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:
- For a Person to exert Money Power is natural and wholesome (for “person” assume individual and that no such “Corporate Persons” exist).
- For the state to exert Money Power is unnatural and perverse.
- 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.
- Thus, man’s attitude toward the state and the state’s power over man were completely altered.
- Out of man’s motive of winning benefits from the state grew various political “ideologies” designed to screen the acquisitive purposes of their proponents.
- 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.
- Our present type of state should be identified as the monetary state and distinguished from the pre-monetary state.
- Money power exerted by the state is inescapably perverse; the monetary state is a frustrator of all aims of economic and political liberty.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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
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
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
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.
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”.
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! 🙂
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 (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:
- “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?
- 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!
- 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.
- 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!
“Jews – good business people. Good with figures!”
But their grasp of statistics is pretty shite!
Who cares? Our monthly pensions are good!
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?
And look up “The Pilgrims Society” on Wikipedia. Note who the Patron is and then look at the names associated with it. (HINT: Liz)
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.
SO much more detail I could give you to support this but I just don’t have the time to write a book.
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””.
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
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.
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.
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.
Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Bantam Books, 1948), p.48.
Ibid., pp.69, 78-79, 112.
Cohen, p.195; Gilbert, p.165.
Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988), p.342.
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
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).
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
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. 257; Cohen, pp. 266-267.
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.
Gilbert, p.257; Cohen, p.267.
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 aren’t real. They aren’t flesh and blood. And neither was this….
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!
“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!
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.
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.'”
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
§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
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!
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!
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
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!
It’s becoming somewhat of a bore listening to mouthpieces in the media and very ignorant mouthpieces at that, who perhaps have never studied politics, history and geopolitical agendas. Media mouthpieces which utter nothing except that they are told to. They possibly trawl the internet occasionally to read “crazy conspiracy theories” so that they can, in their abject ignorance and naivety of the world – in their innocence in fact but with an arrogant style of innocence because, after all, they’re in the Media! They may even be on the telly from time to time! That makes them a “player” and someone people have to take seriously – take the proverbial out of those of us who are, probably in most cases, older, wiser, experienced and have read a lot wider and deeper than they. So when we analyse an event or series of events and connect one event to another and create a far bigger picture than that they are concentrating on (and therefore, they can never quite work out what or why something happened but just report on the detail and the input – conflicting as it may be – from a slurry of “experts”) these media types can do nothing but try and protect themselves from being seen as inept, by attacking those of us who leave their powers of investigation and their knowledge base, in the dust.
Sorry if that sounds arrogant of me. But then I’m not. Why should one apologise for being somewhat more capable and intelligent than a gnat? I’ve recently come to the conclusion that I hold pretty much zero respect for most people on this god forsaken planet of ours and I believe I have pretty good reason for it. I’m just getting a little sick of the shit I see 360 degrees around me.
Anyhow, rant over. I’m sure you get the picture.
So, there’s all these people on the TV, in newspapers and the general mass of incompetent, non-thinkers with very little knowledge of history or just about anything, who will say, when faced with the possibility of the US (and perhaps other western governments, being involved in the hijacking of MH370: “Oh god! It’s a conspiracy theorist! Take off the tin-foil hat” etc etc etc etc “Explain how the hijacking of an aircraft can possibly be connected to a Trans Pacific Partnership deal and be used to destabilise a government?” delivered in their usual, smarmy, fashion. The same old shit (which is getting very old and, as I said at the beginning – a bore) repeated over and over by ignorant little twats.
Well, once upon a time you ignorant little twats (while let’s ignore the Ukraine and Benghazi etc for the moment), there was President by the name of John F Kennedy. In 1962 there was the Cuban Missile crisis, during which, to attempt the overthrow of Castro, the US Department of Defence, the CIA and the President himself, concocted “Operation Mongoose” to destabilise the Cuban government. That didn’t turn out too successful However, later on, President Nixon came along and he decided to end the use of CIA hijacking for political purposes.
Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings all over the world, an average of a little more than one per annum. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48–an annual average of about five. There was an explosive increase to 38 in 1968 and 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation. During the third 10-year period between 1968 and 1977, there were 414 hijackings–an annual average of 41.
The increase since 1958 could be attributed, in significant part, to the following factors:
First, the use by the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of inspired hijackings as a weapon of destabilisation against the Fidel Castro regime which had seized power in Cuba in January, 1959, and nationalised all plantations and other property owned by US businessmen. Note that the US government did not like the economic (“communist”) policies put in place by Castro which kept the US and its corporations, from exploiting Cuba. Pretty much an exact parallel, then, with the anti TPPA stance that the Malaysians are taking. Even Anwar Ibrahim SEEMS to be against the TPPA (but this may just be for the purposes of riding the general population’s anti TPPA feeling until he were to ever get in power (we know that strategy well through a man called Tony Blair). I’d still say Ibrahim is CIA.
The hijackers inspired or instigated by the CIA did not make any political demands as a price for releasing the aircraft and passengers. They just forced the pilot to fly to either the US naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba or to the US and sought political asylum after condemning the communist regime at a press conference arranged by the CIA. Now, what if, again as a parallel to GITMO then, our Malaysian Airlines pilot(s) – remember, connected to Anwar Ibrahim – flew not to GITMO Cuba but to Diego Garcia and asked for asylum? What happened to the other passengers and crew? I don’t know. That’s a whole other speculation but, if you’ve read Operation Northwoods, you would have noted that the drone aircraft was substituted having landed the original one. Our MH370 went quiet didn’t it? Radar lost sight of it. This is pure speculation at this point but what if it did drop to 1000 feet (and in fact to 0 feet and landed somewhere? Dropped off the passengers and then took off once more toward Diego Garcia?) Anyhow, I don’t know the detail and neither does anyone but it is not outwith the bounds of plausibility. The point is, here, I’m talking about the bigger picture as to why this event took place. It isn’t just a mystery flight and a mystery as to what happened. The amount of conflicting crap we’re being fed I have never experienced in my life before over an event such as this. We’re getting fed a mass of shit to confuse the entire picture. To keep our eye off the ball and I just so happen to think that “ball” is the TPPA issue and the destabilisation of Malaysia to get the to PLAY ball!
The CIA thus used hijacking as a psychological weapon to have the Castro regime discredited in the eyes of the Cuban people as well as of those of other Latin American countries in order to prevent an emulation of the Cuban communist model. Another CIA objective was to cause a depletion in the Cuban civil aviation fleet strength, thereby causing air transportation difficulties inside Cuba. This was the agenda behind the CIA hijackings during that time. This is not crafted fiction but fact. Why, then, would they not consider precisely the same tactics in this particular circumstance with Malaysia? They would! They repeat their tactics over and over if you ever care to read up on your history! Once you do, you can read these CIA people and governments like a book just about.
The US did not return the planes to Cuba. Instead, these were ordered to be seized by US courts as compensation for the properties of US businessmen nationalised by the Castro regime. And there you have it. The planes were not even returned to Cuba and the American justice system actually made an argument to keep them because the nationalism by Castro had affected US businessmen! Castro hand’t broken the law by changing his policies. Yet here was the US justice system (and government) saying “Well, you changed your policy – as is your right as a sovereign nation – so we’ll hijack your aircraft and keep them because of what we perceive as our loss. We’ll ignore it is illegal and immoral to hijack aircraft.
Second, the retaliatory hijackings inspired or instigated by the Cuban intelligence, involving either US or non-US aircraft carrying a large number of US nationals. Like the CIA, the Cuban intelligence used these hijackings purely as a psychological weapon to have the US discredited. So, just as it was all psychological operations (on both sides) to discredit and destabilise, during the Cuban affair, it can be (and is in my view) the same now with Malaysia.
Third, the emulation of the CIA’s covert action technique by the Taiwanese intelligence in its psychological warfare against Beijing by inspiring or instigating hijackings from the mainland to Taiwan. Again, psychological warfare between Taiwan and China – Aircraft hijackings!
All historical fact so please don’t ask me why or suggest to me that what I suggest is behind this MH370 event is “crazy” and unjustifiable and cannot be taken seriously because all you are doing, I’m afraid, is displaying your very own ignorance and naivety. Something which the mainstream media is doing day after day, either through sheer ineptitude or by design.
Now if you don’t think “Drone boy” Obama – a man happy to consider himself “good at murdering people” – the man is a jackass! Yet any other President who did what he has done out in the open never mind covertly, would be impeached and imprisoned – would not give the go-ahead to the CIA to hijack a plane, you are, again, incredibly naive.
And one final thing: What the hell do you think was the intention of 9/11? It was precisely for the same reason as the US used against Cuba – to destabilise you! And it has achieved it because the USA is rapidly going down the plughole. The events of 9/11 were NOT (no matter what your government tries to tell you) primarily to kill anyone – that was a secondary issue and they were all just seen as collateral damage. The primary, fundamental reason for 9/11 was to destabilise your nation. And it worked a dream. The sad thing is that you still don’t recognise who did it.
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski “The Grand Chessboard” 1997.
And if you cannot understand what that paragraph is explaining to you, then screw you you prat!
Fact: In 1973, the Nixon Administration ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. Cuban intelligence followed suit. That year, the two countries reached an agreement for the prosecution or return of the hijackers and the aircraft to each other’s country. The Taiwanese intelligence also followed the CIA’s example-vis-а-vis China.
Fact: In the Dymshits–Kuznetsov hijacking affair on 15 June 1970, a group of Soviet refuseniks attempted to hijack a civilian aircraft in order to escape to the West, were caught and spent many years in Soviet prisons. This case is politically distinct in the sense that the government of Israel – which strongly denounced other cases of Aircraft hijacking – endorsed this one and declared its participants to be heroes and martyrs for the Zionist cause. This was denounced as a double standard by left-wing critics such as then Knesset Member Charlie Biton.
But finally, consider this. IF, as most people think, the CIA works for the American government, then tell me: How does this work?
FOREIGN AFFAIRSHC Deb 24 May 1962 vol 660 cc699-728
Would the night hon. Gentleman comment on what I have been putting to him for several months and what is now dealt with in a message from Washington this morning, in Which we learn that the AmericanAdministration is now convinced that the Central Intelligence Agency has been up to its old devices again and must share a large part of the responsibility for the situation in Laos.The message goes on to say thatthe swarm of C.I.A. agents in Laos deliberately opposed the official American objective of trying to establish a neutral Government.Will he tell us, in view of the work which the C.I.A. has done in places where Britain has vital interests— Burma, Laos, Cuba and elsewhere— what representations we have been making to the American Government against these activities, of which the whole would has been aware?
§Mr. HeathI have told the right hon. Gentleman before that neither I nor Her Majesty’s Government can have any responsibility for the activities of the C.I.A., nor can we be expected to have knowledge of their activities. Of course, we have seen the report in The Times today reporting the views from Washington. What I do know is that the policy of the President of the United States and of the American Administration is to find a political solution to the problem of Laos to help to create a neutral Government, to support Prince Souvanna Phoutma in so doing, and bring all the pressure possible upon General Phoumi and Prince Boun Oun to take part in that tripartite Government. That is the policy of the American Administration, and I am quite certain that the Administration is doing its utmost to pursue that policy. [HON. MEMBERS: “Not the C.I.A.”] We cannot be responsible for the activities of the C.I.A.
§Mr. P. Noel-BakerWhat representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the American Government against these activities, which were being carried out by an agency under the authority of an allied Government and which were obviously endangering the peace of the world?
§Mr. HeathMy noble Friend is the Co-chairman and we, together with our allies in S.E.A.T.O., are in the closest touch, but the responsibility for this organisation rests with the American administration.
Figure that out and you’ll be on your way to understanding things a little better. From 9/11 to who actually runs the CIA.
It’s long but it truly is worth the read.
I hope you get as much a laugh out of this as I did. Well I laughed and I cried to be honest. These people are despicable, lying, deceptive bastards and it’s so clear. Corbyn, Dalyell and, yes, even Salmond know the score regarding Diego Garcia but the Crown Agents (because that is what you become when you take the seat of government – you wear two hats – Government Minister and Crown Minister) lie and evade and deceive through their teeth.
You will see, quite clearly, how the British Government (yes mine and yours) treated the Chagossians (Diego Garcia and the other island’s population). You’ll see how it just needs the UK and the US to agree a treaty and the UK buy up the land (probably at “gunpoint”) from Mauritius for a paltry £3M and then we kick out people who have lived there all their lives and then see how they fare in a land they don’t want and which doesn’t want them.
You will also pick up that Diego Garcia is also a nuclear base. Also you’ll note that the British government (Crown) just accepts whatever the Americans tell them and don’t question – because it’s not in her Majesty’s interests to question. So if the Americans simply say “We didn’t take prisoners to Diego Garcia” that’s good enough for us. Plus you will notice that DG is out of bounds for anyone but Forces personnel.
Following from that, you will recognise how Diego Garcia does not fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court – because it has no settled population! Well, it did, but they were thrown out so now it doesn’t. It just has forces. And the United States DOES NOT WANT to have a settled population because THEN it WOULD come under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction!
Do you see how, at every turn, International law is a crock of shit? Do you see how they evade it because they control what it means and what it applies to?
THAT is why we have to attack the legal system and the legal person – it is ALL a crock of utter shit!
But lastly, in among all of that, there is a wondrous beauty pointing to the global deception of what we have come to be expected to believe – Climate Change/Global Warming.
You will see there is no such thing. Either that or God has given Diego Garcia (of all places) a pass. Perhaps it’s Noah’s island?
Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands
HC Deb 21 June 2004 vol 422 cc1221-2W1221W
§Jeremy CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. 
§Mr. RammellThe US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawIn exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawThe United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman has used the words “overwhelming force” three times already. Does “overwhelming force” include the use of B61–11s? Those are the earth-penetrating nuclear weapons which, we are told, are based in the British Indian ocean territory of Diego Garcia. If there is to be overwhelming force, and if it is to involve nuclear weapons, with the B2 bombers that are based in the hangars at Diego Garcia, ought not the House of Commons to be told about it?
§Mr. AncramThe force that will be required is that which is appropriate and most effective in achieving the objective. I am certainly not going to speculate at this stage on what that force will be. Indeed, at this particular stage we need to make it clear that the United Nations resolution is the first objective to be fulfilled: only if Saddam breaches that will we consider the second option.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Mike O’BrienThe issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, “Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence”.
British Indian Ocean Territory
§Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North (Lab)I welcome the opportunity to debate what I consider to be a very serious issue. It touches on honesty in politics and in government, and it touches on issues of constitution and law and the way in which a group of people have been grievously treated by this country and, to some extent, the United States for more than 40 years.
The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra, and they inhabited an idyllic and pristine environment. Their problem was their location—the Indian ocean. The United States was eyeing it up in the 1950s and 1960s as a potential base, and subsequently decided to build what they euphemistically called a “communications facility” on the island of Diego Garcia. The communications facility turned out to be two of the longest runways that the world had seen and a base from which 4,000 US troops could operate. The base is now routinely used for the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States ‘considers it to be a crucial communications facility.
Prime Minister Wilson and President Johnson discussed the matter in the 1960s and decided to do a deal and evacuate the population of Diego Garcia to make way for the American communications facility. The Americans insisted on the evacuation of not only Diego Garcia, but the entire archipelago, despite the fact that its other islands were some distance from the putative communications facility.
The language used by the then Colonial Office was outrageous beyond belief. Simon Winchester wrote a wonderful piece on the subject in Granta magazine in which he quoted the then permanent secretary in the Colonial Office who described the population inhabiting the islands as a group of “Man Fridays” and stated that it would be simple and easy enough to move them out of the way. The deal subsequently went through and, to make ready for the American base, the British authorities proceeded to remove people from the islands. However, it was never done openly.
Only two days ago outside the Foreign Office, I met a man who was part of a demonstration there. He told me that he had left the islands in 1966 and that he was not allowed to go back, as many others were not. When they went to Mauritius or the Seychelles—mainly Mauritius—for medical treatment or education, they suddenly found that they could not go back.
When the time came for the British to remove the population in earnest, they did so —putting them on a ship, taking them to Port Louis in Mauritius and simply dumping them on the quayside. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) speaks, I am sure that he will describe the conditions that he saw when he went to Mauritius at the time. The people were dumped there in terrible destitution. To ensure that nothing was left on the islands, the British commissioner had the problem of what to do with the islanders’ domestic animals and pets. The dogs were rounded up 272WHand gassed, all the animals were killed and the islands were left empty and uninhabited to make way for the American base.
The poor islanders were forced to eke out an existence in terrible poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Ignored by everybody, they managed to survive and they never gave up two things: first, the hope, determination and desperation for the right of return; and secondly, the hope that one day, somebody, somewhere would recognise the fundamental injustice of their treatment.
Time has moved on and it is 48 years since the original and disgraceful deal was done between Wilson and Johnson, but the injustice has not gone away. I visited Mauritius a couple of years ago to meet the Chagos islanders and to see the conditions in which they live. They are very poor indeed. We have to remember, and we should remember, that the compensation that they finally won, some 15 years after the original removal from the islands had begun, was mainly eaten up by debt collectors and land agents. No one was given sufficient compensation and no one was made rich or wealthy by the process. This has been the subject of a court case that is still going on, so I cannot comment on anything more than the original facts of the case. However, it seems that the islanders were cajoled into signing what they did not believe to be a full and final settlement, and were told to accept it as such. The injustice and the poverty go on.
When I was in Mauritius, I spent a week visiting as many Chagossian families as I could. I talked to them about their lives on the Chagos Islands, when they lived there, and their lives now. They described their sustainable form of living, the type of community, religion and schools that they had and their lives in general. It was fascinating to talk to them, but one could see the hurt in their eyes at the way that they were taken from the islands and dumped on the quayside at Port Louis. Many of those families still live in desperate poverty in metal huts with outside toilets and little furniture. Although the current Mauritius Government have been kinder to them than previous ones, they are still very poor people.
Those people, however, were always going to campaign for their hope of a right of return; they would never give up. Eventually, a case was lodged in the British legal system and, in a court order of 2000, they were granted the right to return under British immigration law. It was ruled that they had the right of return. The following year, a further step forward was taken when theBritish Overseas Territories Bill was introduced in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I raised the question of the eligibility of the Chagos islanders for British citizenship, on the basis that they would be entitled to British citizenship like everyone else in overseas territories had they not been removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. To their credit, the Government accepted the thrust of our argument, and a Government amendment was tabled and accepted in Committee. Therefore, the islanders were given the right to British citizenship. There is, unfortunately, a grey area in which I hope ministerial discretion will be used to deal with the small number of those who have fallen outside the provisions of that law.
273WHThings looked quite good in 2000 and 2001, and a compensation claim was lodged to re-open the issue. In meetings we had at the Foreign Office with the Minister’s predecessor, Baroness Amos, on the right of return and the possibility of a visit, we thought that things were going very well. Indeed, in the Commons, Ministers have asserted two things. One is that there is a right to return, and the second is that there was no impediment to anyone going back at any time. Things were looking good, and we had hope, as did the islanders.
On 10 June this year, which everyone will remember as election day, staff at the Foreign Office were not out ensuring that people were voting. Instead, they were at the palace asking the Queen to sign an Order in Council. When I was told that an Order in Council had been signed, I misheard or misunderstood. I thought that it was a statutory instrument that I would be able to pray against, as I assumed other hon. Members would, so that decisions made by Ministers would be subject to some form of democratic accountability. I had to reconsider, and I spoke to Sheridans’ Richard Gifford, the excellent solicitor who has represented the Chagossians for many years. He calmly explained to me that I had misunderstood, and that an Order in Council signed by her Majesty was law. It overrides everything in which we believe about the democratic accountability of the Government.
There are two orders: one is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order and the second is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order. I shall just quote a little of one, to give the Chamber a flavour of it:Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Commissionerappointed under the constitution order—may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory”.The order then goes on to declare,without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”,that the commissioner in effect becomes the supreme Governor of everything in the territory. The order says:All laws made by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette in such manner as the Commissioner may direct. Every law made by the Commissioner under subsection (1) shall come into force on the date on which it is published”.We have handed power over to a commissioner. Never mind the fact that there were islanders living there and that several thousand people until that point had every right to live there; apparently, they now have no rights whatever. So much for the constitution order.
The immigration order was the second one passed, and I shall quote just two of its sections. Article 7 says:An immigration officer, acting in his entire discretion, may issue or renew a permit or may cancel a permit before the expiration, subject to the right of appeal provided in section 10.That is for people who wish to visit the Chagos Islands. Article 10 says:A person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer may appeal to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.274WHSo the only person to whom one can appeal if one does not agree with a decision to prevent Chagos islanders going to their own islands is a commissioner appointed specifically to control the Chagos Islands in every way for evermore.
The Minister made a written statement to the House on 10 June, although frankly it should have been an oral statement and made at a time when he could have been cross-questioned about it. At least, however, we are debating the subject here in Westminster Hall today. His statement said:Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 33WS.]I have some comments to make on that. The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands. Let us not beat about the bush: that was a disgraceful, immoral act. It is time that a Minister stood up and apologised for that act committed by the Government of the time and for the treatment of the Chagos islanders by succeeding Governments.
I was kindly given the three volumes of the feasibility study by the Foreign Office when it came out in November 2000, and it said that there were problems with water supply, periodic flooding, storms, seismic activity and so on, as the Minister points out. However, it did not say that no one could live there or that life was impossible on the islands. When pressed on the matter, the Foreign Office retreats into arguments about the potential cost of resettling the Chagos islanders. I have two points on that. First, they have a moral right to return. Secondly, would any Minister stand up in the House and say that the cost of keeping the population on Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha or the Falkland Islands was such that we were going to withdraw the entire population? They would not dare.
§Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland Islands. Has he made any comparisons between the costs that he is talking about and the amount of money spent on defending the Falkland islanders when the Argentines invaded?
§Jeremy CorbynIndeed, the costs are on two completely different scales. The costs involved in administering the Chagos Islands are very small. At the current time, all the income from fishing licences—about £50,000 a year—is taken up by administration, and other money is paid to continue that administration. Were the islands to be resettled, however, and were there to be serious discussions with the islanders about resettling them, there would be an economy on the islands. There is fishing there, and the possibility of ecotourism or copra. Quite a lot of activities could take place on the islands. However, I do not get the feeling that there is any wish, desire, hope or intention of going down that road. The whole desire is to put the issue to one side and forget about it. That is because of an American base on Diego Garcia, for 275WHwhich I suspect nothing is paid, and because the Americans have said that they do not want anyone anywhere near their base owing to security concerns.
I think that we have every right to ensure the settlement of the outer islands—at least—and that we have a right to know exactly what is happening on Diego Garcia, which is, under the terms of the colonial order, sovereign British territory. Are there any prisoners on Diego Garcia? Is it being used for the sort of vortex of American justice such as occurs in Guantanamo Bay? I am assured that it is not. I want to hear that assurance again today and it would be much better if there were an independent inspection of what is going on.
I will make only a couple more points because I want to make sure that other Members get a chance to speak. On Tuesday, a group of Chagos islanders went to the Foreign Office to demonstrate. They handed in a petition signed by a substantial number of Chagos islanders who are living in this country legally. The petition demands:
- “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
- 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
- 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
- 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
- 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
- 6. The organising of a visit to the ancestral sites in the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians living in Mauritius, Seychelles and the UK”
—and, presumably, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that that is a minimal demand. I had a response from the Minister today and I hope that he will be able to give us further positive news on the possibility of a visit and a return to it.
Mr. HopkinsIt strikes me that there is something of a parallel between what has happened to the Chagos islanders and the highland clearances in Scotland, when the rich and powerful drove the poor and weak from the land. That has scarred and informed Scottish politics ever since. Is it not significant that two of the three speakers here today are Scots?
§Mr. SalmondI am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was about to come to it. One of the first and better acts of the Scottish Parliament when it came back into existence on the mound was in a debate such as this when it apologised collectively for the historic injustice of the highland clearances. They were not the responsibility of any Scottish Parliament, but it was felt none the less by all parties in that Parliament that such an apology should be offered, and that was done by representatives of all the parties. I very much hope that the Minister will do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested and proffer some sort of apology to the few thousand Chagos islanders who deserve not just an apology but some sign that future action and policy will be different from that in the past.
The islanders won the High Court judgment in 2000, which was in the days of ethical foreign policy. I shared the hopes that were expressed earlier that at last something would be done to rectify the historical 278WHgrievance and injustice. I accepted, as I think did many islanders, that there was an American base of long standing on Diego Garcia and that it might not be possible for all the islands to be reinhabited. However, basic rights—such as the right to visit the graves of ancestors, to occupy the outer islands and to receive reasonable compensation, and the right of the duty of care that any Government and the Crown should have over these people—should have been respected as de minimis compensation for the wrongs and injustices of the past. In fact, none of that occurred, and instead the Government, in a sneaky, underhand way, passed two Orders in Council on European election day to prohibit debate, to remove what little rights had been won and to rectify loopholes in legislation that allowed the assertion of the human rights of the islanders and their descendants.
The analysis that the islands are no longer capable of sustaining occupation because of global warming must be pretty bad news for the American military base—perhaps the runway is about to disappear under water. I have an overwhelming feeling that if Mauritius could be persuaded to send just one gunboat to the outer islands to establish the Mauritian flag again in what is arguably its territory anyway, we would decide that the islands were worth reclaiming on behalf of the Crown and dispatch a taskforce to the Indian ocean.
Global warming is an interesting concept, because it conflicts rather dramatically with what is on the US navy website. In a welcoming introduction to “The Footprint of Freedom” and Camp Justice, Diego Garcia is described as a paradise on earth and it is said that one of the best stationings that any US serviceman can have is on Diego Garcia. The website states:Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island.The Minister had better explain how the Government claim to know better than many respectable outlets of the US press. The Washington Post, for example, claims that prisoners are held on Diego Garcia for “rendering” before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. How confident is the Foreign Office in the information that the US authorities have offered it on what is happening on Diego Garcia, given that the Prime Minister seems to be revising his previous confidence in judgments that he has made about the international situation? Ultimately, the Minister should accept the collective responsibility of this and previous Governments for what has been done to the islanders. An apology should be proffered, but above all there should be a change of approach and of policy by the Government, who should offer some justice and some compensation to the islanders.
It may be thought that because of indolence or lack of concern among most Members of Parliament—there are a few honourable exceptions, who are here today such an issue is of no great moment, but it is precisely such issues that are of great political moment, because no member of the public could hear and understand what has happened to the islanders without having an overwhelming sense of injustice. If the Government cannot rectify the wrongs of the past for these few thousand people, what hope is there for their having any moral compass on the great issues of the day? Unless the Government are prepared to act and rectify the wrongs of the past, they are, in a moral sense, every bit as homeless as the islanders of Diego Garcia.
Let none of us suppose that there is a complete lack of interest in this country on this issue. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had the opportunity to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was in company in Scotland. However, I subsequently heard, not only in university circles but more widely, that it was an important question. Indeed, some people went so far as to observe that it was the most sensible question asked of the Prime Minister for some weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has inspired an important debate, but perhaps it comes 40 years too late. It was in 1964 that the Government began misdescribing the long-settled population as transitory workers in order to mislead the world into thinking that they had no obligations to that population. My clear recollection is that I raised the subject with the then Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker. Frankly, having been defeated at Smethwick and about to be defeated at Leyton, his mind was on other things. A later Foreign Secretary was George Brown. When the general problem of the British Indian Ocean Territory was raised with him, he told me, in colourful language, to mind my own business. Perhaps I was not as tough then as subsequently, but George Brown was a formidable operator in his heyday. I raised the subject on the prompting of the late Sir Ashley Miles, the biological secretary of the Royal Society. It was his concern about the Indian ocean that first raised my acute interest.
Article 73 of the United Nations casts a “sacred trust” on a sovereign power to promote the welfare and advancement of the people, but the Government surreptitiously deported the islanders and misled the world about their status. At the United Nations on 16 November 1965, the British representative Mr. F.D.W. Brown, acting on the instructions of the Foreign Office, misdescribed the islands asuninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population aslabourers from Mauritius and Seychellesand misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had beenfreely worked out with the…elected representatives of the people concerned”.Instead, they bought the plantations, closed them down, forced the people to leave on boats, which incidentally were horribly overcrowded, and led them to exile, where they still remain. Their lives have been a tragedy of misery, poverty and despair, the only alleviation of which has been the heartfelt desire to return to their homeland, where their villages and ancestors lie.
In 1969, on my return from Australia, I stopped in Mauritius to stay the night with the former general secretary of the Labour party, Len Williams. Harold Wilson had wanted him out of Transport house and made him Governor-General of Mauritius. His wife Margaret Williams was a very intelligent and nice lady, and she decided that I should spend a morning with some Ilois people. It made a strong impression on me.
What is remarkable is that in the same speech by Mr. Brown representing the Foreign Office, he described the wishes of the Falkland islanders, whose 280WHrepresentatives were consulted. Here we return to a previous intervention and a proper comparison with the Falkland islanders, of whom Mr. Brown said:It has been suggested that this population is somehow irrelevant and that it has no claim to have its wishes taken into account …it would surely be fantastic to maintain that only indigenous inhabitants have any rights in the Country”.He then quoted Woodrow Wilson from 1918:Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game”.Within months, the Chagos Islands had been given to the United States and the destruction of the islanders’ homes and lives was soon to follow.
These days, we are all too familiar with conducting foreign policy on the basis of false or misleading facts. The historical record now revealed by the islanders’ legal struggle has after 30 years shown that a small and vulnerable population of British subjects can safely be written out of the history book on the pretext that they are not really a population at all. There is nothing new in deceiving the world while acting in breach of civilised standards of international and constitutional law. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his powerful speech.
When the islanders finally won their struggle to return in the High Court in November 2000, Lord Justice Laws stated:The people are to be governed, not removed.He also stated that the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was an “abject legal failure”, which hadno colour of lawful authority.That is not my view but that of a distinguished Law Lord.
We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), accepted the Court’s judgment and said:I have decided to accept the Court’s ruling and the Government will not be appealing.The work we are doing on the feasibility of resettlement of Ilois now takes on a new importance. We started feasibility work a year ago and are now well under way with phase two of the study.Furthermore, we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which allows Ilois to return to the outer islands while observing our treaty obligations.The Government has not defended what was done or said 30 years ago. As Lord Justice Laws recognised, we made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened”.History is repeating itself with the same moral turpitude. This time, given that the islanders had already been promised that the Government’s policy was to move towards their resettlement on the islands, the new banishment is a cruel change to what has already been offered. Moreover, the reasons given are again based on inaccurate and misleading information.
The Foreign Office press statement claimed that it was the feasibility study that prevented resettlement. I am glad that this Minister is replying to the debate, and I thank him for his personal courtesy in seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and me in the Foreign Office. He cited a conclusion, supposedly made by the consultants in their executive summary, that the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to 281WHbe prohibitive. However, that was not based on any work of the consultants, whose terms of reference precluded any consideration of cost. Even if he had read only the executive summary, he would know from page 3 that the consultants reported:This report has not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”.I feel entitled to ask where the conclusion came from. It was certainly not from the consultants.
The Minister further stated thathuman interference within the Atolls…is likely to exacerbate the stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effect of global warming.However, other things might accelerate global warming.Thus”,he continued,resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time”.Again, that judgment was not based on the work of the consultants, who stated in volume 3, paragraph 8.3:At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands.The Minister’s conclusion had crept in from somewhere else.
Finally, it is impossible to take seriously the suggestion that only a resettled population will face difficulties. Are we really to believe that the 64 islands offered back to the islanders by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, are going to sink under the waves, while the one island occupied by the Americans is to provide defence facilities for generations to come? It is the biggest military base outside the continental United States.
Only yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley referred to the shameful treatment to which the islanders were subjected:The deliberate misinterpretation of Ilois history and status, designed to deflect any investigation by the United Nations, the use of legal powers designed for the governance of the islands for the illicit purpose of depopulating them, the consequent uprooting of scores of families from the only way of life and means of subsistence that they knew, the failure to make anything like adequate provision for their resettlement, all of this and more is now part of the historical record.Moreover, he went so far as to compare those removals with the highland clearances of the second quarter of the 19th century. He stated:Defence may have replaced agricultural improvement as the reason, but the pauperisation and the expulsion of the weak in the interests of the powerful is the same. It gives little to be proud of.Now there has been a cruel new blow to this mistreated population. Their hopes, which were raised by this Government, have been dashed. Nothing in this game of cat and mouse is any less culpable than the lies and inhumanity that characterised the removal of the population.
It is not, however, too late to render justice. The right of the islanders to return to their homeland should now be recognised, and proper scientific studies should be undertaken, with proper, independent input from respected scientists whose conclusions ought to be binding on the Government.
I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to the debate. I am relatively new to this subject, but when I read the press reports a few weeks ago I could not believe that the Government, whom I so strongly support, are taking this action. I know the Minister to be a good man, and I cannot believe that his sleep is not a little troubled due to these problems.
The test of any Government, or any man or woman, is how they deal wit h injustices felt by powerless people. I urge the Minister to make a stand on this issue; if there are forces beyond his office, outside or within the Foreign Office, that are urging this course of action, I urge him to take a stand. I have looked at the press release—that is all we can go on as to the reasons why we are taking this action. I could see four: the risk of flooding; the precarious nature of life for any people who return; the effect on the delicate marine and terrestrial life caused by people who return; and the cost.
With regard to the risk of flooding, I have consulted one or two experts on the level of the land there, and a lot of it is higher than that in East Anglia. We know about flooding in my constituency of Selby, and if we accepted the argument on flooding that the Government are using, half of my constituency would be depopulated. Some outlying islands were inhabited in the past, and some were based on banks that were shifting in storms. There were tall copra trees on the islands and the inhabitants had worked out a mode of living—growing copra successfully, and in some cases raising huts on stills. The argument does not seem overwhelming to me.
We have talked about the precarious nature of the life that would face any islanders who returned to the outer islands. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was rather restrained and understated in quoting the American publicity about the islands. I shall detain the Chamber for a moment to give a little more flavour of what the US navy says about Diego Garcia in its message to its recruits. It says that Diego Garcia boastsunbelievable recreational facilities and exquisite natural beautyas well as “outstanding” living conditions. There is no mention of the threat of imminent demise from flooding. In fact, I understand that the US is seeking to extend the lease on its base, which would expire in 2016, so it is thinking long term. There is a windsurfers club, a yacht club, an annual Miss Diego Garcia competition, regular picnics to what the US describes as some of the best unspoiled beaches in the world, fishing, snorkelling and a beauty parlour. It does not sound that precarious to me.
As for the delicate marine and terrestrial life, the impact of the 1,500 US personnel, the British personnel, the 2,000 civilian contractors and the various military equipment must be at least as worrying, if it is the major concern, as the effect of some islanders returning to the outer islands.
The cost of returning is obviously a serious matter. From a preliminary scan of the literature, it is very difficult to work out whether any payment has ever been made by the US Government for the use of the island.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate and on setting out in stark terms a dark chapter in our history and the impact it has had on the Chagos islanders. Other Members have dwelt at length on the history of what has happened, but I want to focus on the immediate past, the present and the future.
On resettlement, the Government statement of 15 June, which banned all rights of return of the Chagos people to their homeland, relied in part for its justification on the findings of the June 2002 feasibility study on the resettlement of the islands. Several hon. Members have referred to that and I want to highlight a couple of points.
That report concluded that the resettlement of the islanders would be prohibitively expensive and precarious to their safety. The Minister will be aware that Jonathan Jenness, who is a resettlement expert, carried out an independent review of that study. He examined the claims that the Government-inspired report made and it is clear that the Government’s consultants were not given the task of assessing the financial costs and benefits of resettlement. The Department for International Development has not carried out, or received, any estimate of costs of the resettlement of the islands. I would be interested to know whether any Department has such figures.
On the safety of the environment, the review conducted by Mr. Jenness found that the Chagos Islands have a “benign environment” and that no available material can assess the possible consequences of global warming. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the Minister must explain why a micro 284WHclimate exists in Diego Garcia, which ensures that it is safe from global warming, whereas the rest of the islands are under threat.
On resettlement in general, the review of the study—undertaken by Mr. Jenness—says thatit is fatuous to imagine that the islands cannot be resettled…they were settled, successfully for several generations”.Of course, Diego Garcia is successfully settled by the Americans and the BIOT administration. What assessment have the Government conducted of the review by Jonathan Jenness? Can they make any such assessment public, so that we can see how they responded to the valid points he made? I hope the Minister can say whether any discussions took place between the UK and the US Governments on these matters in the run-up to the decision that was taken on 15 June?
On compensation, to which other hon. Members have referred, it is clear that the level provided was insufficient and that when the Chagos islanders entered into the arrangement that we are discussing it was not made clear to them precisely what they were signing up to.
On visitation rights, the Minister must say why the security concerns are so great that people are not, for instance, allowed to return to visit graves. Before I turn to the issue of Camp Justice, I will discuss the report in today’s papers that Mauritius may sue for Diego Garcia. Perhaps he can say also what discussions have taken place with the Mauritian Prime Minister on that subject. How many times has the UK been taken to the International Court of Justice—that is what is being proposed? Has the Prime Minister replied to Mr. Berenger’s letter? I understand that he is very angry not to have received a response. Can we have assurances from the Minister that the Government will not retaliate and perhaps take it out on the Mauritian Government in relation to subsidies that they receive for sugar?
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow)I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about the affront to democracy. I shall set an example by making a speech which is much shorter than 10 minutes. It is in the form of a question, and it is apposite that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence should be answering this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have been much involved in the case of the Chagos islanders. Their lawyers told us of a problem with the Ilois returning to Diego Garcia because of the building of six huge temperature-controlled hangars. We were asked what we would do to protest to the Government about that. We asked what the hangars were for. Apparently they are for B52 bombers and, particularly, B2 bombers that have to be repaired and maintained in a particular temperature. Why does one have B2 bombers? It is particularly to carry earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, specifically the B61–11.
My question, which I hope will be addressed in the reply, is this: we are talking about a British base, the British Indian Ocean Territory, of which Diego Garcia is a part and which is a House of Commons responsibility. The House of Commons should be told if nuclear weapons, albeit tactical, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy bunkers—one can understand why the American air force may wish to have this particular weapon in relation to Iraq—are to be launched from British soil, with or without agreement by the United States air force. We should be told in the winding-up speech tonight.
First, the issue is not about human rights in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary made great play of them and the dossier covers them. We need no persuading that Saddam Hussein’s regime is about the most evil in the world today. It has committed atrocities on a scale unseen almost anywhere else, but that does not justify armed intervention 52in Iraq. If I may say so, it is something of a red herring. The debate is about something wider, more important and of greater application to the world outside Iraq.
Secondly, there can be no controversy about the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed, and is continuing to develop apace, weapons of mass destruction. The dossier, which puts forward the evidence in a calm and measured way, makes the case conclusively. Surely that can no longer be a matter of dispute.
Thirdly, does Saddam having and developing such weapons amount to a threat sufficient in immediacy and gravity to justify armed military intervention, even as a last resort? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in a powerful, lucid and cogent speech—I am afraid that I did not agree with much of it—the threat issue is a matter of judgment. Everyone has to make their judgment about the gravity and immediacy of that threat.
We must look at other countries that have developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and ask ourselves what it is that distinguishes Iraq from, for example, India, Pakistan or even Iran. The answer is that there is clear evidence from the history of the Saddam Hussein regime that it is fundamentally an aggressive regime. He has developed these weapons, not as an instrument of deterrence to deter attacks on Iraq, but as weapons of aggression. In the past 20 years, the regime has twice invaded its neighbours. On a number of occasions, it has launched ballistic missiles against neighbouring states. It is not a regime under external threat that has developed these weapons to create a mutual deterrence, as is the case with India and Pakistan—regrettably, perhaps, but one can understand the reason for them doing so. Those considerations do not apply to Iraq.
In my judgment, this threat is clear, serious and present enough to justify decisive intervention by the international community in whatever shape that takes to enforce a disarmament of the regime.
My fourth point is about the threat to the stability of the middle east and was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and others. We should be very clear about this: the greatest threat to the stability of the middle east is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the actual attacks that he has mounted against his neighbours in the past 20 years, the fact that he consistently sponsors suicide attacks by Palestinians helps to prevent the peace process that we all yearn to be restarted from resuming. It is hard to see how the successful disarming and removal of Saddam Hussein can do anything other than contribute to the stability of the middle east.
Of course, the same concerns were expressed before the Gulf war, 12 years ago, but in fact the successful conclusion of the Gulf war was the trigger for the start of the Oslo process—
Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community……
In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.