Earthlinggb's Blog

THE CASHLESS SOCIETY: GRESHAM COLLEGE LECTURE 26TH MAY 2020

Posted in Finance, Law, Money, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on May 28, 2020

First of all, may I state, it was dreary having to listen to this “Professor” drone on for an hour, live.

First of all, an introduction to our dear Professor, Richard Harvey…

Who are the “Worshipful Company of Information Technologists”?

Ahh! Bill Gates and International Bankers among others.

While, as you know, the liar, Chris Whitty, funded by Gates to the tune of £31M for “Malaria Research”.

So, ok, here’s the “lecture”. We do need to be lectured to you know, by these people, who need to keep to the script like their lifestyles depended on it because, oddly enough, they DO!

Here’s the original youtube comments from the live lecture. The comments relate to points our “Professor” is making.

Rikin Patel
​will the talk remain on youtube after it finishes?

Gresham College
​Yes, the lecture will stay up after it is finished.
Welcome to live chat! Remember to guard your privacy and abide by our Community Guidelines.

Earthling
​The Worshipful Company eh? Nice one!

Earthling
​Quite right too!

Michael E.
🙋 Hello

Earthling
​Electronic money is absolutely fine. The issue is how money is created.

Earthling
​The obfuscation of how money is actually created.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​cashless tyranny? indeed. this lockdown you’ve all harped on about…. a mere diversion and experiment r.e what various aspects of surveillance culture can be bolstered and improved upon.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​why the borse countries are being touted as the instigators of this is beyond me..

Earthling
​The charging of usury and the fact that promissory notes are exchanged for bank notes with the bank then charging interest on them of your own created money.

Conway Yury
​And, if the power grid is down!

James Driscoll
​Mammon must feed

Earthling
​Ah Sweden that didn’t have a lockdown?

Earthling
​Hmmmm

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​why you think virtual currencies will ease terrorism is also beyond my comprehension. that cash virtual or no is the main symbol of personal liberty is pause for thought.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​why are crazy religious people being allowed to hound me from pillar to post? can you answer me?

Earthling
​Before you discuss cashless society, discuss the creation of money! Otherwise everything you say is of no value. It is misleading.

Earthling
​Are you Gresham people intelligent but, at the same time, ignorant? Or do you just stick to the agenda?

Earthling
​One minute with Whitty he says Ro<1 means a disease is dying, the next Covid 19, even at Ro<1 will never be wiped out.

Earthling
​Odd that don’t you think?

Helen
​@Earthling hes literally discussing cash creation/production right now

Miguel Rodriguez
​Hi 

Earthling
​No-one DOES want it in the present state of money creation.

Hugh MacDonald
​@Helen Yeah they’re being a bit shrill

Earthling
​@Helen: Continue your ignorance madam.

Hugh MacDonald
​And that was that

Earthling
​Then again, I’m 3 mins behind.

Gresham College
​Keep it civil in the comments please! We have lots of lecture on the subject of business, economics etc at our website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch/

Hugh MacDonald
​I think the relationship people have with banks is interesting and important. I don’t know how much people actually trust banks, and yet practically people put significant trust in them.

Hugh MacDonald
​@Gresham College Yes I’ve been watching numerous of your lectures.

Gresham College
👍

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​maybe bring back paper notes if plastic notes are so apt to be breeding grounds for viruses…

Earthling
​You are speaking about the physical cost of manufacturing paper and distributing it. that has nothing to do with money creation.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​virtual credit i.e digital based economies will be far easier to destabilize and steal or replicate fake accounts than forge hi-tech notes. surely you need to be serious about this…

mark wood
​I like to keep both options open. Cashless is useful and also makes you less of a target for street crime. If you card is stolen you can ring the bank, but if cash is taken then its gone.

Earthling
​Cash is NOT money! Cash is a physical representation of it.

mark wood
​But cashless also has problems. I have cash at home in case I lose my card or it mistakenly gets taken by a faulty cash machine. Cash can carry you over till the problem is resolved.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​most governments rushing into this without thinkingit through – like most things.

Deborah Adeniji
​IV a question 4 professor: The British Empire first instituted a world without cash, right?

Earthling
​We can have a cashless society within an entirely different system of money creation and economics based upon mathematics where the money created represents the property within the economic system.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​i.d theft, hacking into accounts, theft of bank details and transfer of monies, virtually, are all palpable fears…

Earthling
​The issue is not cashless, the issue is creation.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​you are suggesting that fiscal institutions need to be mature enough when dealing with other folks’ money. you surely know thay are not…

Earthling
​And that hyperinflation is due to how money is created and the usury added to it. If you create £100 and distribute it, only that principal exists so how, then do we pay back principal and interest?

Earthling
​You can’t. It’s impossible.

Earthling
​I have no fears of cashless. The issue is creation. Talk creation before talking physical manifestation.

Deborah Adeniji
​If so, then wouldn’t the British Empire be a foreshadowing of what Revelation 13 is talking about?

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​it would be easier to flood an economy with virtual monies than palpable. the system is far too flawed to sustain a country’s economy. computer wizardry is needed to fend off these hacks…

Fat5h
​why do not anyone define a new concept of value relying on real assets and production which has basically 2 variants: time and energy?

Earthling
​Sorry but your talk really is redundant. And I am sure you know why.

Earthling
​@Fat5h That’s the sort of conversation these people never wish to have.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​bit coin. you’re going to erase a historically entrenched virtual coinage system for this virtual economic forum? i don’t thinkthis is the way forward

Gresham College
​@Earthling We’re sorry you feel that way – there are a lot of people out there talking about money and this lecture is just on one aspect of the discussion.

Gresham College
​Heres an example of another lecture on money from Gresham: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Gresham College
​Or this one: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Gresham College
​[message retracted]

Earthling
​@Gresham College Point me to any of your lectures which discuss a genuinely different (and more correct/non corrupt) way of creating money. I assume, then you must know the present way is corrupt?

Earthling
​I will check those out.

Michael E.
​Anyone who thinks they have complete anonymity should google trap wire surveillance system.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​no issue with budgeting at all. issues with this lackof maturity required in others e.g thefts and the like.. refer to banks… simple, really.

Earthling
​But here is my question: Why does the college not promote a countrywide debate on money creation? You have that ability and it is clear to anyone with any intelligence on the subject that the current

Earthling
​system is flawed and corrupt to the core.

Conway Yury
​Hang on, the US Treasury has its own trading desk!

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​chinese inability to comprehend western style banking… flooding building market with cash, building home for no one.. whole cityscapes bereft of residents… refer to brazilia..

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​brazilia? city in brazil which built some socialist idyllic city scape and was left deserted. the chinese model seems similar… if we believe reports…

Michael E.
​There was a episode from the tv series sliders from the 90’s that go fairly deep into what the faults could be in a society was run by digital banks.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​our friend here seems to be promoting asiatic designs on economic platform. system – key word. the design is totally flawed.

Conway Yury
​Agree with you JS!

mark wood
​They also like to boil folk in hot oil:)

Gresham College
​Here is a series from Jagjit Chadha on Money, Monetary Policy and Central Banks: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/series/mone

Earthling
​You can have a cashless society without an existing bank system account.

Earthling
​A human right or a legal person’s right? Can we get the terms right please? You don’t have “human” rights unless you are considered a person.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​uk decimization. destabilization of uk economy in readiness for euro or as was the ecu… whatever happened to the ecu?

Earthling
​You can go cashless without a bank account per se. Just not in today’s system.

Earthling
​@Gresham College Thanks, I’ll check it out.

Gresham College
​Our business professor was recently talking about the vodafone M-pesa system in this lecture: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Gresham College
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

Earthling
​I remember. My ice creams became more expensive!

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​no need to implement experiments with economy if sweden is so keen to be at the forfront of casless. cashless? i aint keen…

Miguel Rodriguez
​A cashless society will be a society and an economy run solely on a digital invisible sphere. I think Nations should be more concerned about their citizens means of creating and allocating wealth.

Earthling
​I really do wonder why you academics are so willing to go with the flow though since it impacts you just as negatively as the rest of us while those who own the system just enjoy the show.

Earthling
​It just seems like a waste of brainpower speaking and debating all this instead of concentrating fully on the main issue.

mark wood
​It is easier to keep track of your spending with cash. If you have little in your account and someone you pay takes the cash at a time other than immediately you are at risk of going into overdraft.

mark wood
​One instance can incur banks charges higher than a weeks income. So for low income cashless can be risky and harmful to your well-being.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​that fraud you described is rife within banking community and most fiscal institutions is it not. so if they’re in on it then you or i have no chance of parity or redress

Miguel Rodriguez
​Not to mention the harm an EMP can cause to such electronic system. Computers aren’t permanent and are flawed by its creators.

mark wood
​But for most of us that does not apply

Earthling
​My concern about security is not the money being stolen by anyone “on the street” but the total control of the “authorities” to simply shut down your access to it because you may be a dissenter.

Earthling
​Do you address the control aspects?

mark wood
​Earthling. One doctor could put you away if wanted. Credit checks already have a hierarchy of acceptance that place you as a citizen as worthy or not.

Earthling
​That ratio is far less than Covid 19 deaths yet the government assumed control! Hmmmm.

mark wood
​The individual is just a cog in the machine, unless you are wealthy:)

Earthling
​@mark wood Indeed. Scary huh?

mark wood
🙂

Earthling
​JP Morgan? Respectable? LOL

Earthling
​This has been very entertaining.

Miguel Rodriguez
​I will accept finely carved rocks as payment.

mark wood
​Compressed carbon is also accepted:)

Earthling
​@Miguel Rodriguez I’ll accept your promissory note directly rather than through a bank but in a database.

Earthling
​@Miguel Rodriguez And you wouldn’t even have to pay a cent of interest.

Earthling
​JP Morgan wouldn’t suck you dry!

Earthling
​Bob agrees to buy with conditions and he presents his promissory note directly to her. She accepts and the exchange is presented on a database. No bank necessary.

Earthling
​Mortgage interest free. Every transaction interest free. No problem.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​excellent. the happy fraudsters go on their way…. maybe present a lecture on the ills of those who defraud one of one’s savings… again via bank staff interaction with extraneous know how

Gresham College
​@Earthling What you are suggesting sounds very much like bitcoin to me.

Gresham College
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Earthling
​@Gresham College Nothing like bitcoin. I would not touch bitcoin with a barge pole. It inflates for one thing.

Earthling
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/…/the-new-economics-will…/

Miguel Rodriguez
​I’ll accept Laser encrypted quantum quasi crystal structures as payment.

 

NOW, the explanation to Gresham College (left in the comments section of the video) regarding what needs to be implemented first, before ANY cashless society is acceptable:

 

The solution where “cashless” would not be an issue (but Gresham College, nor any other institution allied with the City of London, would ever discuss this in any depth). It would not be perfect from day one BUT it would be non corrupted and there would be no possibility of elite control. Further, the “elite” would lose their power and wealth unless they were willing to do solid work rather than use “speculative” means to establish their wealth: 1. Ex a £100K house. What if you did not issue a promissory note to the banks but simply issued it direct to the owner of the house? (this can be applied to any and all scenarios – private, public or corporate). 2. You would issue a promissory note for £100K to the house owner and the house owner’s account would be credited with the £100K directly and instantly. 3. Your account would show a debit/debt which must be paid down (and out of circulation entirely) over a period of time fitting with the type of asset purchased. In this case a house. The paydown period, in this case, could be 100 years. £100,000 paid down over 100 years is £83 per month. NO INTEREST BECAUSE THERE IS NO MIDDLEMAN WHO SIMPLY RE-PUBLISHES YOUR DEBT – i.e. The bank. Any renovations/improvements would add, appropriately, to its value. On death, the house would be sold and the asset continued to be paid for. 4. The accounting of that transaction (and all transactions nationwide or globally) would be handled by what is called a CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure). A simple database of all obligations and the recording of all individuals and corporations accounts. Legally, we would also implement ACR “Absolute Consensual Representation” (see below). 5. There would be no such thing as a bank or a central bank. There would be no such thing as “money” from the perspective of today’s understanding of what money is (which is wrong anyhow). There would be NO INTEREST applied to ANY principal within the economy. 1: Remaining circulation in the economy 1: Equal to the remaining value of represented property (i.e. there exists NO Goldman Sachs & JP Morgans etc “betting” on Credit Default Swaps etc) 1: Remaining obligation to pay for remaining value of represented property. It is very simple: It is basic mathematics and it is pure balance as such. BALANCE IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF NATURE. THIS IS ALSO WHY THE “LAW” (although corrupted) TALKS ABOUT EQUITY. THE LAW OF EQUITY IS THE LAW OF BALANCE: HARMONY.

WHY MPE+ACR? When perpetual political betrayal sustains terminal monetary injustice across an entire world, every truly self-determined country immediately eradicates both treasons. There is no justifiable neutrality against terminal monetary impropriety; and there is no division amidst deserving people, because a singular pattern sustains the monetary arrangements of a just society. Nearly 50 years ago, our present financial quandary was projected by proof of a singular mathematically perfected economy — a singularity which holds that what we call “banking systems” are themselves terminal — that it is altogether rationally, ethically, and legally impossible to borrow money into existence from purported banking systems, firstly because, 1) legitimate debts can never precipitate to anyone who never grants the subject property from their legitimate prior possession; secondly then, because, 2) it is impossible in the pretended creation of money by purported banking systems, that banks could have established prior possession of money as a representation of entitlement, by giving up property for money which did not even exist before; and thirdly then, because likewise, 3) neither in the whole life cycle of banking’s treasonous obfuscation of our currency, does banking give up prior commensurable consideration to these mal-presumed debts — which banking only falsifies to itself by pretending it loans money into existence from its prior legitimate possession. On the contrary then, we are the only actual issuers of money, because if money is necessarily to guarantee redeemability, therefore money can only exist as enforceable promissory obligations, because only so does money comprise necessarily immutable representations of entitlement. Thus the falsified debts of purported banking are instead our own obligations to each other. The intentional falsifications of purported banking systems are therefore rational, ethical, and legal violations of our every principle of trade and contractual law; for in the whole of banking’s intentional obfuscation of money, no debt of the principal can legitimately precipitate to purported banking systems which therefore no more than publish further representations of our promissory obligations to each other. Yet the fate of the present and future world hinges upon our immediate understanding of this fact we do not and cannot borrow money into existence, for the laundering of such monumental sums of principal into the unwarrantable possession of banking systems is only the first and remarkably least of the ancient money changer’s principal crimes against us. The present global monetary calamity is the inevitable culmination of a perpetual and irreversible escalation of dispossession and debilitation, by perpetual multiplication of this falsified indebtedness to the obfuscators and faux creditors we ineptly call “banking systems”; and the agent of this irreversible escalation is the unwarranted imposition of interest: The lie “we borrow money into existence” paves the way for the further lie that interest is justified by ostensible risk of possession, whereas in fact the purported banking system has only published further representations of our promissory obligations to each other. On the contrary, it is impossible for any such risk to exist, because never in the whole life cycle of banking’s intentional obfuscation of our currency does banking give up commensurable consideration to debts it therefore only falsifies to itself. Yet thus we are forced involuntarily to sustain a vital circulation of falsified debt subjected iniquitously to interest, by perpetually borrowing principal and interest back into our general possession, with re-borrowed principal sustaining every prior sum of falsified debt; and with unwarranted interest perpetually increasing every prior sum of falsified debt by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of falsified debt; and with this dedicating ever more of any given circulation to servicing the escalating sum of falsified debt, until even at an inherently escalating rate, we suffer the present, terminal debilitation under falsified conditions which only escalate the terminal condition all the further. The arguments and fact of a singular monetary justice or mathematically perfected economy™ therefore establish, 4) that it is impossible that banking systems are legitimate creditors then, because across the whole life cycle of their obfuscations of our currency, the resultant systems of exploitation give up no commensurable property to ostensibly “provide credit”; 5) that the only real creditors (who do give up property for representations of our promissory obligations) are paid in full from the outset of every such arrangement; 6) that a resultant obligation to sustain the value and redeemability of money therefore exists to the actual creditor; 7) that under “banking,” it is mathematically impossible to sustain the combined circulatory volume and disposition of money which would accomplish this purpose, because banking’s obfuscation of our promissory obligations dedicates ever more of a circulation to servicing its irreversible and inevitably terminal escalation of falsified debt; 8) that the inherent disposition and life cycle of our promissory obligations to each other is instead to retire principal upon payment, because the prior representation of entitlement stems from the obligation to pay the principal, which obligation is fulfilled upon payment; 9) that as no actual, commensurable risk of the principle to the banking system exists, neither can a fact of lending or risk of the principal exist, as ostensibly justifies interest; and thus, 10) that not only are the people the only actual issuers of money, promissory obligations, or redeemable representations of entitlement; but 11) that no legitimate means whatever exists to launder either the principal or interest into the unwarranted possession of purported banking systems or faux creditors who merely publish further representations of our issuance of promissory obligations; and thus 12) that the lie of banking is not only wholly unjustifiable, but inherently terminal; as 13) banking’s unwarranted imposition of interest forces us to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing interest and principal, to return the both to the general possession of surviving industry and commerce as a perpetually escalating and inevitably terminal sum of falsified debt. Thus a multitude of improprieties comprises a fatal and purposed breach of trust, perpetrated and intentionally sustained not only by purported banking, but by the vast political corruption which banking unduly makes itself both capable and compelled to purchase. Given every such potential for betrayal then, the only resolution of all such political corruption is the inherent means and objects of an absolute consensual representation, in which, by indispensable authorities of self-determination, competent societies may immediately raise every conducive means to ensure universal justice and integrity, that WE The People may finally eradicate every subversion of our vital political purposes. In proving a singular solution for the volumetric and dispositional improprieties of today’s pretended economies therefore, this proposition of mathematically perfected economy and absolute consensual representation is the only reasonable impetus for an ascendant humanity to secure inevitable justice; and of necessity then, we hold it is the duty of every apprehending citizen to ratify these authorities; that mathematically perfected economy and absolute consensual representation™ are inherent rights of every just person; that by our signatures, we and we alone rightly ratify these indispensable rights; that our ratification rightly prevails immediately over the every affair of every signatory; that to eradicate political betrayal, we must deny every seated or future government any authority whatever but to comply; and that necessarily therefore, our signatures immediately establish omnipotent personal authorities not only to fully protect ourselves from every transgression of these facts, but to prosecute every deviate for every related crime against us — each and every which deviate government, entity, and person therefore, from the moment of our signature forth, is guilty of the gravest treasons against us.

To understand the solution, we must first understand the deception. How do you otherwise find a solution for a problem you do not see or understand as existing? You can’t. It’s like punching an enemy you cannot see. So, I will attempt to explain this as clearly as I can. 1. The banks have no money. 2.The banks DO NOT “create money” they ISSUE it! 3. These issuances of currency/money are simply representations of your and my own promissory notes. 4. The underlying value of ALL money in existence is NOT gold and silver etc and never was and never shall be. Gold and silver, NO MATTER that they have been around as “money” for millennia, are nothing more than any other commodity – precious metals yes. Have an inherent value of sorts yes (but so does platinum, copper, seeds, in fact any commodity whatsoever) but they STILL represent the value you create within the existing monetary system as demonstrated by the fact they are exchanged for your promissory notes/banknotes (remember banknotes ARE promissory notes – see page 474 once more) – and, as such, they have the inherent fault of being inflationary and deflationary. [Note: Bitcoin also has this flaw and is, in no way, a solution to the world’s monetary system. Bitcoin is no more valuable than any other investment such as shares. They act in precisely the same way and, as has been shown, do nothing to prevent wild swings and do nothing, therefore, to prevent inflation and deflation] 5. Inasmuch as the banks are simply representing OUR value, all they are doing is RE-PUBLISHING our promissory notes to one another. 6. You see a house you wish to buy at £100K. You sign a promissory note (“loan”) which is a guarantee to pay – with your labour and/or assets – but, instead of being free to issue that promissory note direct to the house owner/asset holder you wish to purchase from, you are forced to issue it to the banking system. 7. What does the banking system do? It “transmutates” that promissory note having inherent value (YOURS) into it’s own printed promissory notes/banknotes. It then passes those banknotes (electronically credits the house owner’s bank balance) to the owner of the asset/house. Insodoing, the bank then turns to you “the borrower” (who has created that otherwise non existent money for the bank by way of your signature of the original promissory note) and demands you pay them the £100K PLUS interest. 8. That £100K becomes a deposit and a cash asset within the bank and adds to all the millions of other people’s promissory note creations of money to the bank’s “assets” (not their assets at all as we have seen). 9. The banks then use the fractional reserve system to multiply those deposits even further and lends out more of this “money” they say they have. All the while charging interest to each and every “borrower”. 10. This system has been in operation for centuries while we now have approximately 7 billion people on the planet. These 7 billion people (and all those generations before) have, as a whole, never had the interest money issued into the economy to pay the interest so the very most we could ever do is pay what IS issued into the world’s economy and that is PRINCIPAL ONLY. The REAL ECONOMY cannot pay back money which never physically existed because the principal issued is the ONLY amount which reflects the entire value of our labour. DO YOU SEE IT NOW? DO YOU SEE WHY THE GLOBAL DEBT (that means everyone on planet earth bar none) is what it is? So if it includes everyone then why would they do it? Because they (the world’s financial oligarchy) will always be able to pay their interest/debt off because they control the system (not that they actually do pay but that’s another story). IT IS LIKE A CASINO. THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS. The interest is sucked out and up to the global banking elite who then use that wealth to have our governments further legislate to pay off the debt by privatising infrastructure and land/resources. In the end, the elite do not want money. Money is simply the vehicle with which they indebt the rest of us (including governments) to the point where we have to hand over control of all resources, land and infrastructure to them. Once they have achieved that, then the legal system has them in full ownership and, if you own everything, you don’t NEED money! 11. The banks OBFUSCATE the issuance of money. They fraudulently take ownership of YOUR promissory obligation and, as we have seen, this IS “money”. When you sign that obligation (“loan”) they then add it to their assets. What they then can do (and do do) is SELL that note – because it is REAL value – and the market will pay for it. An example of them selling these notes are the Credit Default Swaps and CDO’s which we heard so much of during the mortgage crisis (which still exists). They package the debts (promissory obligations) up and sell them! How can they sell them if they are not REAL MONEY? What gives them their value particularly when, as you understand it, you still have not paid off the “loan”? So here’s ANOTHER issue: If they sell these notes for money (which they do) THEN SOMEONE HAS PAID THEM THE VALUE OF YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT. THIS MEANS YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT HAS BEEN PAID OFF! BUT THE BANK STILL DEMANDS YOU PAY THE DEBT SO THEY ARE BEING PAID TWICE! THEY HAVE BEEN PAID AND YET THEY WANT PAID TWICE AND STILL DEMAND YOU PAY INTEREST ON AN ALREADY PAID OFF DEBT! Additionally, according to “law” a debt paid off is a debt no more. If the market buys your debt they have paid it off! Does the buyer come after you to pay off the debt? No. Yet they are the owner of it now. So why does the bank demand you pay an extinguished debt? 12. The obfuscation of the banks then is this: You create the money. They RE-PUBLISH that money as theirs and issue it to the owner. That is ALL the banks do! They then charge you interest on your own created money. In any other circumstance, it would be YOU who charged THEM interest for lending them money! They make HUGE profits out of your signature creating that money for them. They multiply it and lend it out again and again!

THE CASE OF SCOTLAND

Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments falls into exactly the same category as the previous one, in that if there was one matter over which the Scottish Parliament would be expected to take control, it would be an issue of such symbolic importance as the Scottish bank note. I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is not correct about the issue of the euro, as Scottish bank notes are not themselves legal tender; they are merely promissory notes issued under the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845 and the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928. They are backed by reserves in the banks concerned, but they are not themselves legal tender. For that reason, they could remain in circulation as promissory notes if they were reissued as euro notes in the event that we joined the single currency. Of course, the European central bank and the other member states would not recognise them as legal tender, but, as they do not have such recognition in England or, indeed, in Scotland, that would not be a problem. However, it would be interesting to hear on the record whether that is also the Government’s view. The issue has symbolic importance. As the United Kingdom Parliament allowed Scottish notes to continue in issue long after the currency union between England and Scotland, it is extraordinary that they should not become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Of course, the Government must reserve legal tender as United Kingdom issue over anything to do directly with currency, but, as Scottish bank notes are technically not currency, I fail to understand, and ask the Minister to explain, why promissory notes could not become a matter for the Scottish Parliament, rather than the United Kingdom Government, to supervise.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980330/debtext/80330-22.htm

So Scotland already is ACKNOWLEDGED as working on the basis of PROMISSORY NOTES. Do you see ANY difference between YOUR lives north of the border in terms of how you use “money” to that south of the border or anywhere else? No, you don’t! And there’s a reason for that. The reason being is that just as you accept and consider these acknowledged promissory notes (obligations) as your currency, the rest of the world does precisely the same because, as explained in my blog “The new economics will be mathematics”, ALL currency throughout the world are simply no more and no less than PROMISSORY NOTES which represent each and every one of our promissory obligations to one another. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH USING THE BANKS’ RE-PRESENTATIONS OF OUR OWN PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS IS THAT WE NEED TO PAY INTEREST TO THESE BANKS FOR THE SIMPLE USE OF THEIR REPRESENTATION (i.e. BANK NOTES) OF OUR OWN MONEY! THAT IS ALL WE PAY INTEREST FOR YET, IF WE SIMPLY RECORDED EACH AND EVERY PROMISSORY TRANSACTION ON THE MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) then we pay no interest for goods and assets we buy and, therefore, there is NO ever spiralling upward NATIONAL DEBT because the REAL economy would be perfectly reflected by the amount of promissory obligations in circulation. THE BANKS STEAL OUR OWN PROMISSORY NOTES AND REPRESENT THEM AS THEIRS. DOING SO, THEY THEN CHARGE INTEREST AND THAT INTEREST DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL ECONOMY THEREFORE IT CAN NEVER EVER BE PAID OFF!

Implement MPE and ACR and cashless is NOT a problem. Without it, you have absolute tyranny.

Do we need a national or federal debt? Just ask Ben Bernanke:

 

But Gresham, and the Professor here, will never talk about this. The City of London and all the “Worshipful” would crucify them if they did.

China, Hong Kong and the “Faren”: What is behind the current crisis?

Posted in Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 10, 2019

A couple of years back or so, I wrote a couple of blogs related to the Capitalizing of China. When it was done, who worked on it and how it was achieved.

Recently, I attempted to make an “engaging video” based on those blogposts but, due to copyright infringement issues on Youtube and just the general subject matter, it proved impossible.

Here is what I did upload to youtube but I would stress that it really acts as an intro or summary of the issues which, if you wish to dig deep into them and understand what is affecting Hong Kong/China at the moment from a “bottom line” perspective, I suggest you read the blogs written previously.

I do, genuinely, believe that anyone in China or Hong Kong will find the blogs extremely enlightening when considering today’s (2019) struggles.

 

The two blogs will be found here: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/?s=Capitalizing+China

First, there is a “condensed” version, however, to really grasp the entire issue(s) the follow on is the detailed version.

China and Hong Kong’s friction today has been started a long time ago and started by the same globalist/jewish interests which are waging war, at the same time, on the west today.

CHINA, HONG KONG AND THE WEST ALL SHARE THE SAME ADVERSARIES. THOSE ADVERSARIES, HOWEVER, SIT AMONG US WITHIN OUR CORRIDORS OF FINANCIAL AND LEGAL POWER. THEY USE TWO TOOLS: MONEY AND LAW, THE LATTER, MORE EXACTLY, BEING THE USE OF THE “FAREN” OR “LEGAL PERSON”.

R.I.P. Herr Zundel

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Law by earthling on August 8, 2017

Saddened to hear of the passing of a great, brave man, Ernst Zundel.

Here is the Washington Post’s obituary for him. You may wish to consider that it speaks ill of the dead (no surprise) as it describes him as a “Neo Nazi” (as it would describe me) and he and his wife, Ingrid as “Nazi extremists”. Ridiculous, slanderous claims but they will forever be used against this man and anyone else who DARES to question the JEWISH CRAP!

If the Washington Post wants to label ANYONE “Extremist” it would be the JDL (Jewish Defence League) and another being the CAA (Campaign for Anti-semitism) plus other such “clubs” of the synagogue. The JDL set Mr Zundel’s home ablaze and get away with it (this was in the late 80s). Mr Zundel was never convicted in his adopted home state of Canada. In fact, the liars were proven to be jews! Another thing the Washington Post shall not be too quick to advise people. But the jews wouldn’t give up so, since Ernst was a German national, they kept plugging away until they got the german state to demand his return to Germany where he was found guilty for an action (writing materials to show the holocaust never happened, NOT SETTING JEWISH HOMES ALIGHT!!!!) which would only be a crime if committed IN Germany.

 

“Considered to have been spreading his message to Germans”? And?…. So?

  1. Does the german court THINK (does it have the capacity to or is it just filled with jews?) for a moment that it might well ask the question: WHY would any german visit the website if they were of the impression that it is ridiculous to question the holocaust? You hear so many times from the “law” that “problems exist because there is a market for it” whatever “it” may be – paedophilia for example! Where do we KNOW to look for that? Behind legislators’ desks and judges gowns, not to mention priests and rabbis robes!
  2. In this case, of course, they’d say “He is corrupting minds” and/or “people look out of curiosity. it does not mean they agree”. Then, if it is the latter, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, CAPICE? (I know that’s not German but Italian but it sounded good in this instance when talking to prats like judges etc). And if they don’t agree, then they cannot be “corrupted” can they? SO WHAT IS THE REAL REASON YOU BASTARDS? I’ll tell you the real reason – you’re shitting yourself that, if and when people ARE exposed to a multitude of facts, your story dissolves into the putrid shit that it is!
  3. “Years of anti semitic activities” – like what? Burning down their houses as they did to him? You HYPOCRITICAL, SLIMY AMOEBAS!

So, in addition, if you were not aware, they have also imprisoned this lady. I guess because SHE also has a brain to dissect shit, that she is also an “anti semitic EXTREMIST”?

A “lost cause” indeed. a “lost cause” because the decades and decades of RE-EDUCATION didn’t work on some. Let me be VERY clear, these jews will hound and hunt anyone and everyone down that just doesn’t go with the script.

And lastly, something which just happened in England within days. A JEW (Gilad Atzmon, Jazz saxophonist and who played on Pink Floyd’s “The Endless River” album) was playing a gig in Oxford….

So, jews attacking73 year old men because they attend a gig by a jew? What do we call these people? “Anti-Anti-Semites”? Or “Anti-semite-semites”? I’ve a good word for them – TRASH! But the thing is, jewish trash can get away with being trash far more than white trash can! You see, white trash don’t have a state recognised excuse: “Oy veh! Da Holocaust! Will people never allow us to forget?”

Listen you creep! You don’t WANT to forget! Why would you? It gives you the “pass”, the “Get out of jail card” EVERYTIME! It got Woody Allen a pass for fucking his own daughter for christ’s sakes! The only reason Bernie Madoff is in jail is because he defrauded the tribe! Had he just kept to the goyim he’d still be doing it today!

I AM NOT, NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE A “NEO-NAZI” BUT, FROM WHAT I HAVE LEARNED OVER THE PAST DECADE AND FROM WHAT I SEE OF YOU – JEWS – I SEE WHO THE REAL “NAZIS” WERE AND STILL ARE! ONLY AN IGNORANT, UNREAD, INCAPABLE SCHMUCK COULDN’T FIGURE THIS OUT! It’S ENOUGH TO TURN ANYONE INTO WHAT YOU REFER TO AS A NAZI! YOUR “PROJECTION” ON OTHERS IS WHAT IS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH A DECENT IQ. AS FOR YOU BEING A “RACE” OF HIGH IQ, THAT IS A JOKE! ALL YOU ARE ARE A TRIBAL CLIQUE WHO PAT YOURSELVES ON THE BACK BECAUSE YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS SHIT!

Gilad has also had a bunch of emails, sent to him and others, of a threatening nature….

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/8/1/on-tribal-vindictiveness

SO YOU TELL ME: WHO ARE THE THUGS?

THE THUGS HAVE THE STATE ON THEIR SIDE HOWEVER…… FOR NOW!

One day…… one day…..

Ying tong diddly eye Po! Sieg Heil!

Posted in Law by earthling on August 6, 2017

What is it they are actually being charged with? THINK about this! Two Chinamen, on vacation in Germany, visit the Reichstag and – we all know about Hitler right? Right? Even Basil Fawlty knows about Hitler!

The re-education of Germany huh? It worked perfectly! Re-educated into a nihilistic belief they are the world’s biggest murdering race! Not by a LONG shot! We Brits even beat them at that! As do the Russians who, behind the iron curtain, protected the story of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka etc. Also protecting the reality of the Katyn Forest massacre. Under a regime in the USSR which was made up of almost entirely, jews! Is this also where Germany lost its sense of humour? In the re-education process? Or was it always that way?

Did this BBC show ever make it to Germany? I don’t know. I guess not. After all, had it done so, John Cleese would have had to have been arrested and charged if he entered the country to promote it!

Anyhow, back to the Chinamen (or is it “Chinese persons who identify as male”?): Who’s to say what their intent was? They come from half a world away and went to see a known historic building where, as the following RT story states,  was “MOST LIKELY paid by the NAZI party”. and they give it a NAZI salute? In SUPPORT of NAZIsm or as a laugh? As an acknowledgement of the history? Did they have automatic weapons on them ready to round up jews afterwards? Did they then walk around the building asking onlookers if they were circumcised? Were they intending to fund some new rail-tracks and trains? (if you believe the old story that is). Or was it simply some jewish guy caught sight of them and phoned the cops (because they LOVE doing that – the “eternal victims”).

Tell me something: What do psychologists normally try to do with people affected by traumatic events in their lives? What do they tend to try and accomplish? An acceptance that it happened but not to dwell on the past and look to the future. EVERY DAMNED THING that has ever happened to someone in their lives is, essentially, “treated” that way – you, me, everyone and anyone we know. We get on with life. Even blacks (to a healthy degree) and it’s expected of Native Americans, Aborigines etc. Why the latter however? Because it is IN OUR INTEREST (“our” being those in power in the west) to have them do so. “Slavery”? Oh come on! That was decades and centuries ago! Indian massacres? Again, stop dwelling in the past, we just want a pipeline today!

But JEWS and their FRICKING HOLOCAUST? No. “Never forget”; Never move on. Get Spielberg to do ANOTHER fucking movie! Have a WW2/Nazi/Jew thread in a large percentage of American (and British) TV and movies. Have museums dedicated to it to keep the nightmare alive. Make sure that one generation of jews (and gentiles) after another are traumatised by the story: “we did that?” “Oy veh! It still gives me nightmares – I still feel the pain of my forebears. Have we managed to gain some cash from Mongolia yet?” “What for?” Well, one of my ancestors funded a mine there during the war and the Nazis got hold of it. It was worth 32 million shekels at the time. With inflation….. oh and don’t forget the pain it has caused me and ALL jewish people!”

 

 

But here’s another thing: Germany has “strict laws”? So do half the European countries! But what are those laws against? Lifting your arm?

Here, wait a bloody minute. What’s this?:

That’s Merkel giving a NAZI salute! Isn’t it? It’s not? How’s that? Not “Spracken zie” enough? Should the thumb and fingers be together? Is it not high enough/low enough? Do we need to get our protractors out and measure the angle?

Ok, so here’s the man himself. You have to give a little leeway to Merkel. After all, it’s 70 years later and memories fade – Oh no, they don’t do they? Not in THIS case! Oh well.

What about this one? Too high? Again the fingers are apart?

Can we see the actual photo of the chinamen to determine if they got it all exactly right? did they do it with their right or left arms? What if they were left handed and it’s meant to be done with the right arm? Were they holding their belts with Nazi uniforms on? Did they have little moustaches? I’d have died laughing seeing chinamen standing giving “Nazi salutes”. Something like this?

Or were they standing around saying “You mispwonounce ‘chop suey’, it is ‘chop jewey’!”?

So back to this salute: When is it a salute and when is it not? AND DOES IT REALLY FRICKING MATTER? Whatever happened to the United Nations’ Human Rights re freedom of thought/opinion/speech and arm gestures? Hahahahaha, that was obviously a joke! “Human Rights” that is!

What about this one:

A bit too “gay” with the hand on the hip? “Ooooh.. Zeig Heil mine fuhrer!” Or, again, is the arm too high? Can’t take it seriously with a pair of trunks on and covered in baby oil? Then again, that bastard IS a “nazi” – he’s Austrian after all! (Oh shit! Is there a law about suggesting all Austrians are Nazi failed painters?” Anti-Austitic? Or Anti-Autistic? Anti-Aspergers? Aunty Senga?

What if a german had tourettes and everytime he came in bed with his wife, he shouted ” Z..Z…Zeig……..Heeeiiiiiiillllllllllllll! What if he was with a pick up on the streets of Amsterdam and asked for her papers? Just to check her age you understand. What if he had strange thoughts of shagging Anne Frank and promised to “go dutch” when visiting Madame Tussauds later on? After all, when in Rome…..

Too high again huh? Or Hitler didn’t show his bicep when he saluted?

What about this for comparison? No? The tilt of the hand is the wrong way? He’s wearing a red tie which diminishes the symbology since men with red ties have small penises? Was Hitler well endowed?

 

Ok, this one?

“NOT POSSIBLE!!” – Do you think? 😉 Ah the layers upon layers eh? If only you knew!

Ah! Now you CAN’T possibly argue with this one surely! After all, it runs in the family!

Germany, who invented your dish, “Sauerkraut”? It wasn’t Nigella Lawson by any chance was it? LOL The german dish which describes the german people today who have allowed themselves to be castrated by a clan who always wished for their castration. And yet, you’re so proud of your technology: WHO created that potential and actualisation of industry in you? It WASN’T a jew I can tell you that! They just run your bank!

Anyway, what’s China doing about this? Gonna be beaten down by the jewish influence in Beijing are you? Can’t you get them around the table and share some Szechwan chicken wings and rub them in ginger and black bean sauce? The jews that is, not the chicken wings!

TWO CHINAMEN ON VACATION IN GERMANY, WERE FOUND GUILTY OF ARSON… NO, FRAUD…No, THAT’S NOT RIGHT EITHER…. MURDER? NOPE. RAPE? NOPE. THEFT? NOPE. SINGING CHINESE FOLK SONGS IN PUBLIC TOILETS WHILE FLASHING THEIR WILLIES? NOPE.

AH I KNOW! THEY LIFTED AN OUTSTRETCHED ARM IN PUBLIC AND GERMAN PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE ALIENS AND HAD DEATH RAYS THEY WERE ABOUT TO UNLEASH? NOPE? THEN WHAT THE HELL WAS IT?

“THEY RAISED AN OUTSTRETCHED ARM AT THE WRONG ANGLE!!! ZIS, VE VILL NOT TOLERATE!”

Oh FUCK OFF AND GET A LIFE!

“BUT VE MUST REMEMBER ZE HOLOCAUST EVEN IF ZEY DON’T GIVE ZE FUCK!”

On to “Hitler’s belly”:

In China, Hitler isn’t known for the Holocaust, but rather for achieving social stability with a very high human cost. “In general, they refer to him as very lihai, very hardcore, someone who is strong, powerful,” said Rabbi Nussin Rodin, a Chabad representative in Beijing.

Bizarrely, support for Hitler does not in any way suggest disdain for Jews. On the contrary: Chinese people on the whole are very approving of Judaism and Jewish culture, seeing Jews as experts in both moneymaking and child rearing, with a long history and a strong tradition of education. And, unsurprisingly in a country where Mao’s all-seeing portrait still hangs from Tiananmen Square, Chinese tend to shy away from comparisons between their homegrown contender for the title of history’s greatest butcher. “I don’t think there can be any comparison between Hitler and Mao,” said Meng. “Mao’s biggest spirit was to serve the people; Mao loved the people. That’s the biggest difference.”

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/theater-and-dance/75920/great-dictator

 

HAVA YEW NEVA HEAD OF ZA HAUWACOST?

YEW.. AH… WIFTED YEWA AHM IN ZA WONG WAY AH?

YEW GO TO JAOL!

Meanwhile in Sudan…… “You call a Teddy ‘Muhammad’? You go to jail too!

Same difference right? “OH NO! THOSE WERE NASTY MUSLIMS! We’re Jewish you know! There IS a difference (we just won’t say what it is)”. We know, don’t worry, we know!

The world is full of cretinous farts who think they’re Gods…. most of them being “God’s chosen”! hahahahahahaha Twats!

But they’re “progressive!” 😉

Globalism indeed: One law here, one law there….. see this “line” here in the sand? It’s called a border! Cross this and, whereas, on the other side, just a foot away, you can smoke dope or get knocked up or drink alcohol at your age, over THIS side, you go to jail because you’re a CRIMINAL! THAT mentality even exists between England and Scotland! And they’re both part of the same bloody country! Or is it “cuntry”?

JOKE OF THE DAY:

A German, a jew, a Mexican, and a Chinaman all come to the U.S. together eager to live the American dream. Ready to work, they go around knocking on doors asking if anyone needs help. An old man answers the door and informs them that he needs a new barn built. The four agree to do it and follow the old man behind the house.
The old man explains what he wants and leaves them to it telling them that they’ll find tools in the old barn.

The jew explains the barn will cost $50,000 plus 12.5% interest. The old man asks what the interest’s for and the jew explains “inflation from the time we start the job to when we finish. The temple wasn’t built in a day you know!”
The German takes charge and says, “I’ll design it and supervise the job.” He then points to the Mexican and says, “You’ll do the labor and dig the foundation,” and points to the Chinaman and says, “You’ll be in charge of the supplies.”
Immediately the Chinaman takes off. After a little while the German completes the design and the Mexican gets right to work while the jew asks for a 90% retainer of the principal and the rest, plus interest, to be held in an escrow account (he then goes out and buys himself a brand new BMW but that’s another story) A little while later the foundation has been excavated and the German and the Mexican look at each other wondering where the Chinaman is with the supplies. About half an hour later, the Mexican climbs out of the hole and joins the German in the search for the Chinaman. Notice the jew isn’t around.
They look around the old barn and as they’re about to round the corner, the Chinaman jumps out with a smile on his face and his hands flailing in the air and yells, “SUPPLIES!”

 

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

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling 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!

 

 

What’s easier? To murder a Human or murder a Person?

Posted in Law by earthling on February 14, 2016

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE I BEEN “RANTING” ON ABOUT THIS ISSUE FROM SO MANY ANGLES?

WILL THIS CONVINCE YOU? (Will ANYTHING convince you?)

 

“Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”

Killing babies

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Does it ever sink in with some people? Read it again (and again if necessary).

The main point is “are human beings” but only “potential persons”. Until you are a PERSON you have NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE. However, the LIE here is using the word MORAL which is substituted for LEGAL. What they are saying is, until that newborn child is recognised LEGALLY, there is no MORAL need to keep it alive. Yet, that child is a fully formed (and birthed) HUMAN BEING yet, as such, it has NO RIGHTS. THEREFORE, where is all this “Human Rights” business coming from? It is, in fact, and always has been, a deception of the very first order. Not one “PERSON” on this planet has “Human Rights” because you do NOT receive them UNTIL you are recognised as a PERSON.

IS IT NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO USE YOUR MIND THAT “GOD” GAVE YOU TO EXTRAPOLATE FROM THAT FACT WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS AND ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT? If not, then type into my search bar “legal person” or “human rights” and learn about it.

DO YOU REALLY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO HOW THEY USE THIS AGAINST US ALL EVERY SINGLE DAY IN LIFE?

DO YOU REALLY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHERE THIS CAN (AND WILL) LEAD?

(and where it has been leading since its invention)

Columbia Law Review: Concept of “the PERSON”: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/columbia-law-review-supports-earthling-re-human-rights-and-persons/

“The value of birth registration continues to be overlooked, according
to the report. It says that registration is a critical measure to
secure the recognition of every person before the law, to safeguard
the protection of his or her individual rights, and to ensure that
any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.”

This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist.

BUT,,,, DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that registering your child (therefore, creating the person) is doing them a service. IT IS NOT!

You MUST understand the game being played here and, for that, I ask you to read my blogs on the subject. ALL of them!

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

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHO AND WHAT THESE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PEOPLE ARE?

Is Caitlyn Jenner a murderer?

Posted in Law, Media, Science by earthling on June 6, 2015

INSANITY FAIR INDEED!

556c7a224ae56e586e457d3e_vf-cover-bruce-jenner-july-2015

Did this “woman” murder this man?

In the fictional realm of “law” (which we all live under), indeed she did!

The case of Caitlyn Jenner is a perfect example of the basic jurisprudence of law – the “legal person” – displaying itself as a joke but a very dangerous “joke” upon the men and women of this planet earth. But, of course, the cultural marxists, the “libertarians” (now that will be a surprise to those of you who are) and the simple, emotional, “feel gooders” of the world will not see, or wish to see, the reality of this. Nevertheless, it needs to be brought to your attention because it is through the fundamental con of the “legal person” (a fiction at law), that all of us are entirely controlled due to the fact very few of you understand it.

Bruce Jenner was a sportsman who won olympic medals. Bruce Jenner no longer exists in law. It is existence in law which gives us the “benefit” of “human rights”. You do not have “human rights” if you do not exist. I have explained this before in a previous few blogs.

In the airy fairy world of LGBT rights, we are told to accept that a person can simply become another person altogether and we should be accepting of this. Ok, let’s say we are.

So, again, Bruce Jenner no longer exists! What does this mean?

Well, let’s consider a wealthy person with a ton of insurance and their spouse murders them for that insurance. It does happen you know!

Would that spouse be liable and be imprisoned for the murder? Of course they would!

So what has “Caitlyn” Jenner done to Bruce Jenner? In the legal world, she has caused him to cease to exist. This is murder. Was it pre-meditated? Yes, of course it was. So it is 1st degree murder.

Is it possible there was a motive? After all, Caitlyn could hardly then ask for the insurance which was in Bruce Jenner’s name could she? But, perhaps, Kris Jenner could if we followed law properly. A legal person who existed is now, effectively, deceased!

But back to Caitlyn: What does she gain out of the murder of Bruce if not insurance? So it wasn’t an insurance job!

Well, what about this:

 

Insurance fraud

Now, if any of you out there want to make some serious money before you die, just get to the point where you are a 3rd rate celebrity – do anything to get there; go on a reality TV show and make a huge arse of yourself, anything at all to get that public attention – and then MILK IT!

Once you’ve done that, adopt a seriously “out there” message – like becoming a tranny – which is highly acceptable to the cultural marxist, political agenda and they’ll create the environment and the media attention you need plus support you to spread your message worldwide through talks giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars and TV appearances etc – a little like the £000’s Tony Blair gets for talks supporting the globalist agenda which, of course, Caitlyn is now a poster “girl” for!

But back to the legal issue:

There’s a petition started to demand that Bruce Jenner’s medals be given back. Is this fair? Well, of course it is! Bruce is dead and a “woman” by the name of Caitlyn has the medals in her property which do not belong to her. She is NOT Bruce Jenner and does not wish to be. She killed Bruce Jenner!

Further, it has to be asked why Kris Jenner – Bruce’s wife – is not being handed her husband’s estate?

The stupid woman should have waited! He’s no longer “Bruce Jenner” but Caitlyn Jenner so then she wouldn’t have had to file for a divorce from a non existent person! She should have just stated her husband was dead and his estate would have gone to her lock stock and barrel!
Ask yourself Kris: “Am I married to a woman called Caitlyn?” You bloody idiot!

Why did Kris Jenner apply for divorce from Bruce Jenner before he died? She should have simply hung on until he died and she would have inherited his property anyhow! What a silly woman! She could then pursue Caitlyn Jenner for all the money she is about to make by capitalising on the death of her husband. But, in reality, Caitlyn Jenner should not be able to make any money in such a fashion because it is argued she should be in jail for first degree murder!

Kris Jenner

Let’s assume “Caitlyn” Jenner now is recognised as a legal person (I don’t know if he/she has applied for such but I imagine he/she will). Then Bruce Jenner does not exist (in law).
Therefore, all of the property of Bruce Jenner (did he make a will?) is in testate”.
Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies owning property whose value is greater than the sum of their enforceable debts and funeral expenses without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the “intestate estate”.
Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law (statutory and case law) that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.
Under English law (given the probable conditions, Bruce Jenner died under):
The husband, wife or civil partner keeps all the assets (including property), up to £250,000, and all the personal possessions, whatever their value.
The remainder of the estate will be shared as follows:
the husband, wife or civil partner gets an absolute interest in half of the remainder
the other half is then divided equally between the surviving children
If a son or daughter (or other child where the deceased had a parental role) has already died, their children will inherit in their place.
So, in accordance with law, the death of Bruce Jenner means that his wife and children get all of his possessions and property. That would include the medals.
In law, your dad’s dead kids!

But there’s one further aspect: Should the legal person known as “Caitlyn Jenner” be charged with the murder of the legal person Bruce Jenner?

In law, the answer would be a resounding YES if the law wasn’t such an ass and used and abused by the lawmakers in whichever way they so choose!

But of course, now he’s a “woman” I guess you would expect him to become a money grabber! 😉

Women just remember this: You aren’t one unless the law says you are! You don’t even exist unless the law says you do!

Womanhood is nothing special ladies and you even support that idea yourselves. Any man can be a woman and don’t you dare think you’re anything special!

It’s ironic that women are, by their own will and ignorance, destroying womanhood!

Knock yourselves out girls! 😉

Now just remember when your little boy says “Mummy, I want to be a girl”, don’t be a bigot! Dress him up in little knickers, a dress and when he hits about 12, tell him he needs to wear tampons just in case!

 

Caitlyn: She didn't marry for money, she murdered for it!

Caitlyn: She didn’t marry for money, she murdered for it!

Nick Clegg’s 12 yr old remains celibate but…..

Posted in Law, Paedophilia by earthling on February 15, 2015

Nick Clegg and Nicky Morgan believe it is entirely normal for 12/13 year olds to participate in a bit of “hide the sausage”.

12 yr old sex

It has come to the attention of the Daily Mail that Nick’s eldest son, Antonio, now 12 – one of three sons – has made his father and mother extremely proud (why?) having stated that he aims to remain celibate until he is 17. Mr and Mrs Clegg were overjoyed by Antonio’s proclamation – why when they consider 12 year old sex normal, the Daily Mail reporter could not fathom – but they were somewhat distraught after asking the pre-teen why he had made his decision.

It appears that Antonio replied saying that he was waiting until Educational Secretary’s, Nicky Morgan, 7 year old son had hit the age of 12 in 5 years time because he really fancies the pants off him and wants to drill his butt badly! Antonio felt that his love for the 7 year old would enable him to hold off that long. It was the first time Mr and Mrs Clegg had heard their son suggest he had homosexual tendencies but they weren’t too phased about it all. After all, homosexuality and 12 year old sex is all quite normal in the 21st century and the Clegg’s support it all 100%.

1193030-nick-clegg-vice-premier-ministre-du-950x0-2

The Educational Secretary was unavailable for comment but we have learned that she has taken out a restraining order against the Cleggs. When asked why, considering she also considered 12 year old sex as perfectly natural, Mrs Morgan replied that it wasn’t so much Antonio she was concerned about being near her boy as Mr Clegg himself!

"I believe in a child's rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they're 13 years old, well that's damned fine by me!"

“I believe in a child’s rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they’re 13 years old, well that’s damned fine by me!”

 

Goddamnit! It’s your children!!

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 28, 2014

I read and I watch as thousands of children per year are taken from the families and put into care and foster homes.

I read and watch as many of those same children are then physically, mentally and sexually abused.

And then I sit here and think “While I’d love to help those who have lost their kids and try to stop it, these families – yes, I understand desperate and confused – don’t listen or don’t take it seriously when I and many others tell you you have registered your child as a legal person (as we all have) and it is this which gives the state the power to remove them and gives the state the power over every other aspect of our lives!”

You’d rather go to people like John Hemmings MP who you believe has a “caring ear” for your trouble. Yet John Hemmings is not an idiot! But he won’t even go NEAR the “legal person” issue with you and explain what it is. NO MP, nor judge nor barrister nor lawyer or police officer will! Their entire livelihood and existence in their roles depends upon that legal person existing!

The question is: DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN?

Now LISTEN to me! I am NOT advocating that there should be no such thing as a “legal person” (which may sound, on the face of it, contradictory) but what I AM advocating is that everyone – you, me and all you people who have had your kids stolen (plus many more people, young and old alike, who have been victim to the DISCRIMINATION and the FALSE POWERS which are wielded using the “legal person” as their source of power) – actually bring this entire issue to the attention of all those who actually do KNOW what it is all about (and that includes the lawyers, judges and, not so much MPs perhaps, but those in government) and create a “People against Persons” movement.

You want your children to remain your children? Or not? Because, as it stands, they are NOT your children even if you have them living with you when they’re 30+ years old!

The “legal person” issue is NOT “rocket science”. It is VERY simple. It is that simplicity and the size of the deception which makes it extraordinary evil and difficult to believe, that is all so, for god’s sakes, let the penny drop!

If you haven’t already, read the following three blogs at the very least:

 

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT DECEPTION:  HRAD

and

The Girl who could not commit a crime:  GCCC

and

The UN INADVERTENTLY ADMITS FREEMAN CONCEPT:  UNAFC

 

UNDERSTAND THIS: YOU CANNOT FIGHT THE LEAGL PERSON SYSTEM (or the legal system itself) WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND USING IT’S FUNDAMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE BECAUSE IT IS THAT FUNDAMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN CORRUPTED. IT IS LIKE TRYING TO BEAT THE HOUSE IN A CASINO – THE HOUSE WILL ALWAYS WIN!

BRITISH POLICE: A bunch of fairies!

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on October 22, 2014

Do you remember the bullies at school who used to go for the easiest target?

That’s the British Police – A bunch of fucking fairies!

 

I took a tour of the Houses of Parliament the other week and, during it, I spoke to a number of Police on my way around – after having to go through what amounted to an airport search before proceeding into the “womb of British democracy”. And to do this one had to pay approximately £30 for the “privilege” while no photos could be taken inside (yet the Houses of Lords and Commons are videoed and photographed in detail every damned week of the year!). Case in point:

Now, there are a few points I’d like to make about this video:

1. It’s a bunch of overgrown schoolboys (and girls) literally playing “the school debating society” that they grew up with in their Eton’s etc while Mummy and Daddy treated them as their not so precious little things. They haven’t lost their humour in the face of a country which is on its knees I see.

2. But then why should they lose their humour? 0.1% of the British population are millionaires and, within that 0.1%, 75% or more of British MPs are millionaires. So the question is: Within this “Representative democracy” of ours, who do these people represent? Well, who do you goddamn, bloody well think? Why do you think they can spend so much time laughing and joking with each other while the country crumbles? Because they’re not crumbling with it! On the contrary. And why do you think that is? Because they are sucking the life out of it. They make their millions by aligning themselves, working for, being non executive Directors for (when not actually on the benches) and lobbying for the Corporations who make sure they’re ok jack when they’re out in the political wilderness. YES, they work for these companies in a PRIVATE CAPACITY (nod to the Bilderbergers here too) but they get hired because of their PUBLIC CAPACITY KNOWLEDGE. It is INSIDER TRADING at the very highest level and I have blogged about this before – the Insider trading AND the “legal person capacities”. Just as her Madge has her capacity as the Queen of England but has another capacity as a “citizen of the EU”.

3. We have just learned of this man:

Garron Helm antisemitic tweet

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/20/man-jailed-antisemitic-tweet-labour-mp

 

Now, listen to David Cameron, once more, in the House of Commons referring to Ed Miliband – a jew – as a Marxist (Communist).

Clearly, then, it cannot be said that Mr Helm was either wrong NOR “anti semitic” referring to Luciana Berger as a “Communist jewess” – OUR PRIME MINISTER HAS STATED PRECISELY THAT TO THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION WHO HE WELL KNOWS IS A JEW!

So, is it that Mr Helm simply used his freedom of speech and thought to say he believed “Hitler was right”? Did he say what he felt Hitler was right about? Did he state that “JEWS SHOULD BE GASSED”? No, I don’t think he did!

Or is it that he stated “You can always trust a jew to show their true colours eventually”? THAT is worthy of a 4 week (or ANY) jail sentence?

Is there ANY “HATE” or “OBSCENITY” in ANY of these statements?

Shouldn’t, then, David Cameron be incarcerated for having the audacity to exclaim that a jew, in our House of Commons, is a communist?

Or is Mr Helm simply jailed because he spelled it out in no uncertain terms?

The British Justice system does not even have to justify itself for its actions (and inaction). It just does as it pleases. Because it is NOT justice for you and I (or anyone in fact) – it JUST IS! And it JUST IS for THEM not US.

But the sad, pathetic little wankers called “Police” just do as they’re told and act as the thugs with no brains or balls that their “massa’s” (because they are no better than House Negroes) demand them to and you and I are “easy pickings” while they get their salaries for keeping their eye off the real maniacs and controlling the people pointing at the “Emperor with no clothes”.

 

Anyhow, back to the tour. At one stage, I spoke with two Police officers standing around as they do, making sure everyone is just keeping “in line” and being good little subjects. I stated, quite plainly, to them that while they are here keeping a watchful eye over us, the real criminals (and paedophiles) are the ones they are protecting. Plus, I also discussed and pointed out the issue(s) with the “legal person”. As to the first point, they stated “Yes we know but we get our orders from above and there’s nothing we can do about it” (as I said – House Negroes – in this case “House of Commons Negroes”). To the second point, where I mentioned the case of Jade Jacob Brooks and how she did not exist in law and, therefore, if not existing, a non existent entity could shoot a judge in court point blank and walk away scot free – They turned and said to each other “Yeah, he has a point doesn’t he?” and then said to me “We hadn’t thought about it like that before”.

No and you know why? YOU GOONS DON’T THINK. YOU’RE NOT PAID TO THINK. YOU’RE PAID TO DO!

And like the bully at school, you just get a kick out of having some semblance of power over other people because, in truth, you have none.

You’re a bunch of overpaid (of course) losers and wasters with IQs that would only rival a gnat! And yet you expect respect?

GO TO HELL!

This is all you’re good for. I wonder what you’d do if one of your own family were to protest like this? But then they wouldn’t would they because you come from a long line of dummies and ignoramuses and families who probably just do what they’re told:

 

London’s Occupy Democracy protesters were forcibly removed by the Metropolitan Police Force from Parliament Square Tuesday, as protesters cried and made their bodies dead-weights.
“Officer, that man stole my wallet!” “Oh he did, did he? You’re nicked mate!”
The British Police: Ordered by the state and cowards. Easy pickings for you rather than go for the people who ARE breaking the law these people are protesting about! You’re a bunch of LOSERS!

“Hey slaveboy”

“Yes massa!”

“Whip Kunta Kinte’s ass until he calls himself Toby”

“Yes massa… anything you say massa…is my pension still performing well?”

Our father

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthling on October 12, 2014

For the bitches on this earth who consider it ok to use their children as ammunition and then subsequently brainwash them (even when the truth is staring them in the face every single day). There will be a price to pay somehow/someday however either in this life or the next so enjoy it while you have the chance.

Meanwhile, I am aware that there will be fathers who have done similarly but I am male and I am speaking to the bitches. You, if a woman reading this, can say similar to the excuses for fathers who would do the same.

It’s nothing less than child abuse and yet you have the audacity to say you love your children while you have them grow and develop into adults believing their father to be something he never was. And you think that does not follow them deeply throughout their lives? You STUPID BITCH! But you’re not stupid at all, just immensely selfish (and guilty as hell).

And to the corrupt state which wants you to be single parents/single mothers and have the break up of the family unit and, therefore, support your lies and your perjury in courts across the world: You bastards!

Bali 1a

 

 

 

“Our Father”

Oh Daddy please,
take me with you
where you going
Oh Daddy please,
come find the time,
come watch us growing
Oh Daddy please,
don’t leave there’s so
much that we want to
know before you go

I’m in need of someone
to tie my shoe,
or take hold of my hand
when I become afraid
And whose footsteps
will I follow into,
Daddy please,
don’t run away

OUR FATHER
FAR FATHER
WELL LET ME TELL YOU ‘BOUT
OUR FATHER
FAR FARTHER AWAY…

Oh Daddy please,
I pray every night
the doors will open
Oh Daddy please,
this house is just
a broken home,
left all alone

Father’s Justice Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/fathers.justice.3?fref=ts

 

Manila 12

 

 

FACT: You advised a court in Singapore that £35,000 withdrawn from a bank account in your name which I managed for years (because you were bloody hopeless with money) and which was entirely made up of MY salaries and simply put in your name for tax purposes and higher interest, was all your own savings. Lie Number 1 and the major one which stopped me from being able to continue our children’s private international education. Yet you told them “Dad” was pulling them out because he was angry with mum and wanted to exact revenge on mum. How would destroying my own children’s education exact revenge on you?

FACT: You advised the court in Singapore that the password for that account was held ONLY by you THEN, in a later affidavit you contradicted yourself saying you had to change the password so I could not gain access. The court ignored the contradiction and obvious perjury. But then they would wouldn’t they?

FACT: You deposited the bulk of that £35,000 into two accounts – your father’s (an ex, long serving Police Inspector who prided himself on being a “lawful man” haha) and your brother’s; both in Scotland – and you initially went to the court saying you had no money. The court initially, of course, believed you as you were crying crocodile tears about how you were going to feed our children if you didn’t get approximately 70% of my salary (which the court gave you). You used having the children to your every advantage. They weren’t your children, they were a meal ticket to you!! You disgusting bitch! As for your father and your brother, they were money launderers and always will be. A COP money launderer!! Well no surprise there!

FACT: You smiled and enjoyed the day I brought the proof of your perjury to court and proved that the £35,000 was and always had been, my salaries. The court accepting the proof of 5 years of bank account statements showing the flow of money from my salaries to that very account. You didn’t even work! HOW could you have saved that money? The court recognised it and did nothing!! The Judge then asked me to continue paying the maintenance money to you under court order. You KNEW the type of person I am and you KNEW I would say no. Then the third time I said no to that judge (I knew what was coming) and she banged the gavel and had me handcuffed and taken down to cells under the court before being taken to jail for contempt. And you smiled! You then told our daughters that “Daddy was jailed because he didn’t wish to pay for you!” You dirty liar!

FACT: You told our children that “Dad was going crazy” at you for nothing while you told our families that “He’s bipolar or something” (Yes suddenly after 20 years, just strangely at the same time you decide to have an affair while you’re telling everyone, including the children, family AND the court, “he’s just a friend” even when you MOVE IN WITH HIM! – It’s incredible the cognitive dissonance people will display (and our children display even now at the ages of 19 and 21 when that very same man is now your “husband” – Yes indeed inverted commas because I’m coming to that later). Again bullshit!

FACT: When I asked your parents why they stopped supporting our marriage and just supported your wishes and every step you took, your OWN MOTHER stated (with tears in her eyes): “If we hadn’t supported our daughter’s wishes we would never have seen our grandchildren again”. So BLACKMAIL of your OWN PARENTS isn’t even too low to go!!

More later……

Don’t talk to me about “Democracy”!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on September 27, 2014

Not that democracy is perfect anyhow but we, in the west and in the UK do not have it!

So if anyone talks to you about our “great democracy” and “Who are you voting for?” or “What are you voting for?” please, do me a favour, laugh in their face! They’re just ignorant bastards.

all-seeing-eye-u-k

Royal Prerogative

HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 485
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.20 am
§Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch’s power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.

Blackstone’s 18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” referred to the prerogative as that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity”— an arrangement that Blackstone described as in its nature singular and eccentrical”. In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens’ rights.

The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe: this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn”.—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.] My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.

The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between 486 subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.

In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?

The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed: it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise. He noted that there had been “practically no authority” on the matter since 1688.

The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote: In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge. He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says: the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed. He also says: The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking. We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.

The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown’s right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

487 Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient “prerogative of perfection”—that is, “The King can do no wrong.” What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.

Munro concludes: Behind the phrase “royal prerogative” lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised. It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.

In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said: It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.] It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker’s job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.

The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1993/apr/21/royal-prerogative#S6CV0223P0_19930421_HOC_685

 

Tony Benn BBC quote

 

THE SECURITY SERVICE

HC Deb 17 January 1989 vol 145 cc180-238

Mr. Benn The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who 193 should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word “security”.

The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?

What is it about the Security Service’s political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces’ political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.

If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.

194 The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.

Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person”. That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.

It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver’s television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain’s armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.

The concept of the “enemy within” is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the “enemy within” became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.

I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright’s story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.

 

Mr. Benn The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.

I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.

 

Mr. Winnick Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§Mr. Benn I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, “Don’t go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service.” One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

196
§Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people’s democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.

 

Mr. Benn That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members’ research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
§Mr. Tony Banks Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, “What is parliamentary democracy?” It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying Why does treason never prosper?

Here’s the reason:

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the 197 sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.

Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.

In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.

The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1989/jan/17/the-security-service#S6CV0145P0_19890117_HOC_315

 

hitler

on behalf of

 

Salmond fishing

 

I hate hugs don’t you?

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption rejections http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2062031/Adoption-Couples-rejected-UK-agencies-white.html   And here is the propaganda displaying the destruction of heterosexual parenthood: “You don’t choose to be parents, it just happens, while gays make a conscious choice.” Gay parents “tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,” said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. “That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.” Do you notice anything about the psychologist’s surname? Are you at all surprised it is a surname associated with a particular sect? How is it that it is enormous the number of times such attacks on the fundamentals of society come from people of that sect? Haven’t you noticed? Are you that blind? Or are you just scared of acknowledging it? Gay parents http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html Then read the following and just think: Who is it that makes up these rules? And why? Are all the people in the council gay? Or gay supporters? No-one who works in the council (or in the adoption agencies) hold any ideology similar to this couple? Are the workers not allowed to be christian? Or is it like the police when they say “I’m not paid to have an opinion I just carry out orders”? I’m 100% positive it is the latter in general. Although I’m sure to get such jobs, you will be screened to ensure as far as possible that you have the right attitude. So that leaves the question: Who is screening and why? Well when you get right down to the bottom line, it is the state who is doing the screening. The question remains why? And why aren’t the couple allowed to have a baby rather than up to 10 years old? It is social engineering and it all flows down from the top – the government and civil service and Her Majesty. How do they attribute themselves the right to discriminate in these ways when they proclaim discrimination coming from any other quarter is a crime? Because THEY are the law and that is what 99% of the people in this country are simply accepting. Outright discrimination by those who create law for the purposes of control of social engineering. EVERY SINGLE CENSUS and “EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES” form that we complete is used NOT for equal opportunities but to discriminate and socially engineer. “More women” are needed. “More blacks” are needed. “More gay couples/parents” are needed. None of these decisions are actually based on capability to do something, they are based upon statistical, social engineering requirements. And they are achieved by utilising the LEGAL PERSON”. You are not being treated as a human being or an individual. You are being grouped and segregated into preference groups for various positions in society. The vast vast majority just do not recognise it and don’t wish to. Then PLEASE stop complaining!     Telegraph idealism   However, it wasn’t just our reaction to the “faeces question” that went down badly with the social workers. We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind. We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father. The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose. In our social club we have gay and bisexual people: they’ve had problems with their families and we’ve supported them. If they are not following a faith that says that their lifestyle is wrong, then we shouldn’t and wouldn’t condemn it. We are not homophobic and yet the social worker warned us our views would prejudice our chances of adopting. At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child? Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality. It was a devastating time: to be turned down after being grilled by social services for a year and a half, and also made to feel we were so much in the wrong. We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them. I wish now that we had gone through a Christian adoption agency that might have looked on us more favourably. We felt that in dealing with the local council our faith was a liability and we were discriminated against because of it. We know people who adopted via the same council 10 years ago who were not asked similar questions. Once, the government used to respect the religious views of the electorate. Now the Catholic Church and the Church of England are under attack. I agree with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, who have written to the Prime Minister saying that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”. If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith. People should be allowed to choose how they live their lives, so long as they don’t affect others. I feel that, as Christians, we are being denied our freedom to choose and are being persecuted for our faith – while a child who would benefit from all that we can give is missing out. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631526/Adopt-We-were-too-idealistic.html   THIS IS WHAT SOCIAL ENGINEERING RESULTS IN: Now, I watched this chinese couple and I cried. I hate admitting it but I cry with anger and frustration a lot these days. No-one would know that however because it’s hardly “socially acceptable” is it? But the tears don’t arise for nothing. What you see here is an audience getting a laugh out of a guy who sits on a panel and freely states that he is all for mothers killing their children if they wish to because HE believes the world is overpopulated. If he seriously believes that then – courage of convictions time again – he shouldn’t bring even one child into the world right? But that would be HIS (and his partner’s choice based on THEIR belief). However, what he is then saying is he would even consider banning people from having ANY children for 30 or 50 years (I forget which number he used). The audience member laughs, the audience as a whole laughs and he sits quite content with his eugenics-based, holier than thou, social engineering and population control stance while a woman and her husband in China have had the chinese authorities break into their house, kidnap the woman and inject her to murder her baby because of “SOCIAL ENGINEERING”. Social Engineering in China which was actually introduced to China by the ROCKEFELLER FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

WHO THE FUCK DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE?

AND IF YOU EVEN MAKE AN EXCUSE FOR THEM, THEN I REALLY DO HOPE, ONE DAY, THAT IT IS YOUR CHILD WHO IS DROPPED INTO ONE OF THESE BINS. THEN LET ME HEAR YOUR EXCUSES!

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

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

A mother’s love eats itself

Posted in Law by earthling on April 21, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

MOTHERS ARE DESTROYING MOTHERHOOD AND THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW IT!

mother-loves

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

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

IF SOMETHING IS “POLITICALLY CORRECT” DOESN’T THIS MEAN IT IS CORRECT?

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

That is the irony of your position.

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

Gay-marriage

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

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

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

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

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

—Matthew 21:12–13

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what do we have here? Elton and David.

DSC_0257Where is “MOTHER” in that photo ladies?

Mother is non existent.

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

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

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

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

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

YOU DESTROYED YOUR VERY OWN IDEOLOGY. NOT ME!

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

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

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

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

GOD HELP YOU!

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

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

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

A mother's love FB page

How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women

February 1, 2007
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Thursday a British writer reported overhearing two young women:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Two school named person

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

Rockefeller foundation annual report

And the Rockefeller Feminist work continues to the present:

Rockefeller feminism

 

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

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

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

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

GAME, SET and MATCH!

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

KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT REGARDING THIS OLD FASHIONED, DARK AGES IDEA THAT A MOTHER’S LOVE IS ALL IT IS. IT ISN’T ANYMORE AND YOU COULD FIND YOURSELF PROSECUTED FOR SUCH SPEECH IN FUTURE.

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

 

 

MH370: The “managed” contract

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

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

But here’s where the real story is:

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

Mirror W Oz Malaysia MOU Malaysian deal

 

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

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

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

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

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

Globalists 3 World’s population 0