (and I’m not going into the Sunni v Shia argument here) and European/UK targets (so we’re told to believe) – Manchester: “We were trying to exit through the doors but there was a line of security who stopped us and told us to use another exit. Then they said “Run” and then the explosion happened” – but they have never attacked their, seemingly biggest foe, Israel? Odd isn’t it? They even apologise if the “inadvertently do”!

 

But, of course, you will have people say “But they have attacked Israel!” Really? You mean this “attack”?

Read the whole thing: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Rocket-alert-sirens-sound-in-southern-Israel-near-Gaza-border-486671

Seriously laughable. A rocket lands in a greenhouse and one person suffered shock! Have you ever listened to the false testimonies of a raft of jews who “suffered” in the holocaust in death camps but lived to tell the tale? Have you ever counted how many there are? Have you ever considered that the Israeli government and media may just roll out an “ISIS attack” to create the perception wished for? If that was an ISIS attack, BOY was it vapid and incompetent. Unlike those dastardly muslims eh?

So, back to Tommy (again):

Particularly that jewish chronicle article. Read it intelligently. Read it from the hegelian dialectic perspective.

One community member would take legal action if her name was tied to the event. Why would she? Is she not proud of her activity and support for “the right thing”?

North west “Friends of Israel” Dennison states their community finds his opinions “abhorrent” but, formally, he would have to say that. Not only that but, again, the hegelian dialectic comes into play – you play both sides: The Thesis, Antithesis and, from that, Synthesis. It’s how they work! With some of their members being attracted to “his policies”? What “policies” could an agitator have I wonder? MI5 policies? Mossad policies? As the vast majority of non muslim, non jewish British population go about their daily lives and business, there are small sectors of this country who have “policies” and agendas they are working to. That vast majority I speak of are entirely in the dark and ignorant of what those policies are. However, we can be sure that the “Football lads” will be part of them and they will follow blindly in the belief that there is, in fact, a muslim controlled agenda at play to cause terrorism in the UK and Europe. They completely ignore (it doesn’t even enter their heads) that all these “terrorists” are known to MI5, that the government allows them in (Ah! But that’s because of the EU right? lol). Do they even know that there is one religious group throughout Europe that, not only has substantial power in the UK parliament but also has its own EU PARLIAMENT? And it isn’t muslims. It isn’t even Christians or catholics! It’s not Hindus or buddhists or Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance followers and it isn’t even jehovah’s witnesses! But think about it. If any of the aforementioned groups did have its own EU Parliament, there would be uproar right? Ah, but not in this case there isn’t. After all, its “those who cannot be criticised or questioned” again!

The European Jewish Parliament or EJP (formerly known as European Jewish Union or EJU) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Brussels whose stated aim is to be “a uniting structure for all Jewish communities and organizations throughout Western, Eastern and Central Europe.”

The EJU-backed EJP is the brainchild of Ukrainian billionaire Vadim Rabinovich.

European Jewish Union
The EJU group was founded in the Spring of 2011 by Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Vadim Rabinovich

The EJU hoped to establish a European Jewish Parliament, comprising 120 members modeled on the Israeli Knesset. This group would then represent the concerns of the Jewish community to the European Union.

European Parliament building where is held the EJP assembly.
The European Jewish Parliament was inaugurated on February, 16th 2012.

The first EJP annual general assembly was held in Brussels on May 15 and 16 2012.

EJP logo

Flag of Europe.
The European Jewish Parliament logo is modeled on the flag of Europe’s crown of 12 golden stars with 5 rays on a blue background.

Instead the EJP logo uses a crown of 11 golden stars with a 12th star being a white Star of David, stylized as on the flag of Israel, on a blue background.

“.. could never be a partner of a respectable or mainstream jewish organisation”. Of course such could not admit to such being the case because then the jewish “fraternity” would expose itself. However, again, they play both sides. It is not in jewish interests to take any side whatsoever because the jewish interests lie in a jewish agenda. That agenda is to maintain and grow the flood of immigrants into all of Europe – muslims into all european countries and populations from each european country into other european countries. Why? Well it is very very simple. There will be no countries in europe which are comprised of a majority of that country’s generational nationals. Each country’s culture is decimated and each existing culture and newly introduced culture is demanded to accept the new “non culture” which grows. It takes years  decades even, but it is what “those you cannot criticise or question” want because then, with the “death” of christian values (and that has been ongoing for decades already) and of muslim values, they will have achieved “mongrel states” where there is no “one peoples voice” to hold the government to account. This has nothing to do with a Conservative government or a Labour government. This is an agenda far higher than the incumbent party in power. The party in power is held up to you as a useful scapegoat for the ignorants to chastise and every single government, since the inception of such, has had its followers and its critics while every single person in the country holds views which agree with the policies of both parties, both left wing and right wing. This is by design. The major policies which the establishment want, are retained by the newly entering power government when, in reality, that new government – when in opposition – opposed (of course) the policy(s) of the previous government. They could make a turnaround on the previous government policies but they never do (with exception of the minor stuff which does not affect the direction of the “ship of state”).

Tommy, however, is a useful idiot. A player. He’ll get backing (he’s got it!) and jewish money but then so will the other side. And when either or both are no longer required, he’ll be dropped like a sack of shit because that is what he is.

“We should be clear that a gathering of 12 people does not change the jewish community’s overwhelming rejection of dead-end politics that only divide and damage British society”.

It’s a great statement isn’t it? It sounds so sincere. Free of deceit. Well, one knows one from one’s actions.

“Oh it’s just an old lady. What the hell does she know and what power does she have?’ – It’s not the power that she has. It is the power she works for.

So, if the jews want this multiculturalism, why would they support a Tommy Robinson? Simple! The jews are playing two games: They want a clash of civilisations to then form the synthesis (muslims are the thesis, our reaction the antithesis). They want  the mongrelisation of europe so they may, quietly, maintain their own (not overtly jewish) identity and power-base within europe while gentiles (that is goyim – christians, muslims and anyone non jewish) are entirely mongrelised while being unable to agree (the division) on who their true enemy is. The second part of their game is to maintain a jewish state and an even “Greater Israel” and that is what the terrorism is all about (constructed terrorism). It is to gain and keep support for “poor little Israel” and support for their larger aims in the middle east and elsewhere and to ensure support from the western populations for the use of the Western Armed forces to do the jewish will. All of your “heroes” who are going out and getting legs and arms blown off (and killed) are doing it all for a jewish agenda.

So the balance is “multiculturalism” with “those dastardly muslims but not ALL muslims, just those extremist ones”. The fact is, however, you can get nothing more extreme than a “Globalist Zionist jew”.

Now, here’s a few bible verses. I do not add these because I am a bible basher in any shape or form. I add them because this all goes back a long long way and it is these people (see Rothschild admission below) who believe in something (Satan is my guess – after all they are all evil bastards with the policies they adopt – and don’t forget Grenfell Tower) and/or they utilise the bible as a form of template. There is absolutely no doubt about this once you have done years and years of research on it.

Luke 20:46
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

Luke 21:12
But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.

John 9:22
These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

John 12:42
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue

Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

John 7:1
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

Remember, all of these passages are from the NEW Testament NOT the Old Testament (or Torah) of the jews. When you hear of people – normally left wing liberals, comedians, mad evangelicals etc – taking the piss out of the bible, suggesting it is filled with hate and “Holy fire judgement” etc, the irony is that they are taking from the OLD testament and applying it to Jesus. The OLD testament was the OLD one! The NEW testament superceded it! Why did Lord Rothschild refuse to swear on the New Testament when he was first admitted to a seat in the house of Parliament? Pretty damned obvious!

And back to “those who cannot be criticised or questioned”: ONLY (and I mean ONLY) jews can get away with criticising, taking the piss and absolute utter filth (see pornography) while, if you say “Did the holocaust REALLY happen?” you’re demonised by jewish led entities the world over, demonised by the gentiles who have swallowed the story (almost all considering it’s been stuffed down their collective throats almost since birth) and, not only is your freedom of speech been banned BUT, in some countries (poor poor Germany for example), you go to jail for the AUDACITY of uttering 5 words: “Did the holocaust really happen?”. Let me explain to you something: The truth does not need legal protection. Period!

ADMISSION OF BARON DE ROTHSCHILD.

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.'”
2109
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.

Finally, why do you think wee Tommy is being heralded as the last bastion of British pride by Alex Jones? Alex, your colours are so transparent but then they have been for a long long time.

So Tommy, you’re no “British national hero”. You’re a prostitute for the “Synagogue”.

Keep “pushing the buttons” Tommy. Keep flipping, nudging and tilting. Your score’s increasing.