The Rothschild – D’Israeli jewish pact.

This is a post written some time ago now but I feel is extremely important to understand and appreciate how it is that the United Kingdom is where it is today. There is some stunning excerpts from Parliamentary debates which should have the reader’s jaw drop. The lies and deceptive practices we see today and which impact us all today, were well in operation 100+ years ago. And, again, it all stems from the same tribe of people.

Britain WAS a Christian nation until……

Two jews who set the course of corrupt British Government from the mid 1800s until we arrive at David Cameron, Gideon Osbourne and a Rothschild yacht experience with Mandy the Rothschild!

 

 

 

 

ROTHSCHILD

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (22 November 1808 – 3 June 1879) was a British banker and politician.

The son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Hanna Barent Cohen, he was a member of the prominent Rothschild family.

Baron Lionel de Rothschild and his family had “contributed during the Irish famine of 1847 … a sum far beyond the joint contributions of the Devonshires, and Herefords, Lansdownes, Fitzwilliams and Herberts, who annually drew so many times that amount from their Irish estates.”

In 1847 Lionel de Rothschild was first elected to the British House of Commons as one of four MPs for the City of London constituency. Jews were at that point still barred from sitting in the chamber due to the Christian oath required to be sworn in so Prime Minister Lord John Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to remove the problem with the oath. In 1848, the bill was approved by the House of Commons but was twice rejected by the House of Lords. After being rejected again by the Upper House in 1849, Rothschild resigned his seat and stood again winning in a by-election in order to strengthen his claim.

In 1850, he entered the House of Commons to take his seat but refused to swear on a Christian Bible asking to use only the Old Testament. This was permitted but when omitting the words “upon the true faith of a Christian” from the oath he was required to leave.

In 1851 a new Jewish Disabilities Bill was defeated in the House of Lords. In the 1852 general election Rothschild was again elected but the next year the bill was again defeated in the upper house.

Finally, in 1858, the House of Lords agreed to a proposal to allow each house to decide its own oath. On 26 July 1858 de Rothschild took the oath with covered head, substituting “so help me, [using a Hebrew word for] God” for the ordinary form of oath, and thereupon took his seat as the first Jewish member of Parliament. He was re-elected in general elections in 1859 and 1865, but defeated in 1868; he was returned unopposed in a by-election in 1869 but defeated a second time in the general election in 1874.

Rothschild was proposed as a member of the House of Lords in 1868, but Queen Victoria refused to elevate him to this status. She denied that this was because Rothschild was a Jew. Instead the monarch claimed it was because of Rothschild’s business activities, but few believed her. In 1885 the Queen did raise Rothschild’s son Nathan to the peerage. Nathan Mayer de Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the House of Lords.

In 1836, Lionel de Rothschild married Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild (1819-1884), the daughter of Baron Carl Mayer Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of Naples. They had the following children:

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!

 

Lionel de Rothschild died in 1879 and his body was interred in the Willesden Jewish Cemetery in the North London suburb of Willesden.

 

OATHS OF JEWISH MEMBERS—BARON DE ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

 

HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

§ On the Clerk proceeding to read the Order of the Day for resuming the Ad- 397 journed Debate on Sir R. Inglis’s Motion, with reference to the request of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to be sworn on the Old Testament,

§MR. HENLEY said:  Before the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate is read, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you this question—whether, to give a proper locus standi for the discussion of the important question which is about to be raised by the Amendment put upon the notices by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, it would not be expedient that some further question should be put

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

to Baron de Rothschild, one of the hon. Members for the city of London, in order to get upon the records of the House the fact that to take the oath in the way he has requested—the only answer he has yet made being, that he requests to be sworn upon the Old Testament—is binding upon his conscience, and the reason why he requires so to take it?

oaths-of-jewish-members-baron-de#S3V0113P0_18500729_HOC_30

It is as clear as daylight then, that Rothschild did NOT accept that the Christian and Jewish “God” is one and the same. IF he had argued that religion had no place in politics and that he would not swear on ANY “Holy Book” then that would present a different (and, perhaps, even acceptable) picture. But no, Rothschild demanded (and he eventually got) to swear upon the Old Testament (The “Torah”) and even IF so “binding upon his conscience”, it is clear that one’s conscience must be dealt with differently in the two books. This is unarguable logic. The question is: What IS this difference? Could it POSSIBLY include the following:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

 

 

D’ISRAELI

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure. Starting from comparatively humble origins, he served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although his father had him baptised to Anglicanism at age 12, he was nonetheless Britain’s first and thus far only Prime Minister who was born into a Jewish family—originally from Italy. He played an instrumental role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846.

Disraeli’s biographers believe he was descended from Italian Sephardic Jews. He claimed Portuguese ancestry, possibly referring to an earlier origin of his family heritage in Iberia prior to the expulsion of Jews in 1492. After this event many Jews emigrated, in two waves; some fled to the Muslim lands of the Ottoman Empire, but many also went to Christian Europe, first to northern Italy, then to the Netherlands, and later to England. One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano.

Disraeli turned towards literature after a personal financial disaster, motivated in part by a desperate need for money, and brought out his first novel, “Vivian Grey”, in 1826. Disraeli’s biographers agree that Vivian Grey was a thinly veiled re-telling of the affair of “The Representative” (a plagiarist then), and it proved very popular on its release, although it also caused much offence within the Tory literary world when Disraeli’s authorship was discovered. The book, initially anonymous, was purportedly written by a “man of fashion”, perhaps Ross M. Brown – someone who moved in high society. Disraeli, then just twenty-three, did not move in high society, and the numerous solecisms present in his otherwise brilliant and daring work made this painfully obvious. Reviewers were sharply critical on these grounds of both the author and the book. Furthermore, John Murray believed that Disraeli had caricatured him and abused his confidence–an accusation denied at the time, and by the official biography, although subsequent biographers (notably Blake) have sided with Murray.

Wyndham Lewis (7 October 1780 – 14 March 1838) was a British politician and a close associate of Benjamin Disraeli. Lewis married Mary Anne, daughter of John Evans, in 1816. They had no children. He died in March 1838, in London’s Mayfair, aged 57. His widow married Benjamin Disraeli in 1839 and was created Viscountess Beaconsfield in 1868.

So 1 year after his death, Benjamin Disraeli marries his widow? While Lewis was a close associate of Disraeli?….. Nice!

In 1839 he settled his private life by marrying Mary Anne Lewis, the rich widow of Wyndham Lewis, Disraeli’s erstwhile colleague at Maidstone. Mary Lewis was 12 years his senior, and their union was seen as being based on financial interests, but they came to cherish one another.

In 1847 a small political crisis occurred which removed Bentinck from the leadership and highlighted Disraeli’s differences with his own party. In the preceding general election, Lionel de Rothschild had been returned for the City of London. Ever since Catholic Emancipation, members of parliament were required to swear the oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” Rothschild, an unconverted Jew, could not do so and therefore could not take his seat. Lord John Russell, the Whig leader who had succeeded Peel as Prime Minister and like Rothschild a member for the City of London, introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to amend the oath and permit Jews to enter Parliament.

Disraeli spoke in favour of the measure, arguing that Christianity was “completed Judaism,” and asking of the House of Commons “Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their Judaism?” While Disraeli did not argue that the Jews did the Christians a favour by killing Christ, as he had in Tancred and would in Lord George Bentinck, his speech was badly received by his own party, which along with the Anglican establishment was hostile to the bill. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and a friend of Disraeli’s, spoke strongly against the measure and implied that Russell was paying off the Jews for “helping” elect him. Every member of the future protectionist cabinet then in parliament (except Disraeli) voted against the measure. One member who was not, Lord John Manners, stood against Rothschild when the latter re-submitted himself for election in 1849. Bentinck, then still Conservative leader in the Commons, joined Disraeli in speaking and voting for the bill, although his own speech was a standard one of toleration.

In 1852, the primary responsibility of a mid-Victorian chancellor was to produce a Budget for the coming fiscal year. Disraeli, as Chancellor, proposed to reduce taxes on malt and tea (indirect taxation); additional revenue would come from an increase in the house tax. More controversially, Disraeli also proposed to alter the workings of the income tax (direct taxation) by “differentiating”–i.e., different rates would be levied on different types of income.

The establishment of the income tax on a permanent basis had been the subject of much inter-party discussion since the fall of Peel’s ministry in June of 1846. Since that time, no consensus had been yet been reached, and Disraeli was criticised for mixing up details over the different “schedules” of income. Disraeli’s proposal to extend the tax to Ireland gained him further enemies, and he was also hampered by an unexpected increase in defence expenditure, which was forced on him by Derby and Sir John Pakington (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies) (leading to his celebrated remark to John Bright about the “damned defences”). This, combined with bad timing and perceived inexperience led to the failure of the Budget and consequently the fall of the government on 17 December 1852.

With the fall of the government, Disraeli and the Conservatives returned to the opposition benches.

 

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.

HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that yesterday he took the liberty of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, under the provisions of what was commonly called “the Contractors’ Act,” Baron Rothschild had not vacated his seat for the City of London, by having entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service, and whether, consequently, a new writ ought not to issue for the City of London? His hon. and learned Friend then answered that, if the question were put to the House, not in a speculative, but in a practical form, he would give his 163 opinion upon it. He now rose for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House in a practical form, and he had, therefore, put a Motion to that effect on the paper. He might have moved that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, but that would have been a sneaking and cowardly course, entertaining as he did a strong conviction that, according to the common sense and literal construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron Rothschild had vacated his seat. The House would recollect when the Act in question passed, and the purposes for which it was designed. The Act passed in 1782, and was brought forward with the avowed object of promoting the freedom and independence of Parliament. When the Rockingham Administration came into office they took up that Bill, which had been before Parliament for two or three years, and gave it their warmest support on the principle that the House of Commons was getting day by day more corrupt and the people of this country were becoming more dissatisfied with it. He would not insult the memory of the Rockingham Administration by calling them “Administrative Reformers.” They were something more, for they were Parliamentary Reformers. They struck at the root of the evil, for they said that, if there were corruption in the State, it must be the fault of the House of Commons, and so far as they could remove that blot they would do it by reforming the House itself. That Administration contained among its Members Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Dunning, who had previously moved the well-known Resolution, that the power and influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He should show by the Act itself, and by the debates upon it, that it was the intention of those who framed the Act, and of the Parliament that passed it, that contractors of Government loans should vacate their seats in Parliament, and he contended that the case of Baron Rothschild came clearly within its meaning. The heading of the contract was— ‘The contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty’s Government, on or about the 20th day of April last, for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service.’ Now, the preamble of the Act said— ‘For further securing the freedom and independence of Parliament, be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament 164 assembled, and by the authority Of the same, that, from and after the end of this present session of Parliament, any person who shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement, or commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, or of the Navy or Victualling Office, or with the Master General or Board of Ordnance, or with any one or more of such Commissioners, or with any other person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the public service; or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public, shall be incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold, or enjoy any such contract, agreement, or commission, or any part or share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same.’ The Act also went on to say— ‘And if any person, disabled and declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall, after the end of this present Session of Parliament, presume to sit or vote as a Member of the House of Commons, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 500l. for every day in which he shall sit or vote in the said House to any person or persons who shall sue for, the same in any of His Majesty’s courts at Westminster.’ It was contended by some that Baron Rothschild, not being ineligible by reason of this contract at the time of his election, had not incurred the penalties of the Act, and that, because for other reasons he had not sat or voted in that House, he had not forfeited his seat on that account. But he apprehended that there were very few hon. Members who would maintain that opinion, because, supposing for an instant that fifty or sixty Members held contracts with the Government for twelve months’ duration, would the House say that they had not forfeited their seats because for that period they might abstain from sitting or voting in the House? The case of the Jewish question was a very different one. The hon. Member was incapable of sitting or voting in that House because he could not use the words “on the true faith of a Christian,” and in that case the House was not justified in issuing a writ. But the hon. Member stood in a very different position as a contractor. It was alleged by some that hon. Members might contract for money, although they could not enter into contracts with the Government for ships or provisions. When the Bill was 165 under discussion, it was at first proposed that contracts for loans should be excepted, but if hon. Members referred to the debates they would find that that proposal was scouted by the House. Mr. Fox said, he rejoiced to see that a new sprit of government seemed to be rising, and that a period was approaching when corruption would be banished from the Senate; and those who had the management of public affairs might safely trust to the merits of their measures for support, without having recourse to corruption. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) would be disposed to indorse that opinion. Mr. Fox moved that the exception in the Bill should be withdrawn, and that no contractor whatever should have a seat in Parliament. It was also contended that contracts for money were more dangerous than any other species of contract. The exception was withdrawn upon the understanding that a special Bill should be brought in for the purpose. No Bill, however, was brought in for the purpose, and the only Bill bearing at all upon the subject confirmed the view which he had now stated—the 48 Geo. III., chap. 1, wherein persons were exempted from losing their seats who entered into any contract with the Government for Exchequer Bills on behalf of the Bank of England. If they entered into such contracts on their own behalf, they were not exempted; so it was quite clear that Parliament, with its eyes open, had intended by the 22 Geo. III., chap. 45, that no contractors whatever should sit in Parliament. He could not possibly understand how there could be any doubt upon the subject, and, as Baron Rothschild by other circumstances had been prevented from sitting and voting in the House, he had incurred no penalties, and so far the loss to him would not be, and ought not to be, very great. He particularly wished it to be understood that he made this Motion entirely upon public grounds, and without any reference whatever to the Jewish question. For eight Sessions Baron Rothschild had been nominally a Member of the House of Commons, but the question of Jewish emancipation did not seem to have been much advanced thereby. A short time since he asked Her Majesty’s Government whether it was their intention to introduce a measure in the present Session for the removal of Jewish disabilities, and the answer he received was, that they had no such intention. The noble Lord the 166 Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had since addressed a letter to some of his constituents, in which he told them fairly it was a hopeless case, in consequence of the decisions which had been come to in the House of Lords, and he believed the noble Lord was perfectly right in forming that estimate of the position of the question. He believed the prejudice elsewhere was so great, and the indifference of the public out of doors was also so great, that during the present generation, at least, there was not the remotest chance of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion sitting in that House, so long as the House of Lords had any voice in the matter. Therefore Baron Rothschild had been thus long disabled, and the citizens of London had been deprived of their fourth Member. If three Members were quite enough for the City of London, let the House be told so, and let them give that Member to some other place. But this very disablement of Baron Rothschild had relieved him from any penalties with regard to this contract. What he said was, that from the moment a Member entered into a contract with the Government, not only was he disabled from sitting and voting, but his seat became vacant. He should be extremely glad to hear the opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen upon this subject, but he contended that, according to the honest and fair interpretation of the Act, it was quite clear there was a vacancy in the City of London at the present moment, and would so continue, as far as regarded Baron Rothschild, until the 18th of December next, when the contract ceased. Under these circumstances, therefore, ought not the House to issue a new writ? They did not want any peddling or quibbling opinions. He knew lawyers could make that opaque which was clear to all minds but their own, but he hoped that would not be the case on this occasion, and he appealed to the House to restore to the citizens of London the power of electing a forth representative by agreeing to the Motion he now proposed, that the Speaker be instructed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the City of London.

MR. MILNER GIBSON  Sir, my difficulty is to make up my mind whether the disqualifying clauses are to stop with Baron Rothschild. He has admitted a great number of persons, possibly Members of this House, to have shares of this loan, to enjoy what the Act calls the “profits, benefits, and emoluments arising from the same.” Now, all these Members enjoy the “profits, benefits, and emoluments” arising from the loan, and, if I have taken a correct view of this Act, they are in jeopardy as well as Baron Rothschild, and it would be competent for him or any other hon. Member, if the House at once agrees 174 to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to find out some hon. Member upon this list and take the House by surprise to-morrow evening, and move that a new writ be issued for the borough or county which he represents. We must therefore be cautious in this matter. For myself, I confess I have no particular knowledge of the law. I have read the Act, and I understand from it that any person who enjoys any benefit arising from the loan, either directly by having contracted himself, or indirectly through another, is equally affected.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL  said, he wished the House to observe that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced or applied for a long space of years. It was reasonable to suspect, therefore, some impediment or obstacle in the way of its application. If any Gentleman were bold enough to pledge himself to the opinion that the law had not been affected by any of our legislation subsequent to 1782, he might be competent to pronounce upon this question at once; but he (the Solicitor General) could not be so confident.

So, it becomes abundantly clear by this stage in the proceedings, that while there had been a long standing ACT (Law) regarding any “Contractors” (individuals loaning the government money) then being disallowed to hold a seat in the House as an MP or Lord, a vast number of them had done it with impunity. They broke the law! But it didn’t matter because it’s a BOYS CLUB. But then Rothschild comes along and he loans the government and they don’t like that (some of them at least). While Rothschild had not only, himself, provided the money but he ensured he had many other members involved which would make them speak for him AND it would make it far more difficult for the Parliament to act otherwise they’d be dismissing a great number of people – some very powerful no doubt. Furthermore, that would send a message to the public saying “We’re corrupt as hell”. Just like today!

Now THIS section is quite literally incredible. Benjamin D’Israeli, attempts to provide “cover” for Rothschild. Hard to believe he got away with this:

MR. DISRAELI  said, it appeared to him that a subject of this nature should be considered with great calmness, and that the House should not rashly adopt any course upon it without due deliberation. Now, what he felt was that they wanted that distinct proof which should be in the possession of the House, and which could be easily obtained, before they could come to a decision on a question of such consequenee. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there could be no doubt that Baron Lionel de Rothschild had contracted with Her Majesty’s Government, and then he took up a contract, and pointed to it as containing that proof. But he (Mr. Disraeli) was not satisfied on this point; for if that was the only proof that the hon. Member for the City of London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government, the evidence was very imperfect, as the contract bore not the signature of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, but of N. M. Rothschild and Sons.

So D’Israeli argues that, because the contract did not have the Baron De Rothschild’s personal signature on it, it could not be considered a loan from Rothschild to the government EVEN THOUGH it was “N.M Rothschild & Sons”. In-Fing-credible! So perhaps it had a Rothschild stamp or perhaps it was signed by an officer of the company. The fact is ROTHSCHILD OWNED THE FCUKING COMPANY! It’s like suggesting every loan Goldman Sachs makes is signed by Lloyd Blankfein (and even then, Blankfein is just the CEO!).

This was OUTRAGEOUS “chutzpah” by D’Israeli. You can bet he was in on it.

Remember 16Million was one shitload of money back then! It was the equivalent of £billions today!

Also remember that Rothschild was the Trustee of D’Israeli’s Last will and Testament! So let’s just say they were “good friends”.

Now consider THIS little exchange:

 

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  said, that, as the Motion now stood, it stated that the contract had been entered into by Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, though there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that such was the case.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild did not in his presence sign this contract.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  I think the question just put to me is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this question in its present form. I did not mean to state that it was not Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who had virtually entered into this contract with the Government, but my remark merely applied to the wording of the Motion which states Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild entered into the contract with the Government, of which there was no evidence on the face of the contract.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  But that is no answer to my question. I put a direct and straightforward question, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not in his presence sign the contract in question.

§MR. DISRAELI  said, he objected to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbary, which, if it were sanctioned, would place it in the power of a Minister who wished to turn a Member out of his seat to get up and put a question, having previously agreed upon the answer which would be given by one of his supporters, and they all knew how ardent a supporter of the Government was the hon. Member 182 for Finsbury. The question put by him was most unconstitutional, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in answering.

new-writ-for-london#S3V0139P0_18550626_HOC_52

At this point in time (1855) D’Israeli and the Conservatives were in opposition.

Disraeli was accused by William Ewart Gladstone of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.

William Gladstone

Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament’s consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.

Here are some exchanges in Parliament during that time. Make of them what you wish. I know what I make of them: Utter pish!

 

QUESTION.

HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

§MR. BIGGAR  asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, or not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the proposed payment to Messrs. Rothschild, one of which firm being also a Member of this House, of a commission of 2½ per cent. on the amount of the Suez Canal Purchase, brings the said Member within the provisions of the Act 22 Geo. 3, c. 45; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take on the subject?

§MR. DISRAELI  Sir, it does not appear to me that this Question ought to be addressed to Her Majesty’s Government, and I may say further, that on referring to the statute which the hon. Member has mentioned, I am doubtful whether it ought even to be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. I read in that statute that which indicates that it is a question neither for the Government nor for the Law Officers, but one for Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. It says that any Member of this House offending under the circumstances referred to shall forfeit the sum of £500 for every day on which he sits or votes in this House to any person who shall sue for the same in any of Her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster. In these circumstances, as it appears to be open to any of Her Majesty’s subjects to sue for that penalty, I think it is not for the Government or for the Law Officers of the Crown to give any information 1020 on the subject, but for those who are directly interested in the question.

§SIR NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD  Sir, I hope the House will allow me to make a personal statement on this matter. I feel it my duty to declare that I am not a partner in the house of which my father is the head, either in London or Paris. I have no doubt that the House will accept that statement from me; but, if it is necessary, I am authorized by my father to say that the deed of partnership of the firm of Rothschild, both in London and on the Continent, can be inspected by any one whom this House may choose to appoint.

question#S3V0227P0_18760228_HOC_7

And this concerning the detail (and complete obfuscation) of the payment:

 

RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Question again proposed, ‘That a sum, not exceeding £4,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to enable Her Majesty 563 to pay the Purchase Money of the Shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and the Expenses attendant thereon, which will come in course of payment during-the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876?’’

§MR. LOWE, in resuming the adjourned debate, remarked that the first question to be settled was, oddly enough, the nature of the transaction they were about to discuss. The matter might be thought to be perfectly clear, but there was really an amount of doubt about it which it was desirable to dispel, and which he would endeavour to explain. On the first night of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said— ‘We asked the house of Rothschild to purchase those shares on our engagement to ask the House of Commons to take them off their hands. It was a great risk.’ Now, if that were really the question which the House had to consider there would be a very great probability that the House, having carefully considered the matter, would think that that was a transaction which it was not called upon necessarily to ratify at all; because the house of Rothschild having made the purchase only on the faith that the Government would recommend the House of Commons to take the purchase off their hands, no money would have passed, and it would have been open to the House of Commons to consider the whole question as if no pledge had been given. But that was not the case, he was sorry to say. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his statement, though the real facts of the case were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Properly speaking, the question was not of our taking the shares off Messrs. Rothschild’s hands, but of our having purchased the shares and borrowed money from Messrs. Rothschild to pay for them. That was a simple description of the transaction, and disposed of the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury on the first night of the Session, made no doubt from the erroneous view that no money had passed. So far from no money having passed, the fact was that £4,000,000 had been lent to the English Government on the faith that they would apply to Parliament for repayment, and that was an extremely different question from the question whether we were not bound to 564 take upon ourselves the purchase made by other persons even under the recommendation of the Government. Nor was it therefore true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was a great risk, because when money had been borrowed on behalf of the English Government—when they had had the money and actually spent it—the House of Commons would not be likely to say—” We have had the money and will not repay it.” This point, as the Committee would see, was not an unimportant one. He had now, singularly enough, to charge the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with inaccuracy—a circumstance so unlikely that it would require the strongest proof. In this case, however, he did not think there was any room for doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Vote of £4,080,000, and that Vote was made up in this way—there was £3,976,582, the purchase money of the shares, and there was £99,414 for the commission of 2½ per cent to Messrs. Rothschild. Then there was about £4,000 for small expenses; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid these sums before the House as being the whole cost of the shares. So far, however, from that being the whole cost, the fact was that there had to be added a sum of £37,000; and for this reason, that the Messrs. Rothschild were not only to receive a commission of 2½per cent on the amount of the purchase, but were also to charge interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the £4,000,000 until the date of repayment. There was the difficulty. No doubt there was some misunderstanding here, for there were two accounts of what was to be done—one contained in the Treasury Minute, and the other in a letter written by Messrs. Rothschild themselves. In the Treasury Minute it was distinctly stated that the Messrs. Rothschild were to charge a commission of 21 per cent on the £4,000,000 which they undertook to provide, and also that they were to receive the interest of 5 per cent from the Khedive upon the amount advanced from the date of the advance until the date of repayment of such advance by Her Majesty’s Government. On the other hand, the Messrs. Rothschild, having been asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to state their terms in writing, gave a very different version of the affair. They write— 565‘It is also understood that we are to charge Her Majesty’s Government a commission of 2½ per cent upon the £4,000,000, and 5 per cent interest per annum until the date of repayment.’ So that it appeared from the Treasury Minute that this was to be paid by the Khedive, whereas according to Messrs. Rothschild’a Minute it was to be paid by the Government. Now, if it was worth while to write to Messrs. Rothschild to ask them to put their contract in form, one would have thought that it would have been worth while to ascertain who was right and who was wrong. That, however, did not appear to have been done, and so the matter remained in its present state. There was, however, no doubt about it. Of course Messrs. Rothschild’s letter was what they would be bound by and not the Treasury Minute, and it was the duty of the Government to pay them this 5 per cent, and they ought not to look for it from the Khedive. Of course, if the Khedive did pay it, it would really be we who would pay it all the same, because it would be intercepting money that was to come to us from the Khedive. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government to have made this sum for interest, whatever it happened to be, part of the Vote.

resolution-adjourned-debate#S3V0227P0_18760221_HOC_55

ONLY 135 years ago. That is like yesterday in terms of how this all works:

 

Lies, damned lies and corruption and it exists to this very day in another Conservative “BRITISH CHRISTIAN WITH JEWISH VALUES” Prime Minister and his sidekick, Gideon.

“Having jewish values are great Gideon, just keep well away from yachts would you? The public might just catch on!”

 “I worked for a prominent Jewish business leader for seven-and-a-half years, Michael Green… and in my downstairs loo, you’d see the proud gift I received after speaking at the 350th anniversary dinner, [a print] of Benjamin Disraeli’s house”

david-cameron-my-values-are-yours

So PLEASE, do not suggest, and try to dismiss the facts, that history from 135 years ago has no bearing on the present. The Rothschilds have been at the core of almost every privatisation and major British government policy ever since. Just do the reading to find out!

 

It is interesting to note that Gladstone once sent a letter to D’Israeli, the latter asking Gladstone to join the new government, where Gladstone states the following:

“I state these points fearlessly and without reserve, for you have yourself well reminded me that there is a Power beyond us that disposes of what we are and do, and I find the limits of choice in public life to be very narrow”.—W. E. Gladstone to Disraeli, 1858

What I find interesting about it is that, while one can consider that Gladstone is speaking of “God” as the “power beyond us”, he then goes on to state that the LIMITS in public life are “very narrow”. I just wonder who/what could possibly be imposing those limits?

 

Although born of Jewish parents, Disraeli was baptised in the Christian faith at the age of twelve, and remained an observant Anglican for the rest of his life. Adam Kirsch, in his biography of Disraeli, states that his Jewishness was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Much of the criticism of his policies was couched in anti-Semitic terms. He was depicted in some antisemitic political cartoons with a big nose and curly black hair, called “Shylock” and “abominable Jew,” and portrayed in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia. In response to an anti-Semitic comment made by Daniel O’Connell in the British parliament, Disraeli memorably defended his Jewishness with the statement, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon.” One apocryphal story states that Disraeli reconverted to Judaism on his deathbed.

 

Judaism’s Redefiner

By ANTHONY JULIUS   

Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

Benjamin Disraeli was a novelist, a statesman and a professing, practicing Christian, but to understand him one also needs to know that he was born a Jew. It was in the working out of the implications of this bare fact that his literary and political career, as well as his confessional affiliation, are to be understood. Or this, at least, is what Adam Kirsch contends in “Benjamin Disraeli,” his contribution to the “Jewish Encounters” series. “Disraeli’s Jewishness,” Kirsch writes, was “the central fact about him.” It was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Does Kirsch, a contributor to The New Yorker and other publications, make good on his thesis?

For sure, he offers a rounded account of his subject. We learn that the proximate cause of Disraeli’s baptism was a quarrel his father had with his synagogue, that Disraeli himself had an incomplete education, that he was a novelist before he became a politician and was a politician for many years before he became a statesman. Kirsch acknowledges his political skills, his ability to outmaneuver his opponents (with Rothschild backing – it helps!), both by compromise and by an even greater radicalism, even his unattractive habit of identifying himself with the powerful instead of the powerless. Disraeli’s positions on the principal issues of the day are identified — his early opposition to free trade and his championing of the cause of empire, his criticism of Victorian utilitarianism and materialism, his defense of the established Church of England, his willingness to extend the franchise to defeat his liberal enemies and the eccentric grounds of his support for Jewish emancipation. All this can be obtained elsewhere, but Kirsch sets it out succinctly and authoritatively.

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

It was in relation to the first kind of anti-Semitism that Disraeli defined himself. He sought to arrive at a self-definition that made him immune from being regarded as contemptible. He invented a bogus pedigree for himself (out of Spain, from Venice) (similar to Obama’s “Hawaii” story?), and he talked up whenever he could the intellectual and social distinctions of the Jews as a whole. As part of this project, however, he inadvertently contributed to the emergence of the second kind of anti-Semitism.

Disraeli redefined Judaism as a matter of race rather than religion, and in his ­novels “Coningsby” (1844), “Sybil” (1845) and “Tancred” (1847), he celebrated occult Jewish power, always exercised behind the scenes, and always determinative. The mysterious Sidonia (who figures in all three novels), Kirsch correctly observes, “looks like nothing so much as an anti-­Semitic hate figure.” In “Coningsby,” Disraeli has Sidonia confide, “You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.” “Russian diplomacy,” he says, is “organized and principally carried on by Jews”; the “mighty revolution” that will come in Germany is “entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.” “The myth of Jewish superiority,” Kirsch writes, “which Disraeli had advanced to counter the fact of social inferiority, now interacted with the paranoid superstitions of anti-Semites to disastrous effect.”

There IS no “jewish superiority”, there is ONLY “Rothschild superiority” (in terms of financial wealth and that is all he needs).

Disraeli was himself the object of anti-Semitic attack in the late 1870s because he insisted that the British national interest lay in supporting the Ottoman Empire against its Christian minority communities. For this piece of “realist” international politics, he was abused as “a very Hebrew of Hebrews,” the “Jew Earl, Philo-Turkish Jew and Jew Premier,” and the “traitorous Jew,” the “haughty Jew” and the “abominable Jew.” He was a leader of the “Turkophile party,” its “most rabid element.” He was the premier of a “Jew government.” He was a wizard, a conjurer, a magician, an alchemist. He was a “man of the East,” an “Asiatic.” “For the past six years we have had an Asiatic ruler.” He was a “wandering Jew,” “sprung from a race of migratory Jews.” He was raised “amid a people for whose ideas and habits he has no sympathy and little respect.” He was a “sham Christian and a sham Englishman.” He was the “charioteer” of a “Juggernaut car,” dragging “the whole of Christendom” over the rights of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Most cartoons gave him an immense nose and curly black hair; he was represented as “our modern Shylock.” Many of the illustrations related him to the Devil (“the most authentic incarnation of the Evil One”). At least two portrayed him in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia, and in one of these his great adversary, the liberal politician Gladstone, is the distressed mother, arriving perhaps too late to save her child. And there was a note sounded for the first time, but to be repeated many times thereafter: the Jews want war, against the national interest.(and still do)

The anti-Semites of his day insisted that Disraeli was bogus in every respect but his identification with Jews and Judaism. A superficial reading of Kirsch’s book might conclude that its author agrees with this judgment. But that would be mistaken. First, because Kirsch shows that on the specifically political issues, Disraeli was promoting British interests, rather than anything that could be identified as a “Jewish” interest. And second, because Kirsch also demonstrates that Disraeli’s engagement with Jews and Judaism was an almost entirely literary affair. It was in his fiction, not in his political judgments, that he endeavored to counter “the myth of Jewish vulgarity and greed with an empowering myth of Jewish talent and influence.” “Disraeli’s imagination of Jewishness did what he needed it to,” Kirsch concludes. “It gave him the confidence to compete with the best-born men in England.”

Kirsch argues that the alternative career of Jewish leader was ever before Disraeli but that he did not want it. Though what Kirsch describes as “the dream” of Zionism had a “powerful allure” for Disraeli, “neither the conditions of Jewish life in Europe nor his own personality allowed Disraeli to play the role that would eventually fall to Theodor Herzl.” He imagined Judaism in ways that were psycho­logi­cally empowering, but paid little attention to the condition of actually existing Jewry. (As I keep saying, these people do not truly give a rat’s ass about average jews)

Disraeli was not a man who was easily discouraged. His strong desire to impress others led him in the unusual direction of provocativeness rather than ingratiation. He did not want to escape his English milieu, he wanted to triumph within it. He did indeed triumph, achieving everything in his life that he set out to achieve. It was an extraordinary career, one to which Kirsch, in this elegantly written book, does considerable justice.

Julius-t.html?pagewanted=2&ref=books

 

 

ALL FACT, ALL PARLIAMENTARY RECORD. BLATANT CORRUPTION, DECEPTION and LIES.

AND DAVID CAMERON CARRIES ON THOSE “VALUES” AS DID HIS PREDECESSORS BECAUSE THEY ALL BOW TO ROTHSCHILD AND HIS JEWISH MONEY!

Tommy: The Pinball Wizard!

He stands like a statue,
Becomes part of the machine

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

So, back to Tommy (again):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EJP logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADMISSION OF BARON DE ROTHSCHILD.

HC Deb 26 July 1858 vol 151 cc2105-15 2105
§MR. SPEAKER Any hon. Member who desires to take his seat will please come to the table to be sworn.
§Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD returned as one of the Members for the City of London, came to the table, and was about to take from the Clerk at the table 2106 a copy of the Oath prescribed by the 21 & 22 Vict., c. 48, passed this Session, when
§MR. WARREN rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether notice was not necessary before—[“Order! Chair!”] Sir, I rise to order—
§MR. SPEAKER Order, order! The taking of his seat by an hon. Member is matter of privilege, and ought not to be interrupted by any discussion whatever.
§ The prescribed form of oath was again tendered to BARON DE ROTHSCHILD by the Clerk,

§BARON LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD Sir, I beg to state that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, I entertain a conscientious objection to take the oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session, has been substituted for the oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.
§ Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. SPEAKER, who desired Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD to withdraw; and he withdrew accordingly.

§LORD JOHN RUSSELL My object in rising, Sir, is to move a Resolution in conformity with an Act recently passed. (21 & 22 Vict. c. 49). It is as follows:— That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.
Mr. J. A. SMITH seconded the Resolution.
§ Question proposed.

§MR. WARREN Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance and regret, and contrary to my own previously-declared determination not to open my lips again on this question, that I rise to address a few observations to the House. It has now arrived at a very grave crisis in its constitutional history and that of the country, and a sense of duty will not allow me to remain silent. I have already, and very lately, as an humble member of the great Conservative party, entered my most solemn protest against the step which the Legislature was about to take in this matter, and have but little to say upon this momentous occasion. This House is about to consummate that great constitutional change in the character of the House which it has so lately been empowered to effect, 2107 and to take upon itself the entire responsibility of admitting into the representative branch of the Legislature a gentleman who has this moment declared that he cannot take—that he cannot be bound by an oath administered on the Holy Gospels—an oath which has been so long taken by all other Members of this House, with the exception of those who, though Christians by profession, were permitted, in deference to their religious scruples, to use a different form of oath or declaration. Sir, this is to me a most painful and distressing moment—but I cannot help myself; and, in accordance with what my conscience tells me is my most imperative duty, I am resolved to take the sense of the House upon the proposed Resolution. Lest, however, any one should do me the grievous injustice of supposing that I am, at a moment so painful, actuated by considerations of a personal nature with respect to either Baron Rothschild or the ancient race to which he belongs, I beg now most emphatically and truly to disclaim any such feelings. With reference to that gentleman, I must take this opportunity of declaring, that never in my life did I hear a whisper of even an insinuation against his character—of anything inconsistent with that reputation for purity, that spotlessness of character which Baron Rothschild enjoys. He occupies, deservedly, a high social position in this country; and I can only say again, that, while compelled to oppose the Resolution of the noble Lord opposite—to resist him to the last on this question—I have not in my heart one particle of animosity towards either the Jewish race or that representative of it now seeking admission into this Christian Legislature. If it be really the deliberate will of this House of Commons, as it has undoubtedly been declared the will of the Imperial Legislature that they may, if they think fit, exercise a privilege which I for one regard as so dangerous, I have nothing more to say; but in the meantime I beg, though I should go out alone into the lobby, to meet the Resolution of the noble Lord with a direct negative.
§Mr. WALPOLE I do not think my hon. and learned Friend could have caught correctly the terms of the noble Lord’s Resolution. It is simply declaratory, in terms of the new Act, of a matter of fact which neither my hon. and learned Friend nor any one else will contest, and does not admit either Baron Rothschild or any other member of the Jewish persuasion to a seat in this House. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will not put the 2108 House to the trouble of dividing at the present stage of the proceedings.
§Mr. WARREN I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and shall not press for a division on this Resolution. I had not caught the exact words of it and was taken altogether by surprise by the whole proceedings of this morning. I therefore withdraw my Motion.
§Resolved,— That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.

§LORD JOHN RUSSELL I now rise, Sir, to move a Resolution in pursuance of the Act which received the assent of Her Majesty on the 23rd instant, and which is entitled “An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty’s subjects professing the Jewish religion.” In order that the House may be fully in possession of the words of the Act I shall now read them. By the first clause it is enacted that— Where it shall appear to either House of Parliament that a person professing the Jewish religion, otherwise entitled to sit and vote in such House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which by an Act passed or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament has been or may be substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required, such House, if it think fit, may resolve that thenceforth any person professing the Jewish religion, in taking the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid, may omit the words ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’ It is not necessary to read any further. I propose, in conformity with those words in the clause, “such House, if it think fit,” to move a Resolution as nearly as possible in the terms of the Act itself. Of course, I shall not now raise any question as to whether a Jew should sit in this House. That question has been repeatedly argued, and it has now been decided by Parliament, at least to the extent of leaving it to either House to act as it may think fit. I therefore content myself with moving: “That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'”
2109
MR. J. A. SMITH seconded the Resolution.
§ Motion made and Question put, That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’

§Mr. WARREN Now, Sir, the time has arrived at which I may make my Motion, and state that I shall take the sense of the House upon it. It is, of course, not necessary for me to repeat any of the observations I have already offered, but must beg the House to regard them as having been offered in opposition to the noble Lord’s present Resolution, which I now meet with a direct negative.
§LORD HOTHAM Sir, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than one or two moments. My object is simply to explain the reasons of the Vote which I shall feel it my duty to give. I have always found myself conscientiously under the necessity of opposing the admission to Parliament of persons professing the Jewish religion. I have done so upon principle, and without the slightest particle of personal feeling. As Parliament, however, has decided against my views of this matter, I did not come down to the House to record any further vote on this question, but to take part in the discussion of other business; but, being here, I have to consider what course I ought to pursue. The part I have hitherto taken renders it impossible for me to concur in the Resolution of the noble Lord; while I cannot withdraw and abstain from giving any vote upon the question. I do not think it would be either an honest or a straightforward mode of proceeding, to shrink from expressing my opinion on a subject, with reference to which I think so strongly. I am therefore reduced to the necessity, without the slightest personal feeling towards Baron Rothschild, of going into the lobby with those who are resolved to meet the Resolution with a direct negative.
§MR. HADFIELD said, he had never been able to account for the prejudice which influenced hon. Gentlemen opposite in their hostility to the Jews. In his opinion the world was more indebted to that particular family of the human race than any other nation or people that ever existed. Hon. Gentlemen talked of excluding the Jews as a matter of Christian principle. He would say, let them endeavour to Christianize 2110 themselves by following the example of Him they all reverenced as the great messenger of peace, charity, and toleration, and who directed that the Gospel should be preached to all men—but to the Jew first. He regretted that this prejudice towards that family of the human race, to whom we were so deeply indebted, should have so long continued, but rejoiced in the opportunity of taking part in the removal of the Just of the disabilities which that prejudice had in this country inflicted upon them. He looked upon that occasion as a great triumph for the cause of religious liberty.
§MR. WALPOLE Sir, when first this question was brought before the House expressed my opinion, and I have never shrunk from that opinion since, that it was a religious rather than a political question. I thought from the first that the Legislature of this country, being admittedly a Christian Legislature from the earliest time, was not a body into which a person professing the Jewish religion could properly or conscientiously be admitted. I merely mention that for the purpose of showing, that now that the time has come for this House to determine how it will act, it is impossible for me not to feel, while admitting that Parliament has given us the power to seat Baron Rothschild on our own responsibility, that considering the opinions I have always held, I cannot be a party to the proposed Resolution. One or two words more and I have done, for I do not wish to raise any controversy on this occasion. I cannot disguise from myself that the person whom the House is now about to seat has this very much in his favour—that throughout the whole of this controversy he has never attempted to act in a manner contrary to the law of the land or to the rules of this House. I think it due to Baron Rothschild that I should say so much. I agree in the observations made by my noble Friend (Lord Hotham) when stating the reasons which would compel him to vote against this Resolution, and I shall go into the lobby with my noble Friend. There is one other observation that I would make. The hon. Members who advocate the admission of the Jews think that they are now closing this matter; but in point of fact they aro not. The course taken by Parliament in reference to this question is a course which in my opinion cannot be too much deprecated. I, for one, am extremely sorry that if Baron Rothschild, and those who like him, profess the Jewish religion, were 2111 to be admitted into the Legislature at all, they were not admitted frankly, plainly, and honestly, by a declaration made by Parliament in the form of an Act of the Legislature, instead of in a mode which I am afraid we shall hereafter find cause to regret.
§MR. SPOONER Sir, the hon. Member for Sheffield has charged those who oppose the admission of the Jews into Parliament as so acting in consequence of a prejudice against the Jewish people. I, for one, utterly deny that. The Jews are a most interesting nation—interesting, if we look to their past history, and more so if we contemplate their future destiny. No, Sir, we are not actuated by any prejudice against the Jewish people as a nation, or from personal objection to the respectable individual who now presents himself for admission. There cannot be a second opinion with regard to that gentleman personally. He has the respect and esteem of all who know him, and especially of those who possess his friendship. What does actuate those who oppose such admission is the full and decided conviction that a Christian assembly like this Legislature should be wholly Christian, if we expect what we pray for—the blessing of Almighty God on our exertions to properly direct the affairs of a free and Christian people. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) who so much rejoices at the House of Lords having given their consent to the admission of Jews to this House by a simple Resolution, has not made one word of objection to the Reasons which came down from that House for having rejected that clause of the Bill which permitted the Jew to take his seat in this House—which Reasons declared, in emphatic terms, that the Jew was morally unfit to sit and legislate in a Christian Legislature. I beg to express my full concurrence in those Reasons, and therefore I cannot give my vote for admitting a person whom those Reasons declare to be totally unfit for admission into this House.
§MR. NEWDEGATE I confess, Sir, I was not aware, till a few minutes ago, that this Resolution was to be proposed to-day; and having had no notice that such a course would be taken, I arrived rather hastily. It is not my intention to detain the House by any lengthened observations; but I wish to say one or two words before the Resolution is put from the Chair, in reference to the conduct of the House of Lords, which I think has been very much misunderstood. What the House of Lords have done, Sir, is this:—They have placed this matter, 2112 which affects the constitution of this House, entirely in the hands of this House, at the same time retaining the strong conviction which that noble assembly has consistently and conscientiously acted on for eleven years. They have recorded the fact that their conscientious opinion on the subject of the admission of Jews was unchanged, at the same time that they thought it quite consistent with their duty and quite consistent with the constitution of the country to cease to interfere with what concerns the composition of this House alone. I think it due to the House of Lords that their conduct should not be considered as disrespectful to this House, when they thought fit to place the constitution of the House of Commons in the hands of its Members. With regard to my own course, deprecating as I do any attempt to admit the Jews into this House, I shall continue to act on those views which have hitherto influenced me, and record my vote against the Resolution.
§MR. FOX remarked, that the well-merited acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that Baron Rothschild had never throughout the whole of this controversy attempted to contravene the law, might with equal justice have been applied generally to the body to which he belonged, for it was a principle of the Jewish religion that, wherever they might be carried away captive, or in whatever country their lot was cast, they must respect the law as established, and pray for the peace and order of the country serving as their temporary home. To that rule they had always adhered. With regard to their moral unfitness he would remind the House of Lords, and those who used that argument, that the moral law of Judaism was the moral law of Christianity. For himself he would rather that this concession had been made upon the simple and broad ground of religious toleration instead of as a matter affecting the constitutional right of the House of Commons to make rules for the admission of its own Members. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the question was not closed. It must again come under consideration upon the direct ground of religious toleration. But in the mean while it was most absurd to talk of constitutional government while Her Majesty remained the ruler of 180,000,000 of people, not one of whom was qualified to raise his voice in that House to state the grievances of his fellow-countrymen, They 2113 talked of the Christian character of the Parliament. There were two different ways of showing their Christianity. One way was by their words and oaths, the other and better way was by their deeds; and he was satisfied that, whatever their professions, they would never act up to the spirit of a Christian Legislature until they were influenced by feelings of toleration and respect for the opinions of others.
§LORD JOHN RUSSELL It is not my intention to detain the House, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has made one or two observations which seem to call for some remark on my part. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has objected to the mode in which this question has been settled by Parliament. I beg him and the House to recollect that that mode of settlement was not proposed by the advocates of the admission of Jews, by those who have rested the question upon the ground of civil and religious liberty, but by those who have hitherto been the chief opponents of the measure which has now happily proved successful. It was supposed—I know not for what reason—that it would prove more acceptable to those who still oppose the admission of Jews than any other mode that could be suggested; but, I repeat, it was not our choice, but the choice of the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made another objection. which I should be sorry to think well founded. He said that this was not the end of the question. After the discussions that this subject has under- gone—after so strong an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons as we have had during the present Session—I do trust none will hereafter attempt to deprive the Jews of the privilege which we are about to confer upon them. Undoubtedly it will be in the power of anybody to do so by moving to rescind this Resolution or by some other mode; but I trust that what we are now doing, being in conformity with the general wishes of this House as representing the country, there will be no change in the policy of Parliament upon this subject. I have nothing further to say. The right hon. Gentleman having frankly and truly acknowledged that Baron Rothschild has never attempted to infringe the law, I am hound to state, on the other hand, that those who have opposed the admission of Jews have done so from no personal or unworthy feeling, but simply in the discharge of a duty imposed upon upon them by their consciences. I rejoice 2114 at the success which has attended our efforts this question, and believe that the principle of religious liberty has made great progress.
§ Question put, That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’

§ The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 37; Majority 32.

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

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

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

A “New” Money System (always known about but never put in practice)

I have blogged about the two major control factors which run this world – Money (the reality of it) and Law (the “legal personality”) for many years now.

Unfortunately, there is scant interest from the vast majority of the “unwashed masses” who forever wonder why things never get any better while they vote “left” out and “Right” in and vice versa for decades and centuries. They complain, they bitch and moan and EVERYTIME the controllers offer up a “New Messiah” speaking words that resonate with them (that is what they do and always have), those “great unwashed” swallow it all, gobble it up and, for a while, get all excited at the prospect – and forlorn hope (hope is ALL you ever get) – of change.

However, there never will be any. Why? Because as you have just shown once more, you’re so easily led into believing AGAIN that the new guy in the Oval Office really is “change”. I could go into why he’s not but that is not the point of this blog.

The point of this blog is to bring it to your attention, once more, that there are people in this world – even today – who know there is no need for the existing money system and that it is, in fact, a con and the scourge of humanity. It is the reason for all our ills, our depressions, our desperation, our murders, hate, anger and wars. Not ALL but most. Some will say “No, it’s religion” but what is organised religion? It is all to do with spiritual and temporal power over masses and that power is gained by riches (money). Remember, money is just a means, it is not the end goal.

This post is called “A ‘New’ Money system” but, in fact, it is not new at all. It has always been known of, just never put into practice because, if it were, those who have ruled would rule no more. The “legal personality” is the mechanism, in law, by which those who own and control the money system today, have been able to “engineer” it.

Yes, there are “bloodlines” and these bloodlines must maintain and further their power to the point that “The meek shall inherit the earth”. The “meek” is not you and I. The “meek” (in THEIR bible) is them.

So, onto the articles worth reading:

Well, first, let me re-post one of the most significant and telling responses from the US Federal Reserve Chairman ever put on record:

He doesn’t say HOW, of course, but he DOES say “Yes” it is possible for a nation to have a currency without a national debt. And it is NOT just because private banks could issue it. Private Banks are “legal persons”. YOU are a “legal person” (ignore, for the moment, that the legal person itself is a con). The point right now is that a LEGAL PERSON (of any nature) CAN ISSUE MONEY – so YOU can! This is not a theory, it is a FACT!

Now, to President Roosevelt:

Bighamton Press, Sept 14th 1934.

Just as a Corporation is given “Legal Personality” by the law/Government, Trade Unions also are afforded “legal personality”. You would think the, therefore, that ALL persons are equal before the law right? WRONG! Why? Well those who are the majority Stakeholders in Corporations also have majority stakes in Banks and the Federal Reserve Private Banks. So who do you think has the say toward government and the power of money behind them? You have to understand that Roosevelt knew this. He was not a stupid man! So while he talked a good talk…..

Now to Woodrow Wilson: An article from not long before he became President and ushered in the Federal Reserve Act.

From “The Sun” September 25th 1910 (not the British rag):

 

“Guilt is always PERSONal” but the Corporation IS a “person” in law, therefore, those who truly own and control the Banks (also “persons) and Corporations are as if they are protected by the greatest of force fields. They can direct policies of any nature which is anti – public or individual or environmental and it is PEOPLE who drive these policies. Yet, it is the Corporation itself (a fictitious “person” existing by means of its own “birth certificate”, the Articles of Incorporation agreed to by the State) which is sued – if at all. A Corporation cannot be committed to jail for fraud or any other crime but the actual flesh and blood persons could IF this “force field” was removed.

Did Woodrow Wilson remove it while President? Not at all. In fact, he strengthened it plus he oversaw the introduction of the Federal Reserve and the IRS!

So now, let’s turn to E.C.Riegel – a name that many will not have heard of (but you MAY have heard of a man by the name of Mike Montagne who has claimed the originator of the MPE – Mathematically Perfected Economy – idea). No doubt Mr Montagne has worked on the idea for many years in great detail but the reality of money was known to many others – well known and not so well known – many years/decades, perhaps even centuries beforehand. The above indicate why such a money system has never been allowed to be put in place. The following describes what that money system, essentially, is.

 

THE MONETARY PHILOSOPHY OF E.C.RIEGEL:

1. For a Person to exert Money Power is natural and wholesome (for “person” assume individual and that no such “Corporate Persons” exist).
2. For the state to exert Money Power is unnatural and perverse.
3. Until the state acquired Money Power, the state was, at worst, a parasite upon the economy; with the Money Power, it became a perverter of the economy. Men no longer merely tolerated it, they sought the exercise of the money power in their favour.
4. Thus, man’s attitude toward the state and the state’s power over man were completely altered.
5. Out of man’s motive of winning benefits from the state grew various political “ideologies” designed to screen the acquisitive purposes of their proponents.
6. Thus the acquisition of the money power by the state marked a politico-economic revolution as it gave to the state the power, through fiscal policy, to control the economy and turned men’s minds from private enterprise to methods of its political control and perversion.
7. Our present type of state should be identified as the monetary state and distinguished from the pre-monetary state.
8. Money power exerted by the state is inescapably perverse; the monetary state is a frustrator of all aims of economic and political liberty.
9. In the exercise of the money power, the state is driven inevitably from the libertarian forms of democracy and republicanism to the autarchic forms of fascism, socialism and communism.
10. These are distinguished only by the manner in which the state’s money power is exercised but derived from one theory – that the exertion of money power is a function of the state.
11. The grand issue is between the monetary state of today and the de-monetized state of tomorrow, wherein man will assert exclusive money power under the principle that only producers may create money.
12. Thereafter the politico-economic issues that now exist will be no more, for the state will have lost its power to inflect the economy either to the left or to the right.
13. The aim is not to pose a political revolution but to induce a revolution in thinking of money and an evolutionary movement through local, non political, action to establish a private enterprise money system independent of the existing political money system.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE MONEY

A Non-Political Money System

by E. C. Riegel

Copyright 1944

In the preface to the book, the author says this:

The life of modern man depends upon his mastery of money.

Our political money system is breaking down and must be displaced by one that serves the needs of modern exchange. Otherwise our civilization will perish.

As technological improvements tend to specialize and confine each man’s production, the need for the exchange of products increases, and, therefore, man’s dependence upon money makes the mastery of this vital agency more and more imperative.

Production grows more mechanical, while consumption, on the other hand, has no machine technique; it still operates by our hands and bodies. Therefore there can never be mass consumption to coordinate with mass production. Consumption remains private and individual. Production grows more interdependent——requiring the coordination of many machines and many hands——while the function of consumption cannot be shared or mechanized; it is human, individual, self-dependent.

To fulfill the function of consumption (without which production is purposeless) the individual must be, as buyer, a self-starter and self-stimulator, and therefore, money power, sufficient to buy his production, must be at the command of every man. Otherwise the people cannot coordinate their consumption with their production and this deficiency causes the production machine to clog and recoil with vicious consequences. Not only are these economic results painful in themselves, but they cause the people to turn to political intervention as a remedy, and this complicates the problem and increases the peril.

WE MUST HAVE LESS RATHER THAN MORE POLITICAL INTERVENTION AND THIS BOOK WILL SHOW THAT IT IS POLITICAL INTERVENTION THROUGH THE MONEY SYSTEM THAT BREEDS ALL OUR ILLS. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE MUST, IF IT IS TO BE PRESERVED AND PERFECTED, HAVE A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE MONEY SYSTEM. THE POLITICAL MONEY SYSTEM IS INHERENTLY ANTIPATHIC TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND INEVITABLY TENDS TO COMMUNIZATION.

Our mass production power must be balanced by our individual buying power and our buying power is dependent upon our individual money-creating power. Money cannot meet modern needs by descending to the people; it must rise from them. Until this is comprehended mass production must continue to miscarry. We, as consumers, must literally make money or be stymied. Government cannot assume this responsibility for us. Every individual producer must exert the right and assume the duty of creating money, if there be need therefore, to buy the value of his own production. There cannot be full distribution of wealth without full distribution of money power. He who would make must also take——in ratio. Each of us must have the ability to create fountain pen money with our own hands. Machine production must be coordinated with handmade money.

Recurrent business slumps, mal-distribution, over-production, unemployment, panics and depressions are but the gentler reminders that our industrial life is in danger. In the end war presses a gun against our head with the demand——money or your life. Must our economic and political maladies be compounded into periodic cataclysms and our civilization be destroyed before we master money?

Typical of the stress laid by economists upon the need for sustained purchasing power is the following quotation from “The Dilemma of Thrift” written in 1926 by William Trufant Foster and Waddill Catchings:

“In fact, adequate, sustained consumer-demand would do more than any other means now within human control toward increasing wealth, abolishing poverty, maintaining employment, solving labor problems, increasing good will among men generally, and maintaining the peace of the world. No means of preventing war holds out such large immediate possibilities as this… It is, therefore, difficult to exaggerate the importance of finding a means of sustaining purchasing power. The next world war, if it does come, may well be the last war——at least the last war in which the present nations will have any interest, for it may well destroy civilization itself.”

Well, “the next world war” has come and is upon us, and whether or not it is leading to the destruction of civilization will not be determined by the outcome of the military phase of the war. The issue cannot be determined by military victory. Its cleavage is not the battle front. Both Axis and Allied Nations are committed to the system of government-created purchasing power, whether they be classed as fascist, communist or democratic. The broad question that will determine the fate of humanity is whether the evil practice of synthetic buying power by governments shall continue to the inevitable collapse of the social order or whether the producer of wealth will exert his natural buying power and thus avert disaster.

Without reservation I assert that the whole fate of society hinges upon the one question of whether it can at this critical juncture gain mastery through the mastery of money and thus coordinate purchasing power with producing power. The issue is——money or your life.

——E. C. Riegel

In the introduction, his first words are:

Man has two major problems. His first problem is: HOW TO PROSPER. His second problem is:

HOW TO GOVERN GOVERNMENT.

The solution of one is the solution of the other. It lies in the understanding and exercising of his inherent money power through a non-political money system.

Because man has not mastered the problem of achieving prosperity, he has turned to government for its solution. Thus he has complicated his problem, for government offers no solution to the problem of prosperity, while its intervention in this primary problem brings the additional problem of how to govern government. When government undertakes to solve man’s problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant. Thus it has failed in both spheres. By intertwining the prosperity problem with the political problem man has snarled the threads and no solution of either is possible without separation.

EVILS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM

The present money system has three basic evils:

It permits money to be issued privately, only by a limited number of persons and

a)
corporations who have bank credit, and makes such credit subject to fee. Thus it establishes credit as a privilege rather than a right, and makes it an object of profit rather than a utility to further the production and distribution of wealth. It denies to producers generally the right to issue money, thus making it impossible to expand buying power to potential producing power. This results in defeating the mass production system.

It permits the government to issue unbacked money. The only way the government could

b)
back its money issues would be to go into the production of goods and services; and this would compete with private business. Thus the problem offers the two horns of a dilemma, both of which lead to socialization. If it backs its money issues with goods and services (and there is no other way it can be backed), it executes a frontal attack on private enterprise. If it issues money without backing it (as it is doing), it executes a flank attack on private business through inflation——since to issue money without creating equivalent values is to inflate.

It permits ambitious or designing or fanatical men who are in control of government to

c)
light the fires of war, threatening the lives and fortunes of untold millions. This terrible power lies solely in the political money system since armaments spring from money and money springs from government fiat, whereas it should spring only from the fiat of the people who would thus hold the veto power.

It is a fantastic book which leads the reader to a far better understanding of what freedom actually means (Americans belief in their “Land of the free” is just so naive as they keep swinging between their Democrats and Republicans, just as we do here in the UK with Labour and Conservative and just about every other nation does. Even in the autocratic countries, the money power is still exerted by the state and controlled by the global banking fraternity.

Until we break this, you can vote to your heart’s delight and, as you, your parents and your parents’ parents have seen, nothing changes. Well. it does, but never positively. It takes two parents to work to keep a family afloat today while the feminists THINK they have done themselves and the world population a favour. They actually have no idea what they have done and how they were manipulated into doing it.

Schenectady Gazette, 26th December 1933:

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 29th 1913

Now, I’ve blogged long and hard over years about this subject – Money and law. I’ve introduced you to MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) and have strived to explain, again and again, what money actually is AND what “the law” and “legal person” actually are.

People say to me “Well, if you’re so smart DO something!” However, NOTHING can be done without this knowledge being imparted to everyone and and a vast number of people “feeling” it so much that they are determined to act, together. However, the vast number of people just want an easy life. The irony is they complain that their lives aren’t easy and guess what? THIS is why!

Oy veh! Just keep paying your dues!

NB: The quotes of Thomas Jefferson are oftentimes used wrt money and banking – such as follows:

“I sincerely believe… that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” ~Letter to John Taylor, 1816

But even Jefferson (and many today who keep talking about Gold and Silver and that money should be issued by the state tax free) either have gotten it wrong OR they have an agenda. Jefferson wanted the State to be in control rather than private bankers, however, as is clear and obvious from the foregoing, neither the state nor the banks – neither of whom are producers of any kind – should have the power of issue of money. We, the producers, have the only true right to do so.

 

Britain re-taking the USA

What did I tell ya?

How many blogposts have I written about this relationship, and the ties and history surrounding it, over the years?

But it’s “Conspiracy Theory” 🙂

Just recently, I published a post regarding the background workings of the Donald Trump/ Nigel Farage relationship and the British – Israel link. Didn’t take too long before this turned up now did it? Did I have a Crystal Ball? Nope. Just done years of “homework”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/donald-trumps-love-royal-family-may-see-united-states-join-commonwealth/

Again, I say unto you: Read your Congressional Archives!

You were given a SECOND Constitution in 1871 after the Civil War. That second Constitution deemed the District of Columbia Government as the CORPORATION of the UNITED STATES. You were going bankrupt (at the hands of British/European Bankers and the Revolutionary War had been “won” on the Battlefield but not – in ANY way – in reality). Your United States Government is NOT your government and never has been. Why do you think all your Presidents have been linked to British Monarchy?

Anyhow, I do realise that there will be a vast number of people out there who will never accept what I’m telling you no matter what transpires. Your media will tell you that it’s great and you will be conditioned to believe it is what you want and that you condone it.

Poor old America – you really believed you were the land of the free and home of the brave while your Military is used by that Government in DC, owned by British/Israel interests, to use your kids to die for Corporate aims.

 

From U.S. Congressional Archives 1940:

Mr. Speaker, In order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Re-public, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point. These articles are entitled “Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife.” This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled “Triumphant Democracy.”

In this he expresses himself in this manner:

“Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited states—the British-American Union.”

God Bless the Commonwealth! 🙂

Jews: Shot, gassed or injected? Make your bloody mind up!

This is a very simple and short post.

The following article is from the November 25th, 1942 issue of the Sarasota Herald Tribune.

Dr. Stephen S Wise – Rabbi of New York and leading Zionist jew

Dr Stephen S. Wise (Head of the World and American Jewish Congress at the time) makes STUNNING statements in a supposedly “proven” document regarding the fate of jews at Nazi hands during this period of the war. There are no less than THREE alleged “facts” in this article quoting Wise, which are outstanding and MUST have the reader stunned by the content when one considers what we are led to believe since childhood schooling and even today through media and government propaganda.

I have picked up on a substantial number of quite stunningly contradictory and eye opening statements and information in government archives and media archives over the last few years and this one just adds to the tally of them which leave me in no doubt that we have been sold a myth!

Of course, there will always be those of you that, no matter what is put in front of you, will NEVER accept what such contradictions and bare faced lies (made up stories) are telling us but I am not talking to you, I am talking to those who still have an open mind and undiluted brain matter.

 

I shouldn’t have to point these three issues out to you (and for many it will be unnecessary, I realise that) but let’s just go through them one by one:

1. “Reportedly confirmed by the State Department and a personal representative of President Roosevelt”: That 2M jews had already been slaughtered IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RACE EXTINCTION ORDER BY ADOLF HITLER. – The fact is that, even today, no such order has EVER been found (nor any oral order) of such by Adolf Hitler. Even during the Canadian Court trial of Ernst Zundel in the mid/late 1980s, the prosecution expert in the first trial was Raul Hilberg, an American professor of Jewish descent and author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), which Paul Rassinier discussed in Le Drame des Juifs européens (The Drama of the European Jews). Hilberg began his testimony by explaining, without interruption, his theory about the extermination of the Jews. He was then cross-examined by Zündel’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, who was assisted by Keltie Zubko and myself. Right from the start it was clear that Hilberg, who was the world’s leading authority on the Holocaust, had never examined a single concentration camp, not even Auschwitz. He had still not examined any camp in 1985 when he announced the imminent appearance of a new edition of his main work in three volumes, revised, corrected and augmented. Although he did visit Auschwitz in 1979 for a single day as part of a ceremonial appearance, he did not bother to examine either the buildings or the archives. In his entire life he has never seen a “gas chamber,” either in its original condition or in ruins. (For a historian, even ruins can tell tales). On the stand he was forced to admit that there had never been a plan, a central organization, a budget or supervision for what he called the policy of the extermination of the Jews. He also had to admit that since 1945 the Allies have never carried out an expert study of “the weapon of the crime,” that is to say of a homicidal gas chamber. No autopsy report has established that even one inmate was ever killed by poison gas.
   Hilberg said that Hitler gave orders for the extermination of the Jews, and that Himmler gave an order to halt the extermination on November 25, 1944 (such detail!). But Hilberg could not produce these orders. The defense asked him if he still maintained the existence of the Hitler orders in the new edition of his book. He dared to answer yes. He thereby lied and even committed perjury. In the new edition of his work (with a preface dated September 1984),
   Hilberg systematically deleted any mention of an order by Hitler. (In this regard, see the review by Christopher Browning, “The Revised Hilberg,” Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual, 1986, p. 294). When he was asked by the defense to explain how the Germans had been able to carry out an undertaking as enormous as the extermination of millions of Jews without any kind of plan, without any central agency, without any blueprint or budget, Hilberg replied that in the various Nazi agencies there had been “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

So the purported “documentary proof” which Wise said he carried, did not actually exist. He never showed it because he never had it! 

2.  “half of the estimated 4,000,000 jews in Nazi occupied europe” – This one is simple: 4 million estimated but 6 million slaughtered? Where did they find another 2 million from? Remember and read properly. It states “Nazi occupied europe” which was the entirety of where they could have rounded the jews up from. Perhaps they shipped in another 2 million from…….hmmm…. back from Palestine? Doesn’t quite figure now does it?

3.  “killing them at a rate of more than 100 per hour per Doctor BY INJECTING AIR BUBBLES INTO THEIR VEINS” – So, it would appear, the “Zyklon B gassing” story later substituted for “Air bubbles intravenously”.

These were all “PROVEN” assertions by Wise remember.

The stories, the contradictions, the reduced plaque numbers, the jews making money out of their horror stories which have been proven lies – are just outrageous!

Yet STILL our British government demands that we believe it!

“We’re TELLING you it’s a fact so it’s a fact!”

Yeah you’ve got to believe the politicians and the judiciary right?

I STILL ask myself what it is that has these jews the power over our governments? Is it just money and our politicians are all just money grabbing whores willing to leave their children and offspring to a world ruled by jews? Or is there more to it like “The Samson option”? Because I don’t believe it’s all to do with just “Oh the wee jews, they’re cuddly and good natured really. They just have gone wrong in their non acceptance of Christ as saviour but they are his chosen people”. I just don’t buy that obvious crap!

But wait, there’s more!

Now, take the time to read the above article carefully – every word is important. Then read the following:

You know the issue with liars and lying? They can’t/don’t keep track of their lies. They contradict themselves all over the place and, while they are taken at face value for the statements they make – by judges, Police, Lawyers, people in general etc – the truth catches up with them in the end. The truth does not consist of contradictions. Never has, never does, never will. The ONLY thing keeping this lie going is money and the whores of mammon who accept it.

The above article is from June 1942. What does it say?

1. There are between 6 and 7 million jews in Europe. The previous article stated 4 million (granted in “Nazi occupied Europe” – jews don’t like being too specific for obvious reasons). Then, look at the red cross figures at the end of this post. 15M worldwide (9.5M in Europe) in 1933 and 15M (9.5M in Europe) in 1948. Odd? Oy veh!
2. Article above states 1M since war began (End June 1942). Previous article states 2M (End Nov 1942). We would be led to assume, therefore, that a steep acceleration happened between July and November (let’s say 150 days) of 6,666 slaughters per day. So, that 1000 per day shot doesn’t quite do the trick does it? Perhaps the 6,666 was made up to by the Doctors in the first article injecting air bubbles in their veins at a rate of 100 per hour (per Doctor)? Again, however, we’ve never heard more about that have we? It’s the first time I ever encountered that story anyhow.
3. So, we have jews being shot by firing squads, jews being injected, jews dying of hunger, disease and other causes, millions being forced into labour camps BUT NOT ONE MENTION OF GAS CHAMBERS (and as I have pointed out in previous article of mine – having trawled UK Parliament archives – there is not one mention of gas chambers until AFTER the war). They hadn’t got their act together as to what propagandised form this “Shoah” would take.

Perhaps – just perhaps – this is why the Auschwitz plaque numbers varied so much over the years (EVEN THOUGH, miraculously, the 6M figure stayed the same) from 4M to 1.1M eventually. Even that 1.1M figure is accepted now as not all jews although they say (“they” being jewish “authorities” no less) that the jews in that figure amounted to 900,000. So, if it was 900,000, that leaves 5.1M left to find! YET, the vast majority of the 6M were meant to have expired in Auschwitz. Even to this day, it is ALL about “Auschwitz”. So then maybe there WERE injections of 100 per hour somewhere BUT no, that story has never been presented to us and you can rest assured it WOULD be!

You see, no matter which way you look at it, NONE of it adds up!

 

We’re told:

“Jews – good business people. Good with figures!”

But their grasp of statistics is pretty shite!

 

Who cares? Our monthly pensions are good!

 

Why Trump and Farage?

A short one because, in essence, it is already written in U.S. Congressional Archives (as you will see).

Having watched all this develop and listened and analysed closely what, how, who, why and when, this is my conclusion. You need not agree with it but I certainly do.

Why Trump and Farage? PERHAPS this is why:
What will Britain do? The day is coming when Britain will have to decide on one of three courses. First, shall she sink—comparatively to the giant consolidations—into a third- or fourth-rate power, a Holland or Belgium comparatively? Here note that we do not postulate her actual decline, but the increased growth of other powers. Or, second, shall she consolidate with a European giant? Or, third, shall she grasp the outstretched hand of her children in America and become again as she was before, the mother member of the English-speaking race?

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/united-states-congressional-record-the-new-world-order/
And look up “The Pilgrims Society” on Wikipedia. Note who the Patron is and then look at the names associated with it. (HINT: Liz)

Add:
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read the speeches given by the American members of the Pilgrims, for they, like all converts, are more un-American and pro-English than the British themselves.
…..
Mr. Choate then referred to a dispute which arose in regard to the passage of ships through the Panama Canal, and intimated that it was the understanding of Hon. John Hay and Lord Landsdowne that the British should have equal rights with us in the use of this Canal; a right which the British have never conceded to the United States in the Suez Canal. We have even been driven out of foreign markets by England for many, many years, and in her wars she has brazenly furnished us with a blacklist of firms with which we are not supposed to trade; and we, like fools, comply with her demands.
….
Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody— any Congress, any government, any President—to break the good faith which they have pledged to the mother country. In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book entitled, “Triumphant Democracy.” I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which we destroyed constitutional government, international security, and paved the road for us to become a colony of the British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under the control and domination of the Bank of England and the international banking groups that are now financing the British-Israel movement in the United States.

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/american-congressional-record-1940/

SO much more detail I could give you to support this but I just don’t have the time to write a book.

BETS PLEASE!

National Archives kept secret: British Zionist War Cabinet 1917

I think it’s pretty clear that I despise my government, the Judges who protect it, the Monarchy and the Armed Forces/Police who do their will in abject ignorance. I also some are not ignorant but, as one cop said to me recently: “It’s every man/woman for themselves. We all have families to feed and nothing’s gonna change”. So he/she knows it’s screwed up and that he/she is a part of it and simply does as he/she is told, BUT “Selfishness rules in society so we take care of ourselves”.

And you know what? He/She is right. What a pity huh?

So, when it comes to Arms and Defence companies etc, the people who work there are doing so because it’s a job even though they know (or don’t think or care about it) it kills tens of thousands or even millions of innocents. Not that long ago, I blamed them. I don’t any longer because I agree, it really is every man for themselves this life. Not what i would prefer but it’s how it is.

Doe that stop me trying to bring facts and truth to your attention? No. I just did. What I just said above is the truth and a fact. Sure, sure there will be many of you out there saying “We’re not all like that” but you know what? You are!

So here we have Palestine attempting to sue the British government based on the agreement with Jews (NOT only zionists but JEWS!) re the Balfour Declaration. The treaty demanded by the fucking Rothschild bitches!

And can you blame them? I can’t. We’re a despicable, cuckolded bunch of monarchical subjects ruled over by a Zionist Occupied Government and we think we’re a “free nation” while we plod along in our empty fucking lives trying to scrape a living while our successive governments suck on the tit of the jewish diaspora of the west who actually hate our guts but smile sweetly at us (they’re so fucking good at that!) and most of us are outraged by anyone who steps out of line and shines the light on these bunch of leeches and we call those who do, “Anti semite”. It’s been drilled into us for our entire lives to believe the little hook nosed cretins can do no wrong, have been persecuted by every nation on the planet (I wonder why? – That was rhetorical if you didn’t suss it) and are “God’s chosen” ( a belief they projected onto Hitler and the NSDAP – Nazis to most of you – to demonise them. The irony!).

Well, if you tend to research a bit, you pick up on a lot (and some of you pick up on crap and believe it by the way) but when you dig further and further, you “stumble” upon more and more, deeper and deeper and facts that make your hair stand on end or your jaw drop.

I’ve had this for years but, only now for some reason, thought it pertinent to blog it. That is these pages out of the British National Archives. They make sickening reading.

 

But those infinitesimally small percentage of the human race are a tight little tribe and they owe so much of their wealth, position and power in all areas to just a few families who find the Old Testament or Torah a very VERY useful tool. One of those families you know well of course. They have their name emblazoned across the most central and well known street (they call it a Boulevard of course) in Tel Aviv and here it is in 1913 and today (notice the nice chequered paving):

 

They STOLE the land and they used terrorism to do so and Rothschild walks free today while people like Menachem Begin (a bloody terrorist) became Prime Minister. A terrorist that blew up the British Government HQ and killed British men and women as well as Arabs to achieve his goal. Today? Britain actually celebrates the founding of Israel. Founded upon British service men and women’s blood. And you expect me to “cry for our boys and girls in uniform” while they go abroad to STILL fight Jewish wars? You’re joking right?

I’d sooner join what you consider as the Nazi Party!

 

So yes Palestine, sue the shit out of the British Government because, before they clandestinely decided Palestine was going to be flooded with Russian and Eastern European Jews so they may create a “National home for the jews” (read: Israel), you lived and worked that land peacefully over generations. My government gave your land to these alien cretins for their own purposes (probably paid handsomely and why the British government and Monarchy suck jewish dick to this day) and without any discussion/negotiation with those of you who already lived there. But that’s nothing new. Our government have cause the misplacing of peoples from their homes for centuries. Ask the American Indian or ask those Chagossians who they threw off their lands at gunpoint to provide for a Naval and Air base on Diego Garcia for the Americans.

 

As an aside and regarding the Chagossians returning to The Changos Islands, it is laughable. You see:

“Under the terms of the 1966 lease the US have an option to extend the lease for 20 years in December 2016.” and it is highly likely that the Americans will extend the lease. The problem is for them (and the Chagossians) is that the maximum elevation above mean low water of Diego Garcia, for example, is just 30 feet.

Our governments kind of ignore stuff like that (and don’t like you thinking about it) when it comes to this subject of the ever so scary “Climate Change”. Ever wondered why? 😉

“Yes, sure you can go back to your Islands. Sorry about chucking you off, we thought you looked scary……… Oops! Sorry again! We forgot to tell you about sea levels rising due to global warming….. ummm I mean climate change….. ummm….. oh nevermind. Is it deep? Can you hear us?….. Well admiral, we got rid of them again. This time by “natural causes””.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3557216/Deal-send-Chagos-islanders-home-closer.html

Who are the freaks of this world?

No apologies for presenting this movie on here. I’ve seen and read a lot about these people and I’ve now had about more than I can stomach. They are simply repulsive. And before anyone even suggests this is anti semitic, I ask you to watch this and ask yourself: “Do people such as this scare me?” Because they do me. It is racist (or anti semitic) to hate a people just because of their race or religion (which I don’t and never have) but it is not racist or anti semitic to be repulsed by the inhumanity of people and those who support it. Remember, David Cameron (and untold numbers of others) support these people and their disgusting actions. It is neither racist nor anti semitic to be afraid of a people. Many are afraid of muslims (there are elements of their beliefs I have issues with also) but they’re not who I’m frightened of and, when I say frightened, I mean I’m afraid of the masses of gentiles (or goyim) who protect their actions and apologise for them and who just refuse to see the power they are given. I don’t get it – I DO NOT GET how these people are given a “multipass” for a multitude of sins. Of course, they are not sinning within their religion and in front of their “God”, after all, they INVENTED him FOR their purposes! But then who the HELL is their G-d anyway? A God that likes them cutting their children’s genitalia and sucking them off? Anyone heard the term “PAEDOPHILIA” or “CHILD ABUSE”? A God that demands they then slaughter animals in the fashion they do? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Watch the goddamned movie and you tell me!

And find out who wanted to protect the animals by the way. Oh yeah, it was the big nasty dictator!

Now listen to this other jewish fellatio artiste as he defends this inhumane slaughter while the “Great Dictator” chose not to:

But he’s not the only one…..

And, of course, why did UKIP finally get the “ok” by the UK establishment? Well here’s on of the reasons….

 

Next, let’s consider your “beloved” Winston Churchill (another kosher fellatio artiste who started a war on behalf of the jews while he held vastly contradictory views on them – but then money does have the impact of changing one’s views doesn’t it? Especially when you’re an impoverished leader and the jews help you from facing bankruptcy):

Winston Churchill’s 1920 article, in which he highlighted the predominant Jewish role in the world-wide communist movement, is pretty well known. What is not discussed is how he misled his readers in essays and books published many years later. In many contemporary academic environments, it is held that the concept of “International Jewry”—groups of powerful Jews who operate on an international basis and feel that the world-wide Jewish community is united by racial bonds—is a “neo-Nazi” and “radically anti-Semitic” canard that should be immediately dismissed. Sir Winston and the British government showed us otherwise. Finally, it may raise the eyebrows of many when they find out what Churchill told the House of Commons in August 1946 about his knowledge of the Holocaust during the war.

Jews and Communism: Churchill’s Duplicity

During the early part of the twentieth century, Winston Churchill was very much aware of the decisive role that Jews played in the rise of Bolshevik Communism in Russia. Gilbert writes:

“He was familiar with the names and origins of all its leaders: Lenin was almost the only member of the Central Committee who was not of Jewish origin. Neither Churchill nor his colleagues, nor the Jews, knew that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew.” The Jewish historian adds an observation that, if stated by a non-Jew, could possibly earn him the dreaded “anti-Semite” label: “Churchill had studied the Bolshevik terror against political opponents, democrats and constitutionalists, and he knew the significant part individual Jews had played in establishing and maintaining the Bolshevik regime.”2

In a June 1919 telegram to a British general, Churchill pointed out the prominent role Jews played in the Bolshevik regime and the atrocities they were guilty of.3 In a 10 October 1919 letter to Lloyd George, Churchill again noted that Jews certainly “have played a leading role in Bolshevik atrocities.”4 Gilbert attempts to put this in historical context: “Not only was there a deeply anti-Semitic tradition in southern Russia and the Ukraine that had seen pogroms and massacres in both the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, but after the Bolshevik revolution in November 1917 many Jews, hoping for a better break, had thrown in their lot with the Bolsheviks. A few Jews, whose deeds were much publicized and greatly feared, became political commissars, charged with the imposition of Bolshevik rule in southern Russia, and carrying out their tasks with cruelty and zeal.”5

Gilbert devotes a long discussion to Sir Winston’s famous 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”6 Churchill pointed out that left-wing Jews were a major force behind Communist Marxism in many parts of Europe and Russia, which ultimately brought horror and suffering to millions. He discussed:

“the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”7

Churchill specifically stated that Jewish Marxists were causing major problems in Germany. He wrote:

“The same phenomenon [i.e., Jewish involvement with left-wing and Communist movements] has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is astonishing.”8

More recent scholarship has vindicated some of Churchill’s views. Jewish-American political scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, and anti-National-Socialist historian Robert Payne documented the decisive role that Jews played in far left and Communist movements in Germany prior to World War II, although they may not believe that Jewish influence was as destructive as Churchill believed it to be.9

Despite Churchill’s 1920 exposé of the decisive Jewish involvement with Communism, in a November 1935 article he criticized Hitler and the German National Socialists for believing that Jews “were the main prop of communism.”10 Of course, this is precisely what Churchill had stated in “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” when he wrote:

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews [Gilbert pointed out that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew. Ed.]. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”11

Furthermore, in his famous book, The Gathering Storm, written after the Second World War and widely regarded as a “classic,” Churchill again misled his readers. He insinuated that Hitler and his followers engaged in “delusional thinking” when they claimed that Jews played a major and destructive role in German Communist and Left wing groups. Describing the alleged fantasies of Hitler in regard to Jewish influence prior to and during the First World War, Churchill wrote: “As in a dream everything suddenly became clear [to Hitler]. Germany had been stabbed in the back and clawed down by the Jews, by the profiteers and intriguers behind the front, by the accursed Bolsheviks in their international conspiracy of Jewish intellectuals.”12 In fact, there is nothing in this “masterpiece” about the decisive role that Jews played in German communism, the international Bolshevik movement, and the threat this posed to Germany and the world, which Churchill had so vividly complained about in decades past.

On this issue, Churchill was deceitful. In 1935, he criticized National Socialists for holding beliefs that he himself had propounded years earlier. In 1948, when criticism of Jewish influence became taboo, he implied that the National Socialist idea of Bolshevism being a world-wide conspiracy of left-wing Jews that wreaked havoc in Germany was all a “paranoid fantasy.” He dishonestly failed to point out that this is very similar to what he emphatically stated in his 1920 article.

Churchill, the British Government, and the Reality of International Jewry

In his widely known works on National Socialist Germany, Jeffrey Herf asserts that the concept of “International Jewry” is a paranoid fantasy of “radical anti-Semites.” This allegedly false notion “rested on the belief that the Jews were a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds that transcended any allegiance to nation-states.”13 Of course, enlightened people of today should immediately reject this “canard.” The University of Maryland professor insists that Hitler was delusional, as he believed “International Jewry” to be an “actually existing political subject with vast power that was hostile to Germany.”14 According to Herf’s politically correct mode of thought, a world-wide Jewish entity that transcends the boundaries of nation-states had no existence whatsoever before, during or after the Second World War. Winston Churchill’s statements and behavior, and that of the British government, show us otherwise.

We remind the reader that in his 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Churchill referred directly to the “schemes of International Jews,” their “sinister confederacy” and “world-wide conspiracy.” Historian Gilbert, relying upon Churchill, defines “International Jews” as “those Jews who supported Bolshevik rule inside Russia and Bolshevik revolution beyond its borders.”15 (As we shall soon see, this is an incomplete and inadequate definition of the term, “International Jews.” To cite just one problem, it does not include international Jewish Zionists who were opposed to Bolshevism.)

What was the goal of these “International Jews?” Churchill believed that they were seeking “a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination.”16 It is important to note that in The Gathering Storm, he correctly imputed this very belief to Adolf Hitler. In Churchill’s description, Mein Kampf promoted the idea that the aim of Soviet communism was the triumph of international Judaism.17 Of course, Churchill never informed his readers of the striking similarity between his 1920 article and Hitler’s book on this issue.

Professor Herf apparently believes that only “radical anti-Semites” promoted the concept of “International Jewry”—but Winston Churchill was a philo-Semite and Gentile Zionist who worked for Jewish interests his entire career, and was accused of being “too fond of Jews” by his friend and fellow parliamentarian General Sir Edward Louis Spears.18

In November 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration. It read: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”19 Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war, and that American Jews would be stimulated to accelerate the military participation of the United States—already at war, but not yet in the battlefield. To secure these results, [Jewish-Zionist diplomat] Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to lead a campaign to rouse the pro-war sentiments among the Jewish masses in both countries.”20

In 1921, Churchill reiterated the British government’s position on the Balfour Declaration. One of the main reasons that it was issued is because the assistance of Jews from various parts of the world was needed to induce the nation states in which they lived to enter the war on Great Britain’s side.21 A similar agenda motivated Churchill during the late 1930s: he believed continuing British support for a Jewish home in Palestine would motivate American Jewry to help bring the United States to Britain’s side in the expected war with Germany. Here is a quote from a December 1939 Churchill memorandum:

“…it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of [an American] Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November, 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.”22

In order that there is no misunderstanding, we will quote Professor Cohen:

“[Churchill] believed that the Zionist movement commanded powerful political and economic influence, particularly in the United States. As late as in December, 1939, he lectured his cabinet colleagues on the important role Zionists could play in mobilizing American resources to the British war effort. He told them that it had not been for light or sentimental reasons that the Government had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, but in order to mobilize American support. In 1939, Churchill believed that history would repeat itself, that the Zionists, via their proxies across the Atlantic, could be influential in accelerating the vitally needed early entry of the Americans into the war.”23

Churchill’s beliefs regarding “international Jews” had validity: certain groups of Jews from one continent did engage in political actions that served the interests of Jews on other continents. As historian of the American film industry Neal Gabler pointed out in his An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Jewish screen writers and movie executives in Hollywood USA were concerned about the plight of their Jewish brethren across the ocean in Europe.24 These important Hollywood figures held a meeting in early 1936 during which they discussed what was to be done to combat Hitler’s Germany. Film producer David Selznick wanted to fight against Hitler “in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it.” He further suggested: “Don’t get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes.” Apparently, other screen industry figures present wanted to conduct a more open and straightforward campaign.25

In autumn 1936, the more conservative Jewish film industry figures began launching “tentative attacks upon the Hitler regime.”26 Film producer and studio executive Louis B. Mayer warned that war in Europe was looming, and he urged the United States to join forces with Britain. Before the US declared war following the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, certain Hollywood Jews were willing to use their influence to incite a pro-war sentiment in the United States. In a 20 May 1940 memo to President Roosevelt from studio executive Harry Warner, the latter stated: “[P]ersonally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.” A few months later motion picture mogul Nick Schenck offered to place his entire studio in the service of President Roosevelt’s campaign for war with Germany.27

Here we have another example showing the reality of International Jewry, as Churchill would have conceived of it. Viewing the fight against Hitler’s Germany as in the interests of Jews everywhere, Hollywood executives put their powerful instruments of mass persuasion in the USA in the service of Churchill’s across-the-Atlantic campaign for war with Germany.28 As Professor Cohen so rightly noted: “Until the American entry [into the Second World War], Jewish influence was naturally at its highest premium, as a solid force countering neutralist forces in the United States [groups that opposed US involvement in a war with Germany].”29

In March 1922, on Churchill’s instructions, the Middle East Department issued a defense of the Balfour Declaration. They wanted the Jewish National Home in Palestine to “become a centre in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride [emphasis added].”30 Churchill discussed the Zionist desire to build a Jewish state in Palestine in his 3 September 1937 Jewish Chronicle article: this political entity would serve as a “rallying point for Jews in every part of the world.”31

The reader should take special note of the beliefs that Churchill and his British government acted upon. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the English promise to support a Jewish national home in Palestine would be used to enlist the aid of Jews from Russia and the United States to encourage their respective countries to keep fighting the First World War. In addition, an international Zionist diplomat would travel to these two nations to arouse pro-war feelings. Similar beliefs motivated Churchill in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Supposedly, Jewish proxies across the Atlantic would help bring the US onto the British side in a war with Germany.

But just as importantly, the Jewish National Home would be of interest to Jews on the basis of race and religion, an entity that would galvanize Jewish support from all parts of the globe.32 Significantly enough, this is very similar to the viewpoint of German National Socialist Foreign Minister Constantin von Neurath, who said that a Jewish state in Palestine would provide an internationally recognized power base for Jews world-wide, like the Vatican for Catholics or Moscow for international communists.33

Directly refuting Jeffrey Herf and those who think like him, by enacting policies such as these, Winston Churchill and the British government clearly realized that many powerful and influential groups of Jews throughout the world in fact saw themselves as “a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds.” In other words, the entity “International Jewry” does in fact exist, although not all Jews should be considered a part of it.34 There are Jews from all parts of the world who feel little or no attachment whatsoever to any world-wide Jewish community. Nevertheless, this belief that Jews are an internationally organized, racial entity has survived the Second World War and is still held by many Jewish groups world-wide, influencing Zionist and Israeli thinking to this very day. One example should suffice to demonstrate my point.

A convinced believer in the traditional view of the Holocaust, Dr. Herf claims: “The radical anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the Holocaust described Jews first and foremost as a racially constituted political subject.”35 Well lo and behold! Something strikingly like this “radical anti-Semitic idea” has led to Israel’s interest in scientific studies that delineate genetic/racial differences between Jews and non-Jews.

In an article that appeared in Natural History of November 1993, renowned Jewish scientist Jared Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”36 According to Diamond, Israeli policy asserts that Jews are a racially constituted political subject: they differ from non-Jews on a genetic/racial basis, and these biological differences may be used to determine who will be granted citizenship in the political entity of Israel.

The reader may scratch his head in wonder, asking: “So why do intellectuals like Jeffrey Herf deny the reality of International Jewry?” In the Twentieth Century, the Jewish community has emerged as one of the most powerful elements in the United States and Europe.37 If they become widely viewed as an international, racially constituted political entity that is separate and distinct from the surrounding culture, this could create suspicion and distrust in the minds of the non-Jewish peoples they reside among. Non-Jews might start saying: “Since certain segments of the Jews are separate and distinct from us and they form a hostile and alien elite, perhaps they should not wield the power over our society that they have.” If such ideas ever attained widespread legitimacy, it might spawn political and social movements that could bring about a marked reduction in Jewish power and influence. Jeffrey Herf’s denial of the existence of International Jewry may be based in a desire to maintain the Jewish community’s elite status in the Western world.

Churchill and Holocaust Revisionism

In June of 1941, British code-breakers at Bletchley Park were intercepting and reading the most secret communications of the German enemy. Gilbert claims that decoded top-secret messages about the alleged mass murder of Jews and non-Jews in the German-occupied Soviet Union were shown to Churchill. In response, the Prime Minister emphatically stated in his radio broadcast of 24 August 1941, that “whole districts are being exterminated,” and concluded with this judgment: “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”38

On August 27, and September 1, 6, and 11, 1941, Churchill was shown German police decrypts reporting on the execution of thousands of Jews on Soviet territory.39 This information is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. As far back as the mid-1970s, Revisionist scholar Arthur Butz made the point that this is the one part of the Holocaust legend that contains a kernel of truth. During the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, thousands of Jews and non-Jews were shot by German police units and auxiliaries of local police in their attempt to stop the guerilla warfare being waged against them.40 Brutality was practiced by both the Soviets and the Germans.

On 27 August 1941, the Bletchley Park code-breakers informed Churchill: “The fact that the [German] Police [in the Soviet Union] are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should by now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specifically, unless so requested.”41

Gilbert admits there is nothing in Bletchley Park decrypts about the alleged mass shooting of 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev in September 1941. Therefore, should one conclude that this atrocity never took place? Not according to Gilbert: he says that German police units in Russia were cautioned by Berlin “not to compromise their ciphers.”42 Gilbert encourages his readers to conclude that this alleged mass killing took place, although supposedly a top-secret message about it was never sent out.

Gilbert believes that Churchill received sufficient details from other sources about the mass killing of Jews in the Soviet Union, and in response, sent the Jewish Chronicle a personal message, which was published in full on 14 November 1941. It read in part: “None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew,” and he referred to “the unspeakable evils wrought on the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime.”43

In London on 29 October 1942, Christian and Jewish leaders led a public protest against the alleged mass murders of Jews that were supposedly taking place in the German concentration camps. Churchill, who was in the United States at the time, addressed the gathering by way of a letter that was read by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It stated in part:

“I cannot refrain …to protest against the Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews…The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people—men, women, and children—have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetuate and instigate them. Free men and women denounce these vile crimes…”44

In December 1942, Churchill was shown a report from a Polish Catholic member of the Resistance, Jan Karski. He claimed to have seen Jews being forced with great brutality into cattle cars, and then taken to an unknown “extermination location.”45 In response, Anthony Eden of the War Cabinet wanted to issue a public declaration. “It was known,” he asserted, “that Jews were being transferred to Poland from enemy-occupied countries, for example, Norway: and it might be that these transfers were being made with a view to wholesale extermination of Jews.”46 (Notice that Eden said the exterminations “might be” happening, and not that they were in fact happening. This suggests that he was skeptical of the “evidence” regarding the alleged mass exterminations of Jews. More on Eden in a moment.)

The Allied Declaration, supported by Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other members of the Allied cause, was published on 17 December 1942, and it had considerable political impact, just as Churchill wished. Its central paragraph condemned “in the strongest possible terms” what was described as “this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.”47

On 19 December 1942, Polish-Jewish official Samuel Zygielbojm appealed to Churchill to save the one and a quarter million Polish Jews who were still alive and were in danger of “being exterminated” by the Germans. As Cohen points out, there is no record of any reply from Churchill, and no Allied operation was initiated to halt the alleged slaughter.48

In June 1944, Churchill viewed a Jewish Agency report on the workings of the alleged “Nazi gas chambers” in the concentration camps. He sent a memorandum to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, asking: “Foreign Secretary, what can be done? What can be said?” The evidence indicates that Churchill wanted to issue another Allied threat of retribution, but the Foreign Office said that too many such pronouncements had already been made.49

On 6 July 1944, Foreign Secretary Eden informed Churchill of an appeal he received from Zionist diplomat Chaim Weizmann, that the British government should take steps to mitigate the “appalling slaughter of Jews in Hungary.”50 We let Professor Cohen pick up the story here:

“Now Weizmann reported mistakenly that 60,000 Jews were being gassed and burned to death each day at Birkenau (the death camp at Auschwitz II). Eden told Churchill that this figure might well be an exaggeration. But on the next day, Eden forwarded an additional report to Churchill, describing the four crematoria at the camp, with a gassing and burning capacity of 60,000 each day. Some 40,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported and killed there. Over the past one year and a half, some one-and-a-half million Jews had been done to death in the camp.”51

Cohen, a firm believer in the traditional version of the Holocaust, still highlighted the exaggerations in the story. Buried in a footnote he writes; “It seems that the Zionist figure of 60,000 per day, should in fact have been 6,000.”52 As of the date of this writing, even anti-Revisionist Holocaust historians would point out that the figure of 1,500,000 Jews being murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau is another exaggeration of around 540,000 deaths! Robert Jan van Pelt, widely considered to be a contemporary expert on the alleged mass murder of Jews at this concentration camp, wrote in 2002 that total number of Jewish deaths at the site was 960,000.53 The important lesson here is this: we have evidence from a respected academic source that, during the war, Churchill was being handed exaggerated atrocity information, to say the very least.

On 7 July 1944, Churchill approved the bombing of Auschwitz by the British Air Force, but the operation was never carried out.54 Four days later, on 11 July, Churchill issued his oft-quoted declaration on the Holocaust: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe.”55

At the end of August 1944, Churchill’s son showed his father a copy of the full report of four escapees from the Auschwitz “extermination camp,” an official document that had been published a month and a half earlier by the War Refugee Board in Washington. Before this, Churchill had only seen a summary version. Gilbert comments: “Not for the first time, Randolph had alerted his father to an aspect of the Jewish fate that had not reached the Prime Minister through official channels.”56

Gilbert points out that in the latter part of 1944, Berlin issued a statement denouncing at least some of the reports about the deportations to Auschwitz, claiming they were “false from beginning to end.”57 Gilbert is unclear on exactly what the Germans were claiming to be false.

Despite all of the authoritative declarations Churchill made or supported during the war with regard to the “reality” of the Nazi extermination of the Jews, when the war ended he made an astonishing statement that casts doubt on the sincerity of all of these wartime pronouncements. In a speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946, he emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the alleged Nazi mass murder of Jews while the Second World War was taking place. We quote him verbatim: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”58

As far back as 1985, Professor Cohen stated the dilemma in these terms. He says it is debatable how familiar the Prime Minister was with the Intelligence information regarding the alleged Nazi extermination camps, but by “July, 1944 at the very latest, Churchill was supplied by the Zionists with very precise details of the murderous capacity of Auschwitz.”59 In light of this, Cohen asks, how should we interpret Churchill’s August 1946 denial of knowledge of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews during the war?60

The reader should take careful note of the implications of Churchill’s words. If Sir Winston was not aware during the war of the alleged mass killings of Jews, and if he and his associates realized only after the war ended that these supposed mass murders took place, then all of his “authoritative” declarations we listed above about the mass murder of Jews taking place during the war were just unconfirmed and baseless allegations in his estimation.

Bizarre inconsistencies like this are exactly what the Holocaust Revisionist hypothesis would predict, and this is why even the most anti-Revisionist reader should consider Churchill’s statements from a Revisionist perspective. Revisionism states that many of the wartime claims of the Allies and Zionists in regard to the alleged extermination of the Jews were simply false propaganda, designed to serve ulterior Allied and Zionist political agendas.

Churchill was well aware that representations of the Jewish fate at the hands of the Germans were linked to plans for a Zionist state in Palestine. Indeed, Gilbert points out: “In Churchill’s mind, the Jewish fate in Europe and the Jewish future in Palestine were inextricably linked.”61 In his seminal Revisionist work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz made a somewhat parallel point: “”The Zionist character of the [Nazi extermination] propaganda is quite clear; note that, as a rule, the persons who were pressing for measures to remove Jews from Europe (under the circumstances a routine and understandable proposal) coupled such proposals with demands that such Jews be resettled in Palestine, which shows that there was much more in the minds of Zionist propagandists than mere assistance to refugees and victims of persecution.”62

Throughout his entire book, Gilbert discusses how the unrelenting Churchill, being wedded to Zionist policy, was up against the resistance of many factions within his own government and from around the world who were opposed to establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. They realized it would end in disaster for the indigenous people of the Middle East and for British interests in general.63 In a situation such as this, one can readily see how “Nazi extermination” propaganda would be useful to Churchill—it would silence opposition to Zionist aims and create mass sympathy for the future Jewish state.64 There is evidence that is consistent with this interpretation. In December 1942, Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley put the request to the Prime Minister that 4500 Bulgarian Jewish children, with 500 accompanying adults, be allowed to exit Bulgaria for Palestine, adding that British pubic opinion had been “much roused by the recent reports of the systematic extermination of the Jews in Axis and Axis-controlled countries.” Churchill replied: “Bravo!”65

Professor Cohen notes the strange inconsistency between Winston Churchill’s public statements about the Holocaust and his lack of action to do anything to stop it: “But against the frequent expression of his horror at Nazi crimes, one must record the almost total absence of any meaningful gesture or action by him to save Hitler’s Jewish victims—either when in Opposition, or in the position of supreme power, which was his from 1940 to 1945.”66

I ask the most hard-core believer in the traditional Holocaust story to ponder this dilemma. During the war, Churchill was making authoritative pronouncements about the “etched-in-stone” fact of the Nazi extermination of the Jews—and after the war, he tells British parliament that he had no idea such “exterminations” took place during the war, and only realized their “reality” after the war was ended! To say the least, Churchill’s statements are consistent with the point that Professor Butz made decades ago: the first claims about the “Nazi extermination of the Jews” made during the war were not based on one scrap of credible intelligence data.67

Butz’s revisionist hypothesis is further supported by the fact that even academic “Holocaust experts” will have to admit that, during the war, Churchill was handed exaggerated data in regard to the number of Jewish deaths, as we have shown in this essay. Finally, Churchill’s public outcries regarding the alleged Nazi extermination of the Jews were declarations that, “coincidentally,” served British and Zionist military and political agendas.

We will end here with a short note regarding Churchill’s 1 August 1946 statement that the “reality” of the Holocaust “dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”68 Gilbert points out that Churchill used what was found at some German concentration camps at the war’s end as “proof” of the “Holocaust.”69 A thorough discussion of this is beyond the scope of this short essay, so I refer the reader to the Revisionist studies of the topic.70

Notes:
Michael J. Cohen, Churchill and the Jews (Frank Cass, 1985); Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (Henry Holt, 2007); Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Belknap Press, 2006).
Gilbert, p. 37.
Ibid., p.31.
Ibid., p.33.
Ibid., p.31.
Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920. Online: http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionchurch.html Gilbert reproduces the article in facsimile, but it is virtually unreadable.
Ibid..
Gilbert, pp. 40-41.
Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982), pp.84-89; Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (Popular Library, 1973), pp.124-125.
Gilbert, p. 104.
Ibid., p.40.
Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Bantam Books, 1948), p.48.
Herf, p.7.
Ibid., p.3.
Gilbert, p.40.
Ibid., p.42.
Churchill, p.51.
Gilbert, p.xv.
Ibid., p.27.
Ibid., p.28.
Ibid., pp.69, 78-79, 112.
Cohen, p.195; Gilbert, p.165.
Cohen, p.328.
Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988), p.342.
Ibid..
Ibid., p.343.
Ibid., p.343.
Ibid., pp.342-343.
Cohen, pp.186-187.
Gilbert, p.74.
Ibid., p.132.
Gilbert, p.132.
Quoted in Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (University of Texas Press, 1985), p.121.
For a further discussion of this topic, see Paul Grubach, “Does ‘International Jewry’ Exist?: Grubach Contra Herf.” Online: http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionpgint.html
Herf, p.265.
Jared Diamond, “Who Are the Jews?,” Natural History, November 1993, pp. 12-19.
The following is just a small sample of the works that document Jewish power and influence in the Western world. Alexander Bloom, Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World (Oxford University Press, 1986); Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988); Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, 1993); Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique (Stein and Day, 1969); Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, 2008); Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israeli Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985); Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace? (North American, 1982); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998); Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (The Occidental Press, 2007); Janine Roberts, “The Influence of Israel in Westminster,” The Palestine Chronicle , 24 May 2008. Online: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13821; Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982); Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (Summit Books, 1985).
Gilbert, p.186.
Ibid., pp.186-187.
Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), pp.241-242. Online: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/HoaxV2.pdf
Gilbert, p.186.
Ibid., p.187.
Ibid., p.187.
Gilbert, p.192.
Ibid., p.194.
Ibid., p.195,
Ibid..
Cohen, p.271.
Ibid., p.290.
Ibid., p.294.
Ibid..
Ibid., p.368fn120.
Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002), p.116.
Cohen, pp. 294-296.
Cohen, p. 291; Gilbert, pp.215, 216.
Gilbert, p.219.
Ibid., p.220.
Gilbert, p. 257; Cohen, pp. 266-267.
Cohen, p.267.
Ibid., p.268.
Gilbert, p.188.
Butz, p.114.
Gilbert, pp. 46, 58-59, 71-72, 76, 77, 78, 93, 102, 117, 144, 154, 157, 202, 205, 222, 229, 230, 232, 235, 237, 246, 249, 285.
Ibid., pp. 109, 180, 213, 243, 245, 257.
Ibid., p.193.
Cohen, p.325.
Butz, p.113.
Gilbert, p.257; Cohen, p.267.
Gilbert, pp.240-241.
A good place to start would be Ernst Gauss, ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory” (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), pp. 285-309.

from the website “Inconvenient history”.

 

Then, finally, after “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY” in 1933 (THIS is the year WW2 started and let noone tell you differently), who, of all people, did Great Britain decide to have as SECRETARY OF WAR?

Well I never! A JEW!

And note, this jew was also responsible for the conscription of British men into the British Army to fight a battle with that “Great Dictator” on behalf of the jews.

One of the most mysterious episodes of the second world war was how did the Franco-British armies, superior in numbers to the Germans, whose French tanks were of higher quality than the Panzers, whose Franco-German border was protected by an impregnable defence, come to be crushed by the enemy?
The pre-war issue most exercising the Government was not Hitler, but what the press had termed “The Massacre on the Roads”. To solve this acute problem, the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, appointed as Transport Minister a dynamic young man whose vigour, as a junior member of the government, had created quite an impact. He came from the “right” class. Had served with distinction in the First World War. He had been Mentioned in Dispatches.

His father had been an officer in the Royal Fusiliers, followed by a career as a cotton broker. His mother was similarly socially “correct”, with a finishing school background and also an author of children’s books. His family had been settled in England for hundred and fifty years and were committed to their Jewish faith. Indeed, he had only failed to make his public school’s Rugby team because it would have entailed playing on the Sabbath.

After the war, in which he reached the rank of Major, he served as a King’s Messenger; a role of extreme responsibility, which carried with it the onerous duty of personally delivering the most important of state documents. He then went on to Oxford University where he was elected President of the Union, became a Barrister, and then entered politics. Chamberlain appointed him Minister of Transport, and immediately the nation felt the impact of his personality.

He created driving tests, also a code of behaviour that had to be followed; Road crossings were introduced, marked by a flashing beacon. In a twelve-month period, in the face of increasing road traffic, Injuries were reduced by 12,805; Deaths by 822.

Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha had arrived.

Hitler now dominated the Horizon. War was inevitable. The British Army was in a state of crises with twenty thousand men below strength and deeply unpopular. On the 25th May 1937 Belisha was appointed Secretary of State for War.

He called in Sir Isadore Salmon, head of Lyons Corner House to advise on catering. Barracks were to be centrally heated, provided with spring beds, showers, recreation rooms, radios. Married men could sleep with their wives out of Barracks. Soldiers under 21 could sleep at their parent’s home. Generous pensions were to be provided. Men with dentures were to be accepted. Soldiers leaving the service were to be trained, on full pay, for a civilian occupation. He replaced the tunic with the practical battle dress. Promotion was to be on merit.

The result was that recruitment rocketed with the Territorial Army doubling in size.

There now occurred an extraordinary side effect:

The British League of Fascists lost its most prominent member, General J.F.C. “Boney” Fuller. “Because,” he announced “of what a Jew was doing for the army”.

The Army at this stage was becoming mechanised and Belisha appointed a Tank officer to the command of what would become the 1st Armoured Division. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff opposed this because it would involve cavalry officers taking orders from an officer from the Army’s mechanical branch.

Belisha sacked him. He then sacked the Adjutant General, and went on to sack The Master General of Ordinance.

He now forced through, in the face of fierce opposition, conscription. In cabinet he was compared to Stalin. Never the less his actions delighted the Prime Minister.

At the outbreak of war France’s border was protected by the impregnable Maginot Line. Belgium, demonstrating “The Triumph of Hope over experience,” had declared itself neutral and forbade the extension of the Line along its border. This meant that an attack on France would come via Belgium.

The Allied plan, Plan D, was to advance into Belgium and there, because of overall superiority, defeat the Germans. Belisha, far from happy with this Plan, wanted the original defence system strengthened. This was to be done by building 240 pillboxes (small forts).

The Army told him it would take 3 weeks to construct a pillbox. Belisha ascertained that it would take 3 days. Accordingly he brought to France a team of Civil Engineers to do this. Unfortunately the Army resented them and gave minimal co-operation.

Belisha now visited France, and attended a meeting of senior officers, which included the commander of the British force, Lord Gort.

A shocked Belisha found that the 1st item on the agenda was “Over which shoulder should a soldier carry his steel helmet when it was not on his head?” He also found that only 2 pillboxes had been constructed.

On his return he reported the situation to the Army Council, and informed the Prime Minister who said that if he wanted to sack Lord Gort he would support him. Belisha refused to do this. Instead he sent General Packenham Walsh to convey to Lord Gort the Army Council’s disquiet at the state of his defences.

In doing this Belisha had committed a breach of etiquette. An officer can only be reprimanded by a senior. Packenham Walsh was junior to Lord Gort.

This faux pas increased the already deep hostility to Belisha to a blinding rage. Lord Gort referred to him as Belli; His Chief of Staff General Sir Henry Pownell now referred to him as a “Shallow brained, charlatan, political Jew boy”. Michael Foot, later to become leader of the Labour party thought of him as “a shit”. Chips Chanon a prominent socialite referred to him as “An Oily Jew”.

An army song went:

“Onward Christian Soldiers,
You have nothing to fear
Israel Hore-Belisha will lead you from the rear,
Clothed by Monty Burton
Fed on Lyons Pies
Die for Jewish freedom
As a Briton always dies.
Other officers were referring to him as Horeb Elisha.

Aware of this viscous attitude the Chief of the Imperial General Staff visited France. On his return he supported the Armies attitude, and reported to the King who called in the Prime minister. On January 4th 1940 Belisha was sacked.

On May 10th the Germans attacked through Belgium, and the British Army following plan D advanced to combat the enemy. They were then completely out flanked, and but for the miracle of Dunkirk would have been annihilated.

After this debacle Belisha was asked, “why were you dismissed?” “Jew boy.” was his reply.

from the July 2008 Edition of the Jewish Magazine

 

But freaks aren’t freaks when they can buy their way out of it.

Holograms

Holograms aren’t real. They aren’t flesh and blood. And neither was this….

 

 

http://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com

 

 

NOTE: The second article the video points to has, as part of its title “LOANS WITHOUT INTEREST”

If I need to explain this to you, you’re already not worth the effort!

The “Authoritative voice” of a liar

“Ok, at least give us a million would ya?”

Here we have an article from the Times of Israel (they just can’t let it rest can they?):

NOTE: 1.1 MILLION! While, of course, they HAVE to account for the vast majority don’t they? They just happen to have lost about 3 million from the figure (of which, in the 4 million they used to speak of, about 3.5M were probably jews according to them) so now it’s 1.1 million, they NEED to ensure the jews account for at least into a million – anything less would just not do! “We must keep it to a million at the very least guys. A million sounds so much better than say 750,000 damn it!” 😉

So, while the above is considered “authoritative” (of course), well so was below at the time. Remember that in 1944/45, perhaps even 1946 and 47 (I need to check the latter two years while I have checked the previous two) there were absolutely no mentions in parliament of any “gas chambers” – not a one!

When you read this, think of the enormity of dealing with 35,000 bodies PER DAY! IF that were true, then the 1.1 million alleged could have been gassed and cremated within approximately a month. So, if that was the purpose of the camps then why keep them fed and sheltered at all? To work? What a waste of time and German soldiers time when they could be put to better use on the killing fields. God I hate getting sold bullshit stories by people who actually expect me to be so fucking simple minded don’t you?

Two provisional gas chambers, known as bunkers 1 and 2, went into operation next to the Birkenau construction site in 1942, when Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss was entrusted with carrying out part of the campaign to exterminate the Jews. They were adapted farmhouses that previously belonged to expelled Poles. The first began operating in early 1942, probably in March, and the second in mid-year.

The construction of a complex of four gigantic gas chambers and crematoria began in mid-1942. The Germans estimated that 1.6 million people a year could be killed and burned there.

Watch this video. This is an alleged gas chamber while it also shows two small ovens INSIDE THE GAS CHAMBER! Not only that but we are to believe, from this, that up to 35,000 people were then cremated in those style of ovens?! THINK!

OH! BY THE WAY. IN THE VIDEO, NOTE THE TWO “DANCING ISRAELIS” (quickly then edited out) I laughed my ass off at that did you?

But then there are other versions of the “ovens” story where we are told the Nazis would burn people laid across rail tracks and piled something like 20 feet high! An earlier blog demonstrates the ridiculousness of this in a video. It is all just madness and it is not until people actually take the time and effort to consider the logistics and so called “facts” which just do not stand up to scrutiny, that they come to recognise it is all bollocks!

Now, here comes the “authoritative” Mr Bowles in 1947 with his 4 million, gold teeth to improve Germany’s gold reserve! lol Are these people serious? Well yes they were. Seriously trying to make us believe make believe!

GERMANY

HC Deb 27 October 1947 vol 443 cc517-607

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton) The Debate so far has concentrated upon Germany and upon two approaches to it. The one is the moral approach and the second approach that of the British Government. I am going to approach Germany for a few minutes from rather a different direction. I have been in Germany. I spent some weeks there in the early part of this year, and I took some time during the recent Recess to go to Poland. It might be of interest to the House—and I am glad the Foreign Secretary is in his place—if I conveyed to the House and to him in particular some of the feelings of that people numbering some 24 million. That was the only country which really had been physically moved under the Potsdam Agreement. The House will remember that the Russians took a good deal of Eastern Poland and under that agreement Poland recovered Lower Silesia, referred to in Poland today as the “recovered territories.” They are much more industralised than the territories which she lost in the East.

The House will remember that on 1st September, 1939, Hitler started the war by an unannounced bombardment of Warsaw. The fight for the capture of Warsaw and Poland lasted 29 days and then Poland gave in. Then in 1944, there was a terrible uprising which lasted some 63 days, in which a great deal more damage was done to Warsaw in particular. In 1945, Hitler knew he could no longer remain in Warsaw and he instructed his 556 troops—75,000 that were left—to raze that city to the ground street by street. The older buildings they incinerated by ordinary fire, and they blew up those more strongly built. It might be important for the House to recollect that the Polish people lost six million of their population during those six years of war. These things might be borne in mind when we speak about the Germans, and about the state of Europe as we view it this distance away. Although we have had friends and relatives lost and cities bombarded, when we remember that Warsaw was 85 per cent. destroyed and all its bridges blown, we can understand something of the feelings which exist there.

It has also to be borne in mind that there was not a Poland in 1913. It was then in occupation by Germany, Austria and Russia, and had been for 150 years. Poland, more or less as it is now, has been fought over by the Russians and Germans for 1,000 years, and how the Poles have suffered it is impossible to understand. They have a very great hatred for the Russians because they remember how the Russians treated them only in the early years of the war, but they have a worse feeling for the Germans because in the Auschwitz concentration camp, which I visited, some 3 million to 4 million Poles, mostly Jews, were done to death in circumstances which are quite impossible to describe, though I will try.

I have been there and it is a concentration camp stretching in all directions. One particular part I visited was where the extermination took place in rather a slow manner. The people were herded into a series of bunks about six feet by six feet, and eight to ten people slept there each night. When it was cold weather there was one brazier with one pail of coal to keep the place warm, The sheds were about the length of this Chamber and when the winter was on, they opened the windows in order to make them quite cold. When the summer and the hot weather came, they kept the windows on the top of the shed shut in order to make it more horrible. In the male urinals there was no water, which added to the unpleasant smell, and in a shed about as long as a cricket pitch where the water was running 10,000 people had to wash in an hour. This will give the House some idea of the impossible task set to the people who were living in this camp 557 and none of them, of course, survived more than three months. This is something relevant to the question of how Germany is regarded in other parts of Europe outside this country and that is why I mention these facts.

The next part was the gas chamber. I saw the place where the trains came in. If a German officer were killed in Warsaw 200 people, including children, were picked up and taken to Auschwitz concentration camp. There was there a large ferro-concrete building and the people were herded into it. They were offered a towel and a piece of soap. They thought they were going to have a bath with the result that they took off their clothes, but they found they were not to have a bath. Instead, they were shoved into the gas chamber and in ten minutes they were dead. They were taken out of the gas chamber and examined by dental surgeons, who extracted any gold in their teeth to build up Hitler’s gold reserve. If any hon. Member has been to Hamburg he will have seen hundreds and thousands of rings in that city, the owners of which cannot be traced.

These bodies were burned in the furnaces and this was going on at the rate of 15,000 to 35,000 a day. There is no question about this as we have had evidence given by General Hesse—not the man who came over here—and he admitted that he gave orders and knew that 3 million people were done to death in that camp. Since then more records have come to light and the figure is nearer 3½ to 4 million, as I have said. Apart from that, those bodies which could not be burned in the furnaces were burned on large piles which were set alight with oil and petrol. I understand it could be smelt many miles away. I saw human bones, about the size of the nail on one’s finger, on the floor of the building where people had been burned to death. Then to my horror—and I think the House will agree with me—I saw one or two charabancs coming into the camp with girls between 13 and 18 years of age who were sight-seeing. When I went back to Warsaw I protested to Ministers—whose names the House will forgive me for not mentioning—and I told them that this would be intolerable in England. One Minister said, “You must understand that we cannot let our people forget.” I said, “You are a Communist,” and he 558 said, “Yes, we are Communists but we can’t forgive the Germans about this.” I said, “If Germany becomes Communist would you feel the same?” and he answered, “If it were a Communist Germany perhaps we would have a little more kindness.” The real answer is that the Poles are Poles first and Communists and Socialists next, but they are Poles, and, remembering their history, the House would do well to make some allowance for the. point of view of these people.

The Day the Earth stood still

Alternatively: The day that Great Britain became a “judeo-christian” country rather than a CHRISTIAN one! A day in 1858 that will live in infamy.

Bear in mind that while Klatu was actually a “good guy”, it was with conditions. Those conditions (and the underlying story) being a One World Government scenario

So ask yourself: Why specifically the old testament? All you bloody christians out there who believe the old and new testaments are all part of the same story – you’re so FCUKING ignorant! Probably never read the bible in your life or, if you have, you don’t have the sense to recognise they are entirely different in terms of who “God” was meant to be!

I’m no religious person so I don’t approach this whole thing from believing – but THEY do!

 

ADMISSION OF BARON DE ROTHSCHILD.

HC Deb 26 July 1858 vol 151 cc2105-15 2105
§MR. SPEAKER Any hon. Member who desires to take his seat will please come to the table to be sworn.
§Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD returned as one of the Members for the City of London, came to the table, and was about to take from the Clerk at the table 2106 a copy of the Oath prescribed by the 21 & 22 Vict., c. 48, passed this Session, when
§MR. WARREN rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether notice was not necessary before—[“Order! Chair!”] Sir, I rise to order—
§MR. SPEAKER Order, order! The taking of his seat by an hon. Member is matter of privilege, and ought not to be interrupted by any discussion whatever.
§ The prescribed form of oath was again tendered to BARON DE ROTHSCHILD by the Clerk,

§BARON LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD Sir, I beg to state that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, I entertain a conscientious objection to take the oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session, has been substituted for the oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.
§ Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. SPEAKER, who desired Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD to withdraw; and he withdrew accordingly.

§LORD JOHN RUSSELL My object in rising, Sir, is to move a Resolution in conformity with an Act recently passed. (21 & 22 Vict. c. 49). It is as follows:— That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.
Mr. J. A. SMITH seconded the Resolution.
§ Question proposed.

§MR. WARREN Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance and regret, and contrary to my own previously-declared determination not to open my lips again on this question, that I rise to address a few observations to the House. It has now arrived at a very grave crisis in its constitutional history and that of the country, and a sense of duty will not allow me to remain silent. I have already, and very lately, as an humble member of the great Conservative party, entered my most solemn protest against the step which the Legislature was about to take in this matter, and have but little to say upon this momentous occasion. This House is about to consummate that great constitutional change in the character of the House which it has so lately been empowered to effect, 2107 and to take upon itself the entire responsibility of admitting into the representative branch of the Legislature a gentleman who has this moment declared that he cannot take—that he cannot be bound by an oath administered on the Holy Gospels—an oath which has been so long taken by all other Members of this House, with the exception of those who, though Christians by profession, were permitted, in deference to their religious scruples, to use a different form of oath or declaration. Sir, this is to me a most painful and distressing moment—but I cannot help myself; and, in accordance with what my conscience tells me is my most imperative duty, I am resolved to take the sense of the House upon the proposed Resolution. Lest, however, any one should do me the grievous injustice of supposing that I am, at a moment so painful, actuated by considerations of a personal nature with respect to either Baron Rothschild or the ancient race to which he belongs, I beg now most emphatically and truly to disclaim any such feelings. With reference to that gentleman, I must take this opportunity of declaring, that never in my life did I hear a whisper of even an insinuation against his character—of anything inconsistent with that reputation for purity, that spotlessness of character which Baron Rothschild enjoys. He occupies, deservedly, a high social position in this country; and I can only say again, that, while compelled to oppose the Resolution of the noble Lord opposite—to resist him to the last on this question—I have not in my heart one particle of animosity towards either the Jewish race or that representative of it now seeking admission into this Christian Legislature. If it be really the deliberate will of this House of Commons, as it has undoubtedly been declared the will of the Imperial Legislature that they may, if they think fit, exercise a privilege which I for one regard as so dangerous, I have nothing more to say; but in the meantime I beg, though I should go out alone into the lobby, to meet the Resolution of the noble Lord with a direct negative.
§Mr. WALPOLE I do not think my hon. and learned Friend could have caught correctly the terms of the noble Lord’s Resolution. It is simply declaratory, in terms of the new Act, of a matter of fact which neither my hon. and learned Friend nor any one else will contest, and does not admit either Baron Rothschild or any other member of the Jewish persuasion to a seat in this House. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will not put the 2108 House to the trouble of dividing at the present stage of the proceedings.
§Mr. WARREN I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and shall not press for a division on this Resolution. I had not caught the exact words of it and was taken altogether by surprise by the whole proceedings of this morning. I therefore withdraw my Motion.
§Resolved,— That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.

§LORD JOHN RUSSELL I now rise, Sir, to move a Resolution in pursuance of the Act which received the assent of Her Majesty on the 23rd instant, and which is entitled “An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty’s subjects professing the Jewish religion.” In order that the House may be fully in possession of the words of the Act I shall now read them. By the first clause it is enacted that— Where it shall appear to either House of Parliament that a person professing the Jewish religion, otherwise entitled to sit and vote in such House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which by an Act passed or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament has been or may be substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required, such House, if it think fit, may resolve that thenceforth any person professing the Jewish religion, in taking the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid, may omit the words ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’ It is not necessary to read any further. I propose, in conformity with those words in the clause, “such House, if it think fit,” to move a Resolution as nearly as possible in the terms of the Act itself. Of course, I shall not now raise any question as to whether a Jew should sit in this House. That question has been repeatedly argued, and it has now been decided by Parliament, at least to the extent of leaving it to either House to act as it may think fit. I therefore content myself with moving: “That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'”
2109
MR. J. A. SMITH seconded the Resolution.
§ Motion made and Question put, That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’

§Mr. WARREN Now, Sir, the time has arrived at which I may make my Motion, and state that I shall take the sense of the House upon it. It is, of course, not necessary for me to repeat any of the observations I have already offered, but must beg the House to regard them as having been offered in opposition to the noble Lord’s present Resolution, which I now meet with a direct negative.
§LORD HOTHAM Sir, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than one or two moments. My object is simply to explain the reasons of the Vote which I shall feel it my duty to give. I have always found myself conscientiously under the necessity of opposing the admission to Parliament of persons professing the Jewish religion. I have done so upon principle, and without the slightest particle of personal feeling. As Parliament, however, has decided against my views of this matter, I did not come down to the House to record any further vote on this question, but to take part in the discussion of other business; but, being here, I have to consider what course I ought to pursue. The part I have hitherto taken renders it impossible for me to concur in the Resolution of the noble Lord; while I cannot withdraw and abstain from giving any vote upon the question. I do not think it would be either an honest or a straightforward mode of proceeding, to shrink from expressing my opinion on a subject, with reference to which I think so strongly. I am therefore reduced to the necessity, without the slightest personal feeling towards Baron Rothschild, of going into the lobby with those who are resolved to meet the Resolution with a direct negative.
§MR. HADFIELD said, he had never been able to account for the prejudice which influenced hon. Gentlemen opposite in their hostility to the Jews. In his opinion the world was more indebted to that particular family of the human race than any other nation or people that ever existed. Hon. Gentlemen talked of excluding the Jews as a matter of Christian principle. He would say, let them endeavour to Christianize 2110 themselves by following the example of Him they all reverenced as the great messenger of peace, charity, and toleration, and who directed that the Gospel should be preached to all men—but to the Jew first. He regretted that this prejudice towards that family of the human race, to whom we were so deeply indebted, should have so long continued, but rejoiced in the opportunity of taking part in the removal of the Just of the disabilities which that prejudice had in this country inflicted upon them. He looked upon that occasion as a great triumph for the cause of religious liberty.
§MR. WALPOLE Sir, when first this question was brought before the House expressed my opinion, and I have never shrunk from that opinion since, that it was a religious rather than a political question. I thought from the first that the Legislature of this country, being admittedly a Christian Legislature from the earliest time, was not a body into which a person professing the Jewish religion could properly or conscientiously be admitted. I merely mention that for the purpose of showing, that now that the time has come for this House to determine how it will act, it is impossible for me not to feel, while admitting that Parliament has given us the power to seat Baron Rothschild on our own responsibility, that considering the opinions I have always held, I cannot be a party to the proposed Resolution. One or two words more and I have done, for I do not wish to raise any controversy on this occasion. I cannot disguise from myself that the person whom the House is now about to seat has this very much in his favour—that throughout the whole of this controversy he has never attempted to act in a manner contrary to the law of the land or to the rules of this House. I think it due to Baron Rothschild that I should say so much. I agree in the observations made by my noble Friend (Lord Hotham) when stating the reasons which would compel him to vote against this Resolution, and I shall go into the lobby with my noble Friend. There is one other observation that I would make. The hon. Members who advocate the admission of the Jews think that they are now closing this matter; but in point of fact they aro not. The course taken by Parliament in reference to this question is a course which in my opinion cannot be too much deprecated. I, for one, am extremely sorry that if Baron Rothschild, and those who like him, profess the Jewish religion, were 2111 to be admitted into the Legislature at all, they were not admitted frankly, plainly, and honestly, by a declaration made by Parliament in the form of an Act of the Legislature, instead of in a mode which I am afraid we shall hereafter find cause to regret.
§MR. SPOONER Sir, the hon. Member for Sheffield has charged those who oppose the admission of the Jews into Parliament as so acting in consequence of a prejudice against the Jewish people. I, for one, utterly deny that. The Jews are a most interesting nation—interesting, if we look to their past history, and more so if we contemplate their future destiny. No, Sir, we are not actuated by any prejudice against the Jewish people as a nation, or from personal objection to the respectable individual who now presents himself for admission. There cannot be a second opinion with regard to that gentleman personally. He has the respect and esteem of all who know him, and especially of those who possess his friendship. What does actuate those who oppose such admission is the full and decided conviction that a Christian assembly like this Legislature should be wholly Christian, if we expect what we pray for—the blessing of Almighty God on our exertions to properly direct the affairs of a free and Christian people. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) who so much rejoices at the House of Lords having given their consent to the admission of Jews to this House by a simple Resolution, has not made one word of objection to the Reasons which came down from that House for having rejected that clause of the Bill which permitted the Jew to take his seat in this House—which Reasons declared, in emphatic terms, that the Jew was morally unfit to sit and legislate in a Christian Legislature. I beg to express my full concurrence in those Reasons, and therefore I cannot give my vote for admitting a person whom those Reasons declare to be totally unfit for admission into this House.
§MR. NEWDEGATE I confess, Sir, I was not aware, till a few minutes ago, that this Resolution was to be proposed to-day; and having had no notice that such a course would be taken, I arrived rather hastily. It is not my intention to detain the House by any lengthened observations; but I wish to say one or two words before the Resolution is put from the Chair, in reference to the conduct of the House of Lords, which I think has been very much misunderstood. What the House of Lords have done, Sir, is this:—They have placed this matter, 2112 which affects the constitution of this House, entirely in the hands of this House, at the same time retaining the strong conviction which that noble assembly has consistently and conscientiously acted on for eleven years. They have recorded the fact that their conscientious opinion on the subject of the admission of Jews was unchanged, at the same time that they thought it quite consistent with their duty and quite consistent with the constitution of the country to cease to interfere with what concerns the composition of this House alone. I think it due to the House of Lords that their conduct should not be considered as disrespectful to this House, when they thought fit to place the constitution of the House of Commons in the hands of its Members. With regard to my own course, deprecating as I do any attempt to admit the Jews into this House, I shall continue to act on those views which have hitherto influenced me, and record my vote against the Resolution.
§MR. FOX remarked, that the well-merited acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that Baron Rothschild had never throughout the whole of this controversy attempted to contravene the law, might with equal justice have been applied generally to the body to which he belonged, for it was a principle of the Jewish religion that, wherever they might be carried away captive, or in whatever country their lot was cast, they must respect the law as established, and pray for the peace and order of the country serving as their temporary home. To that rule they had always adhered. With regard to their moral unfitness he would remind the House of Lords, and those who used that argument, that the moral law of Judaism was the moral law of Christianity. For himself he would rather that this concession had been made upon the simple and broad ground of religious toleration instead of as a matter affecting the constitutional right of the House of Commons to make rules for the admission of its own Members. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the question was not closed. It must again come under consideration upon the direct ground of religious toleration. But in the mean while it was most absurd to talk of constitutional government while Her Majesty remained the ruler of 180,000,000 of people, not one of whom was qualified to raise his voice in that House to state the grievances of his fellow-countrymen, They 2113 talked of the Christian character of the Parliament. There were two different ways of showing their Christianity. One way was by their words and oaths, the other and better way was by their deeds; and he was satisfied that, whatever their professions, they would never act up to the spirit of a Christian Legislature until they were influenced by feelings of toleration and respect for the opinions of others.
§LORD JOHN RUSSELL It is not my intention to detain the House, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has made one or two observations which seem to call for some remark on my part. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has objected to the mode in which this question has been settled by Parliament. I beg him and the House to recollect that that mode of settlement was not proposed by the advocates of the admission of Jews, by those who have rested the question upon the ground of civil and religious liberty, but by those who have hitherto been the chief opponents of the measure which has now happily proved successful. It was supposed—I know not for what reason—that it would prove more acceptable to those who still oppose the admission of Jews than any other mode that could be suggested; but, I repeat, it was not our choice, but the choice of the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made another objection. which I should be sorry to think well founded. He said that this was not the end of the question. After the discussions that this subject has under- gone—after so strong an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons as we have had during the present Session—I do trust none will hereafter attempt to deprive the Jews of the privilege which we are about to confer upon them. Undoubtedly it will be in the power of anybody to do so by moving to rescind this Resolution or by some other mode; but I trust that what we are now doing, being in conformity with the general wishes of this House as representing the country, there will be no change in the policy of Parliament upon this subject. I have nothing further to say. The right hon. Gentleman having frankly and truly acknowledged that Baron Rothschild has never attempted to infringe the law, I am hound to state, on the other hand, that those who have opposed the admission of Jews have done so from no personal or unworthy feeling, but simply in the discharge of a duty imposed upon upon them by their consciences. I rejoice 2114 at the success which has attended our efforts this question, and believe that the principle of religious liberty has made great progress.
§ Question put, That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, ‘and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.’

§ The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 37; Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E. Grey, R. W.
Akroyd, E. Hadfield, G.
Anderson, Sir J. Hamilton, L. C.
Ayrton, A. S. Hayter, rt. hon. Sir W. G.
Bagshaw, R. J. Headlam, T. E.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Henniker, Lord
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Hope, A. J. B. B.
Bass, M. T. Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Kelly, Sir F.
Bonham-Carter, J. Kinglake, A. W.
Brady, J. Langton, H. G.
Buchanan, W. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Byng, hon. G. M’Cann, J.
Calcraft, J. H. Melgund, Visct.
Calcutt, F. M. Osborne, R.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Rich, H.
Clifford, Col. Ridley, G.
Codrington, G. Roebuck, J. A.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Russell, Lord J.
Cox, W. Russell, A.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Crawford, R. W. Smith, A.
Cubitt, Mr. Alderman Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Dalglish, R. Stapleton, J.
Davey, R. Thompson, Gen.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Dillwyn, L. L. Vane, Lord H.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Duff, M. E. G. Westhead, J. P. B.
Dunbar, Sir W. White, J.
Duncombe, T. Wickham, H. W.
Dunlop, A. M. Williams, W.
Elphinstone, Sir J. Wilson, J.
Forster, C. TELLERS.
Fox, W. J. Smith, J. A.
Greer, S. M’C. Knatchbull-Hugessen.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Knatchbull, W. F.
Arbuthnott, hn. General Knightley, R.
Bernard, hon. Colonel Knox, Colonel
Blackburn, P. Manners, Lord J.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Miller, T. J.
Cairns, Sir Hugh M’C. Mills, A.
Cecil, Lord R. Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Collins, T. Newdegate, C. N.
Cooper, E. J. Nisbet, R. P.
Cross, R. A. Noel, hon. G. J.
Du Cane, C. Peel, rt. hon. General
Du Pre, C. G. Spooner, R.
East, Sir J. B. Taylor, Colonel
Egerton, W. T. Vance, J.
Fellowes, E. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Gard, R. S. Whitmore, H.
Hamilton, G. A. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Hardy, G. TELLERS.
Hodgson, W. N. Warren, S.
Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. Hotham, Lord
2115

§Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD being again come to the Table, desired to be sworn on the Old Testament, as being binding on his conscience:—Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.
§Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD was sworn accordingly, and subscribed the Oath at the Table.
Back to MINUTES.
Forward to CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

WAKE UP GERMANY!

Who runs Germany? Not Germans that’s for sure.

You have been re-educated after the second World War to believe you genocided a people which you did not. Since then, that people and others have rewritten your Constitution, coerced you into keeping your mouths shut IF you DO your homework and recognise the truth and put you away if you dare speak out.

“Je suis Charlie” = “I am Israel”.

This lady is approaching the end of her life (I hope she is around to a very ripe old age) and your government will not have the guts to arrest her and put her on trial because, then, there would be an outcry and her story would get out – the last thing they wish for.

But the truth is, yes, there is going to be a huge anniversary of “Auschwitz liberation” where the Red Army are going to be heralded as liberating a “Death Camp” which didn’t exist PLUS what is going to be ignored is the little fact, fully admitted in 2010 by the Russian state, that the Katyn Forest massacre – blamed on the Nazis by Stalin and his jewish politburo – was actually carried out BY the Red Army.

PEOPLE JUST READ AND LEARN THEIR HISTORY HOWEVER AND THEN CAST IT ASIDE AND WHEN HISTORY IS REVISED, IT IS REVISED QUIETLY WHILE MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO INTEREST. X-FACTOR IS ON THE TELLY!

You have your German economy, your BMW and Audi, Bosch and AEG, your “exacting standards” of precision in design and production and the pride which goes with it.

What’s missing is your soul. You gave that away almost 70 years ago and you’ve forgotten what it is.

A Brit! Speaking on behalf of Germany? I must be insane!

No. Not at all!

How absolutely bloody peculiar Leon! (and convenient)

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!

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!

 

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!

Katyn Forest – the truth.

WHY THE HOLOCAUST STORY IS MAINTAINED – Because there are so many, now admitted, lies which are NEVER spoken of by the British or American or Western governments regarding the reality of these massacres and who actually did them. It wasn’t Germany you see!

Germany never gassed a jew and neither did it massacre them. History is written (and obfuscated) by the victors and that is precisely what we did.

Stalin’s government was filled to the brim with jews and yet it was orders from Stalin’s government which led to this slaughter in Katyn which the Russian government tried to frame Germany for. It all came out in the end but very few British and Americans will have even heard of Katyn. They read their history books at school and watch BBC documentaries about the war and they swallow it all hook, line and sinker.

Has there ever been a Spielberg movie about Katyn? No and there never will be.

Shrunken heads, lampshades from human skin, etc etc etc. ALL of it now admitted as total shite but we still had Richard Widmark telling us it was true in Hollywood movies (jewish owned) and Spielberg keeping it going and, in amongst that, to justify the 1991 Iraqi invasion: Bush senior talking tripe (proven later) about babies being thrown out of incubators.

Why, after WW2 did the jews become “Nazi hunters” to bring them to trial for warcrimes? Yet they never went Soviet hunting and neither was there a single soviet in the Nuremburg trials (or Brit like Churchill for instance). Well the allies won didn’t they? Can’t get any simpler than that and it wasn’t in the jewish interests to bring it to their people’s attention that Russian jews massacred their own.

You see, the idea of jewish massacres and a “holocaust” was precisely what the elite jews wanted. It gave them “currency” to demand Palestine and, ultimately, Israel.

They truly are a disgusting breed in my opinion but then so are our “elites”. They truly are a different breed of human.

 

The Katyn massacre was a series of mass executions of Polish nationals carried out by the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), the Soviet secret police, in April and May 1940. Originally the term “Katyn massacre”, also known as the Katyn Forest massacre, referred to the massacre at Katyn Forest, which was discovered first and was the largest execution of this type.

The massacre was prompted by NKVD chief Lavrentiy Beria’s proposal to execute all captive members of the Polish Officer Corps, dated 5 March 1940, approved by the Soviet Politburo, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000. The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons, and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, and the rest were arrested Polish intelligentsia the Soviets deemed to be “intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests”.

The government of Nazi Germany announced the discovery of mass graves in the Katyn Forest in 1943. When the London-based Polish government-in-exile asked for an investigation by the International Red Cross, Stalin immediately severed diplomatic relations with it. The Soviet Union claimed the victims had been murdered by the Nazis in 1941, and continued to deny responsibility for the massacres until 1990, when it officially acknowledged and condemned the perpetration of the killings by the NKVD, as well as the subsequent cover-up by the Soviet government.

An investigation conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Soviet Union (1990–1991) and the Russian Federation (1991–2004) confirmed Soviet responsibility for the massacres, but refused to classify this action as a war crime or an act of genocide. The investigation was closed on the grounds that the perpetrators of the massacre were already dead, and since the Russian government would not classify the dead as victims of Stalinist repression, formal posthumous rehabilitation was deemed inapplicable.

In November 2010, the Russian State Duma approved a declaration blaming Stalin and other Soviet officials for having personally ordered the massacre

 

 

AND REMEMBER:

 

 

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT OF TODAY CANNOT CLAIM MY BEING ANTI-SEMITIC WHEN I SIMPLY POST AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH NOW RECOGNISED PLUS THE STATEMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT DURING THE WAR!

The Jew Bank of England