Earthlinggb's Blog

R.I.P. Herr Zundel

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Law by earthlinggb 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!


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



One day…… one day…..


Ying tong diddly eye Po! Sieg Heil!

Posted in Law by earthlinggb 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!






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.”





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”?


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 earthlinggb on July 31, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”



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.”

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!



Open letter to Charlie Gard’s parents…..

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 27, 2017

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

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


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

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

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

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

Right to life

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

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

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

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

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

What does the jewish Talmud say?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These individuals are follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These individuals were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it.


(17) Frederick Wright, 2015, ‘Solicitor v. the Establishment’, 3rd Edition, Self-Published: London, p. 145
(20) Ibid.
(21) Cf. Lawrence Collins, 2008, ‘Reflections on Holocaust Claims in International Law’, Israel Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 402-442; also
(24) ;

Now consider this Guardian Article:

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

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

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

Returning to the Declaration of human rights:

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

Article 3.

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

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

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

Article 6.

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

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



HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083

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

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

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

What is an “insurrection”?

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

Who decides what constitutes such an act?

The State!

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

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

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

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

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

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

But back to Charlie specifically:

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

That question is this: IS LIFE SACRED?

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

Two things:

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

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

You might say “But the world IS overpopulated!”

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The biggest mistake a man ever makes

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 12, 2017

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on February 14, 2016




“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

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.



(and where it has been leading since its invention)

Columbia Law Review: Concept of “the PERSON”:

“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!


Is Caitlyn Jenner a murderer?

Posted in Law, Media, Science by earthlinggb on June 6, 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 earthlinggb 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%.


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 earthlinggb 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!


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 Girl who could not commit a crime:  GCCC





BRITISH POLICE: A bunch of fairies!

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb 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


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”.


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?


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 earthlinggb 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


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:


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 earthlinggb 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.


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.


Tony Benn BBC quote



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.

§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.



on behalf of


Salmond fishing


I hate hugs don’t you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

MH370: The “managed” contract

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on April 20, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Fulton policy

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

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


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

§ 4.10 a.m.

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

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

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

§Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.

§House counted, and 40 Members being present—

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

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

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

§ 4.26 a.m.

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

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

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