Earthlinggb's Blog

Honey, I shrunk my clit!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Now we have the homeless geezer….

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

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

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

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

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

Remember 22 people dead, 119 injured. REMEMBER that!

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

Where the explosion happened:

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

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

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

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

And lastly, the “piece de resistance”:

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

Full bullshit story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So back to poofs, freaks and trannies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am getting SICK of these SICK BASTARDS!

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

 

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

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

 

Addendum:

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Advertisements

An Early Day Motion Apology?

Posted in Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 17, 2015

I happened to stumble over this EDM in Parliament just as I’d finished a bowl of very green Broccoli and Stilton soup (homemade :-)) and I just about said “hello” to it again.

I’ve seen the EDM sponsored by these either ignorant idiots or (…?) but I haven’t seen anything relating to an “oops sorry!” from either one of them. Of course, I may have missed it since the parliament archives, as you know, are quite immense in scope.

But I wonder what these idiots feel like now.

But Fabian Hamilton eh? A jew, ex Leeds Councillor and not exactly stupid you would think. Then again….

Jimmy Savile OBE

Fabian Uziell-Hamilton (born 12 April 1955) is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Leeds North East since 1997.

He was elected as a councillor to the City of Leeds Council in 1987, stepping down eleven years later in 1998. He was elected as the chairman of the Leeds West Constituency Labour Party in 1987, and he contested Leeds North East at the 1992 general election but was defeated by the sitting Conservative MP Timothy Kirkhope by 4,244 votes, gaining a 5.9% swing from the Conservative Party to Labour.

Hamilton is a signatory of the Euston Manifesto and the Henry Jackson Society. [Take a look at these two societies if you get the chance – The HJS has Richard Perle, William Kristol, Sir Richard Dearlove (ex MI5 head) and James Woolsey (ex CIA head) as members. Ain’t that nice?]

He has been married to Rosemary Ratcliffe since 1980 and they have two daughters and a son. He has been a member of Amicus since it absorbed his former union, the Graphical, Paper and Media Union. He is Jewish and speaks fluent French.

David Jonathan Edwards (born 26 April 1976) is a Welsh Plaid Cymru politician.

John Sampson Macfarlane Leech (born 11 April 1971, Hastings, East Sussex) is a British Liberal Democrat politician.

Sir Joseph Alan Meale (born 31 July 1949) is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Mansfield since 1987.

Gregory Thomas Mulholland (born 31 August 1970) is a Liberal Democrat politician in the United Kingdom, and is the Member of Parliament for Leeds North West.

Richard James Shannon (born 25 March 1955) is a unionist politician from Northern Ireland.

Of course, it’s just a coincidence but……

Shannon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215324/Jimmy-Savile-gravestone-removed-family-police-launch-hunt-BBC-child-abuse-accomplices.html

But you also have this last year from Shannon. Is he concerned about child offences now because he feels such a twat? While I wonder why the specific interest in getting data on just women offenders?

Shannon child abuse

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140430/text/140430w0003.htm

 

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

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

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

12 yr old sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

How absolutely bloody peculiar Leon! (and convenient)

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

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

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

How peculiar! 😉

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

Leon dies

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

Leon cover up

 

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

God bless the Queen!

Tagged with: ,

‘Uncle’ Joe just Biden his time…

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

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

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

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

Tagged with: , ,

The “Alternative” Paedophile

Posted in Media, Paedophilia, Politics by earthlinggb on July 6, 2014

Paedophiles in government. Paedophiles in the monarchy. Paedophiles in the media and now, Paedophiles in the ALTERNATIVE media!

I wonder who those could be? I wonder if Davey and Sean (the big mouths of TPV, the guys who keep their spending of the money they raised from you close to their chests, the guys who sell you bullshit while they literally talk a globalist talk, have the hetero haters on the shows and the ex women MPs who have something to hide too) know who the alternative media paedos are? What do you think? After all, Davey knows it all doesn’t he? He knew about Saville (but didn’t say a word before it became public knowledge and then pretended he had said something. Even his ex colleague ran a story – yes Ms Poulton – saying Davey knew about Saville before it came out in mainstream when, in fact, he had never mentioned it at all beforehand but he likes you to think he did).

There is diseased shit under every rock folks so be careful who you consider to be on “your side”.

I have so much more to say about this paedophile eruption. Not exposing any, just commentary. But, right now, I just don’t have the “bandwidth”. I’ll get around to it though.

For now, here’s Bill Maloney – a brave guy I only met fleetingly once but his head was elsewhere I guess at the time. By the way Bill, if you stumble over this: The Bradbury Pound is the entirely wrong answer (sorry to those who believe otherwise).

One of the best things people could do (but won’t) is for them to drop their belief system in “heroes” – either those in uniform or those on the TV and in positions of (seeming) power.

But they won’t and you know why? This is why:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01zxmrv/the-men-who-made-us-spend-episode-1 (How long this will be on BBC iPlayer I don’t know but it’s the mentality – the “zombies”, those who are so easily led – which maintains the “heroes”. However, as you will see, we’re making “heroes” out of boxes too. The majority of humanity is dumb to the bone and so easy for the elite to manipulate that it’s not the elite – as perverted, sociopathic and psychopathic as they are – who are the problem, it’s the “zombies”. They are who scare the pants off me.)

And if you decide to watch the above and find it at all interesting, you may find the deeper probe into planned obsolescence even more interesting:

We’ll “buy” anything that’s “sold” to us as “Just what you need to be sexy!”

Meanwhile, back to paedophilia. There were once “perverts” and “poofs” – guys who liked to give other guys guy fluid up their ass or to swallow (let’s just call a spade a spade shall we? Or is the reality of it meant to be politically ‘correctified’ and brushed under the carpet like the time they themselves were “in the closet”? But they were given a name: “homosexuals”. Homosexuality was the mane of their “thing” rather than heterosexuality. But you see, having been given a name, the next step (over time) was to ‘normalise’ it and so those who considered it abnormal were then given a name: Homophobes and political correctness (arbitrary policy decided upon by the government(s) which you all know are corrupt – except, as in this case, when you THINK they’re doing the “right thing” under pressure from society (when in fact the elite steer what they want you to accept, you idiot)) put the negative focus on those who disagreed with the normalisation of it.

And it’s all done by ‘grassroots’ pressure groups and academics.

What we now have is the next step in human “enlightenment” which is slowly, delicately (and it will take years/decades just as it did for the homos BUT it will come and all you ‘liberal’ parents out there will have nothing to say and no comeback when your sons and daughters are being fucked (yes let’s call a spade a spade again) by old men and women whose paedophilia has been “normalised”.

Well done Mr and Mrs “Liberal” for being so liberal! 😉 But then perhaps it’s you who want to fuck kids right? But soon any criticism of you will be considered “paedophobic” or “hebephobe”.

 

Paedo natural

 

Why just males? Women are into it too! But that doesn’t fit the media narrative. It’s another attack on men.

All I’ll say to this piece is: BULLSHIT! You have to be one sick mother****** to want to have intercourse with a child!

But no, the academics and the media are working their “magic” again to slowly creep towards the acceptance and normalisation of the paedophile. Lock up your sons and daughters Mr and Mrs conservative because the liberals and the perverts are coming for them. But don’t speak out too loudly because you’ll be labeled and termed a “phobe” and, even worse, an “extremist”. Do you have christian values in this JUDEO-christian country of ours? Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You’re on a list! The tables have flipped and the once oppressed (although they brought it upon themselves for the sake of a sliver of land in the middle east) are now the oppressors and you, Mr and Mrs Christian will soon wear the yellow badge! It won’t be a star however, it will be a cross!

Diego Garcia: How it works

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. [179700]

§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. [178580]

§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. [178581]

§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.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

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.

 

 

 

HC Deb 15 October 2002 vol 390 cc528-9W

Jeremy Corbyn 

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. [74654]

529W

§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”.

DG2

 

HC Deb 07 July 2004 vol 423 cc271-96WH271WH§2 pm

§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. “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
  2. 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
  3. 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
  4. 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
  5. 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
  6. 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.

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow) (Lab)

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 as uninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population as labourers from Mauritius and Seychelles and misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had been freely 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 had no 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 that human 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.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

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.

2.45 pm

§Mr. Francis Maude(Horsham)I have only a few points to make and I shall endeavour to be brief.

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—

HL Deb 24 February 2004 vol 658 cc121-30

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.

MH370: Pilot had Diego Garcia included on his simulator

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10704769/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-live.html

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?

Ping DG

 

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…..

SOMALIA!

Somalia

 

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!

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats! (part 2)

person-meets-lawful-rebellion

 

Now, we’re beginning to get far more interesting. We now enter into the world of pure concept and the application of law to this concept called the “person” as a mathematical equation or statistic. We’re now at a point where there is an admission of what the “person” is and, from that, we can recognise how it is the legal system approaches its fundamental “unit” and how, therefore, the legal system can apply statute law to any and all groups which the legal system wishes to protect, elevate or otherwise. Proof, then, that you, as an individual with a mind, body and soul of your own (not to mention philosophy or morals or lack thereof) is of NO interest to the legal system. It is that very substance of our individual beings which the legal system of statutory acts cannot cope with. You MUST fall into a grouping in one way or another and in a multitude of ways, for the legal system to continue. This being the case, you can be an individual of the highest moral virtue and the legal system will dilute such to ensure you are treated the same as the worst of criminals if you just so happen to fall into the same grouping as the latter.

Essentially, then, the legal system can (and does) treat you the same way as Hitler is alleged to have treated the jews. If you are a jew, it matters not how moral you may be or even how much you may hold the same principles as a NAZI, you are a jew and you will be treated like one!

It is also like saying if you are black in America, the law enforcers are more likely to assume you to be a criminal.

Or, it is similar to saying “If you are muslim then you are most likely a terrorist”.

If you do not understand what I am saying here or my reasoning for it, I hope, in reading these pages and following the obvious intention, it will become apparent to you.

Person 4

 

Ok, let’s stop and think of just a few things here:

1. “when a case explicitly considers the legal personality of a given entity”. Think hard on what this is saying (and what we never really give much thought to). The law does not treat the “person” before a court according to that INDIVIDUAL’S personality (character). The law court simply considers the entity (Corporation, Private company, sole trader, partnership or human being of whatever race, colour, religious or political affiliation, sex, age etc) in accordance with a set of “rights and duties” which are arbitrarily assigned to such an entity based on a grouping. A perfect example of this is given in the video following where the barrister refers to this particular “person” not having much “armoury” because he is not a racial minority, homosexual or pregnant woman. It, therefore, is a prime confirmation of the grouping the law uses to determine which rights you do have and which rights you don’t have. It could not be clearer could it? And YET, the law “prides” itself in telling you that all are equal before it! What utter tosh!

Now, please tell me this could not be any clearer for you.

The thing about just applying the law of contract to an employment situation (remembering an employment contract is simply a CONTRACT like any other), is that it would handle a dispute between the employer and the employee based on a more balanced and fair assessment of  such a contract. Ignoring that even the law of contract has its issues, every person should have the same access to such law as any other person but what the government and courts have done is separated the law of contract and applied it purely to CORPORATE PERSONS while introducing statutory employment law to keep you and I, the employees, in our places. By doing so, they have elevated the stature of the Corporation above the stature of the human being. “Persons”, once more, shown not to be equal before the law. The statutory employment law is stacked against the employee. Your position has been significantly reduced by this law which says all persons are equal before it. It simply is not true when they have created divisions and compartmentalisation within law to account for it. What is their answer to that? Easy! They say “But that is the law!” What they will never acknowledge or even debate is that the law, itself, is set up fundamentally to discriminate between different groups of “persons”.

2. “according to its own particular purposes, when it is devising its own legal person”. How about that for a statement? From the very beginning of “law”, they have introduced the concept of a legal person and it has probably been as simple as this: Those who are considered such, have “rights” and those who aren’t, don’t. Just think about slavery. From then on, they have, step by step, begun the categorisation of persons while they have maintained the power (for that is what it is – pure power/force) to determine and/or decide who and what category of entity can become and be recognised as a “person”. For many years, women were not “persons” in their own right. Neither were slaves (obviously – they were property) nor homosexuals and transexuals. It is all so arbitrary that different countries have different legal regimes which either decide to recognise these groups or not. Everything is purely arbitrary and based upon political agendas!

3. “deep divisions in legal thinking”. The law cannot even agree what a person is! Can you understand, then, that just as this fundamental cannot be agreed upon, neither can categories and groupings because it is all down to opinion and political agendas. These people then enforce THEIR opinions upon you and I purely by the FORCE of law. Again it is all arbitrary application of other people’s opinions and has no basis in the fundamentals of right and wrong. It is for that reason that legal statutes are very rarely based upon fundamental morality.

4. “pure, legal artifice”. while there are other opinions, it is clear that the over-riding opinion is this one because it is this one which is applied.

5. “Other jurists are convinced that law’s person has a natural (and to some) even God given character.” This is quite obviously, then, not the version in current use otherwise there would be no such thing as a “Corporate person” unless you’re one of those (no names mentioned) who believe they do “God’s work”. God did not create the Corporation – a man-made “birth” certificate did (as it did for you and I as “persons). In the Corporation’s case, however, that birth certificate is simply a certificate of incorporation. Same thing but different nomenclature applied to two different subsets of the legal person. The natural person (you and I) receive “Birth certificates” and the Corporate person a certificate of incorporation. Somehow, these people expect us not to be able to see this. Amazing really how dumb they assume us to be.

Person 5

 

6. “which makes him morally considerable, and so commands a certain respect from law”. So, it would seem the second set of opinion which considers the “person” as a creature of nature and has “god given” character, provides for a given, specific person before a court to command respect from that court dependent upon his/her morality and, possibly, capability to argue his/her case and points as a moral and intelligent being. The first opinion does not, in any way, allow for this as we know.

7. The third type of person (or the third opinion of what a person should be) is interesting because it then begs the question: “Where is the line drawn between what society considers moral and immoral?” Who would be above the borderline and who below it and for what reason? Again, the reason being an arbitrary opinion by a legislature? What is further quite bizarre about this third opinion is, if you lined up a whole bunch of people who had never been before a court before, how would you decide who is sufficiently moral to be given “personhood” and who is not? If it then depended upon an entity committing a crime as to whether they were judged a person or not, then, on committing the crime, surely the judge/court would have to say this entity is immoral and, therefore, is not a person? If they then cannot be helf morally accountable for their actions, surely this means, then, that they cannot be jailed due to not having a “guilty mind” (mens rea). So everyone who committed a crime (and therefore was judged immoral, otherwise why prosecute them?) would be, at worst, sent to a mental institution. These people do not half get themselves tied up in their metaphysics and philosophy eh? 🙂

8. “jurists often move between different versions of the legal person……they are endowing the term with different meanings”. Now there is an admission for you!

P1, the Cheshire cat, is the one you and I know so well isn’t it? A pure abstraction based upon a concept. While see note 18 at the bottom of the page: P1 has no expectations of us as competent people but P3 does. It would appear, then, that P3 acknowledges one’s capability/capacity/competence while P1 treats you as a piece of meat belonging to a category.

Person 6

 

9. Re the reference to mathematics. Think of it this way – you remember set theorems? Sets and subsets? That is all we are in law. We have no presumed morality and competence individually. They apply law based upon categorisation.

10. “Anything can be a legal person…” and it goes on to state a few. They could decide a chair leg is a legal person if they so desired. This is fact.

11. “babies and other human legal incompetents…” Yes a baby cannot sign a birth certificate and the irony is this: The “person” (mother or father normally) who DOES sign the birth certificate is, in fact, incompetent because they are entirely unaware of the consequences of the contract that they are signing. Further, they are coerced into provisioning this baby with such a document and, thereby, “bestowing rights” upon it and yet they are unaware of this and do not even consider whether they wish to register the baby with a system which can then number it, tax it and control its contractual relationships (whether employment, marriage, whatever) throughout its entire life. Why do we go to divorce courts? If we were moral, competent, considerate people, we would be able to split things appropriately and do without such but no, we’re greedy and immoral. That is probably why there are so many divorces after all. But how is it that the law assumes jurisdiction over us as a couple? Because we have registered our marriage! It’s that simple. All we are saying to the state, by the action of getting married, is that, if things go wrong, we are handing over responsibility and authority to the state to handle our affairs because we are incompetent to do so. We don’t realise that this is all we are, in fact doing but neither do we recognise that the birth registration does precisely the same – not for a couple but for a single entity. So P1 assumes the parent is competent while P1 actually laughs at the incompetence of the parent. 🙂

12. And there you have it (we never think of these things really do we?): A ghost is a person. A deceased entity still has rights (and duties). Now think hard on that as we come to the next point about foetuses.

Person 7

 

13. Would you agree with me that a 2 week old foetus in the womb is by far a more living being than a deceased entity? Is that deceased entity going to suddenly come alive again and tap on your door at some point? So then answer me this: Why does the law not protect a 2 week of even months of age embryo in the womb? You know the answer don’t you? It’s called population reduction and it is a politically motivated agenda. If the law can justify retaining personhood for a dead entity, how can it argue that a living foetus (no matter it is living in another being’s womb) is NOT a person and not worth the law’s protection? That said, if a mother was moral, a mother would never have an abortion. If a father was moral, he would never support such. Yes there is the argument about rape and other arguments such as it may be born badly handicapped. The former, of course, is again due to immorality (an immorality I, personally, cannot understand, as I can’t many). The latter is a very difficult one to call for it is still a life yet it may be a very unfortunate life while, of course, the eugenicists would argue it adds nothing to the economy!

14. “For the logic of the system it is just as much a pure ‘concept’ as ‘one’ in arithmetic. And there you have the plain truth. A truth the legal system in practice shall never acknowledge no matter how obvious it is.

15. “Law is a self enclosed system, in this view, which does not look elsewhere for its meaning” or justification for its justification comes from the force it uses to enforce it. “The law is an ass”… “That may be, but the law is the law”. Created by and maintained by the very force which wishes to protect “the public”, “the national interest”, “national security”, ” the realm”. All of which is, in the case of the UK and commonwealth certainly, the Crown. But it is a system to protect the very people who created it and that is all it is. As such, it is a protection mechanism for a mafia.

16. “It is an artificial world whose members are to some extent arbitrary”. Need I say more?

17. “The legal personality of a corporation is just as real and no more real than the legal personality of a normal human being”. And that is entirely correct. That is why the legal person must be destroyed. The wonderful thing about this statement is that it was probably made to protect the status of corporations as persons but, at the very same time, by doing so, it exposes the reality of the person (including the subset of “natural person” therefore) in stark, cold light of day.

Why doesn't this sign say "KEEP ABORTION MORAL"?

Why doesn’t this sign say “KEEP ABORTION MORAL”?

The disease within.

Posted in Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 25, 2014

From the annals (or was it anals?) of Lord Fingerboy of Fuckinghamshire……

voice_clarke

1965

My Lords, we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against homosexuality and my noble Lord Boothby is, himself a homosexual. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for homosexuality so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

LORD BOOTHBYAs I see it, the main object of this Bill is to avoid blackmail. We know that there are more cases of blackmail in connection with homosexuality than anything else in this country. I suggest to your Lordships that if this Amendment is passed, the main object of the Bill will be destroyed. We are out to avoid blackmail. I have consulted a number of eminent solicitors in the course of the last three months, some of the most eminent solicitors of all. They have said this to me and I think it is a point, “If anyone who occupies a position of public responsibility, or is in a position of public notoriety, came to us and said he was being blackmailed, rightly or wrongly, with reason or with no reason, for homosexuality, we should very much hesitate to advise him to fight the case. On balance, we should advise him to pay. But if it were Mr. John, or Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jenkins, of Wolverhampton, or Leicester, or perhaps even Edinburgh, someone who was of no importance at all, he would pay his fine of £.10, and that would be the end of the matter, and there would be no headlines in the newspapers at all”.

I sincerely believe that this is absolutely wrong. Any young man in this country is in a position to blackmail a man who is in a position of responsibility, or who is a well-known figure in this country. I have been advised—I assure the noble Earl, and I am sure he would agree with me; I cannot mention names but they are the very best solicitors—that in these cases the probability is that they would say, “Pay, and finish with it, because we can give no guarantee whatever of any safety or security”. That is what I want to avoid in this Bill above anything else.

§LORD CHORLEYIt seems to me that the two noble and learned Lords who are supporting this Amendment so strongly are so emotionally involved in this problem that they have lost the sense of proportion that lawyers ought to bring to bear on matters of this kind. The idea that something ceases to become consent because there is a gift attached to it is completely new in the whole domain of English law. It is a most astonishing proposition. They go on to say that men of over 21 years of 396age are no longer to be free agents. They are to be curbed in this sort of way by the law. When they look back on this debate in a few weeks’ time I think they will be puzzled to know how they could be led to such an emotional situation. It has never been suggested in the whole of history that men over 21 should not be free agents in respect of what they decide to do and that they should be curbed in this way. On the face of it, it is a proposition that I should have thought would not hold water for a minute.

§LORD CONESFORDI have heard more astonishing law from the last two speakers than I have heard during the rest of my legal life. It would seem that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is under the impression that bribery is no offence.

§LORD CHORLEYIs the noble Lord suggesting that this is a case of bribery? It is not within a mile of bribery.

§LORD BOOTHBYBlackmail.

§LORD CONESFORDThe noble Lord, Lord Boothby, flits from pillar to post with such rapidity, reversing what he said in his last speech with every new speech he makes, that it is difficult to keep up with him. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that an eminent solicitor, wisely nameless—

§LORD BOOTHBYMore than one.

§LORD CONESFORDMore than one solicitor advised a person who was being blackmailed to pay up. I can only say that the most eminent practitioner in the law at the time I first began to practise told me that from time to time he had been consulted by people who were being blackmailed. He had always given the same advice—pay nothing and tell them to be damned. He said, “I know that my advice was right, but it was seldom taken”.

I am in complete sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, so far as I understand him, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in loathing blackmail. What astonishes me in this whole controversy is the quite extraordinary view that, if we pass this Bill or something like it, the blackmailing of homosexuals will cease. Why on earth should it? The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, quite rightly, that to a 397public man a reputation of being homosexual could be very harmful. Therefore, the revelation that he is a homosexual—

§LORD BOOTHBYI really must protest against that. I never said that I was a homosexual—”The revelation that I was a homosexual”.

§LORD CONESFORDI said nothing of the kind. The noble Lord is not always the person concerned if he is concerned at all. I shall perhaps be saying something of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did earlier in this debate, about which I had intended letting him off.

§LORD BOOTHBYBe careful.

§LORD CONESFORDI will be careful. If it is damaging to a public man to be known to be a homosexual, whether it is a criminal offence or not, the blackmailer can make a threat of revealing the fact, and that threat may be so severe that it may be worth buying off with money. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the mere passing of a Bill of this kind will end the risk of blackmail in connection with homosexual offences.

I share what I am sure is the hope of the Lord Chancellor, that if there is a reform of the law, blackmail will diminish; but I do not put it higher than that. Can we not get some of the advantages of a reform of the law without opening the door to something that everybody in the House, whatever his views on this problem, would think horrible—namely, a rich man using his wealth, not to buy affection, but to buy the commission of what has hitherto been a serious criminal act? That, as it seems to me, is a real risk. It is against that that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has devised this Amendment. It may he imperfect; there may be objections to it; but I am sure it deserves more respect than it has hitherto received.

Since I promised that I would deal with the noble Lord who has so consistently interrupted everybody who has been making a speech on this subject throughout this afternoon, let me come to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, on the very first Amendment to-day, the noble and learned Lord—

§LORD BOOTHBYI am not learned.

398

§LORD CONESFORDNo; but Lord Dilhorne is. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said that in earlier proceedings Lord Boothby had misrepresented to the House the nature of this Bill and the nature of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee. This was indignantly denied by Lord Boothby.

§LORD BOOTHBYHear, hear!

§LORD CONESFORDVery well. Then I would recommend Lord Boothby to acquire a copy of the Hansard of May 12 of this year, and to turn to column 131. He will there find that he interrupted my noble friend Lord Rowallan with these words: All we are talking about is the Labouchere Amendment, and that is all that the Wolfenden Committee wants to be removed.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 73).] Lord Rowallan said: I am afraid that I cannot accept such a statement. Then Lord Jessel said this: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had been here a little earlier, he would have heard from my noble friend Lord Dundee a very full description of what happened. Then I intervened for, until this evening, the only time I have intervened on this topic, as follows: My Lords, I am not taking any side in this intervention, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is entirely wrong in saying that all we are discussing is the Labouchere Amendment, or that that was the sole subject of the Wolfenden Report.

§“LORD BOOTHBYOf course it was.

§“LORD CONESFORDOf course it was not.”

At that point the noble Earl the Leader of the House very properly intervened with the suggestion that Lord Rowallan might get on with his speech. I hope that the quotation I have made from the previous intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will show how utterly wrong he was in suggesting that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne had misrepresented him in any way in the speech that he made, and I hope that possibly what I am saying now may induce him to—

§LORD BOOTHBYKeep his trap shut.

§LORD CONESFORD—to remain in a sedentary position until he has something worth while to say.

2014

My Lords, I am now 49 years older as I stand here before you once again, but we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against paedophilia and a few of my noble Lords, Ladies and among those in the other place, we know as we did in the 1960s regarding the homos, are pedophiles.. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for paedophilia so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions once more! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

However, as was done in the sixties and seventies, we must lay the groundwork for the population to come to terms with such activity. We must use every weapon at our disposal – from media to human rights pressure groups – to impress the legality, morality and normality of such acts. We must ensure that the public recognises such as simply another sexual orientation.

2050

Holy shit! The Prime Minister has just fcuked a donkey! My Lords, I am now 110 and I sit here before you with my colostomy bag but I still believe in our greater good. We must protect the good name of this Parliament even though just an inconsequential satellite of the World Zionist government on Temple Mount. At present we have a law against bestiality and a few of my noble Lords……… actually, you know what? I’m done with you fcuking perverts!

But our good old boy, Icke, can see totalitarian tiptoe’s and connections everywhere but he can’t see it in this? I guess it doesn’t fit his agenda! 😉

“Hush it up, get rid of it, protect the Crown, the Parliament and our entire way of life from the public otherwise they may want to lynch the whole lot of us!”

You’re damned right we do!

Mirror paedo judge

Robert Green: What is he up against?

Posted in Media, Paedophilia, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on February 22, 2014

I can’t say I KNOW this man inside out, therefore I could not honestly say whether this man would have an agenda or a “dark” background with skeletons in his closet. But then not one of us can say that we fully know each other EVEN IF we are “close friends”. Let’s be frank, there are always things about oneself that one keeps to oneself, whatever they may be or however petty they may be. People just naturally, wish that part of them remain private and that’s how it should be.  So, when it comes to assessing another individual, we – if we are fair minded – tend to accept that individual, not on the basis of 3rd party rumour, but on how WE find them. How WE, as individuals relate to them and, when we know little about them except what we may read or hear, we SHOULD consider that we have no direct experience of them with which to judge them, so we should take them on face value.

robert-green_0

You and I can look around us any day of the week and judge people for how they dress, look, speak, act etc and I’ll freely admit, I see a lot of people who I’d never wish to have any association with whatsoever – there are masses of such people I hate to admit (and I hate to admit it because I also know they are the way they are due to the environment they live in caused by a system and government which I despise. I know that under a new system and government, such people would be significantly nicer people to know because they would not have the world bearing down on them and, because I believe that people, generally, deep inside are good people). However, I would take my chances on Robert Green before I would trust a single politician, judge or Policeman in this country of any colour.

Ok, what’s the point here? Well it’s this, of all those people who would repel me and I’d feel they have no morality, no respect for themselves or anyone else and I would neither trust or expect them to act on good intentions, Robert Green would not be one of those people. I met Robert once, fleetingly, in Scotland while also meeting Hollie Greig and her mother, Anne. It was at a time I was absolutely shocked to the core about all I was learning about a whole range of issues and, when Hollie’s story came to my attention, I felt compelled to do something…anything (though you feel helpless in reality). I met with my MP, I sent letters to the Scottish government. I called the scottish government and I also called the newspapers. I saw Robert Green – a mild mannered, conscientious, upstanding, well dressed gentleman – doing what he could to expose what he genuinely felt was the most heinous of crimes. I read the background info re the Hollie case and, while there were issues I later saw in some of it which I felt were questionable regarding the veracity of it all (I said “questionable” NOT incorrect or lies) but I then also witnessed what I could only describe as a venomous campaign on Facebook and elsewhere by “Hollie supporters” that ended up like some sort of circus and the whole thing I just decided to shelve. The whole picture, for me, became so murky. Was that due to infiltrators trying to make it so? I don’t know – I gave up on it all. However, it is a fact that Hollie was abused – we know that – and it is a fact that she has named names – we know that. It is also a fact that she was stated as a credible witness – we know that too. I also know that the very MP (MSP in fact) that I went to to discuss the matter with and presented him with a report on it from my perspective, did nothing with it. I followed up with him for responses and got nowhere while he had promised I would receive one from the Scottish government.

Who was that MSP? This man:

MALCOLM CHISHOLM MSP

MALCOLM CHISHOLM MSP

Now, there’s nothing unusual about MPs doing FUCK ALL when you contact them with grave issues and demand they consider your facts and act upon them – or even enter a communication regarding them – BUT WHEN THE FOLLOWING HAPPENS, YOU WONDER IF THE LACK OF RESPONSE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT:

A PAEDOPHILE IN THE FAMILY!

COLIN CHISHOLM - NEPHEW OF MALCOLM CHISHOLM.

COLIN CHISHOLM – NEPHEW OF MALCOLM CHISHOLM.

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/chisholm-any-relation-just-asking/

I wrote the above blog shortly after the news about Colin Chisholm being charged with paedophilia (and let off by the way even though he admitted he was so inclined). I asked in the blog whether there was a connection. I knew the answer. So you tell me? Could I genuinely have expected Malcolm Chisholm to lift a finger to support an investigation into the Hollie Greig case?

It’s worth mentioning that my entire audio recording with Chisholm was lost when the Scottish Police (prompted by the Metropolitan Police) paid me a visit and stole my laptop, MP3 4 track portastudio, microphone plus a few other pieces have never returned them and yet, never charged me with a damned thing. They had a warrant for search and seizure given by the Procurator Fiscal (so they told me) to conduct an investigation surrounding an online argument I had with an online “jew” who they said made a complaint. Seemingly he felt “racially harassed” because he entered a discussion online long after I had started posting valid commentary and links to sites which exposed jewish/zionist filth of one form or another which he deemed “anti semitic”. You see, similarly to Robert Green’s issue right now, if you talk facts and evidences which expose issues or groups of people, you are targeted for “Hate Crime” of one form or another and “libel” etc. The EXPOSURE of real crimes and real issues is more of a crime than the crimes you are exposing. You could state the same is the case for Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

THE “LAW” IS UPSIDE DOWN AND THEY MEAN IT TO BE!

Now, for years/decades, these corrupt bastards in government have gotten away with their “political correctness” agenda and they still are! They have suppressed freedom of speech and freedom of thought by criminalising it. What they have done is brilliant. They have slowly, but surely, entered it into people’s minds that “you can’t say that” and “IF you say this, you are going to jail” (how many germans are in jail today simply for asking questions or stating they don’t believe something? And you KNOW what that “something” is!). And this is where the “sheep mentality” comes in. We, as people, are condoning the use of political correctness (and the power know this) because we are so divided with all our own little beliefs and perceptions (and prejudices), that each group wants to get one up on the other. The powers then make “laws” in such a fashion – connected to the IDEA of “human rights” – that they protect and support one faction against another. It can even be something as simple as this:

If a homosexual proudly states that the idea of pussy makes him want to vomit (and says it in his little effeminate way), it’s considered “funny and cute” and “his prerogative”.

If a heterosexual (particularly male one) states the idea of a dick up his arse makes HIM want to vomit, then he’s labeled and demonised a “homophobe” and “hater”.

Yet, all of this is so bloody obvious it makes my blood boil when people wilfully decide to ignore it.

ALL of these issues are connected to Robert Green’s present predicament.

But let’s look more widely at this problem:

Here’s Miley Cyrus –

Miley Cyrus

What age group is her audience? What are parents saying or doing about it? What is the industry she works for doing about it? What are the authorities doing about it?

NOTHING!

What message is that sending to kids? “You’re a sexual being now go out and enjoy it. You’re cool as fcuk if you are fcuking at 11 years old you know! And it’s fun!”

Then you have the “Darlings of International human rights” at the moment, supported by slags like Madonna and other male pop stars like Sting and Peter Gabriel who are, obviously, as thick as fuck or, perhaps, they like little boys and girls? Who knows! Perhaps Sting likes a little tantric with a 10 year old? Who knows?

Pussy Riot:

You see, all of this “Human Rights” shit is being used to totally destroy any sense of morality in the world. Ok, I’ve spoken about men fcuking donkeys right? But what you will see in that video is a PUSSY RIOT (of all the names they could use eh?) bitch having what amounts to sex with a DEAD CHICKEN and Madonna supports them because Madonna stands there and states (as if she has any moral authority) that she supports freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Madonna won’t even blink at another woman sticking a dead chicken in her pussy. She’ll just say “Ahh the girl looks like she’s having a riot!”

Anyone attacking such activity for its moral depravity will be labeled a hater and prude as well as having some form of political agenda. The political agenda, meanwhile, actually belongs to Pussy Riot and their funders.

You see, in “law” (created by the very people who wish to steer society the way they so choose) “Freedom of Expression” and “freedom of speech” are entirely supported as long as it is within the parameters they wish to set AND, also, depending upon which class you belong to – Upper, middle, lower or RULING. Further, if you’re seen as being of use to the agenda, then you will be given every latitude (until such time that they no longer have a need for you or if you have just gone too far that the people demand they deal with you). But generally, you see, the people tend to demand bugger all because they’re taught the “live and let live” and “do what thou wilt” ideology and they PERCEIVE “FREEDOM” within it. Stupid bastards aren’t they?

And then you have Savile, of course. Protected for decades – but then so were the Kray twins – by the police.

And then you have this guy, Ian Watkins:

Ian Watkins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Told to stop complaining because it would ruin his career! His career is far more important than the lives of numerous little children. A fucking POP singer! So you can imagine just how important it would be to protect Savile, Elton John, Cliff Richard etc etc. THEN think how important it would be to protect Kenneth Clarke and every other MP in Parliament and their extended families. THEN think how important it must be to protect the Queen and her extended family!

So Robert, in trying to expose Scottish establishment freemasonry and every connection to it, THAT is what you’re up against. An establishment which will go to any length to shut you up (and I mean any length) PLUS a population that just doesn’t care and like their “freedom of expression” and will consider you just a zany, sad old man with a screw loose if not a “nasty person” because you’re naming names that their beloved old mainstream media haven’t yet and may never will. At least, until they’re dead and there’s no further much reason to protect them.

Remember, Savile would have been a “Saint” to many, even today, and even though so many knew what he was, if their beloved mainstream media hadn’t run the story.

If you go to jail Robert, the population will read: “Man jailed in Scotland for harassment of elderly people and upstanding scions of our society calling them pedophiles. Man has been given a psychiatric evaluation and is considered a fantasist who believes 9/11 was an inside job. Man libelled and slandered these poor innocent people and you just can’t go around saying things like that. After all, there has been nothing in the papers about these people being pedophiles has there? Society needs to deal with these conspiracy people. The government is considering bringing in a new law which will make it illegal to speak of anything which is not already published in the ZOG media.”

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 16, 2014

Yes you read that right. From ZETA – a group of what I guess we have to call humans who like to fuck animals.

So, by the same token, the mere concept of morality regarding sexually abusing a child or even murder have no business being law. If this is the way you want your world to go and this is the world you want your children and grandchildren to live in, then just keep liberally accepting the “progressive” laissez faire and “live and let live” and “Do what thou wilt” culture of depravity that just keep creeping along while our governments don’t listen to the moral concerns of most people but give way to the well funded minority groups who lobby. When did you ever hear of a group of lobbyists for “normality”? Never.

First homosexuality

then bisexuality

then omnisexuality (anything goes)

paedophilia

One thing though: When did you ever hear of a donkey speaking a language and, therefore, giving consent? Or do the zoophiliacs suggest that “Eee haw” is chinese for “Yes please”? ‘Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,’ said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok. Just state it is a “lifestyle choice” and demand your “human rights” to make such a choice and hey presto! You get a licence to shag a sheep! But people like Dharmabro (an ex commenter on here) can’t really say anything against it (thereby supporting it) because, as he says “homosexuality is natural and exists in the natural world”. Yes Dharmabro it does. Just as cross species sexual activity does, therefore, that MUST be ok too. You can’t argue with that otherwise your entire reasoning for homosexuality being “natural” is damned – which, by the way, it is. So what we have here is the homosexual community, simply by their own reasoning, support bestiality. It might not be their preference BUT, if they speak out against it, they are hypocrites and, not only that, they are zoo-o-phobes! Now you don’t want to be labeled a “‘phobe” of any type now do you homos? So what’s your way out? I can’t HEAR you! Bestiality http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html What I find strange with this comment re “his once friendly flock of sheep were beginning to shy away from human contact” is that do the new batch of sheep never see the older batch being taken away by humans and slaughtered? Doesn’t it even occur to them? Stupid sheep! But then who are we humans to talk? We ignore the shearing of ourselves by the governmental and banking shepherds. BAAAHH!

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

And there lies the entire problem because, in fact, as has been stated by the lawmakers themselves on many occasions, morality does not enter into it. In fact, lawyers I have personally been up against stated such in their reply saying they believed my argument to be a moral rather than legal one. It was both but, nevertheless, they had the audacity to state it.

Coronation Street paedophilia: “Wild Bill” CockRoache!

Posted in Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 6, 2014

Subtle programming and subliminal advertising from our loveys at the “Street” once again…..

But I still know of a few people who will either just ignore it or make an excuse. Dear friends, brands and products pay big money to have their product advertised subtly in TV shows and movies. This DVD is NOT there by accident. It has been placed there very purposefully.

I wonder if Ken bought a copy?

1544480_669921853068737_1588803564_n

Now let’s consider the number of alleged pedophiles we have had from Coronation street so far. And is it just the tip of the iceberg? Well, we know Jimmy Savile was just a tip, we know there are quite a few in government circles (QUITE a few) and we have 4 known alleged paedos from Corrie:

Corrie paedos

Now who, precisely is “Kinsey”? Well Alfred Kinsey just so happens to have been a sexuality behavioural scientist – pretty much a pervert then to all intents and purposes. However, it went further than that while the Kinsey Institute are never going to admit it are they?

His projects gained funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Research Council in 1942 so established the Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction at Indiana. He conducted interviews from 5,300 males and 5,940 females on which he based his groundbreaking works.

The research work of Alfred Kinsey almost ended after the release of “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female”. He had allegedly offended thousands of Americans and the U.S. congress exerted pressure on Dean Rusk, the incharge of the Rockefeller Foundation, to unilaterally terminate the financial support of the institute.

After failing to raise funding from other means, Kinsey unfortunately gave up his extraordinary efforts that revolutionized sexuality research. The institute, however, survived and is still functioning as an independent organization under Indiana University.

Alfred Kinsey died on August 25, 1956 of a heart ailment and pneumonia. He was 62 years old.

Now, let’s look at the paedophilia:

A Yorkshire Television Production for Channel 4.

So what’s the Kinsey Institute’s mission today?

Kinsey Institute

The Kinsey Institute today is soft soaping (sorry couldn’t resist the “soap” terminology there) the entire issue on their website and it is highly likely that many of those interested in the Institute today will never have even heard about the Yorkshire TV production. I question whether they’d even want to know or care?

From the Kinsey Institute website regarding the “allegations”:

Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

Allegations about Childhood data in the 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children’s sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Judith Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman’s lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman’s case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).

Below is a reiteration of these accusations, recently reported, and the Institute’s response.

The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of “science” offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends. (from Dr. Laura’s (Schlesinger) website)

This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and there is absolutely no evidence that his research “opened flood gates for the sexual abuse of children.” Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, and some of the behaviors that they disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those between married adults, were illegal in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.

Where did Kinsey’s information about children’s sexual responses come from?

Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children’s sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book.

In a British documentary, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires. 

We have no reason to doubt that this woman was sexually abused. However, Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires. It is conceivable that this woman’s father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people have done. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey’s correspondence and could not find any that would match this story. We do know that there have been people who have used Kinsey’s name to justify what they do sexually, even recently.

Kinsey used a Nazi SS officer from Germany as one of his key contributors

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey invited people to write to him about their sex lives. In 1955, a German wrote to him and told him about his sexual experiences with children. Kinsey, in his reply, was non-judgmental, as usual. He did however point out how strongly society condemned such behavior. Kinsey never made use of the information from this man. He also had no idea that this man had been a Nazi ten years earlier…. To suggest that Kinsey had something to do with Nazi torture of children is a bizarre fabrication.

Allegations and Controversy, 1995-1998

More Controversy about Childhood data
Soon after John Bancroft, M.D., assumed the directorship of The Kinsey Institute in 1995, he was called upon to respond to an allegation by the Family Research Council (FRC) about data on pre-adolescent orgasm that the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey had included 50 years ago in Chapter 5, “Early Sexual Growth and Activity,” of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (W.B. Saunders, 1948).

In the fall of 1995, Rep. Steve Stockman, Galveston, Texas, took up the FRC allegation, circulating a letter on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he asked for support for a bill he had introduced to investigate Dr. Kinsey’s research. Stockman alleged that this data was derived from federally funded sexual molestation of children (the so-called “Children of Table 34”). Although Stockman’s staff were invited to put any questions to The Kinsey Institute and Indiana University, they declined. Stockman held a press conference December 7, 1995, calling for a congressional hearing. No hearing was held and the bill died. Stockman was defeated in the 1996 election.

In 1997, Concerned Women for America referred to this allegation in a press release with a renewed call for a Congressional investigation. In January 1998, Indiana State Representative Woody Burton submitted a House Concurrent Resolution to the Indiana General Assembly regarding Kinsey. In August 1998, a British television station produced a program based heavily on these allegations.

But then why would the UK or British governments wish to consider any action? After all, we have this:

wt

screen-shot-2012-09-20-at-2-28-00-pmobama_gay_scandal

ALL of it “alleged” you understand!

But lastly, don’t you get the feeling there’s more to this Kinsey Institute than just purely wholesome sex?

Of all things, they advertise erotic art with a cover photo showing the Goat of Mendes (Satan) about to spear a woman, from behind, with his obscured, erect weapon.

Kinsey 1

Not so subtle then!

The Pornographic jew

Posted in Media, New World Order Religion, Paedophilia, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on December 29, 2013

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.”

page93image1696

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.

Sir,
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.”

page95image1384

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.

  The End

(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:

Triple-exthnics

Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry

Nathan Abrams  |  Winter 2004  –  Number 196

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue Jews’.

Smut peddlers

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’.

satanlust

mr411exotik1In 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.

Reuben Sturman

Reuben Sturman

 

 

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.

Steven Hirsch - Vivid

Steven Hirsch – Vivid

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.’

Secular sex

Adam Glasser aka "Seymour Butts"

Adam Glasser aka “Seymour Butts”

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”.

Sexual rebelsFamily business

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.

Sexual revolutionaries

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?

The likeness is stunning don't you think?

The likeness is stunning don’t you think?

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:

Star of david cutting throat

 

 

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:

00-pussy-riot-femen-17-08-12

 

tumblr_m8wfu9Sauw1rauq8no1_500

 

Femen Al Qaeda

 

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 Prince, a “D.J” and a very “holy” Reverend!

Posted in Paedophilia by earthlinggb on November 17, 2012

First there was Savile.

In the family, there was Louis Mountbatten, the “Greek’s” Uncle. The “Greek” meanwhile wants to eradicate half the world’s population (or more) by coming back as a virus once he dies (his words and they were not in jest) – The Nazis were eugenicists – our Royal Family and their friends – The Rothschilds etc – are the real Nazis and always were. Just read the history!

And Prince Andrew and his paedophilic friend.

NOW, we have Prince Charles giving refuge to a PAEDOPHILE PRIEST!

 

HOW MUCH WILL THIS COUNTRY’S POPULATION CHOOSE TO IGNORE? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH PEOPLE?

 

Former bishop who is ‘loyal friend’ of Prince Charles arrested in Church of England child sex abuse investigation

 

Police investigating complaints of sexual abuse in the Church of England have arrested a former bishop and ”loyal friend” of Prince Charles.

The Right Reverend Peter Ball, a “loyal friend” of Prince Charles – has been arrested by Police investigating child abuse in the Church of England. A church which is headed by our Monarch!

The Rt Rev Peter Ball, 80, was detained at his home on suspicion of abusing eight boys and men ranging in age from 12 to their early twenties.

The alleged incidents are thought to have taken place during the late 1980s and early 1990s at addresses in East Sussex and elsewhere.

Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, was arrested following a “comprehensive” three-month investigation into the Chichester Diocese.

The intelligence contained “reviews of church files relating to certain child safeguarding issues within the Chichester diocese from between 20 and 25 years ago”.

They also reviewed internal church files containing details of clergymen’s careers in the diocese, including Ball’s.

Detective Chief Inspector Carwyn Hughes of Sussex Police, who is in charge of the investigation, said; “We make it clear that the force will always take seriously any allegations of historic sexual offending, and every possible step will be taken to investigate whenever appropriate.

 

“Allegations of historic offences are treated just as seriously as any more recent offences.”

Ball, of Langport, Somerset, resigned as Bishop in 1993, only two years after he was appointed.

He quit after receiving a police caution for committing an act of gross indecency against a trainee teenage monk.

Shortly afterwards he was given sanctuary by the Prince of Wales who personally invited him to live in Manor Lodge, in the village of Aller, Somerset, a Duchy of Cornwall property.

 

St. Andrew’s church in Burgess Hill, Chichester, which is one of the churches in the Rt Rev Peter Ball’s diocese. There is no suggestion that St. Andrew’s is linked to the abuse (file picture)

But it is thought after living in the property for more than a decade he moved to another house in the same village last year.

Ball, who has previously described the Prince as “a loyal friend”, is thought to be the most senior member of the Church of England to be arrested after investigations started.

Speaking at the time he was given the house, Ball said: “He [The Prince of Wales] has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house.

“The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person.”

Sussex Police said another unnamed 67-year-old retired priest, was also detained at his home this morning near Haywards Heath, West Sussex, on suspicion of separate sex offences against two teenage boys in East Sussex between 1981 and 1983.

They added that: “There are no allegations of recent or current offending and police emphasise that there is nothing to suggest that any young people are currently at risk.

“Police also stress that the allegations are being treated separately and do not involve the two men allegedly acting together.”

A Sussex Police spokesman said Bishop Ball, and the unnamed man were currently in custody pending interview and further inquiries.