There’s been a war going on for decades/centuries and, with Pope Francis, it looks like the Jesuits have won!
But the Pope isn’t a wanker is he? After all, he’s a nice smiley Pope isn’t he?
I have, for some years now, noticed a similarity and closeness between the jesuits and the jews while I have also read and listened to those debating whether it is the jesuits or the jews.
I’ve written articles on both. A few Santander blogposts have zoomed in on the jesuits while a number of others, the jews. However, I have found it difficult to justify my belief of a collaboration between the two – until now.
Why the first Jesuit Pope is such a big deal, I believe, many will now recognise by what we have seen recently since Francis’ appointment.
There has been (and probably still is) a War in the Vatican. The jesuits were barred from ever having a Pope but now, in the 21st Century, it has happened and Vatican II helped it on its way. The Dominicans and Franciscans (most catholics never even ask themselves – “Why so many different orders when we’re talking about One God and Jesus?”) have, OF COURSE, been anti – acceptance of jews (or converso jews – “New Christians”) in their ranks BUT the jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola, have absolutely embraced jews in theirs.
What happens, then, when the jews control the Vatican? You get the type of crap that Pope Francis is promulgating.
The Parliamentary speech is long but so well worth reading I assure you. If you know anything at all, you know, in this battle, 100 years is a drop in the ocean so, although from the late 1800s, the speech is setting the scene for what we are dealing with today.
The following is from pages 18 and 20 of the above book:
Henry Kamen, the English historian, himself a Jew, was so impressed with these statements of Ignatius that he was moved to write, echoing the words of Pius XI : “These incidents show that Ignatius had so far escaped the influence of the atmosphere in Spain as to become a deep and sincere spiritual Semite.” It was this open-minded attitude that the founder of
the Society of Jesus incorporated into the legislation of the Society.
Though the statutes speak of both Jewish and Moorish Christians, they had their greatest impact on those of Jewish lineage, since these were much more likely to
aspire to positions of authority. The Moorish Christians for the most part lived in rural districts, and engaged in agriculture and manual labor, while the Jewish Christians lived in cities, were merchants, and were more educated. Thus, the statutes had to do almost entirely with Jewish Christians.
In 1496, the Dominican Priory of St. Thomas Aquinas in Avila enacted and received papal approval for its discriminating regulation. 81 Overty thirty years later, in 1531, the Dominican houses of Santa Maria Nieba and San Pedro Martir of Toledo were authorized to exclude New Christians. In 1525, the Franciscan Observants requested and obtained from Pope Clement VII permission to refuse applicants of Jewish descent as well as those who had been examined by the Inquisition. Other orders, monasteries, churches, dioceses, military orders, and confraternities followed suit so that by the time Ignatius was writing the Constitutions of the Society (chiefly from 1547 to 1556), all of the major and most influential religious orders of Spain enforced clauses in their rules for admission excluding those of Jewish origin.
Then, from British Parliamentary archives:
HC Deb 22 March 1858 vol 149 cc465-547
MR. NEWDEGATE rose to move the omission of the fifth clause, under which Jews would be entitled to sit in the House. The hon. Gentleman said—I can assure the House that I am fully sensible of my own inability worthily to discharge upon this occasion, a duty which would have devolved on the present Lord Chancellor, had he continued to he a member of this branch of the Legislature, I am painfully aware that the House will now feel the loss of his close reasoning and warm eloquence; but I am also persuaded that this Amendment, by whomsoever it may be brought forward, is entitled to the most respectful attention. I must 491 beg to observe, that it is from no over-confidence in my own powers, and from no belief on my part that I am either a better Christian or a better man than other Members of the House, that I take this part; but I entertain a strong conviction upon this grave subject, and am profoundly persuaded that it is not only highly impolitic, but that it is absolutely wrong that this country, which for a thousand years has been governed through the intervention of a Christian Parliament; which has recognised as the basis of its law the great doctrines of Christianity; which has secured to itself Christian legislation by securing to itself a Christian Legislature, and which has under that system enjoyed God’s manifold and prolonged blessings, should cast away the recognition of God as we know Him, as he has declared himself through our blessed Mediator, in his attribute of the governor of nations and of the universe, and to this result, as is fully admitted by its leading advocates, tends the clause, which I oppose. I have undertaken this task, not because I feel myself good enough for its adequate performance, but because I am not bad enough for its neglect. When I remember the men with whom I have been associated in this great cause, but who are no longer Members of this House — such men as the late Sir R. Inglis, the late Mr. Goulburn, the late Mr. Law, Mr. Stafford, the Vice-Chancellor Stuart, the Lord Justice Turner, Lord Stanhope, Lord Shaftesbury, the Duke of Marlborough, the present Lord Chancellor for Ireland, the present Lord Chancellor for England — I cannot regard with any other feeling than one of deep contempt, the imputation which is sometimes thrown out against the opponents of the proposal now under the consideration of the House, that they are actuated in the course they are pursuing by a spirit of narrow sectarian bigotry and persecuting intolerance. I would appeal to any one who posseses the slightest acquaintance with the public con-duct of the distinguished men whom I have named, far more to those who enjoyed the advantage of being known to them in private life, whether the mere mention of such an array of learning, of experience, of Christian feeling, and of active benevolence, is not sufficient to refute so contemptible an accusation. Let it be remembered, too, that this Bill, though professedly general, is really introduced 492 for the purpose of obtaining a seat for Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person who already enjoys the manifold advantages of an influential position in this country, and it must at once be seen that we have here no policy of violent persecution to reverse. The contest in this case lies ostensibly between three par-ties. We have, in the first place, a wealthy Jew, who by means of a large foreign influence has obtained a great command over the constituency of the City of London; we have next a number of persons who are carried so far by their love of civil and religious liberty, as they call it, that they are ready to discard from the constitution of the legislature that religion which forms the very basis of all our freedom; and we have, in the third place, that earnest and most estimable portion of the people of this country who have for the last eleven years opposed, and to this day, as is proved by their petitions, conscientiously oppose this measure. I wish to guard myself against the supposition that in opposing this clause as it now stands, I desire to do more than to provide that no Jew should be a member of the legislature. If the House should consent to strike out the clause I should not oppose the introduction of some other provision which would continue to the Jews the power they now possess of filling in this country purely ministerial offices. This Bill differs from any measure which has been introduced for the same object since 1851, in that it would expressly place the profession of Judaism on a par with the profession of Christianity as a qualification for admission into this House. I know that some hon. Friends of mine consider this an advantage—I cannot share their opinion. I do not think that any benefit can be gained by binding the Jew to his religion on the occasion of his entrance within these walls. I do not believe that a Jew is likely to be a better man or a better Member of this House because he is a strict adherent of the Talmud. The effect of this clause would be to bind the Jewish member to a religion the tenets of which I think I can show are of an immoral tendency, are anti-national, and anti-social. It is said by the advocates of this change, that the Jew accepts the Old Testament, and that he ought easily to amalgamate with the Christian, who only differs from him by accepting in addition to the Old Testament the inspired writings of 493 the Evangelists and Apostles. This is a complete mistake. The Jewish religion, it is true, purports to be based on the Old Testament, but it is in reality embodied in the Talmud, and the Talmud is a compilation of those traditions which our Divine Redeemer declared, when he was on earth, had rendered the law of the Old Testament of none effect. It is a compilation of traditions which, to use a phrase adopted by the Prussian Parliament, are “the invention of men who had not the fear of God before their eyes.” The Talmud is an embodiment of those traditions which so blinded the Jews, that, under their influence, they condemned their own true king, our blessed Redeemer, to the cross. We are now asked, to bind the Jews to those wretched doctrines which for centuries have kept them a separate people from the rest of mankind, as a qualification for admission to this House. There are but few people who seem thoroughly to understand what Judaism is, and what effect it produces on the mind and condition of its votaries. The question was put the other day in the following form:—” Is there anything in the mental character of the Jew which ought to exclude him from the House of Commons? We can understand that religious differences may be used as a ground of exclusion in the case of people whose religious belief unfits them for the society of their fellow men, and we should on that account wish to see Mormons excluded from seats in Parliament; but how can a Christian extend to the Jew that principle? A Jew does not believe all that a Christian believes, but all that he believes is believed by the Christian, and there is nothing, therefore, in his faith which ought to subject him to civil disabilities.” I readily admit that the view of the subject for which the inquirer evidently contends is fairly put in that passage. But I cannot forget that, according to Saint Paul, the Jews are struck with a mental blindness, which, after their rejection of their own true King, incapacitates them from understanding the prophecies of the Old Testament itself. I cannot, as a Christian, reject such evidence; I cannot conceal from myself the present truth of Saint Paul’s declaration. For I concur in the opinion of Paley, that the condition of the Jews at this day is a standing miracle; we have the highest ancient as well as modern authority for the assertion, that by the operations of their religion on their minds the Jews are kept a 494 separate and an anti-social race. The noble Lord the Member for London has made himself the special champion of this Jewish cause, and has thereby excited the regret of many of his own best friends. The noble Lord does not, I am sure, consider the present Earl Grey a hostile observer of his public career. I doubt whether the Earl Grey concurs with the noble Lord in his views upon this question; but the noble Earl published the other day a most able work on Parliamentary reform — a work which every Member of this House would do well to study, and which shows that its author has not wasted the time which has elapsed since he was in office; and in that book while writing of the effect of large constituencies on the character of statesmen, Lord Grey declares his belief that the representation of the City of London has been, a disadvantage to the noble Lord; and he compares that disadvantage with the advantage which Sir R. Peel enjoyed as the representative of Tamworth, which has a much smaller constituency. I believe that many friends of the noble Lord consider that his connection with the City of London has been and is a misfortune both to himself and to his country, by binding him to unnatural pertinacity in this matter of the Jews. The noble Lord, in addressing his constituents last year, admitted that his efforts to enable Jews to sit in Parliament, and thus to destroy its Christian character, had not been attended with the success which had crowned his previous labours in the cause of civil and religious liberty. The expression he used was remarkable: he said that his labours in this matter of the Jews, had not been attended with equal favour. Nor am I surprised, for upon the Jewish question he is opposed to the strong conscientious convictions of the most intelligent portion of his fellow countrymen. I have already said that the Jewish religion exercises a powerful effect over the mental condition of the Jewish people; and I shall bring forward some proofs of the truth of that statement. In the year 1848 the question of the position of the Jews was debated in the city of Hamburgh, where a much more accurate knowledge of the real tenets of the Jewish religion prevails than in this country. On the 9th February of that year the Syndicus Shroder brought forward a Motion in the Senate of Hamburgh, for granting to the Jews civil and electoral rights; but that proposal, after a 495 long debate, was negatived by twenty-one votes against six. A document, in which the religious, moral, and political objections against the emancipation of the Jews were clearly set forth, was then printed by order of the Senate, and was incorporated with the public records of that city; and the following are some extracts from that remarkable paper:— In passing through all the epochs of the history of Europe, marked by the rise, propagation, and development of Christianity, we look in vain for some favourable results as regards the Jews, accruing from the various changes in the formation of society, and the progress of the sciences and civilisation. In the course of events, we see the Jews in various opposite characters and positions; we see them as Roman citizens, Roman slaves, agents of Christian princes, bankers, hawkers, rabbins, preachers, and spies; but in each and every capacity they have remained, and are still the same people, who have not at heart the teachings of experience, nor the grand and sublime interests by which public welfare is promoted. They have, directly and indirectly, brought about agitations and revolutions, and have again in their turn felt the shaft of revolution directed against themselves. They have been driven from countries, and again returned thither. They have become martyrs for their religion, and again converts from it. They have plundered their neighbours, and again been plundered by them. They have, in some individual instances, shown themselves liberal and charitable, while in most cases they have caused the ruin and misery of their fellow-creatures by the most cunning and wicked devices; but, throughout the many centuries they have lived amongst Gentiles and Christians, contempt and repugnance followed thorn in all ages and in all countries. The cause of this phenomenon lies in the character of Judaism itself, which affords to its votaries no point of centralisation based on morality. Religion ought not only to be elevated above all legislation, but to serve as a basis for laws. But it is different with Judaism. The most simple and general rules of humanity are made to turn upon laws both obscure and equivocal, and this is plainly reflected in the moral actions of the Jews, in which the character of isolation and private motives are predominant. I brought on a former occasion under the notice of the House a work called The Old Paths, by Dr. M’Caul, a learned and estimable clergyman, who has for many years been engaged in zealous and charitable labours for the conversion of the Jews. In that book I find the following passage, showing the real nature of Judaism. I must beg the Committee to bear in mind, that when Jewish writers or writers on Judaism use the expression “the Oral Law” they mean the traditions of the Pharisees and of the Rabbins, which are embodied in the Talmud:— That Jadaism is identical with the religion of the oral law was proved in the first number, by an appeal to the highest possible authority—the Prayer Book of the Synagogue, which is not only 496 formed in obedience to the directions of the oral law, but declares expressly that the Talmud is of Divine authority. So long, therefore, as that Prayer Book is the ritual of the Synagogue, the worshippers there must be considered as Talmudists— believers in all the absurdities, and advocates of all the intolerance of that mass of tradition. That this is no misrepresentation and no unfounded conclusion of cur own appears from the latest book published in this country by a member of the Jewish persuasion. Joshua Van Oven, Esq., has, in his Introduction to the Principles of the Jewish Faith, a chapter, headed Judaism, which begins thus:—’The Jewish religion, or Judaism, is founded solely on the law of Moses, so called from it having been brought down by him from Mount Sinai. With the particulars of these laws he had been inspired by the Almighty during the forty days he remained on the mount after receiving the Ten Commandments; these he afterwards embodied in the sacred volume known and accepted as the written law, and called the Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses, contained in the volume we term the Bible. We also from the same source receive, as sacred and authentic, a large number of traditions not committed to writing, but transmitted by word of mouth down to later times, without which many enactments in the Holy Bible could not have been understood and acted upon; those, termed traditional and oral laws, were collected and formed, into a volume called the Mishna, by Rabbi Jehudah Hakodesh, A.M. 4150. In addition to this, we are guided by the explications of the later schools of pious and learned rabbis, constituting what is now known by the name of the Talmud or Gemara,’ Dr. M’Caul gives the following account of the morality inculcated in the Talmud:— The oral law loosens the moral obligations. It teaches men how to evade the Divine commandments, as was shown in Nos. 11, 14, and 15, It allows dispensation from oaths, as proved in Nos. 56 and 57. It allows men to retain what they know does not belong to them, if it only belongs to a Gentile (p. 18), or to an unlearned Jew, as appears from No. 59. It sanctions the murder of the unlearned. It is a persecuting and intolerant system. It gives every rabbi the power of excommunicating the Jews (No. 31); and it commands the conversion of all the Gentile nations by the sword (No. 6). It forbids the exercise of the commonest feelings of humanity to those whom it calls idolaters. It will not permit a drowning idolater to be helped, nor a perishing idolater to be rescued, nor an idolatrous woman in travail to be delivered. That passage may appear to afford too severe a view of the immoral and anti-social nature of the Talmudic religion, but the statements which it contains are confirmed by the elder Disraeli, in his work entitled The Genius of Judaism, a work from which I have derived as much if not more instruction in reference to this question than from any other I have ever read, and which breathes throughout a love for the Jewish nation. In that book the learned author describes the tyrannical and deadening effect of Judaism upon the minds of its votaries:— 497Such was the triumph of. those ‘whited sepulchres,’ the Pharisees, enemies of reform and of Christ, they built a labyrinth from whose dark intricacies there was no issue; they hammered out a network of iron from ago to age, from whence no captive could extricate himself. As their religion decayed, and their superstitions multiplied, the human passions had a wider stage opened whereon to perform their part. The pride of domination kindled in the breasts of the ‘dictators ‘ who held the fate of an enslaved people in their hands. Pale with vigils, but paramount in power, the rabbins sat exalted in their chairs, while their disciples were ‘rolled in the dust of their feet,’ as they pompously described the sovereignty of their divinity schools. There, at least, the prostration of the body could not be as great as that of the understanding. I was not satisfied while inquiring into this subject when I procured the document which I quoted from Hamburg, without endeavouring to ascertain upon what facts the immoral and anti-social nature of Judaism was asserted. I was furnished with such evidence, and I will cite one modern case out of many, illustrative of the pernicious tendency of the Jewish religion; I refer to the proceedings at a trial which took place at Kowno, a Polish town in the government of Wilna, more than two-thirds of the inhabitants of which are Jews, as reported in the States Gazette published at Riga, March 19, 1846. It appears that the premises of a Jew merchant of the name of Fabian, son of a rabbi, had been forcibly entered by the police, and that they found there five large packages containing seventy-five pieces of fine cloth, which were contraband. But another Jew, a carrier, came forward and perjured himself by stating that he had brought the cloth for another Jew, and on his account from a place within the frontier. The crime of perjury was subsequently discovered. What was this perjured Jew’s defence? The excuse was this, that he had been instructed by the rabbi that he had the power to dispense with the oath of a Jew before a Christian Court, if by so doing the perjury was for the benefit of the Jews, and that this Rabbi had absolved him. This rabbi was himself called before the court, and after much prevarication; admitted that those were the doctrines of the Jewish religion, and that he had dispensed with the oath of this Jew. Now these, I contend, are anti-social doctrines and that a religion which countenances them should not be admitted as a qualification for admission to this House. I now come to the second point of my subject. I have stated that this religion 498 is anti-national, and in this view of the matter I am aided by the Jews themselves, for I hold in my hand a most able pamphlet, circulated within the last year, and written by a Jew. It is a work entitled Jewish Emancipation, in which the writer states that many of the Jews consider that they fulfil the Word of God and their own destiny by remaining a separate people; that they altogether deprecate the attempt to introduce Baron Rothschild, or any other Jew, into the Parliament of this country; that he makes this attempt without their sanction; and he begs it to be understood that if the House sanctions the proposal for the admission of Jews into Parliament, they do it not at his instance, or at the instance of a large part of the Jewish community. The writer, David John Anderson, in his pamphlet says,— What do the people of Israel require when they clamour for Jewish emancipation? They already possess it in freedom to speak and act, to enjoy the rights, liberties, and immunities of the land in which they live, in being capable of holding any office in the executive, though not in the legislative government of the country, because Jews are essentially, and will ever remain strangers among the nations with whom they are sojourning. This is the vital principle of Jewish nationality. The indissoluble link that for centuries upon centuries has bound them together, the bond of brotherhood that has left them still Jews, preserving in almost its original form that religion, grand in its simplicity, and even now bearing the stamp of cloud-covered Sinai. Believe me, it is a mistaken notion to imagine a Jew is exalted by a seat in the British Parliament; let him take any office he pleases in the executive government, he is but administering laws already made, but as soon as he forgets the true destiny of Judaism, which in itself is internationality, and amalgamates himself with that people from whom, by the laws of his faith, he is bound to hold himself aloof, he meets but the merited contempt of all right-minded Israelites, and the cold toleration of those who deny the truth of his religion. Well, Sir, Mr. Anderson goes on to protest against the attempts made by his coreligionists to amalgamate themselves with the Legislature of this country. And he further goes on to say that in their very prayers they give evidence that their hopes are not connected with this country, but “that they look from year to year” (such is their speciality of expression) to their restoration to the land of their fathers. Mr. David Anderson writes of the prayer which the Jews pronounce year by year at the feast of the Passover as follows:— The following is translated from the Hebrew service for the two first nights of Passover. It 499 admirably illustrates the point in question, as well as the proverbial hospitality of the Jews one to another:—Lo! this is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt; let all those who are hungry enter and eat thereof, and all who are necessitous come and celebrate the Passover. At present we celebrate it here; next year we hope to celebrate it in the land of Israel. This year we are servants here, but next year we hope to be freemen in the land of Israel.’ How then, Sir, is it that, when over and over again the fact has been cited in this House that the Jews are aliens—not aliens by the accident of birth, but aliens by the nature of their religion and social economy —what is the reason that this fact has been boldly contradicted? I bring you the evidence of a Jew of high character, who tells you that though you may induce a Jew to sit among you in the Legislature of England, if he be a Jew by religion— and by this Bill you will stamp him doubly so—he must in reality be an alien at heart. I would not state such a fact as this lightly, or without corroboration, but it does not rest on the dictum of the writer of the work I have quoted, who, although a learned and an able man, is not invested with authority by his people; but I hold here a sermon—[Cries of “Oh, oh!” and a laugh], Hon. Members may be pleased to treat this matter lightly, but it was a grave and an important question they were entering on, and one calculated, if not properly legislated on, to violate the deepest and most devotional feelings of the people of this country, and I beg hon. Members to remember that I am only doing my duty when I lay before them reliable information. In further confirmation of what I wish to elucidate, I will read an extract from a sermon on the Jewish faith, delivered in the Great Synagogue, Duke’s Place, Sabbath 24, Shevat 6608 (Jan. 29, 1848), by the Rev. N. Adler, Phil. Doc, chief rabbi of the united congregations of the British empire, published by Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange. After emphatically asserting the authority of the oral law, the learned rabbi thus addressed his congregation:— And there is not only a futurity for the individual, but also for the people at largo. The same God who bore us on eagles’ wings above all impediments, and destined us to be (here follows Hebrew text) a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, a pattern and standard for mankind; the same God, who in consequence of our sins has fulfilled every word of his threat, scattered us among the nations, and left us few in number; the same God who sifted the house of Israel in a sieve; the same God will surely fulfil the other 500 part of his revelation, that he will have compassion on us, return and gather us from all the nations, and will bring us into the land which our forefathers possessed. I think that I have now proved conclusively that the doctrines of their religion, as accepted by the Jews, constitute them aliens in this country, as well as aliens elsewhere; I hope hon. Members will excuse me for having adduced this evidence in support of my assertion that the Jewish religion is anti-national. It happened that during the revolution in 1848, in Austria, sundry Jews were among the rebels. God knows that, if they were struggling for freedom, they have my cordial wish for their success; but when placed upon their trial, these Jews declared that their religion freed them from all oaths of allegiance, since they were not either Austrians or Hungarians, but Jews, whose country was Palestine. We have been told that the first Jesuits were Jews; we have it so in Coningsby—[a laugh]. That is indeed a work of fiction. But when I assert that Jews had been officers of the Inquisition in Spain, I assert it on the authority of the rabbi of the synagogue in Birmingham. And I assert, on the authority of the elder D’Israeli, that a close affinity exists between the doctrine, the manner of reasoning, the right of absolution, the dictatorial power claimed, and the universal power aimed at, alike by the rabbis and the Jesuits. He terms such fautors of the Pope as the Jesuits the mere mimics of the rabbins. He says that the Jesuits derived their system, derived their anti-social doctrines, derived their subversive tendency, from the rabbins. Not that the Jews have not at different times been persecuted by the Roman Catholics—I will not exclude that fact; but they sometimes have a common object, and at all times there is a great similarity of feeling and conventionality between the Jesuits and the Jews. We have seen it, and we see it now, in the perpetual attacks that are made on the Christian constitution, on the Protestant Christian constitution of this country. What is the proposal in the clause? That you should enthrone Judaism—the oldest and the most inveterate opponent of Christianity— in the British Parliament, which has hitherto been exclusively Christian by its constitution. And by whom is this organic change supported? I have been ten years watching this question in this House, and let me ask when and on what occasion have 501 you seen a Roman Catholic Member stand up for the maintenance of the Christian character of Parliament? I have mixed with Roman Catholics in private, I have urged them on the ground of our common Christianity to resist such proposals as the present, and I have met with every courteous kind of response, and I have hoped that they would have joined me, as a Protestant Christian, in upholding the profession of our common Christianity—but what has it come to? When they returned to the House they shook their heads as they passed me, and voted for the destruction of the Christian character of Parliament. There was one Roman Catholic Member, however, the late Mr. Raphael, Member for St. Albans, who acted otherwise; he was by descent a Jew, but had become a Roman Catholic; and I remember in 1849 the virulence with which he was assailed by Mr. Keogh, because he dared to say in this House that he had not become a Christian to vote against the maintenance of Christianity, as a qualification for admission to this House. I had several conversations with that gentleman, and he told me he had suffered much persecution from the Jews when he left them. He stated that his own people had repudiated him; but that he grieved to find that his new instructors, the Roman Catholic priests, were inclined to persecute him because he would not vote away the Christian character of the English Parliament. Now, Sir, I say these facts point to the conclusion that those who wish to break down the Constitution of this our Protestant State—that Constitution which is the palladium of our prosperity and freedom, and of the freedom of Europe against the assaults of despotism, now excited by Rome under the dictation of the Jesuits— I say, Sir, that our great assailants see in this proposal to seat Judaism in Parliament, a means to accomplish the end of the bitterest enemies of England. Fast est ab hoste doceri. It is right that those who believe, as I believe, that the freedom of England grew out of the Reformation of her religion—that her independence is sustained by the purity of her Christianity, and will fall with the national abandonment of its dictates—should oppose this measure. Sir, this is no chimerical danger. I know there are many hon. Gentlemen who value the connection that subsists between Church and State. Have they not observed that those who would break down the connection—that those who would separate the Slate from all re- 502 cognition of Christianity, and from all obligations derived from its connection—are most anxious to introduce the Jews into Parliament? Another fallacy often relied on is that the admission of Jews to Parliament will induce them to accept the Christian faith. I have cited the opinions of Jews who declare their own religion against the proposal before the House. I now state the opinion of one who was a Jew by religion, and who is now labouring most sedulously to bring his people to Christianity. In a pamphlet, entitled, “A Protest on the Jews’ Disabilities Bill, by a Believing Jew,” the author writes:— We must not conceal the fact that among the multifarious enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ, foremost in rank and most determined in purpose, stands the Jew. His inveterate enmity to the Cross is as old as Christianity, and wide as the world. The Jew is the declared enemy of Christ. A formal declaration of war against Jesus of Nazareth characterises the Judaism of eighteen hundred years’ standing. It is part and parcel of the Jewish creed to regard Jesus as an impostor, and to hold Him accursed. It is a curious fact that Dr. Owen, Cromwell’s Chaplain, and Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, when consulted by the Protector, as to the admission of Jews, not into the British Parliament, but merely to reside in England, discovered in the Judaic documents, which he consulted, a distinct and emphatic curse against Christ. Dr. Owen informed Cromwell of this fact, and I believe it had considerable weight with that great but faulty man, in deciding him to reject the application of the Jews for permission to reside and trade in this country. The Protest of a Believing Jew continues:— The Jew despises the Christian dogma. His views and feelings regarding Christianity may be summed up in two words—supremo contempt. I would hope that the men who are disposed to favour this unhappy measure sin through ignorance. Indeed, such appears to be the case. An. utter want of acquaintance of the real state of my nation is discernible in all the shallow arguments for emancipation. It is covertly insinuated by the promoters of the Bill that this step might bring the Jews over to Christianity. I pity the men who can so deceive themselves. Let me assure such persons that this is a gross deception. I can confidently assert that the very reverse is to be apprehended. The inconsistency of our Christian legislature will disgust the Jew; it will provoke his ridicule, and compel him to despise the cowards who, whilst calling themselves Christians, dare not name the name of Christ in presence of the more conscientious Jew. But when I see that this newly-begotten friendship threatens to prove more injurious to Israel than former enmity—when I see that it is attempted to emancipate the Jew temporally, at 503 his cost spiritually—when the hand, stretched forth to strike off the chain from his body fastens it about his soul—I marvel, and ask my liberal Christian brother, ‘ Is this thy kindness to thy friend? Eighteen hundred years’ exile marks the great sin of my nation—the sin of rejecting Christ. And shall Great Britain be foremost in defying the living God, by saying to the Jew, ‘Our differences are not worth talking about: it is true you Jews blaspheme Jesus Christ, and consider us Christians idolaters; but you and we can legislate together without discovering to each other our respective dogmas.’ Kindness, forsooth! I confess that I would rather see a revival of the Crusades than this hollow friendship, which casts such fearful stumbling blocks in the way of the Jew from coming to Christ. The Crusader hunted the Jew’s body—the new system persecutes his soul; the old system made my people bigots—the new will, I fear, make them infidels. Men and brethren, we have a duty to perform to this peculiar nation, yet, ‘beloved for their fathers’ sake,’ and we owe a paramount duty to the Saviour of man; and now by a hearty protest against this unhappy Bill, let us show real love to the Jew and supreme love to Jesus Christ. Now, this was the opinion of a converted Jew. I have hoard the question put, what will be the effect on the forms of the House of the introduction of the Jews? It has been said, “Oh, we shall retain our prayers, it will make no difference; one or two Jews will be Members of the House, but it will make no difference;” but he wished to show the House how this alleged no difference might be magnified and aggravated. It happened that in 1851 the Corporation of Amsterdam admitted two Jews to be members of the assembly. Previously to that time the proceedings of the assembly began with prayer; and I have a letter from Amsterdam, ascertained to be authentic, in which it is shown that very soon after the introduction of these two Jewish members among the thirty-seven other colleagues, the practice of opening their deliberations with prayer through our blessed Redeemer and in his name was unfortunately abandoned. Now, I do not think that many Members would be inclined to maintain that it is desirable, in view of the feelings entertained towards this House by the country, that we should abandon that admirable form of prayers which our chaplain reads daily. The Jewish Intelligencer of January, 1852, gives a narrative of the case of the admission of two Jews into the Corporation of Amsterdam, and the name of Christ was soon excluded from the prayers of the Corporation. A committee was appointed to draw up a new form of prayers, and, to the no small astonishment, not only of 504 the respectable members of the Corporation, but of the true Christians of the country, the name of Jesus Christ was left out. Some members made an urgent remonstrance, but they were out-voted. It may be said that this is a very trifling instance, but I will show you that it is the beginning of the infidel system of Holland. I will show you how this vicious principle spread. This happened in 1852, and I have here a letter from the Protestant Alliance, dated October, 1857, the authenticity of which I have also ascertained, and I am at liberty to say that the Rev. M. H. Vine, the clerical secretary, went himself to Holland, and this is his account of the state of things there, showing the cause of the decline of freedom in Europe;— The secretary has visited Brussels, Cologne, Hamburgh, Berlin, Hanover, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam. Judging from what appears at most of these places, the state and prospects of Protestantism on the Continent must be regarded as very unsatisfactory. At Cologne the efforts of the King of Prussia to obtain a site for the erection of a Protestant church have long been successfully resisted. In the kingdom of Hanover religious intolerance and persecution prevail to a considerable extent. In Holland a law has just been enacted by which the Bible is banished from the Government schools in order to please the Roman Catholics, and the name of Jesus is excluded from all prayers used by the children, in order to satisfy the Jews. Now, you may say the town of Amsterdam is a very unimportant place, and that Holland is a very small country; but I show you, by the example I have cited, how in a neighbouring and a Protestant country this principle of infidelity has spread, and how just are the apprehensions of the public—of thinking men—of those who are not led away by party cries or political necessities, when they approach this House year after year, instructing us to resist this measure, and praying this House to reject this vicious proposal, as it did in 1854—who seek, if possible, to convince the noble Lord the Member for the City of London that, by adhering to this measure, he is himself playing the part of a persecutor in thus ignoring and violating the best feelings of his unoffending countrymen. This same proposition was made to the Parliament of Prussia in 1850; for in that year certain Jews had presented a petition to the Prussian Parliament, in which they had set forth their grievances, and demanded admission to the civic dignities and municipal functions of the State. In answer to that petition, the Prussian Parliament resolved, 505 on the 17th of June last, by a majority of 67 against 33, that the citizen Jews in Prussia be admitted to the municipal posts of the realm, provided that such of the Jewish candidates on whom the election falls take an oath of abjuration in the following words:— I, M.N., hereby declare on my solemn oath, and without any mental reservation whatever, that I do not believe in my conscience that the dogmas and doctrines contained in the Talmud and other Jewish books of received authority which allow unfair dealings and actions towards a Christian and Christian community, be of Divine authority and origin; and, on the contrary, I do herewith condemn all such doctrines by which the public and private safety of the Christian society may be endangered as wicked inventions of men who had not the fear of God in their heart. So help me God. This is taken from the Prussian States Gazette, published at Berlin. Now many people hope that the Jews are changing or relaxing their undue submission to the Rabbins, their unhappy adhesion to the delusive traditions, which form their religion. Did any Jew come forward and accept that renunciation? Not one. Universally they adhered to their traditions, which I have characterized as anti-social, anti-national, and immoral. The Jews rejected this test, and they remained excluded from the Prussian Parliament. I feel that, in dealing with this subject, I am struggling for a great principle, and that it is my duty to justify myself. It may be thought that I have investigated this matter in a spirit of unnecessary severity, or that I am contending with unnecessary zeal. I rely for my justification on the authority of the Evangelist—an authority which all must respect. He wrote:— Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world. I cannot except the measure now proposed from that condemnation. I cannot think that this measure is consistent with the Christian profession of this House, or of the country at large. It is a proposal to exalt the religion which condemned the Author of our faith and salvation to the death of a malefactor; by placing Judaism on a par with Christianity as a qualification for this House. I cannot in my conscience think that this measure is consistent with the 506 prayers offered by this House, or with its Christian profession and attributes, which I believe it to be the duty both of the nation at large and of individuals to maintain. I cannot hope that, as the consequence of the passing of this measure, the future of this country will continue to glide on with the prosperity that has characterized the past. I believe that those who claim such a measure as this in the name of liberty sin against the very source and fountain of freedom, that fountain of freedom being the Christian religion. Of that blessed faith and pure morality Judaism is the earliest, the oldest antagonist and reviler. You cannot reconcile these opposite creeds. If you are Christians, you must believe those who have told you in the Gospel that the Jews while under the law were under bondage, and that they still remain so. If man would be free, he must be free as God will have him free, he must be free in Christ, he must be free by accepting the law which God implants in the heart of each for his own guidance. If we would preserve our national freedom, we must still maintain the principle, avowal, and obligation, that our statutes shall be based on Christianity, that law which alone fits man for the enjoyment of such freedom, as I hope will ever characterise the legislature, the laws, and the constitution of this country.
Opened your eyes a little more?
“I’ve got the ‘talking heads’ on TV on my side” said the Devil.
“Do you want to have this job or not?” said the Devil
“Do you wish to travel outside your country or not?” asked the Devil
“It COULD save your life” said the Devil (without saying it could also end your life)
“Do you wish to buy and sell?” said the Devil.
We’re now literally on the precipice my dear family. And I was “nuts” for a while. Indeed!
But you love your technology don’t you? The macs, the ipads and ipods and Androids and GPS and all of those apps. It’s not a stretch. You can just walk into the room and automatically switch your lights on and off too and lock your doors because your apartment or house recognises you! – said the Devil!
Religious difficulties with a world currency currently exist. According to the Futurist view, to overcome the extant difficulties the Antichrist will use forced religious syncretism (i.e. in the name of counterterrorism and world economic stability) to enable the creation of the supranational currency. Some interpret the mark as a requirement for all commerce to mean that the mark might actually be an object with the function of a credit card, such as RFID microchip implants. In Christianity, some believe the implantation of chips may be the imprinting of the Mark of the Beast, prophesied to be a requirement for all trade, and a precursor to the events of the Book of Revelation.
Revelation 13:16-18English Standard Version (ESV)
16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[a] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.
And “Uncle Joe” Biden – Obama’s 2nd in command – knew it was coming of course. “I am a zionist” says Joe. “You don’t have to be jewish to be a zionist!”
And yet, you call yourself “Christians”
“What are the muslims doing in our country?” you say and yet the muslims know of this far better than you do! Funny that isn’t it? Isn’t it also strange how the muslims are still anti usury also? While your christian Jesus was anti usury and yet you allow it every day in life.
You’re not Christians! You’re quasi jews! That’s why Cameron and friends (AND UKIP) all speak of our “Judeo-christian” beliefs and culture.
Christians? You’re ignorant fricking idiots!
And you’ll accept it. You’ll welcome it. You haven’t a goddamned clue while your god will, in fact, damn you!
In Kabbalistic Judaism the number 666 represents the creation and perfection of the world. The world was created in 6 days, and there are 6 cardinal directions (North, South, East, West, Up, Down). 6 is also the numerical value of one of the letters of God’s name.
So there you have it: Christian and jew, once more, separated by 180 degrees of belief.
Enjoy your “judeo-christianity” as it swallows you up and spits you out!
King James Bible
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
If it was truly about hate crime and racism then it would cover all “hate” and all “racism”. But it doesn’t. It’s all about this bullshit called “anti semitism” (but what is a semite? It certainly isn’t a caucasian from Khazar or Eastern Europe commonly known as AshkeNAZI and it certainly isn’t a christian or any other type of zionist.) So what is it they are REALLY protecting?
It’s the information! The one thing you need to do when you cannot argue the facts and disprove them and when you must cover up the lie, is hit the “kill” switch so that the information cannot be spread. They can’t control it and they are DESPERATE to do so! It’s the ONLY way!
You allow them to and you are signing your own journey into sheer hell however. Mark my words!
“You don’t have to be jewish to be a zionist!” as the jew smiles in acknowledgement because he knows a zionist need not be a jew. But the British MPs and European establishment – hen-pecked by the jewish lobby – think zionism equates to jewishness. But then they have to try and maintain that lie but, like all lies, it exposes itself in the end. Not to give the jews a “get out of jail card” of course because they do not stand up and speak out generally. Why? Because zionism = judaism has served them well overall for decades! To the tune of $billions!
So, they state that using “zionism” is a cloak for anti semitism? Hmmm… They cannot get out of this one! If Joe Biden was the only zionist on the planet, I would stand against him. How could I be this fabled “anti semite” then? He’s no jew!
But they will use and abuse this term to the very end. I just hope it is the very end of them! And any true, honest, fair minded and non ignorant, thinking person on this planet will know exactly what I mean by that. Of course some won’t but only because they have an agenda of either BEING zionist OR, such as in the case of Jim Murphy for example – they do well out of supporting and protecting the zionists. Don’t you Jim?
But what is it that the vast majority of British, European and American/Canadian/Western politicians love about “Israel”? Why, of all the countries around the world, is Israhell of so much importance? Because of this thing called the bible? Then if it were that, then our politicians are bringing religion into politics! (well I never!!). But if they say it isn’t that, then what?
Well, as we keep trying to explain – “Mr Rothschild” (the family) and “Mr Rockefeller” (the family) and a few other jewish/zionist families OWN this neck of the woods called “The West” (yes I know, on paper, the Rockefellers aren’t jewish – but then neither is Joe Biden or Tony Blair! ;-))
BUT, it’s all just “Conspiracy theory” isn’t it? 😉
You gotta laugh!
AYE RIGHT! SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU “CHOSEN” PRICKS! I’m sick to the teeth of your continual bleating. It makes my ears bleed!
“Without the Jews of Europe, Europe would no longer be Europe,” he warned, echoing a statement made by French PM Manual Valls after the kosher market killings on January 9 that France would no longer be France without French Jews.
Give us a fricking break!
“Without the Jews of Japan, Japan would no longer be Japan,”
“Without the Jews of Leith, Leith would no longer be Leith,”
“Without the Jews of Strathclyde, Strathclyde would no longer be Strathclyde,”
“Without the Jews of Bangladesh, Bangladesh would no longer be Bangladesh,”
“Without the Jews of Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes would no longer be Milton Keynes,”
“Without the Jews of Penicuik, Penicuik would no longer be Penicuik,” (Aye you could be right there right enough!)
Perhaps this illustrates the jewish mentality very well: “Without the jews of the world, the world would no longer be the world” Hmmm…. that has the sound of “everyone else is expendable” to me!
You know something? You lot really piss Christ off! He told me! My trees in my back garden set alight last summer and he appeared within a burning bush. He got a bit pissed when a fireman squished water all over him mind but he had a laugh when I said “just treat it like a renewal of your baptism!” (ok the bit about my garden going up in a blaze is true though! My poor neighbour didn’t have a garden hut left afterwards! Their Insurance kept trying to contact me but when an ember from a fire happens to be blown by the wind up into a bunch of trees, I saw that as an act of god. Acts of god aren’t covered in insurance are they? ;-))
Anyhow, pretty obvious what the Charlie Hebdo thing was all about. Re-invigorate the protection of the jewish/zionist parasites of the world.
Ask yourself a question: If there is such a thing as “Anti-semitism”, then what, exactly, constitutes “Semitism”?
YOU JUST WON’T BELIEVE THIS!
I was sent this video by a bud of mine. You just can’t make this shit up!
I’m always pretty wary of stuff being sent to me which is suggesting hidden meanings and translations etc but this just floors me. I’ve checked it (by all means check yourself) and it is absolutely correct. With the interchanging of just two letters in the same word, you either have “Charlie” or you have “Israel”.
So I checked an English – Hebrew and French – Hebrew translator to begin with and what I came up with was this:
Now, here, the Charlie and Israel hebrew lettering is not the same but look at the photo below of those holding the cards up in Jerusalem.
Hmmmm.. Just follow me here….
Je suis Charlie = I am Charlie
Je suit Charlie = I follow Charlie
Let’s just consider an anagram or two of “Charlie”:
I am Arch lie
Je suis La Reich!
Let’s look at the “Je suis Charlie’s” in Jerusalem:
Israelis, mostly French Jews, hold signs reading: Je suis Charlie; Israel is Charlie; and I am a Jew of France.
Photograph: Sebastian Scheiner/AP (from World News, The Guardian)
What we have here is:
“Je suis Charlie” (of course)
“I am a jew of France”
and in hebrew writing, we have “Israel IS Charlie”
Notice that the hebrew letters in “Charlie” and in “Israel” are exactly the same but just with the middle two letters swapped around (again, like an anagram of each other). Now THINK: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THAT BEING COINCIDENTAL?
Now Hebdo- a short form of the french “Hebdomaire”
From Latin hebdomadarius, from Latin hebdomas. Origin greek number 7 ( epta ) and ( omas ) group. group of seven. most common : group of seven days = evdomas = week.
hebdomadaire m (plural hebdomadaires)
So what do we have here?
“I AM ISRAEL”?
“I AM CHARLIE GROUP OF SEVEN”?
“I AM ISRAEL’S GROUP OF SEVEN”?
So here’s another couple of things to consider:
1. Check out all the hundreds of photos you can find from around the world of people, en masse, with these “Je suis Charlie” Card flyers (all of essentially the same design). Ask yourself this question: HOW (and who) designed, created/manufactured/printed all of these to ensure that it became equivalent to a BRAND design? HOW were these printed off in massive numbers? Everyone at home with their printers do you think? Well, for one thing, they are card more than they are paper and not too many people just have card waiting around to be printed off at home. Secondly, HOW did it sweep the world in a matter of a couple of days? People do NOT act in such a fashion in their millions EXCEPT when such rallies have been set up and planned by a well connected and financially supported group. It does NOT happen! Did it happen for Lee Rigby? Did it even happen throughout multiple countries for 9/11? NO!
With the dignitaries all ensuring they showed up at such short notice (as mentioned in a previous blog) and, added to that, substantial numbers of people across the world with their well framed photos showing “Charlie” signs, this has been planned well before the event. What I DO NOT mean is that all those people in the photos are part of it! They don’t have to be. But to have people ready to create the motivation for people to do this en masse all over the world is necessary and points very strongly to pre-knowledge this event was going to take place.
2. Our new Pope:
Je Suit Charlie!
Our new Pope is a jesuit. He has also been very vocal regarding the need for a New World Order. Also, the jesuits and the jews have VERY close links. I wonder why the Society of Jesus was essentially banned from having a Pope? Today, however, it is different and today, even the catholic/jesuit schools are introducing jewish studies into their curriculum.
From “Catholic Family News”
United Religions Back in the Spotlight
Pope Picked to Lead One-World Church
by Cornelia R. Ferreira
Isn’t it extraordinary how something long in existence can be suddenly re-proposed as a brilliant new idea? Politicians and educators, hoping we have memory problems, often do this to fool us into thinking they are working hard to improve a situation. Another audacious example of this strategy was recently provided by the Holy See’s support of a proposal for a “United Religions”.
The proposal came from former Israeli President and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shimon Peres. At a private audience with Pope Francis this September 4th, Peres “proposed the founding of a United Religions organization — modelled after the United Nations — to fight terrorism”.
In an interview with the Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Peres said he wanted to establish an international body representing the world’s major religions, as “an unquestionable moral authority” able to intervene in conflicts, “a UN of religions”.
Like the UN Charter, he added, there should be a United Religions Charter. “The new Charter would state on behalf of all faiths that slitting people’s throats or carrying out mass slaughters … has nothing to do with religion”.
Furthermore, he said, Pope Francis would be the best leader for the United Religions Organization because “perhaps for the first time in history the Holy Father is a leader who’s respected, not just by a lot of people, but also by different religions and their representatives”.
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, indicated that Peres’ proposal was a new idea for Francis. “The pope listened, showing his interest, his attention and encouragement”. But, “the pope made no personal commitment,” telling Peres that the Pontifical Councils for Interreligious Dialogue and for Justice and Peace are the offices “suitable” for supporting or following such initiatives. Their presidents would “consider this proposal carefully,” said Fr. Lombardi.
The problem: Mr. Peres proposed something that has been running for fourteen years, promulgated by the UN itself, with a signed Charter, and with the same goals he’s promoting! The only difference is that the existing Charter does not mention beheadings or slaughters.
Pope Francis should have reminded him of this, especially since the UR is not a new idea for Francis. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires he invited its founder and head to an interfaith service in his cathedral to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the UR in Latin America. Furthermore, the Holy See has been aware of the United Religions from its conception, and has been working for its goals through its founding partners.
Do Peres and the Vatican have collective Alzheimer’s, or are they confident that most Catholics are ignorant/ suffering amnesia? The history of the United Religions illustrates the extent of their disingenuousness.
The United Religions is created
The Masonic one-world religion of the New World Order, in the making for over 150 years, materialized in June 1997 as the United Religions Organization. Chief partners in its establishment were Episcopal Bishop of California, William Swing; the Communist Gorbachev Foundation/USA (later The State of the World Forum); and the syncretic World Conference on Religion and Peace, now called Religions for Peace (RfP).
Bishop Swing is an anti-population and pro-homosexuality activist. He is a follower of the expelled Dominican and occultist, Matthew Fox, who became an Episcopalian minister under Swing.
Religions for Peace is an internationalist, occult UN Non-Govermental Organization headquartered at the United Nations in New York. It is an important “unofficial” Vatican channel for interreligious activities, said Francis Cardinal Arinze, former head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. It was co-founded in 1960 by John Cardinal Wright, and its first international president was Archbishop Angelo Fernandes of New Delhi. In 1994 it held the first-ever interfaith conference at the Vatican, with Pope John Paul its opening speaker.
Many bishops and cardinals have been collaborating with the RfP as Co-Presidents or Honorary Presidents. These include Peter Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who is the one tasked to follow up on Peres’ proposal; and Oscar Andrés Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, the head of Pope Francis’ special advisory group of cardinals.
The Gorbachev Foundation/USA was set up as a Russian intelligence operation at the Presidio, a former military base in San Francisco, months before the dismantling of the USSR. Gorbachev is a major coordinator of world governance and a leading proponent of population extermination and the destruction of religion. This Marxist-Leninist met more than once with Pope John Paul and addressed the pontiff and political leaders at the Vatican in 2000.
The United Religions is a United Nations project. Plans for its formation were revealed to world leaders in June 1995 by Bishop Swing at the occult, earth-worshipping interfaith service he was invited to conduct for the UN, celebrating its 50th anniversary. Present at San Francisco’s Episcopal Grace Cathedral were political luminaries and representatives of all religions, including Britain’s Princess Margaret, Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Polish President Lech Walesa, and UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Archbishop Renato Martino (Vatican nuncio to the UN) and Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco also attended — i.e., the Vatican has known of the UR from the beginning.
Patterned after the UN, the UR is meant to be for religions what the UN is for nations: a “permanent gathering center where the world’s religions engage in daily prayer, dialogue, and action for the good of all life on this earth,” and where they will make peace amongst themselves and “work together for the healing of the earth.” Using the “light” of paganism and occultism, it aims to solve the usual social issues.
But more importantly, it’s also “an attempt to bring accountability to the religious forum”. As the world’s religious authority, it aims to wipe out “fundamentalism,” which is blamed for wars and conflicts. Teilhardian Robert Muller, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and New World Order designer, declared that fundamentalism’s “inflexible belief systems” “play an incendiary role in global conflicts.” “Peace will be impossible,” he said, “without the taming of fundamentalism through a United Religions that professes faithfulness `only to the global spirituality and to the health of this planet.'” This is also the basic theme of the Peres proposal.
The United Religions gets a Charter
In 1996, Bishop Swing called the process of forming the United Religions “The United Religions Initiative 2000”. The name United Religions Initiative (URI) is still being used for the United Religions, although the one-world church became fully functional in 2000.
A “preliminary” charter-writing conference was held in June 1997 at Stanford University, California. The 200 delegates “predict[ed] they had given birth to a movement as well as a spiritual institution: the United Religions”. Bishop Swing “deputized” them to “tell the people that there is a United Religions.”
The URI Charter was finally signed on June 26, 2000, during a six-day Summit in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, making the one-world church a reality. (June 26th is also the anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter.) The wording of the URI Charter suggests that “proselytizing” and upholding Christian morality could be considered threats to peace.
This interreligious Summit was opened by native spiritualists invoking “the great spirit,” and closed by a member of the URI Global Council who performed a Wiccan “blessing”. He invoked Hecate and Hermes, whilst Bishop Swing raised his hands in invocation. At least eight “highly respected” Catholic priests attended the Summit as supporters. Rev. P. Gerard O’Rourke, Director of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, declared he was there in an official capacity.
The URI is headquartered at the Presidio, with “satelllite centers” in other cities, including Buenos Aires. It has built up a wide international network through regional conferences and other activities. Its goal is “A U.N. for religion” that will foster peace. “We are going to end this millennium with peace among religions,” said Bishop Swing in 1997. “There is untapped solidarity among religions.”
Swing personally pitched the idea of the United Religions to many religious leaders. He got Mother Teresa on board, but posted no report on Pope John Paul’s reaction.
It should be obvious why the Popes cannot openly support the URI; to lead it would be tantamount to sailing the barque of St. Peter under the standard of Satan.
But it may be only a matter of time. At a Theosophical lecture in Boston in 1991, the New England Director of Theosophy described the plan for establishing the one-world religion:
This announcement supposedly would herald the Pope as the leader of the one-world religion.
Crafting an “epiphany moment”
So what prompted Mr. Peres’ sudden “epiphany” this year to create a United Religions? It certainly was carefully orchestrated to look spontaneous.
• April 2013: Peres visits Pope Francis. Inviting him to Jerusalem, “the sooner the better,” he says, “You have an important role in progressing peace and the belief in it”.
• January 2014: Pope Francis announces he will visit the Holy Land in May.
• February 2014: An Argentinian interfaith group created by Archbishop Bergoglio is greeted in Israel by Peres, who praises the Pope because “he returned religion into a spirit rather than an organization, a faith more than a church”.
• May 2014: Pope Francis visits the Holy Land. In front of the Wailing Wall he partakes in a group hug with his two Argentinian travelling companions, Rabbi Abraham Skorka and Muslim leader Omar Abboud. Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi enthuses, “They have given us a sign in a significant and holy place. This is an important message, that they can embrace together”. The pope also stresses the “universal and cultural significance” of Jerusalem, and its importance to Christians, Muslims and Jews. Before leaving, Francis invites Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the Vatican for a prayer meeting for Middle East peace.
• Only two weeks later, June 8, 2014, Pentecost Sunday: the two presidents and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew attend this interfaith prayer meeting on a triangular Vatican lawn, along with several high-up members of Religions for Peace. The “neutral” site chosen is devoid of all religious symbols. Catholic participants thus witness to the Masonic one-world religion instead of to Jesus Christ and His Church!
• June 9, 2014: Pope Francis criticizes “fundamentalism” in Christianity, Judaism and Islam as violence: “A fundamentalist group, even if it doesn’t strike anyone, is violent. The mentality of fundamentalism is violence in the name of God.”
• September 4, 2014: Peres shares his “epiphany moment” with the Pope and asks him to head his visionary United Religions. Father Lombardi reveals that this proposal followed from the syncretic June prayer meeting. He says the Pope “stressed to me” that the meeting was “the opening of a door” to encouraging further initiatives “to develop and go forward”.
War means success?
It seems the true God was not impressed by the atheistic Vatican prayer meeting for peace in the Middle East. The area exploded in war right after it.
On July 8th, Israel began a 50-day campaign against Gaza that killed more than 2,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians. Israeli deaths totalled 6 civilians and 67 soldiers.
And at the same time as the prayer meeting, Islamic militants began a bloody rampage across Iraq, leading three weeks later to the proclamation of a “caliphate” and a call-to-arms of Muslims across the world.
But Fr. Lombardi was very pleased with the success of the prayer meeting. He remarked after the September 4th audience, “The prayer for peace initiative which took place here” with Peres and Abbas, “is in no wise to be considered a failure – subsequent developments notwithstanding – but rather as the opening of a door…”.
Considering the massacres that followed the prayer meeting, this callous assessment implies that the Holy See is more devoted to the formation of the one-world religion rather than actual peace. Indeed, if peace were its concern, the peace plan of Our Lady of Fatima would have long ago been carried out.
And what about Nobel Peace Laureate Peres, touted as a “crusader for peace”? About a week after the Gaza offensive began, with 200 Palestinians and one Israeli dead, he defended Israel’s heavy-handed actions: “If they are shooting at us, and don’t let our mothers and their children … have a full night’s sleep, what can we do?”
But he needn’t worry. The One-World Church now has official papal blessing. Surely peace will follow swiftly.
Now, what does a Pope need to do to help create a One World Religion? Well he needs to demote Jesus from the “office” of “Son of God” and a deity himself to “just a man, another prophet”.
Granted, the guy in this video gets a little hot and passionate (but good for him – I don’t have a problem with that because he is recognising the shit which is the Pope and the catholic church) but he also speaks of phrases from the OLD TESTAMENT (which is NOT Jesus but the Jews’ Torah – Jesus is ONLY New Testament and it is something christians and catholics are VERY confused about. Why? I have no idea!).
So then let’s come back down to earth again and consider this guy, Nigel Farage. Even in his recent speech re Charlie Hebdo in the EU Parliament, what is he very sure he adds?
Now, I have posted before regarding UKIP and Farage and the fact that they started up a UKIP “Friends of Israel” just shortly before they started making serious gains in UK politics.
Look! You’re either a Jew or you’re a christian. There is NO SUCH THING as Judeo christian. It’s a total misnomer but it is one for a very specific purpose.
JUDAISM DOES NOT EVEN RECOGNISE CHRIST AS A PROPHET NEVERMIND A GOD OR MESSIAH! ISLAM, AT LEAST, VENERATES JESUS CHRIST AS ONE OF THE MAIN PROPHETS, JUST NOT THE LAST ONE WHICH. TO THEM, IS MOHAMMED.
Obviously, when Islam only came on the scene in 700 A.D., there would have to be a good reason for it otherwise they would just be a people who followed one of the other existing religions! So a new prophet was absolutely necessary BUT they don’t consider Jesus as a blasphemer and a false prophet (as do the jews), so what you don’t understand is beyond me!
ISLAM, like Christianity, does not believe in USURY! Judaism does! What the hell does it take to get these simple facts through your goddamned head and the penny to drop?
Je ne suis pas Charlie OR Israel
Je suis Adolf (for all the RIGHT reasons!)
The “Legal Person” strikes again! And STILL noone listens! The fundamental tool of control and you DON’T LISTEN!
Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend.” Occupy Wall Street protestors decried the idea, late night comedians mocked it, and reform groups proposed amending the Constitution to eliminate it. Today, however, the Supreme Court endorsed corporate personhood — holding that business firms have rights to religious freedom under federal law. Not only do corporations have rights, their rights are stronger than yours.
The question came to the Supreme Court in a challenge to regulations implementing President Obama’s landmark health care law. Those regulations require employers with 50 or more employees to provide those employees with comprehensive health insurance, which must include certain forms of contraception. The contraception requirement was designed to protect the rights of women. Studies show that access to contraception has positive benefits for women’s education, income, mental health, and family stability.
Protecting women’s rights, according to the Court, isn’t a good enough reason for the government to force a business corporation, at least a privately held one like chain craft store Hobby Lobby, to include birth control in its insurance contrary to the business owner’s wishes. At least that’s what the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held in Hobby Lobby. Federal statutes guaranteeing religious freedom to “persons” apply equally to closely held business corporations, and those corporations’ religious liberty is “substantially burdened” by having to provide their employees with contraception. So the rights of employees have to give way to the rights of the corporation.
The Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby isn’t a surprise. The Roberts Court has been largely hostile to the rights of women — allowing greater restrictions on abortion, restricting their ability to sue for workplace discrimination, and limiting the scope of family leave laws. Meanwhile, the data show that the Roberts Court is the most business-friendly Supreme Court in nearly a century. Just as Citizens United expanded the rights of business corporations to speak about political issues — and, in the eyes of many, enabling them to drown out the voices of We the People — Hobby Lobby has given businesses another powerful tool to fight against regulation. Hobby Lobby’s religious rights enable the firm to ignore the voices of women who wish to enjoy the health benefits from controlling reproduction.
And women may not be the only victims. What religious rights will business corporations seek next? The Court said that its decision wouldn’t necessarily mean that closely-held businesses could obtain exemptions from health care regulations mandating insurance coverage for vaccinations and blood transfusions. Yet the Court did grant those corporations today a right to make such claims in court. If ensuring women’s control over reproduction — a constitutional right — isn’t a strong enough reason to limit the religious rights of Hobby Lobby, it’s not clear why these other laws won’t fall too.
LGBT people may be next. Remember a few months ago when Arizona almost adopted a controversial law that would have given business corporations a broad right to use religion to make claims for exemptions from the law? That proposed law was rightly seen as an attack on LGBT rights, as supporters insisted that business owners who object to same-sex marriage shouldn’t be forced to bake cakes, take pictures, or arrange the flowers at such ceremonies. After Hobby Lobby, now all business corporations have a right under federal law to claim religious-based exemptions to all sorts of laws — including laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
To its credit, the Court’s majority recognized the trouble created by the ruling and suggested that firms would not be entitled to discriminate on the basis of race. “The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race,” the majority wrote. Yet the Court’s omission of LGBT discrimination is worrisome. The justices must have understood that the current conflict between religion and anti-discrimination law involves LGBT people, not racial minorities. No corporation is seeking to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against African-Americans, while several are seeking to discriminate against LGBT people. About that, the majority says nothing.
If the Court’s ruling is read to permit challenges to laws barring discrimination against LGBT people, Hobby Lobby will be the Arizona law on steroids. It wouldn’t apply in one state but across the nation.
So while a business corporation can’t go to church, fast on Yom Kippur, or travel to Mecca for Ramadan, it can still go to court and, on the basis of religious freedom, demand to be exempted from the law that applies to everyone else. Today, women are the victim. Tomorrow, it could be LGBT people. Indeed, after Hobby Lobby, every person is at risk. Everyone, that is, except the corporate person, my friend.
“Honest, it’s about women’s rights!” screams Barry.
“Don’t listen to these anti government type conspiracy theorists”
“My policies have absolutely nothing to do with James Lovelock’s beliefs nor have they anything whatsoever to do with the Georgia Guidestones and Agenda 21. Anyone suggesting this stuff needs sectioned!”
From the White House’s Facebook page – “Share this if you agree: Women—not their bosses—should be able to make their own health care decisions. #HobbyLobby”
Wait a minute! IS this from the same guy that introduces Universal healthcare and demands that everyone must buy it? Hmmmm…. I’ll tell you another thing Barry. Since you’re letting all the illegals in, why not extend Obamacare to them and to Pakistanis, Afghanis, Iraqis etc etc. The insurance companies would love you because for the thousands of them you drone, and if you keep selling guns to Mexican drug cartels and all the carnage which ensues from that, the insurance premiums would skyrocket and if you’re dictating everyone must take the insurance then hey! You and your cronies who pay you so well are on to a winner with that idea!
Anyhow, every death helps right Barry? Every life extinguished helps toward that goal of 500 million. A few wars – maybe a big one, a few viruses unleashed, GMO foods and later, legislation to demand no further births (except for “those who can afford it” right Barry?).
Some Facebook comments –
Tracey Lavis: I call bullshit!!! The ACA VIOLATES our Constitutional Right of Freedom Of Religion by forcing the owner of a company to pay for and endorse an act or product that violates his religious beliefs! I don’t see you FORCING Muslim grocery stores to sell pork, so you SHOULDN’T be forcing Christians and other religions to pay for abortions and birth controll!
“The Constitution Of The United States Of America”… The LAW of OUR land… I hope our next President ACTUALLY knows IT, understands IT, FOLLOWS IT, and DOESN’T VIOLATE IT AS HE PISSES ALL OVER IT LIKE YOU DO BARRY!
You’re a flippin’ disgrace to America and all that She stands for!
Lynne Howell: I am a woman and a Democrat and a proud, happy recipient of Obama care. I understand abortion is the law of the land. That being said, the Democratic Party does not speak for all women on these issues. With all due respect, Mr. President…now that the Supreme Court has spoken, wouldn’t the road less traveled call you to take a leadership role and consider this to be a win/win situation where the wisdom of Solomon was invoked? You, yourself said that ACA was not perfect but that you were calling us to use the system to tweak…isn’t that what has happened…I believe that what is at stake here are human rights..if fertilized eggs were not human perhaps there would be a rationale for denying them a right to life…but when you speak of women’s rights, please remember me…one of your greatest fans and a loyal Democrat…and profoundly proud that our Courts have shown wisdom.
Jan Long: Again, anyone see the Hobby Lobby hypocrisy in this:
Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby’s retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby’s health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.
These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla andMirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.
The retirement plan comes with a “generous company match,” which amounted to $3.8 million in 2012.
Joe Coleman: “This entire thing has nothing to do with birth control. It’s about whether the government can force anyone in this country to pay for something they do not condone. Should you be forced to pay for something you have a moral objection to? the answer in this country should be NO. We do not live in China or India or Iraq or Iran. We live in America where the founding fathers tried to make sure the government can not and does not control our lives.”
Richard Cacciotti: How stupid do you think we are Obama??? First of all, since when is it a crime for a PRIVATE FAMILY owned business to not be able to practice their religious freedoms, which includes rights to life? Secondly, the ruling only applies to emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill. So, my question to you is are you going to suck it up and move on or are you sitting in your golf cart fuming over this decision are you trying to figure out how you can use the power of your pen and override a Supreme Court decision? I am hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of your hold on the system and the media. Of course your buddies at MSNBS and NBO news are in your corner, but the only people who will see their reports are well… YOU….! Please tell me you found out about this decision as we did while watching the news. lol Happy Monday! Hope the rest of your week SUCKS!
However, what most, if not all, of these commenters will not accept is the following. They will simply let their cognitive dissonance come to the fore and dismiss the obvious. They won’t allow their heads to say to them “Something strange here. This “Gaia thing, Agenda 21, Rockefeller and Bill Gates interests in population reduction etc is one hell of a coincidence!”. Nope, they will NOT even entertain the idea. More fool them but hey, you can only take a horse to water as they say.
Let’s ignore James Lovelock on BBC Hardtalk, so absolutely certain “Gaia” will destroy 5 sixths of the Earth’s human population within this century.
Down to one billion people or less:
And let’s not even consider how that number Lovelock quotes is so very close to the 500 million stated by the Georgia Guidestones as being “in balance with nature” (again, Gaia worship).
Let’s ignore all that and the fact that we live among people who truly wish to rule over this earth and simply have enough population which they deem is enough to turn the wheels while they then have complete control and freedom to enjoy 9/10ths of the planet (or more) while having the United Nations ensure we keep within the Agenda 21 specified cities of multi tenant dwellings and in apartments just a couple of hundred square feet for each of us.
What happens when the International jews and their Israeli establishment recognise they have to do something to overcome this bad press they’ve been getting over recent years for the fact they are Nazis? Don’t scorn at me using the term “Nazi”, I’m not using it for effect, I mean it literally because the Israeli regime are the real “Nazis”. Hitler wasn’t. Yes he and his National Socialists got the “Nazi” name and the world being led to believe they were the bad guys. Sure I understand that (as I’m sure many of you do) but the real pieces of shit were Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. ALL of them working for the AshkeNAZI.
So what’s this strategy I’m referring to by the AshkeNAZI today?
You see what they’re doing don’t you? I certainly hope so. And the story run by “The Guardian” of all newspapers. Our dear old jewish establishment.
They’re deflecting the charge of “terrorist regime” to “We have right wing terrorists in our midst”. They’re creating the jewish equivalent to Islamic (and Christian) fundamentalists and they’re going to pump up that propaganda and then the British, European, American and Israeli governments are going to start – step by step – to propagandise a harder line on anyone who not only acts but speaks in a “fundamentalist” mode and say to the ignorant majority in their democratic world “We must eradicate the terrorists in all our midsts” – Then you and I who may have a voice and speak it from time to time, are going to find ourselves in the same position as the Communists (jews) in Nazi Germany. The trouble is that the communists in Nazi Germany needed to be removed from being that “cancer” within whereas, today, the “cancer” has grown to such a controlling extent that it is the “cancer” which has taken on the role of the German Workers Party of the 1920s and 1930s. The tide has turned.
The AshkeNAZI is, and always was, the true NAZI.
And you know what? It could just be that Nigel Farage’s UKIP ends up doing the job the Ashkenazi wish them to.
Just give that some thought.
It’s long but it truly is worth the read.
I hope you get as much a laugh out of this as I did. Well I laughed and I cried to be honest. These people are despicable, lying, deceptive bastards and it’s so clear. Corbyn, Dalyell and, yes, even Salmond know the score regarding Diego Garcia but the Crown Agents (because that is what you become when you take the seat of government – you wear two hats – Government Minister and Crown Minister) lie and evade and deceive through their teeth.
You will see, quite clearly, how the British Government (yes mine and yours) treated the Chagossians (Diego Garcia and the other island’s population). You’ll see how it just needs the UK and the US to agree a treaty and the UK buy up the land (probably at “gunpoint”) from Mauritius for a paltry £3M and then we kick out people who have lived there all their lives and then see how they fare in a land they don’t want and which doesn’t want them.
You will also pick up that Diego Garcia is also a nuclear base. Also you’ll note that the British government (Crown) just accepts whatever the Americans tell them and don’t question – because it’s not in her Majesty’s interests to question. So if the Americans simply say “We didn’t take prisoners to Diego Garcia” that’s good enough for us. Plus you will notice that DG is out of bounds for anyone but Forces personnel.
Following from that, you will recognise how Diego Garcia does not fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court – because it has no settled population! Well, it did, but they were thrown out so now it doesn’t. It just has forces. And the United States DOES NOT WANT to have a settled population because THEN it WOULD come under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction!
Do you see how, at every turn, International law is a crock of shit? Do you see how they evade it because they control what it means and what it applies to?
THAT is why we have to attack the legal system and the legal person – it is ALL a crock of utter shit!
But lastly, in among all of that, there is a wondrous beauty pointing to the global deception of what we have come to be expected to believe – Climate Change/Global Warming.
You will see there is no such thing. Either that or God has given Diego Garcia (of all places) a pass. Perhaps it’s Noah’s island?
Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands
HC Deb 21 June 2004 vol 422 cc1221-2W1221W
§Jeremy CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. 
§Mr. RammellThe US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawIn exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawThe United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman has used the words “overwhelming force” three times already. Does “overwhelming force” include the use of B61–11s? Those are the earth-penetrating nuclear weapons which, we are told, are based in the British Indian ocean territory of Diego Garcia. If there is to be overwhelming force, and if it is to involve nuclear weapons, with the B2 bombers that are based in the hangars at Diego Garcia, ought not the House of Commons to be told about it?
§Mr. AncramThe force that will be required is that which is appropriate and most effective in achieving the objective. I am certainly not going to speculate at this stage on what that force will be. Indeed, at this particular stage we need to make it clear that the United Nations resolution is the first objective to be fulfilled: only if Saddam breaches that will we consider the second option.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Mike O’BrienThe issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, “Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence”.
British Indian Ocean Territory
§Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North (Lab)I welcome the opportunity to debate what I consider to be a very serious issue. It touches on honesty in politics and in government, and it touches on issues of constitution and law and the way in which a group of people have been grievously treated by this country and, to some extent, the United States for more than 40 years.
The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra, and they inhabited an idyllic and pristine environment. Their problem was their location—the Indian ocean. The United States was eyeing it up in the 1950s and 1960s as a potential base, and subsequently decided to build what they euphemistically called a “communications facility” on the island of Diego Garcia. The communications facility turned out to be two of the longest runways that the world had seen and a base from which 4,000 US troops could operate. The base is now routinely used for the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States ‘considers it to be a crucial communications facility.
Prime Minister Wilson and President Johnson discussed the matter in the 1960s and decided to do a deal and evacuate the population of Diego Garcia to make way for the American communications facility. The Americans insisted on the evacuation of not only Diego Garcia, but the entire archipelago, despite the fact that its other islands were some distance from the putative communications facility.
The language used by the then Colonial Office was outrageous beyond belief. Simon Winchester wrote a wonderful piece on the subject in Granta magazine in which he quoted the then permanent secretary in the Colonial Office who described the population inhabiting the islands as a group of “Man Fridays” and stated that it would be simple and easy enough to move them out of the way. The deal subsequently went through and, to make ready for the American base, the British authorities proceeded to remove people from the islands. However, it was never done openly.
Only two days ago outside the Foreign Office, I met a man who was part of a demonstration there. He told me that he had left the islands in 1966 and that he was not allowed to go back, as many others were not. When they went to Mauritius or the Seychelles—mainly Mauritius—for medical treatment or education, they suddenly found that they could not go back.
When the time came for the British to remove the population in earnest, they did so —putting them on a ship, taking them to Port Louis in Mauritius and simply dumping them on the quayside. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) speaks, I am sure that he will describe the conditions that he saw when he went to Mauritius at the time. The people were dumped there in terrible destitution. To ensure that nothing was left on the islands, the British commissioner had the problem of what to do with the islanders’ domestic animals and pets. The dogs were rounded up 272WHand gassed, all the animals were killed and the islands were left empty and uninhabited to make way for the American base.
The poor islanders were forced to eke out an existence in terrible poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Ignored by everybody, they managed to survive and they never gave up two things: first, the hope, determination and desperation for the right of return; and secondly, the hope that one day, somebody, somewhere would recognise the fundamental injustice of their treatment.
Time has moved on and it is 48 years since the original and disgraceful deal was done between Wilson and Johnson, but the injustice has not gone away. I visited Mauritius a couple of years ago to meet the Chagos islanders and to see the conditions in which they live. They are very poor indeed. We have to remember, and we should remember, that the compensation that they finally won, some 15 years after the original removal from the islands had begun, was mainly eaten up by debt collectors and land agents. No one was given sufficient compensation and no one was made rich or wealthy by the process. This has been the subject of a court case that is still going on, so I cannot comment on anything more than the original facts of the case. However, it seems that the islanders were cajoled into signing what they did not believe to be a full and final settlement, and were told to accept it as such. The injustice and the poverty go on.
When I was in Mauritius, I spent a week visiting as many Chagossian families as I could. I talked to them about their lives on the Chagos Islands, when they lived there, and their lives now. They described their sustainable form of living, the type of community, religion and schools that they had and their lives in general. It was fascinating to talk to them, but one could see the hurt in their eyes at the way that they were taken from the islands and dumped on the quayside at Port Louis. Many of those families still live in desperate poverty in metal huts with outside toilets and little furniture. Although the current Mauritius Government have been kinder to them than previous ones, they are still very poor people.
Those people, however, were always going to campaign for their hope of a right of return; they would never give up. Eventually, a case was lodged in the British legal system and, in a court order of 2000, they were granted the right to return under British immigration law. It was ruled that they had the right of return. The following year, a further step forward was taken when theBritish Overseas Territories Bill was introduced in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I raised the question of the eligibility of the Chagos islanders for British citizenship, on the basis that they would be entitled to British citizenship like everyone else in overseas territories had they not been removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. To their credit, the Government accepted the thrust of our argument, and a Government amendment was tabled and accepted in Committee. Therefore, the islanders were given the right to British citizenship. There is, unfortunately, a grey area in which I hope ministerial discretion will be used to deal with the small number of those who have fallen outside the provisions of that law.
273WHThings looked quite good in 2000 and 2001, and a compensation claim was lodged to re-open the issue. In meetings we had at the Foreign Office with the Minister’s predecessor, Baroness Amos, on the right of return and the possibility of a visit, we thought that things were going very well. Indeed, in the Commons, Ministers have asserted two things. One is that there is a right to return, and the second is that there was no impediment to anyone going back at any time. Things were looking good, and we had hope, as did the islanders.
On 10 June this year, which everyone will remember as election day, staff at the Foreign Office were not out ensuring that people were voting. Instead, they were at the palace asking the Queen to sign an Order in Council. When I was told that an Order in Council had been signed, I misheard or misunderstood. I thought that it was a statutory instrument that I would be able to pray against, as I assumed other hon. Members would, so that decisions made by Ministers would be subject to some form of democratic accountability. I had to reconsider, and I spoke to Sheridans’ Richard Gifford, the excellent solicitor who has represented the Chagossians for many years. He calmly explained to me that I had misunderstood, and that an Order in Council signed by her Majesty was law. It overrides everything in which we believe about the democratic accountability of the Government.
There are two orders: one is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order and the second is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order. I shall just quote a little of one, to give the Chamber a flavour of it:Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Commissionerappointed under the constitution order—may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory”.The order then goes on to declare,without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”,that the commissioner in effect becomes the supreme Governor of everything in the territory. The order says:All laws made by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette in such manner as the Commissioner may direct. Every law made by the Commissioner under subsection (1) shall come into force on the date on which it is published”.We have handed power over to a commissioner. Never mind the fact that there were islanders living there and that several thousand people until that point had every right to live there; apparently, they now have no rights whatever. So much for the constitution order.
The immigration order was the second one passed, and I shall quote just two of its sections. Article 7 says:An immigration officer, acting in his entire discretion, may issue or renew a permit or may cancel a permit before the expiration, subject to the right of appeal provided in section 10.That is for people who wish to visit the Chagos Islands. Article 10 says:A person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer may appeal to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.274WHSo the only person to whom one can appeal if one does not agree with a decision to prevent Chagos islanders going to their own islands is a commissioner appointed specifically to control the Chagos Islands in every way for evermore.
The Minister made a written statement to the House on 10 June, although frankly it should have been an oral statement and made at a time when he could have been cross-questioned about it. At least, however, we are debating the subject here in Westminster Hall today. His statement said:Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 33WS.]I have some comments to make on that. The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands. Let us not beat about the bush: that was a disgraceful, immoral act. It is time that a Minister stood up and apologised for that act committed by the Government of the time and for the treatment of the Chagos islanders by succeeding Governments.
I was kindly given the three volumes of the feasibility study by the Foreign Office when it came out in November 2000, and it said that there were problems with water supply, periodic flooding, storms, seismic activity and so on, as the Minister points out. However, it did not say that no one could live there or that life was impossible on the islands. When pressed on the matter, the Foreign Office retreats into arguments about the potential cost of resettling the Chagos islanders. I have two points on that. First, they have a moral right to return. Secondly, would any Minister stand up in the House and say that the cost of keeping the population on Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha or the Falkland Islands was such that we were going to withdraw the entire population? They would not dare.
§Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland Islands. Has he made any comparisons between the costs that he is talking about and the amount of money spent on defending the Falkland islanders when the Argentines invaded?
§Jeremy CorbynIndeed, the costs are on two completely different scales. The costs involved in administering the Chagos Islands are very small. At the current time, all the income from fishing licences—about £50,000 a year—is taken up by administration, and other money is paid to continue that administration. Were the islands to be resettled, however, and were there to be serious discussions with the islanders about resettling them, there would be an economy on the islands. There is fishing there, and the possibility of ecotourism or copra. Quite a lot of activities could take place on the islands. However, I do not get the feeling that there is any wish, desire, hope or intention of going down that road. The whole desire is to put the issue to one side and forget about it. That is because of an American base on Diego Garcia, for 275WHwhich I suspect nothing is paid, and because the Americans have said that they do not want anyone anywhere near their base owing to security concerns.
I think that we have every right to ensure the settlement of the outer islands—at least—and that we have a right to know exactly what is happening on Diego Garcia, which is, under the terms of the colonial order, sovereign British territory. Are there any prisoners on Diego Garcia? Is it being used for the sort of vortex of American justice such as occurs in Guantanamo Bay? I am assured that it is not. I want to hear that assurance again today and it would be much better if there were an independent inspection of what is going on.
I will make only a couple more points because I want to make sure that other Members get a chance to speak. On Tuesday, a group of Chagos islanders went to the Foreign Office to demonstrate. They handed in a petition signed by a substantial number of Chagos islanders who are living in this country legally. The petition demands:
- “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
- 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
- 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
- 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
- 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
- 6. The organising of a visit to the ancestral sites in the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians living in Mauritius, Seychelles and the UK”
—and, presumably, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that that is a minimal demand. I had a response from the Minister today and I hope that he will be able to give us further positive news on the possibility of a visit and a return to it.
Mr. HopkinsIt strikes me that there is something of a parallel between what has happened to the Chagos islanders and the highland clearances in Scotland, when the rich and powerful drove the poor and weak from the land. That has scarred and informed Scottish politics ever since. Is it not significant that two of the three speakers here today are Scots?
§Mr. SalmondI am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was about to come to it. One of the first and better acts of the Scottish Parliament when it came back into existence on the mound was in a debate such as this when it apologised collectively for the historic injustice of the highland clearances. They were not the responsibility of any Scottish Parliament, but it was felt none the less by all parties in that Parliament that such an apology should be offered, and that was done by representatives of all the parties. I very much hope that the Minister will do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested and proffer some sort of apology to the few thousand Chagos islanders who deserve not just an apology but some sign that future action and policy will be different from that in the past.
The islanders won the High Court judgment in 2000, which was in the days of ethical foreign policy. I shared the hopes that were expressed earlier that at last something would be done to rectify the historical 278WHgrievance and injustice. I accepted, as I think did many islanders, that there was an American base of long standing on Diego Garcia and that it might not be possible for all the islands to be reinhabited. However, basic rights—such as the right to visit the graves of ancestors, to occupy the outer islands and to receive reasonable compensation, and the right of the duty of care that any Government and the Crown should have over these people—should have been respected as de minimis compensation for the wrongs and injustices of the past. In fact, none of that occurred, and instead the Government, in a sneaky, underhand way, passed two Orders in Council on European election day to prohibit debate, to remove what little rights had been won and to rectify loopholes in legislation that allowed the assertion of the human rights of the islanders and their descendants.
The analysis that the islands are no longer capable of sustaining occupation because of global warming must be pretty bad news for the American military base—perhaps the runway is about to disappear under water. I have an overwhelming feeling that if Mauritius could be persuaded to send just one gunboat to the outer islands to establish the Mauritian flag again in what is arguably its territory anyway, we would decide that the islands were worth reclaiming on behalf of the Crown and dispatch a taskforce to the Indian ocean.
Global warming is an interesting concept, because it conflicts rather dramatically with what is on the US navy website. In a welcoming introduction to “The Footprint of Freedom” and Camp Justice, Diego Garcia is described as a paradise on earth and it is said that one of the best stationings that any US serviceman can have is on Diego Garcia. The website states:Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island.The Minister had better explain how the Government claim to know better than many respectable outlets of the US press. The Washington Post, for example, claims that prisoners are held on Diego Garcia for “rendering” before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. How confident is the Foreign Office in the information that the US authorities have offered it on what is happening on Diego Garcia, given that the Prime Minister seems to be revising his previous confidence in judgments that he has made about the international situation? Ultimately, the Minister should accept the collective responsibility of this and previous Governments for what has been done to the islanders. An apology should be proffered, but above all there should be a change of approach and of policy by the Government, who should offer some justice and some compensation to the islanders.
It may be thought that because of indolence or lack of concern among most Members of Parliament—there are a few honourable exceptions, who are here today such an issue is of no great moment, but it is precisely such issues that are of great political moment, because no member of the public could hear and understand what has happened to the islanders without having an overwhelming sense of injustice. If the Government cannot rectify the wrongs of the past for these few thousand people, what hope is there for their having any moral compass on the great issues of the day? Unless the Government are prepared to act and rectify the wrongs of the past, they are, in a moral sense, every bit as homeless as the islanders of Diego Garcia.
Let none of us suppose that there is a complete lack of interest in this country on this issue. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had the opportunity to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was in company in Scotland. However, I subsequently heard, not only in university circles but more widely, that it was an important question. Indeed, some people went so far as to observe that it was the most sensible question asked of the Prime Minister for some weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has inspired an important debate, but perhaps it comes 40 years too late. It was in 1964 that the Government began misdescribing the long-settled population as transitory workers in order to mislead the world into thinking that they had no obligations to that population. My clear recollection is that I raised the subject with the then Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker. Frankly, having been defeated at Smethwick and about to be defeated at Leyton, his mind was on other things. A later Foreign Secretary was George Brown. When the general problem of the British Indian Ocean Territory was raised with him, he told me, in colourful language, to mind my own business. Perhaps I was not as tough then as subsequently, but George Brown was a formidable operator in his heyday. I raised the subject on the prompting of the late Sir Ashley Miles, the biological secretary of the Royal Society. It was his concern about the Indian ocean that first raised my acute interest.
Article 73 of the United Nations casts a “sacred trust” on a sovereign power to promote the welfare and advancement of the people, but the Government surreptitiously deported the islanders and misled the world about their status. At the United Nations on 16 November 1965, the British representative Mr. F.D.W. Brown, acting on the instructions of the Foreign Office, misdescribed the islands asuninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population aslabourers from Mauritius and Seychellesand misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had beenfreely worked out with the…elected representatives of the people concerned”.Instead, they bought the plantations, closed them down, forced the people to leave on boats, which incidentally were horribly overcrowded, and led them to exile, where they still remain. Their lives have been a tragedy of misery, poverty and despair, the only alleviation of which has been the heartfelt desire to return to their homeland, where their villages and ancestors lie.
In 1969, on my return from Australia, I stopped in Mauritius to stay the night with the former general secretary of the Labour party, Len Williams. Harold Wilson had wanted him out of Transport house and made him Governor-General of Mauritius. His wife Margaret Williams was a very intelligent and nice lady, and she decided that I should spend a morning with some Ilois people. It made a strong impression on me.
What is remarkable is that in the same speech by Mr. Brown representing the Foreign Office, he described the wishes of the Falkland islanders, whose 280WHrepresentatives were consulted. Here we return to a previous intervention and a proper comparison with the Falkland islanders, of whom Mr. Brown said:It has been suggested that this population is somehow irrelevant and that it has no claim to have its wishes taken into account …it would surely be fantastic to maintain that only indigenous inhabitants have any rights in the Country”.He then quoted Woodrow Wilson from 1918:Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game”.Within months, the Chagos Islands had been given to the United States and the destruction of the islanders’ homes and lives was soon to follow.
These days, we are all too familiar with conducting foreign policy on the basis of false or misleading facts. The historical record now revealed by the islanders’ legal struggle has after 30 years shown that a small and vulnerable population of British subjects can safely be written out of the history book on the pretext that they are not really a population at all. There is nothing new in deceiving the world while acting in breach of civilised standards of international and constitutional law. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his powerful speech.
When the islanders finally won their struggle to return in the High Court in November 2000, Lord Justice Laws stated:The people are to be governed, not removed.He also stated that the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was an “abject legal failure”, which hadno colour of lawful authority.That is not my view but that of a distinguished Law Lord.
We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), accepted the Court’s judgment and said:I have decided to accept the Court’s ruling and the Government will not be appealing.The work we are doing on the feasibility of resettlement of Ilois now takes on a new importance. We started feasibility work a year ago and are now well under way with phase two of the study.Furthermore, we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which allows Ilois to return to the outer islands while observing our treaty obligations.The Government has not defended what was done or said 30 years ago. As Lord Justice Laws recognised, we made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened”.History is repeating itself with the same moral turpitude. This time, given that the islanders had already been promised that the Government’s policy was to move towards their resettlement on the islands, the new banishment is a cruel change to what has already been offered. Moreover, the reasons given are again based on inaccurate and misleading information.
The Foreign Office press statement claimed that it was the feasibility study that prevented resettlement. I am glad that this Minister is replying to the debate, and I thank him for his personal courtesy in seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and me in the Foreign Office. He cited a conclusion, supposedly made by the consultants in their executive summary, that the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to 281WHbe prohibitive. However, that was not based on any work of the consultants, whose terms of reference precluded any consideration of cost. Even if he had read only the executive summary, he would know from page 3 that the consultants reported:This report has not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”.I feel entitled to ask where the conclusion came from. It was certainly not from the consultants.
The Minister further stated thathuman interference within the Atolls…is likely to exacerbate the stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effect of global warming.However, other things might accelerate global warming.Thus”,he continued,resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time”.Again, that judgment was not based on the work of the consultants, who stated in volume 3, paragraph 8.3:At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands.The Minister’s conclusion had crept in from somewhere else.
Finally, it is impossible to take seriously the suggestion that only a resettled population will face difficulties. Are we really to believe that the 64 islands offered back to the islanders by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, are going to sink under the waves, while the one island occupied by the Americans is to provide defence facilities for generations to come? It is the biggest military base outside the continental United States.
Only yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley referred to the shameful treatment to which the islanders were subjected:The deliberate misinterpretation of Ilois history and status, designed to deflect any investigation by the United Nations, the use of legal powers designed for the governance of the islands for the illicit purpose of depopulating them, the consequent uprooting of scores of families from the only way of life and means of subsistence that they knew, the failure to make anything like adequate provision for their resettlement, all of this and more is now part of the historical record.Moreover, he went so far as to compare those removals with the highland clearances of the second quarter of the 19th century. He stated:Defence may have replaced agricultural improvement as the reason, but the pauperisation and the expulsion of the weak in the interests of the powerful is the same. It gives little to be proud of.Now there has been a cruel new blow to this mistreated population. Their hopes, which were raised by this Government, have been dashed. Nothing in this game of cat and mouse is any less culpable than the lies and inhumanity that characterised the removal of the population.
It is not, however, too late to render justice. The right of the islanders to return to their homeland should now be recognised, and proper scientific studies should be undertaken, with proper, independent input from respected scientists whose conclusions ought to be binding on the Government.
I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to the debate. I am relatively new to this subject, but when I read the press reports a few weeks ago I could not believe that the Government, whom I so strongly support, are taking this action. I know the Minister to be a good man, and I cannot believe that his sleep is not a little troubled due to these problems.
The test of any Government, or any man or woman, is how they deal wit h injustices felt by powerless people. I urge the Minister to make a stand on this issue; if there are forces beyond his office, outside or within the Foreign Office, that are urging this course of action, I urge him to take a stand. I have looked at the press release—that is all we can go on as to the reasons why we are taking this action. I could see four: the risk of flooding; the precarious nature of life for any people who return; the effect on the delicate marine and terrestrial life caused by people who return; and the cost.
With regard to the risk of flooding, I have consulted one or two experts on the level of the land there, and a lot of it is higher than that in East Anglia. We know about flooding in my constituency of Selby, and if we accepted the argument on flooding that the Government are using, half of my constituency would be depopulated. Some outlying islands were inhabited in the past, and some were based on banks that were shifting in storms. There were tall copra trees on the islands and the inhabitants had worked out a mode of living—growing copra successfully, and in some cases raising huts on stills. The argument does not seem overwhelming to me.
We have talked about the precarious nature of the life that would face any islanders who returned to the outer islands. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was rather restrained and understated in quoting the American publicity about the islands. I shall detain the Chamber for a moment to give a little more flavour of what the US navy says about Diego Garcia in its message to its recruits. It says that Diego Garcia boastsunbelievable recreational facilities and exquisite natural beautyas well as “outstanding” living conditions. There is no mention of the threat of imminent demise from flooding. In fact, I understand that the US is seeking to extend the lease on its base, which would expire in 2016, so it is thinking long term. There is a windsurfers club, a yacht club, an annual Miss Diego Garcia competition, regular picnics to what the US describes as some of the best unspoiled beaches in the world, fishing, snorkelling and a beauty parlour. It does not sound that precarious to me.
As for the delicate marine and terrestrial life, the impact of the 1,500 US personnel, the British personnel, the 2,000 civilian contractors and the various military equipment must be at least as worrying, if it is the major concern, as the effect of some islanders returning to the outer islands.
The cost of returning is obviously a serious matter. From a preliminary scan of the literature, it is very difficult to work out whether any payment has ever been made by the US Government for the use of the island.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate and on setting out in stark terms a dark chapter in our history and the impact it has had on the Chagos islanders. Other Members have dwelt at length on the history of what has happened, but I want to focus on the immediate past, the present and the future.
On resettlement, the Government statement of 15 June, which banned all rights of return of the Chagos people to their homeland, relied in part for its justification on the findings of the June 2002 feasibility study on the resettlement of the islands. Several hon. Members have referred to that and I want to highlight a couple of points.
That report concluded that the resettlement of the islanders would be prohibitively expensive and precarious to their safety. The Minister will be aware that Jonathan Jenness, who is a resettlement expert, carried out an independent review of that study. He examined the claims that the Government-inspired report made and it is clear that the Government’s consultants were not given the task of assessing the financial costs and benefits of resettlement. The Department for International Development has not carried out, or received, any estimate of costs of the resettlement of the islands. I would be interested to know whether any Department has such figures.
On the safety of the environment, the review conducted by Mr. Jenness found that the Chagos Islands have a “benign environment” and that no available material can assess the possible consequences of global warming. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the Minister must explain why a micro 284WHclimate exists in Diego Garcia, which ensures that it is safe from global warming, whereas the rest of the islands are under threat.
On resettlement in general, the review of the study—undertaken by Mr. Jenness—says thatit is fatuous to imagine that the islands cannot be resettled…they were settled, successfully for several generations”.Of course, Diego Garcia is successfully settled by the Americans and the BIOT administration. What assessment have the Government conducted of the review by Jonathan Jenness? Can they make any such assessment public, so that we can see how they responded to the valid points he made? I hope the Minister can say whether any discussions took place between the UK and the US Governments on these matters in the run-up to the decision that was taken on 15 June?
On compensation, to which other hon. Members have referred, it is clear that the level provided was insufficient and that when the Chagos islanders entered into the arrangement that we are discussing it was not made clear to them precisely what they were signing up to.
On visitation rights, the Minister must say why the security concerns are so great that people are not, for instance, allowed to return to visit graves. Before I turn to the issue of Camp Justice, I will discuss the report in today’s papers that Mauritius may sue for Diego Garcia. Perhaps he can say also what discussions have taken place with the Mauritian Prime Minister on that subject. How many times has the UK been taken to the International Court of Justice—that is what is being proposed? Has the Prime Minister replied to Mr. Berenger’s letter? I understand that he is very angry not to have received a response. Can we have assurances from the Minister that the Government will not retaliate and perhaps take it out on the Mauritian Government in relation to subsidies that they receive for sugar?
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow)I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about the affront to democracy. I shall set an example by making a speech which is much shorter than 10 minutes. It is in the form of a question, and it is apposite that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence should be answering this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have been much involved in the case of the Chagos islanders. Their lawyers told us of a problem with the Ilois returning to Diego Garcia because of the building of six huge temperature-controlled hangars. We were asked what we would do to protest to the Government about that. We asked what the hangars were for. Apparently they are for B52 bombers and, particularly, B2 bombers that have to be repaired and maintained in a particular temperature. Why does one have B2 bombers? It is particularly to carry earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, specifically the B61–11.
My question, which I hope will be addressed in the reply, is this: we are talking about a British base, the British Indian Ocean Territory, of which Diego Garcia is a part and which is a House of Commons responsibility. The House of Commons should be told if nuclear weapons, albeit tactical, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy bunkers—one can understand why the American air force may wish to have this particular weapon in relation to Iraq—are to be launched from British soil, with or without agreement by the United States air force. We should be told in the winding-up speech tonight.
First, the issue is not about human rights in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary made great play of them and the dossier covers them. We need no persuading that Saddam Hussein’s regime is about the most evil in the world today. It has committed atrocities on a scale unseen almost anywhere else, but that does not justify armed intervention 52in Iraq. If I may say so, it is something of a red herring. The debate is about something wider, more important and of greater application to the world outside Iraq.
Secondly, there can be no controversy about the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed, and is continuing to develop apace, weapons of mass destruction. The dossier, which puts forward the evidence in a calm and measured way, makes the case conclusively. Surely that can no longer be a matter of dispute.
Thirdly, does Saddam having and developing such weapons amount to a threat sufficient in immediacy and gravity to justify armed military intervention, even as a last resort? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in a powerful, lucid and cogent speech—I am afraid that I did not agree with much of it—the threat issue is a matter of judgment. Everyone has to make their judgment about the gravity and immediacy of that threat.
We must look at other countries that have developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and ask ourselves what it is that distinguishes Iraq from, for example, India, Pakistan or even Iran. The answer is that there is clear evidence from the history of the Saddam Hussein regime that it is fundamentally an aggressive regime. He has developed these weapons, not as an instrument of deterrence to deter attacks on Iraq, but as weapons of aggression. In the past 20 years, the regime has twice invaded its neighbours. On a number of occasions, it has launched ballistic missiles against neighbouring states. It is not a regime under external threat that has developed these weapons to create a mutual deterrence, as is the case with India and Pakistan—regrettably, perhaps, but one can understand the reason for them doing so. Those considerations do not apply to Iraq.
In my judgment, this threat is clear, serious and present enough to justify decisive intervention by the international community in whatever shape that takes to enforce a disarmament of the regime.
My fourth point is about the threat to the stability of the middle east and was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and others. We should be very clear about this: the greatest threat to the stability of the middle east is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the actual attacks that he has mounted against his neighbours in the past 20 years, the fact that he consistently sponsors suicide attacks by Palestinians helps to prevent the peace process that we all yearn to be restarted from resuming. It is hard to see how the successful disarming and removal of Saddam Hussein can do anything other than contribute to the stability of the middle east.
Of course, the same concerns were expressed before the Gulf war, 12 years ago, but in fact the successful conclusion of the Gulf war was the trigger for the start of the Oslo process—
Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community……
In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.
12.46 Intriguing new line from The Malay Mail Online.
Police scouring Capt Shah’s flight simulator – which he installed in his home – have found five Indian Ocean practice runways.
One is in the Maldives.
One is on Diego Garcia.
The other three are in India and Sri Lanka.
So, not such a crazy idea after all. We have the Anwar/Globalist issue. Anwar now coming out to admit he’s related to the pilot. We know why the west wants to destabilise Malaysia and we know the CIA are active in Malaysia and have been for some time. We also know the Council on Foreign Relations is happy with Anwar and the west definitely want him as their man in Malaysia.
We know it is highly unlikely that this plane could have travelled across multiple territories such as the northern arc suggests without being spotted. The southern arc leads to nowhere. So what’s left?
Why fly over Maldives instead of direct to Diego Garcia? Well it makes sense to me. You see, by doing so (if, in fact it did) it would give the possibility of being spotted by the Maldives. It would then suggest that the plane was heading to Africa. The straight line between Maldives and Africa suggests the flight is heading toward…..
And we all know who live in Somalia don’t we? It’s full of pirates and Al Qaeda! 🙂 So we’re told by our wonderful media programming on behalf of our governments.
So then what do we expect next? Well, what I expect is for Israel to start screaming! “Oy vey! Oy Vey! They have a plane now in Somalia loaded up with nuclear bombs. The Iranians are in on it! We need to destroy Iran before they use it. They’re going to wipe out Jerusalem and the Temple Mount! Oy vey! Oy vey! The International community must now attack Iran and Somalia and destroy half the middle east so we, god’s people, can continue to live on this planet, in peace and suck the life out of every last living human creature with our monetary system!”
Ok perhaps I’ve slightly overdone what the Israeli’s might say and demand but have I? They’re fricking “religious” (yet atheist?!) nutters! And they’re desperate for a war!
A lesson into the destruction of family and morality.
And the jew who writes about jews having significant control and influence over the pornography industry. These people will bleat and moan about my being “anti semitic” for writing such blogs yet it is IN THEIR OWN WORDS which they are more than happy to promote (because, as I see it very clearly, they have such a huge chip on their shoulder and are so full of inbred hatred of all peoples who are non jews and they want it all their way) but you know? They have such “pride” that they cannot stop themselves from boasting, thereby writing their own evidence against them. But then there’s always the fifth amendment right?
This just looks at ONE aspect of the protocols – the debasement of morality in society and lo and behold, once more the “jews” spearhead it.
The protocols of Zion
“The return of the head of the Snake to ZION can only be accomplished after the power of all the Sovereigns of Europe has been laid low, that is to say, when by means of economic crises and wholesale destruction effected everywhere, there shall have been brought about a spiritual demoralization and a moral corruption, chiefly with the assistance of JEWISH WOMEN masquerading as French, Italians, etc. These are the surest spreader of licentiousness into the lives of the leading men at the heads of nations.” – Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton anyone?
“Behold the alcoholized animals, bemused with drink, the right to an immoderate use of which comes along with freedom. It is not for us and ours to walk that road. The peoples of the goyim are bemused with alcoholic liquors; their youth has grown stupid on classicism and from early immorality, into which it has been inducted by our special agents — by tutors, lackeys, governesses in the houses of the wealthy, by clerks and others, by our women in the places of dissipation frequented by the goyim. In the number of these last I count also the so-called “society ladies,” voluntary followers of the others in corruption and luxury.”
“In countries known as progressive and enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature. For some time after our entrance to power we shall continue to encourage its existence in order to provide a telling relief by contrast to the speeches, party programme, which will be distributed from exalted quarters of ours. Our wise men, trained to become leaders of the goyim, will compose speeches, projects, memoirs, articles, which will be used by us to influence the minds of the goyim, directing them towards such understanding and forms of knowledge as have been determined by us.”
Who are the Elders?
This is a secret which has not been revealed. The are the Hidden Hand. They are not the “Board of Deputies” (the Jewish Parliament in England) or the “Universal Israelite Alliance” which sit in Paris. But the late Walter Rathenau of the Allgemeiner Electrizitaets Gesellschaft has thrown a little light on the subject and doubtless he was in possession of their names, being, in all likelihood, one of the chief leaders himself. Writing in the Wiener Freie Presse, December 24, 1912, he said:
“Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successor from their entourage. “
A FIFTEENTH CENTURY “PROTOCOL”
The principles and morality of these latter-day PROTOCOLs are as old as the tribe. Here is one of the Fifteenth Century which Jews can hardly pronounce a forgery, seeing that is taken from the Rothschild journal.
The Revue des etudes Juives, financed by James de Rothschild, published in 1889 two documents which showed how true the PROTOCOLs are in saying that the Learned Elders of Zion have been carrying on their plan for centuries. On January 13, 1489, Chemor, Jewish Rabbi of Arles in Provence, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constan- tinople, for advice, as the people of Arles were threatening the synagogues. What should the Jews do? This was the reply:
“Dear Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great a pain to hear it as yourselves.”
The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:
“1. As for what you say that the King of France obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise, but let the law of Moses be kept in your hearts.
2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your goods [the law was that on becoming converted Jews gave their possessions} make your sons merchants, that little by little they may despoil the Christians of theirs.
3. As for what you say about their making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons cannons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix themselves up with the affairs of State, in order that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged of them.
6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will bind by experience that, humiliated as your are, you will reach the actuality of power.”
Signed V.S.S.V.F.F., Prince of the Jews, 21st Caslue (November), 1489.
In the year 1844, on the eve of the Jewish Revolution of 1848, Benjamin Disraeli, whose real name was Israel, and who was a “damped”, or baptized Jew, published his novel, Conningsby, in which occurs this ominous passage:
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
And he went on to show that these personages were all Jews.
Now the Providence has brought to the light of day these secret PROTOCOLs all men may clearly see the hidden personages specified by Disraeli at work “behind the scenes” of all the Governments. This revelation entails on all white peoples the grave responsibility of examining and revising au fond their attitude towards the Race and Nation which boasts of its survival over all Empires.
LORD SYDENHAM ON THE ‘PROTOCOLS’
The following letter appeared in the “Spectator” of August 27th, 1921.
When the PROTOCOLS first appeared in English it was pointed out that they embodied a forgery perpetrated by the Tsar’s police with the idea of promoting pogroms. It now appears that they are adapted from a “pamphlet” of 1865 attacking the Second Empire.” This is most interesting, but it explains nothing. As you point out, Mrs. Webster has shown the PROTOCOLS to be full of plagiarism which she effectively explained by the use of parallel columns, and before her most able book appeared Mr. Lucien Wolfe had traced other similarities. As the PROTOCOLS were obviously a compilation this was to be expected, and further resemblances may be discovered. The importance of the most sinister compilation that has ever appeared resides in the subject matter. The PROTOCOLS explain in almost laborious detail the objects of BOLSHEVISM and the methods of carrying it into effect. These methods were in operation in 1901 when Nilus said that he received the documents, but BOLSHEVISM was then MARXIAN COMMU- NISM, and the time had not come for applying it by military force. Nothing that was written in 1865 can have any bearing upon the deadly accuracy of the forecasts in the PROTOCOL, most of which have since been fulfilled to the letter. Moreover, the principles they enunciate corresponds closely with the recorded statements of JEWISH authorities. If you read the American edition, with its valuable annexes, you will understand this, and the confirmatory quotations there given can be multiplied. Even the “JEWISH WORLD DESPOTISM,” which you described as a “piece of malignant lunacy,” is not obscurely hinted at. Take this one quotation from JEWISH STATE, by Theodore Herzl:
“Where we sink we become revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party: when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”
Compare this ominous statement with those of the PROTOCOLS, of which it is plainly an echo.
“I note with thankfulness that you say that the discovery of the French pamphlet “does not clear up the whole mystery.” Indeed it does not, and if you will carefully read Mr. Ford’s amazing disclosure you will wish for more light. The main point is, of course, the source from which Nilus obtained the PROTOCOLS. The Russians who knew Nilus and his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the BOLSHEVIKS. His book, in which the PROTOCOLS only form one chapter, has not been translated though it would give some idea of the man. He was, I have been told by a Russian lady, absolutely incapable either of writing any portion of the PROTOCOLS or of being a party to fraud.
What is the most striking characteristic of the PROTOCOLS? The answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field. The solution of the “MYSTERY,” if it is one, is to be found by ascertaining where this uncanny knowledge on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be shown to reside.”
I am, Sir, &c., SYDENHAM
Here, we have a “jew” attempting to adapt the protocols to reflect they were written by jesuits/catholic church. The fact is it matters not who wrote them. What matters is that they were written over 100 years ago and accurately reflect the past 100 years of history and what is currently unfolding. You simply cannot ignore this.
THE JESUITS AND THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION
By the late Leo H. Lehmann
IT IS ADMITTED by all intelligent people that the so-called “Protocols of the Wise men of Zion” are criminal forgeries, and could never have been written either by a group of Jews or Freemasons. Yet their authorship remains unknown. The amazing part of it is that this fantastic fraud has succeeded in its planned objective– the ousting of all Judaic-Masonic influence in Central Europe by methods that would bring a blush to the cheek of a Torquemada.
The contents of these alleged Protocols are well enough known, and have been broadcast in every country as authentic reports– proces verbaux— of secret conferences at which certain Jewish leaders drew up plans for the formation of an invisible world-government. With the help of Masonic Lodges and the liberal, democratic, socialist and communist parties, these “Elders of Zion” are said to have conspired for the overthrow of all non-Jewish governments and to destroy all religions other than Judaism. Every despicable means to weaken Christian institutions is set forth by the imaginary leaders of this vast conspiracy.
All this is to be accomplished principally by means of the Masonic orders throughout the world, as the blind dupes and willing tools of this supraimperialism of the Jews. Credit is claimed for the Jews in having instigated practically all revolutionary movements of the past century, assassinations of rulers and heads of states, all the wars, civil, racial and international, and all the upheavals in and throughout the nations– from the Protestant Reformation to the economic conditions that resulted in our business depression. Behind it all there is pictured the cold calculation, the unscrupulous cunning and murderous fanaticism of these Elders of Zion. Protocol One tells of a vast army of spies and secret agents, well supplied with funds, who bore from within and create dissension and revolution in all countries. Support of anarchist, communist, and socialist movements for the destruction of Christian civilization is outlined in Protocol Three; also the debasement and ruin of the currency system, leading to a world-wide economic crisis. Universal war against any nation or group of nations, which fails to respond, is planned in Protocol Seven. Protocol Ten contains particulars how all morality is to be undermined and leading statesmen blackmailed, compromised and calumniated in order to force them to serve the ends of the conspirators.*
The secret conclave, at which these monstrous plans were purported to have been drawn up, is said to have been held under the auspices of “one of the most influential and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry”; they are also said to have been “signed by representatives of Zion of the Thirty-Third Degree.”
No group of organization could ever be as evil and satanic as these Judaic-Masonic Elders of Zion picture themselves to be. They are the apotheosis of the anti-Christ, and could only have been conjured up by minds imbued with the fearful expectation of the eventual coming of an anti-Christ.
It must be admitted that there is a certain similarity between this revolutionary plan of action and the Bolshevist program that followed the assassination of the Czar of Russia and the overthrow of the Kerensky regime. But of the seventeen members of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet government at that time, only one, Trotsky, was a Jew. Neither have the Masons ever been the least bit influential in Russia, either under the Czar or the Soviets. A world-wide economic depression also has since happened, somewhat similar to that allegedly planned by these elders of Zion. By no means, however, have the Jews and Masons ever so completely controlled the world’s finances. They suffered as much as others as a result of the economic debacle.
The Nazi-Fascists, who have successfully exploited these Protocols to their great advantage, and who have used these criminal forgeries to attain their primary objective, might well be accused of their authorship. But their publication antedated the rise of Fascism by a quarter of a century, when Hitler and Mussolini were youngsters learning their multiplication tables in school, and Franco babbling his “Hail Marys” at his mother’s knee.
Now, authorship of an anonymous document is best discovered from the document itself– by the cause it favors and the enemies it depicts. These will appear even if placed in reverse. A clear sample of this can be seen from such an analysis of a part of these Protocols of Zion which I have before me. It is a reprint from The Catholic Gazette, of February, 1936, a monthly publication of the Catholic Missionary Society of London, England. Space limits permit the quotation of only parts of this nefarious document.
The Judaic-Masonic conspirators are speaking:
“As long as there remains among the Gentiles any moral conception of the social order, and until all faith, patriotism, and dignity are uprooted, our reign over the world shall not come…
“We have still a long way to go before we can overthrow our main opponent: the Catholic Church…
“We must always bear in mind that the Catholic Church is the only institution which has stood, and which will, as long as it remains in existence, stand in our way. The Catholic Church, with her methodical work and her edifying and moral teachings, will always keep her children in such a state of mind as to make them too self-respecting to yield to our domination, and to bow before our future king of Israel…
“That is why we have been striving to discover the best way of shaking the Catholic Church to her very foundations…
“We have blackened the Catholic Church with the most ignominious calumnies, we have stained her history and disgraced even her noblest activities. We have imputed to her the wrongs of her enemies, and have thus brought these latter to stand more closely by our side… We have turned her Clergy into objects of hatred and ridicule, we have subjected them to the contempt of the crowd… We have caused the practice of the Catholic Religion to be considered out of date and a mere waste of time…
“One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of Israel…
“So far, we have considered our strategy in our attacks upon the Catholic Church from the outside… Let us now explain how we have gone further in our work, to hasten the ruin of the Catholic Church… and how we have brought even some of her Clergy to become pioneers of our cause.
“We have induced some of our children to join the Catholic body, with the explicit intimation that they should work in a still more efficient way for the disintegration of the Catholic Church…
“We are the Fathers of all Revolutions– even of those which sometimes happen to turn against us. We are the supreme Masters of Peace and War. We can boast of being the Creators of the REFORMATION! (sic). Calvin was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation.
“Martin Luther yielded to the influence of his Jewish friends, and again, by Jewish authority and with Jewish finance, his plot against the Catholic Church met with success…
“Thanks to our propaganda, to our theories of LIBERALISM and to our MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FREEDOM (sic), the minds of many among the Gentiles were ready to welcome the Reformation. They separated from the Church to fall into our snare. And thus the Catholic Church has been sensibly weakened, and her authority over the Kings of the Gentiles has been reduced to almost naught…
“We are grateful to PROTESTANTS for their loyalty to our wishes– although most of them are, in the sincerity of their faith, unaware of their loyalty to us…
“France, with her Masonic government, is under our thumb. England, in her dependence upon our finance, is under our heel; and in her Protestantism is our hope for the destruction of the Catholic Church. Spain and Mexico are but toys in our hands. And many other countries, including the U.S.A., have already fallen before our scheming…
“Likewise, as regards our diplomatic plans and the power of our secret societies, there is no organization to equal us. The Jesuits are the only ones to compare with us. But we have succeeded in discrediting them… for they are a visible organization, whereas we are safely hidden under the cover of our secret societies.
“But the Catholic Church is still alive…
“We must destroy her without the least delay and without the slightest mercy… Let us intensify our activities in poisoning the morality of the Gentiles. Let us spread the spirit of revolution in the minds of the people. They must be made to despise Patriotism and the love of family, to consider their faith as a humbug… Let us make it impossible for Christians outside the Catholic Church to be reunited to that Church, otherwise the greatest obstruction to our domination will be strengthened and all our work undone…
“Let us remember that as long as there still remains active enemies of the Catholic Church, we may hope to become Masters of the World… And let us remember always that the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before the Pope in Rome is dethroned…
“When the time comes and the power of the Pope shall at last be broken, the fingers of an invisible hand will call the attention of the masses of the people to the court of the Sovereign Pontiff to let them know that we have completely undermined the power of the Papacy… The King of the Jews will then be the real pope and the Father of the Jewish World-Church.”
(End of quotation.)
When all this is placed in reverse, the following appears:
The Catholic Church is the only upholder of morality, the social order, faith, patriotism and dignity…
The Catholic Church is the only institution which has stood, and which will always stand, in the way of antichrist.
The Catholic Church is the great exemplar of methodical work, edifying and moral teachings; she always keeps her children self-respecting, and will never bow to satanic allurements.
Only when Catholics become ashamed of professing the precepts of the Church and obeying its commands, shall we have the spread of revolt and false liberalism.
The Catholic Church has been blackened by the most ignominious calumnies, her history has been stained, and her noblest activities disgraced. The Practices of the Catholic Church are not out of date or a mere waste of time.
Freemasonry is allied with Satan against the Catholic Church. Not all priests are to be trusted; liberal Catholic priests only serve the work of the devil.
The Reformation was the work of evil conspirators. Calvin and Luther were financed by them to overthrow the Catholic Church.
Freedom and liberty are mere misrepresentations of good. Protestants have unwittingly helped to bring all the evils into our present world. Protestant England aims to destroy the Catholic Church. All that may happen in Spain and Mexico is a part of a plot against the Catholic Religion.
The Jesuits are not an underhand organization, but all they do is open and above board. The Jesuits are the only organization, however, who can defeat the force of evil in the world.
Finally: As long as the Pope remains on his throne in Rome the world is safe…
This is exactly what is taught in all Catholic schools. Every retreat and mission given to priests and lay people begins with St. Ignatius’ picture of “The Two Camps”– the Catholic Church led by God on one hill, and the combination of Protestants, Jews, masons, communists, socialists and atheists on the other led by Satan.
And all of this is to be found again in Father Coughlin’s Social Justice magazine. In its issue of February 5, (1940), for instance, he reiterates that the Catholic Church is “the ideal Christian Front” and proclaims that all those opposed to, or not with it, belong to anti-Christian groups which will soon “appear incarnated in the person of Antichrist himself.” He says that “lay Christian leadership of social matters is to be condemned.” A Special Correspondent of his magazine in Rome writes an article that the “Only Hope of Christian Europe Lies in Rome,” and that Europe can only be saved by the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire; that England, “who more than any other country now represents the neo-Judaic, anti-Catholic spirit,” will be destroyed by Germany and Italy. In another part of this issue, liberal Catholic priests, like Mgr. John A. Ryan, are called “Hireling Clergy” paid by left-wing revolutionary groups. Towards the end is a trick questionnaire which implies twenty answers aimed to secure a poll from its readers which will be condemnatory of democracy.
Although first published in Russia in 1903, the Protocols of Zion had their origin in France and date from the Dreyfus Affair, of which the Jesuits were the chief instigators. They were planned also first to take effect in France, by the overthrow of the “Judaic-Masonic” government of the French Republic. But the discovery of the gigantic fraud of Leo Taxil, who had been openly supported by the Jesuits, the concluding of the Franco-Russian alliance, along with the Vatican’s difficulties with the French government at that time, made it more opportune to have them appear first in Russia.
These Protocols of supposedly Jewish leaders are not the first documents of their kind fabricated by the Jesuits.
For over a hundred years before these Protocols appeared, the Jesuits had continued to make use of a similar fraud called “The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine” against Jansenism– a liberal French Catholic movement among the secular clergy. The analogy between the two forgeries is perfect– the secret assemblage in the forest of Bourg-Fontaine, the plan of the “conspirators” to destroy the Papacy and establish religious tolerance among all nations, the alleged plot against Throne and Altar, and the setting up of a world-government in opposition to the Catholic Church. There is the same dramatization of the negative pole of the historic evolution of the world, in order to bring out, by contrast, the positive Christian (Catholic) pole, around which all conservative forces– the monarchy, the aristocracy, the army, the clergy– must gather to save the world from Satan’s onslaught.
Analyzing, therefore, the ends to be attained by these Protocols of Zion, the means to be employed, the forces depicted as evil and those to be considered good, we must reach the conclusion that only to those, whose objectives these forgeries were clearly intended to serve, can their authorship be attributed.
(Originally taken from “Behind the Dictators,” by L.H. Lehmann and reprinted by permission of Agora Publishing Company, New York 6, New York. Copyright by Agora Publishing Company.)
Taken from Old Fashioned Prophecy Magazine, ed. Eric C. Peters, Vol. X, Nos. 5 & 6, September-December, 1968. pp. 29-37.
* Knowledgeable Christians should know that this picture is not Scriptural. It calls into question Revelation 17:18 and all of Revelation 18, with its great emphasis on verse 24. Rome “Christian” is the culprit; NOT THE JEW! Hence we must decide between the veracity of the author of the Protocols and the veracity of our Lord Jesus Christ. – Editor, OFPM
Now on to porn today:
Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry
Nathan Abrams | Winter 2004 – Number 196
Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin. According to Jay A. Gertzman, author of Bookleggers and Smuthounds:The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), ‘Jews were prominent in the distribution ofgallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials’.
In the postwar era, America’s most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the ‘Walt Disney of Porn’. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country.
Born in 1924, Sturman grew up in Cleveland’s East Side. Initially, he sold comics and magazines, but when he realized sex magazines produced twenty times the revenue of comic books, he moved exclusively into porn, eventually producing his own titles and setting up retail stores. By the end of the 1960s, Sturman ranked at the top of adult magazine distributors and by the mid-70s he owned over 200 adult bookstores. Sturman also introduced updated versions of the traditional peepshow booth (typically a dark room with a small colour TV on which the viewer can view X-rated videos). It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry. Eventually he was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes and died, disgraced, in prison in 1997. His son, David, continued running the family business.
The contemporary incarnation of Sturman is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch, who has been described as ‘the Donald Trump of porno’. The link between the two is Steve’s father, Fred, who was a stockbroker-cum-lieutenant to Sturman. Today Hirsch runs the Vivid Entertainment Group, which has been called the Microsoft of the porn world, the top producer of ‘adult’ films in the US. His specialty was to import mainstream marketing techniques into the porn business. Indeed, Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by Hirsch. Vivid was the subject of a behind-the-scenes reality TV show recently broadcast on Channel 4.
Nice Jewish girls and boys
Jews accounted for most of the leading male performers as well as a sizeable number of female stars in porn movies of the 1970s and ‘80s. The doyen of the Hebrew studs is Ron Jeremy. Known in the trade as ‘the Hedgehog’, Jeremy is one of America’s biggest porn stars. The 51-year-old Jeremy was raised in an upper-middle-class Jewish family in Flushing, Queens, and has since appeared in more than 1,600 adult movies, as well as directing over 100. Jeremy has achieved iconic status in America, a hero to males of all ages, Jewish and gentile alike – he’s the nebbischy, fat, hairy, ugly guy who gets to bed dozens of beautiful women. He presents an image of a modern-day King David, a Jewish superstud who supersedes the traditional heroes of Jewish lore. No sallow Talmud scholar he. His stature was recently cemented with the release of a pornomentary about his life, Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy. As probably the most famous Jewish male porn star, Jeremy has done wonders for the psyche of Jewish men in America. Jeremy has also just released a compilation CD, Bang-A-Long-With Ron Jeremy. For £7.99 (including delivery), the lucky listener gets to enjoy Jeremy’s hand-picked favourite porno grooves along with narration by ‘the legend’ himself. As the publicity blurb gushes, ‘Out of the brown paper wrappings and into the mainstream’.
Seymore Butts, aka Adam Glasser, is everything that Jeremy is not: young, handsome and toned. Glasser, a 39-year-old New York Jew, opened a gym in 1991 in Los Angeles. When no one joined, he borrowed a video camera for 24 hours, went to a nearby strip club, recruited a woman, then headed back to his gym and started shooting. Although the movie stank, with a bit of chutzpah and a few business cards he wangled a deal with a manufacturer and started cranking out films. Within a few years, ‘Seymore Butts’ – his nom de porn which is simultaneously his sales pitch – became one of the largest franchises in the adult-film business. As the king of the gonzo genre (marked by handheld cameras, the illusion of spontaneity and a low-tech aesthetic meant to suggest reality), he is today probably the most famous Jewish porn mogul. Seymore Inc., his production company, releases about 36 films annually, most of them shot for less than $15,000, each of them grossing more than 10 times that sum. Glasser employs 12 people, including his mother and cousin Stevie as respectively genial company accountant (and matchmaker for her single son) and lovable but roguish general gopher. Glasser currently even has his own reality TV show (also broadcast on Channel 4), a ten-episode docu-soap calledFamily Business, whose opening credits show Glasser’s barmitzvah photo.
In search of a buck
Jews became involved in the porn industry for much the same reasons that their co-religionists became involved in Hollywood. They were attracted to an industry primarily because it admitted them. Its newness meant that restrictive barriers had not yet been erected, as they had in so many other areas of American life. In porn, there was no discrimination against Jews. During the early part of the twentieth century, an entrepreneur did not require large sums of money to make a start in the film business; cinema was considered a passing fad. In the porn business, it was similarly straightforward to get going. To show ‘stag’ movies or loops, as they were known, all one needed was a projector, screen and a few chairs. Not tied up with the status quo and with nothing to lose by innovation, Jews were open to new ways of doing business. Gertzman explains that
“Jews, when they found themselves excluded from a field of endeavour, turned to a profession in which they sensed they could eventually thrive by cooperating with colleagues in a community of effort . . . Jews have for a very long time cultivated the temperament and talents of middlemen, and they are proud of these abilities”.
The adult entertainment business required something that Jews possessed in abundance:chutzpah. Early Jewish pornographers were marketing geniuses and ambitious entrepreneurs whose toughness, intelligence and boundless self-confidence were responsible for their successes.
Of course, the large number of Jews in porn were mainly motivated by the desire to make profits. Just as their counterparts in Hollywood provided a dream factory for Americans, a blank screen upon which the Jewish moguls’ visions of America could be created and projected, so the porn-moguls displayed a talent for understanding public tastes. What better way to provide the stuff of dreams and fantasies than through the adult-entertainment industry? Performers did porn for the money. As ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman commented, ‘Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.’
Like their mainstream counterparts, Jews who enter porn do not usually do so as representatives of their religious group. Most of the performers and pornographers are Jewish culturally but not religiously. Many are entirely secular, Jews in name only. Sturman, however, identified as a Jew – he was a generous donator to Jewish charities – and performer Richard Pacheco once interviewed to be a rabbinical student.
Very few, if any, porn films have overtly Jewish themes, although Jeremy once tried to get several Jewish porn stars together to make a kosher porn film. The exception is Debbie Duz Dishes, in which Nina Hartley plays a sexually insatiable Jewish housewife who enjoys sex with anyone who rings the doorbell. It has sold very well, spawned a couple of sequels and is currently very hard to buy – perhaps indicating a new niche to exploit. Indeed, according to an editorial on the World Union of Jewish Students website,
“there are thousands of people searching for Jewish porn. After things like Jewish calendar, Jewish singles, Jewish dating, and Jewish festivals comes ‘Jewish porn’ in the list of top search keywords that GoTo.com provide”.
Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? There is surely an element of rebellion in Jewish X-rated involvement. Its very taboo and forbidden nature serves to make it attractive. As I written in these pages before,treyf signifies ‘the whole world of forbidden sexuality, the sexuality of the goyim, and there all the delights are imagined to lie . . .’ (‘Reel Kashrut: Jewish food in film’, JQ 189 [Spring 2003]).
According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazineCulture Wars (May 2003), ‘the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools’. The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.
Furthermore, as Orthodox Jew and porn gossipmonger Luke Ford explains on his website (lukeford.net): ‘Porn is just one expression of [the] rebellion against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to Torah that marks a Jew living Judaism.’ It is also a revolt against (often middle-class) parents who wish their children to be lawyers, doctors and accountants. As performer Bobby Astyr put it on the same website, ‘It’s an “up yours” to the uncles with the pinky rings who got down on me as a kid for wanting to be musician.’
As religious influences waned and were replaced by secular ones, free-thinking Jews, especially those from California’s Bay Area, viewed sex as a means of personal and political liberation. America provided the freest society Jews have ever known, as manifested by the growth of the adult industry. Those Jewish women who have sex onscreen certainly stand in sharp contradiction to the stereotype of the ‘Jewish American Princess’. They (and I’m speculating here) may have seen themselves as fulfilling the promise of liberation, emancipating themselves from what feminist Betty Friedan in 1963 called the ‘comfortable concentration camp’ of the household as they set out into the Promised Land of the porno sets of Southern California. It signified their economic and social freedom: they were free to choose to enter, rather than coerced into it by economic and other circumstances. Once they had lain down, they could stand on their own two feet, particularly as female performers typically earn twice as much as their male counterparts.
Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on lukeford.net), ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the ‘what the Butler saw’ voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic. As new sexual positions are portrayed, the desire to shock (as well as entertain) seems clear.
It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the ‘beautiful cultural consequences’ that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would ‘ennoble all our art’ and ‘humanize sexuality’. Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich’s intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx (lukeford.net):
“Before I got my first part in an adult film, I went down to an audition for an X-rated film with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich’s Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, ‘love and sex’.”
As Rabbi Samuel H. Dresner put it (E. Michael Jones, ‘Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos’ Culture Wars, May 2003), ‘Jewish rebellion has broken out on several levels’, one being ‘the prominent role of Jews as advocates to sexual experimentation’. Overall, then, porn performers are a group of people who praise rebellion, self-fulfilment and promiscuity.
What are we ashamed of?
This brief overview and analysis of the role and motivations behind pornographers and performers is intended to shed light on a neglected topic in American Jewish popular culture. Little has been written about it. Books such as Howard M. Sachar’s A History of the Jews in America (New York: Knopf, 1992) simply ignore the topic. And you can bet that the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the Jews in the United States did not include any celebrations of Jewish innovation in this field. Even the usually tolerant Time Out New York has been too prim to deal with it, although the more iconoclastic Heeb plans an issue on it. In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously.
Nathan Abrams is a Lecturer in Modern American History at the University of Aberdeen. He has just completed a book on neo-conservatism in the United States.
Well, As ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman commented, ‘Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.’ Our Abe will see nothing wrong with our Ron’s depiction of a christian cross spearing him through the throat so I guess our Abe can’t see anything wrong with this little ditty:
Our Abe, like a great musician but who I now recognise as a prick – Peter Gabriel – thinks Femen and Pussy Riot is all about “free speech” and there’s nothing hateful in that right?
So Abe and friends don’t see anything wrong with shit like this:
THE FEMINIST “AL QAEDA” INDEED!
From a little slut jewish Princess no doubt! (a non practicing secular one of course)
But I think Zappa says it best:
Of course David Icke and The People’s Voice will jump at the chance of having any of these jewish porn magnates on the shows. Give them a voice David! 😉
Strange how he speaks of Rothschild Zionism then promotes porn on his station isn’t it? Or isn’t it?
The kinds of sham professionals promoted by the West makes me sick
Your posts follow an ugly profile.
How an ex-Jew, who defected to Christianity and now has a guilty conscience, how possibly spout such vile, offensive crap simply beggars belief!
The worst anti-Semites are self-hating Jewish anti-Semites, of which you are typical!
Your ancestors, z’l, must be turning in their graves!