Earthling

The Chinese legal person: The Ferengi

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by Earthling on March 11, 2014

The use of the word “farang” in Asia, is normally in relation to a foreign, western man/woman and is, somewhat regarded as a put down.

However, I have written before about how Star Trek mirrors the U.N. principles in many ways through the “United Federation of Planets” so much so that it uses the olive wreath that is also used by the U.N.

United Nations Flag

United Nations Flag

StarTrek_UnitedFederationofPlanets_freedesktopwallpaper_1600Now, I know this is something obvious which people have picked up on. Nothing new. But, I was “wandering” around JSTOR and I found a number of things regarding the “Legal Person” which I will be sharing with you over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope. All quite enlightening and will tend to shut up those who think this legal person issue is just some sort of “conspiracy theory” on the part of people who just don’t wish to pay their way in society (when the reality is, it is quite the opposite).

Farang (Thai: ฝรั่ง [faràŋ]) is a generic Thai word for someone of European ancestry, no matter where they may come from. Edmund Roberts, US envoy in 1833, defined the term as “Frank (or European).” People of African ancestry may be called Thai: ฝรั่งดำ farang dam (‘black farang’) to distinguish them from white people. This began during the Vietnam War, when the United States military maintained bases in Thailand.

It is generally believed that the word farang originated with the Persian word farang (فرنگ) or farangī (فرنگی), meaning “Frank, European”. This in turn comes from the Old French word franc, meaning “Frank“, a West Germanic tribe that became the biggest political power in Western Europe during the early Middle Ages, and from which France derives its name. Because the Frankish Empire ruled Western Europe for centuries, the word “Frank” became deeply associated with Latins who professed the Roman Catholic faith by Eastern Europeans and Middle Easterners.

According to Rashid al-din Fazl Allâh, farang comes from the Arabic word afranj. in Ethiopia faranji means white/European people In either case the original word was pronounced paranki (പറങ്കി) in Malayalamparangiar in Tamil, and entered Khmer as barang and Malay as ferenggi.

The following is taken from the American journal of comparative law. I will publish page 1 for today because there are approximately 37 pages which need to be uploaded as jpegs.

Ch legal 1

So, “faren”, in other words, meant a strange concept to the chinese – that strange concept applying to each and every one of us who lived under that concept in the “west”. However, since 1979, this concept of “legal person” has become normal within the new chinese civil law system. Now why would that be? Why would it be adopted?

China's new civil law

Well, it becomes apparent that there were forces (wealthy people) probably within China and certainly outside of China, who wished to open China up to direct foreign investment but China’s existing legal framework of law did not allow it to happen and, structurally and fundamentally, this was due to the fact that the west based their law upon a concept known as the “Legal Person” whereas China did not. Somehow, the two different systems of law had to “married up” and it looks like it was China who acquiesced to the western system to enable it.

China's legal framework for foreign investment

So, once more, it is readily apparent that the entire global legal system is created and maintained for the purposes of economics and world trade. It has very little, in actual fact, to do with what we know of as “Human Rights” because, as I’m sure you are aware by now, there is no such thing as “Human Rights” but only “Legal rights” – if you can call such “Rights”.

“The Legal Person in China: Essence and Limits” makes for interesting reading and I have every intention of posting the full 37 pages over the coming days.

Meanwhile, to crystalize what was happening in the run up to 1979 re US and China, here’s a little more detail:

Rock China 1

Rock china 2

Rock 3

Office of the historian US china

US China chronology 1

 

 

By the way, do you like what the US and UN did to Taiwan in 1971? “Stuff you Taiwan, you no longer have a seat in the United Nations. We’re handing you over to China from now on. We’ve got bigger fish to fry than you, you minnow!” And that about sums up International law for you! An economy to exploit!

US China chronolgy 2

Kissinger starts the ball rolling and Brzezinski finishes it off. Two sides of the fence working together for the same goal over the course of a decade.

And finally, we come full circle once again to the United Nations:

Taken from Rockefeller Foundation’s own documents –

Rock UN

Please note that the Rockefeller Foundation is a family owned, NGO which pays zero tax and it has funded, by way of a CONDITIONAL “gift”, $8.5Million (in 1946 dollars) to the UN to purchase the site of the UN building.

While the Rockefeller family, to this day, are fully involved in the United Nations – the world’s source, essentially, of International law.

Scotland’s “Crown”: Solid proof the Queen runs the show!

Posted in Political History, Politics by Earthling on March 8, 2014
HC Deb 10 February 1998 vol 306 cc185-201185

§Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 18, line 11, leave out from `be’ to end of line 13 and insert `elected by the members of the Parliament’.

§The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 254, in page 18, leave out lines 19 to 27.

No. 313, in clause 43, page 18, line 36, leave out ‘or’.

No. 275, in page 18, line 38, at end insert ‘or— 

  1. (e) the First Minister being admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, becoming subject to a guardianship order or having a curator bonis appointed on his estate’.

No. 76, in clause 44, page 19, line 9, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 276, in page 19, line 10, after ‘appoint’, insert `up to a total of ten’. No. 277, in page 19, leave out lines 11 and 12.

No. 87, in page 19, line 11, leave out `seek Her Majesty’s approval for’ and insert ‘make’.

No. 88, in page 19, leave out line 14.

No. 89, in clause 46, page 19, line 32, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 75, in page 19, line 35, at end insert— ‘(2A) The First Minister shall not make any appointment under this section without the agreement of the Parliament.’. 186No. 90, in page 19, leave out line 37.

§Mr. CanavanI shall speak to amendment No. 44 and the other amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 75 are substantive and the others are consequential.

Amendment No. 44 proposes that the First Minister should be elected by Members of the Scottish Parliament rather than being appointed by the Queen and holding office at Her Majesty’s pleasure. As the First Minister will be primus in paribus, or first among equals, it is more appropriate that he or she is elected by his or her parliamentary colleagues than appointed by the Crown.

In the early stages of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, members of the convention signed a document referring to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. It seems to me that the concepts of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and of the sovereignty of a monarch are mutually exclusive. (Yes, indeed they are!) The amendments propose that, if the First Minister is not directly elected by the people of Scotland, he or she should be elected by the people’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament.

I dare say that Opposition Members, and perhaps the Minister, will argue that the role of the monarchy is a mere formality in respect of the governance of the country or the countries that used to be part of the British empire. However, not all that long ago a Labour Prime Minister was ousted from his job in Australia because of the interference of the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative. (And I have previously written about Gough Whitlam, the Australian PM and how all of it came about via the Queen’s mafia. Glad to see confirmation of it once more in parliament)

In 1974, there were two general elections, and the first resulted in a hung parliament. No party had an overall majority in Parliament, and Harold Wilson was the leader of the party with the largest number of Members. However, the Queen did not call Harold Wilson to the palace. In fact, she called the defeated Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), to the palace and asked him to cobble up some kind of coalition agreement with Jeremy Thorpe, the then leader of the Liberal party. There was a long hiatus in which, in effect, there was no Government. Harold Wilson, who was the leader of the biggest party, had to wait in the wings until he was called to the palace to form a Government.

§Mr. WallaceI am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and I am sure that he would not want there to be any inaccuracy. He will also agree that Jeremy Thorpe and his Liberal colleagues showed good sense by not supporting Edward Heath. Is not the point that Edward Heath had the advantage of incumbency—

§The ChairmanOrder. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is referring to a right hon. Member. (and paedophile)

§Mr. WallaceI apologise, Sir Alan. I was speaking from a sense of history, as I was just a boy at the time. It was actually my first vote.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was the incumbent Prime Minister at the time, so it was not a matter of the Queen sending for him. He had to tender his resignation. I am sure that even the 187hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have thought it an abuse if the sovereign had summoned the Prime Minister and demanded his resignation.

§Mr. CanavanThat is exactly what the Queen should have done after the February 1974 general election. Whatever the will of the British people, as expressed at the ballot box, it was quite clear that they no longer wanted the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to be their Prime Minister. The Queen should have summoned him to the palace and sacked him and then called Harold Wilson, but for reasons best known to herself, she did not do that. Sometimes I wonder about the so-called neutral role of the monarchy in respect of politics. (Do you really or are you just gently making the point?)

§Ms Roseanna CunninghamThe hon. Gentleman will know that I am very much in favour of reducing the work load of the monarch—preferably to zero. I was interested to hear the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I do not know whether he knows what happened in Australia, but in contradiction to his point about 1974—which may be true, but I do not know as I was not here at the time—when the Australian Labour Government were sacked and a general election was called, the Liberals, or the Tories, were appointed in the interim and therefore were in government throughout the election. That is an interesting point as it illustrates the other side of the coin from that referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the monarch’s neutrality, which remains to be proved. (How is it, if we live in a true, free, open democratic country, that even our MPs and Lords question and do not know the exact position of our constitutional monarchy who, we are told, has no power?)

§Mr. CanavanI am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention as it shows the inconsistency of the monarchy or its representatives when they take a role in the running of Governments or Parliaments.

We have to bear in mind too that, if the political pundits are correct, there will be a much greater probability of a hung Parliament in the Scottish Parliament because of the system of proportional representation. The amendments would minimise—in fact remove—the possibility of any interference by the monarchy as to who should be the First Minister and form the Government.

My amendments Nos. 76 and 75 propose that Parliament’s agreement should be required in appointing not only the First Minister but other Ministers and that there should be no role for the monarchy in appointing other Ministers or junior Ministers.

Another anomaly in the Bill is that, under clause 46, the First Minister would require Parliament’s agreement before seeking the Crown’s approval of the appointment of a Minister, whereas the First Minister could appoint junior Ministers without seeking Parliament’s approval. I think that that would be a bad thing and that all ministerial appointments should be subject to Parliament’s approval. A Scottish Parliament should not simply ape the patronage system of this place, where the power of patronage is widely open to abuse. As I had started to say, the Crown is the very pinnacle of the patronage system, although in practice the Prime Minister exercises many of those powers.

We have witnessed many examples—and are perhaps witnessing current examples—of appointments that are made without any reference to Parliament or much democratic accountability. We must remember that the 188First Minister of Scotland will have tremendous patronage powers, because, presumably, he or she will inherit all the patronage powers currently held by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for hundreds of public appointments across Scotland. We are talking not about the appointment of a mere coterie of Scottish Cabinet members and junior Ministers but about patronage over hundreds of public positions across Scotland. (So what this is saying is that, once Alex is in, he has total control of who he appoints to ensure he has all his buddies surrounding him to fully support his exploitation of Scotland and become a very very rich little fat bastard. With the Queen’s acceptance that is)

We should make the First Minister and the First Minister’s ministerial colleagues as accountable as possible to the people of Scotland through elected representatives.

§Mr. SalmondI am very sympathetic to many of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, it seems that clause 43 is something of an advance on the current situation at Westminster, where someone is to be called to the palace—presumably the head of the leading party in the general election. The clause states that the Scottish Parliament will nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister. That seems to go part of the way towards achieving the more satisfactory situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, and away from the process of mystification that we could have in this place if there were a hung Parliament.

§Mr. CanavanI agree that the Bill proposes a ministerial appointment system that is better than our current system at Westminster, where Ministers can be appointed without any reference to Parliament. We once had a rule in the parliamentary Labour party that, if someone was an elected member of the shadow Cabinet, he or she would automatically become a Cabinet member when Labour was elected to government. In at least two cases that I know of, that did not happen after 1 May. Furthermore, I know of at least one Minister whose appointment might not have been accepted had it required parliamentary approval. [HON. MEMBERS: “Name him.”] I forget his constituency, but I believe that he has something to do with the millennium dome.[Interruption.] Yes, he is the Minister for the dome.

§Mr. SalmondIs the hon. Gentleman’s bleeper going off?

§Mr. CanavanI have it switched off.

As I said, the two concepts of sovereignty of the people and sovereignty of the monarch are mutually exclusive. If we really believe in sovereignty of the people, Members of the Scottish Parliament should—as proposed—be elected by the people and accountable to the people. Similarly, Ministers should be elected by the elected representatives of the people. In that way, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Executive would be more accountable to the people of Scotland.

(Notice, at this point, Alex Salmond keeps his powder dry and says nothing in response to this statement by Canavan. Now why do you think that would be? It’s because he is not going to agree to sovereignty of the people when he knows he must retain sovereignty for the Crown and Queen)
6.15 pm

§Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—who said that Labour Members are clones—was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It is nice to know that he still shops for his speeches at Republicans—’R—Us, adding a bit of colour to the Labour Benches. (Liam Fox: Zionist ass licker of her majesty and liar who used depleted uranium against Libya)

189I shall speak to amendment No. 275, which deals with the important issue of the mental health of Members of Parliament, which is not a laughing matter but a serious issue that is important both for Members of Parliament and for the protection of their electorate—to ensure that representation of the electorate is maintained.

§Mr. McLeishJust for the record, is present company excepted from the deliberations?

§Dr. FoxThe Minister is asking me to give a professional opinion, which I do not think I want to stray into right now.

I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the Mental Health Act 1983 has special provisions for section orders for Members of Parliament. Should, for example, an hon. Member fall ill with a mental health problem, a complex procedure will come into play. First, the doctor signing a section order or the person who is in charge of the hospital where the Member is detained will notify the Speaker. Secondly, the Speaker will appoint someone from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to look after the Member. If that Member is still detained under a section order after six months, the seat will become vacant.

I do not know why there should be such a provision for hon. Members in this place, but not for those in the Scottish Parliament. I think that Ministers have simply overlooked the matter, and I look forward to the Minister bringing the Scottish Parliament into line on that point. It is quite a serious and important matter, which should not be belittled.

§Dr. Lynda ClarkCould the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee of the number of occasions when that provision has been used?

§Dr. FoxI do not think that it matters whether it has been used: the provision is there to protect the electorate should a Member of Parliament be absent for six months and unable to represent his or her constituents. One would hope that the provision would never have to be used and that hon. Members do not suffer in that way, but it is there to protect the electorate. It is, therefore, important.

In tabling amendment No. 276, we wanted to examine a different aspect of the Bill. Our amendment would limit the size of the Scottish Executive. “Erskine May”, for example, limits the Prime Minister’s freedom of manoeuvre in establishing the number of places in his Cabinet, yet this Bill places no limitation on the size of the Scottish Executive. The Bill provides for an unspecified number of Ministers plus an unspecified number of junior Ministers. The Scottish Office is currently run by the Secretary of State and five Ministers. One would not wish a situation to arise—which has occurred elsewhere—in which the number of Ministers was increased simply to keep Members quiet, by appointing more of them as Ministers. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West dealt with the matter of patronage in his speech.

When I was at the Foreign Office—although I do not suggest that it might happen in the Scottish Parliament—one of the Governments whom I dealt with was the Government of Nepal. As the coalition Government started to crumble, one side of the Parliament consisted of 130 Members, of whom 85 were Ministers. I see the hon. Member for Falkirk, West smiling—perhaps because 190he foresees the possible bonanza. However, it will happen only at the taxpayers’ expense. If we are to avoid “jobs for the boys” gibes, we shall have to ensure that we are not writing a blank cheque for Members of the Scottish Parliament or giving unlimited powers of patronage to the First Minister.

§Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus)Not content with limiting the powers of a Scottish Parliament, the Tories want to limit the number of Scottish Ministers to fewer than those in a football team—and for ever more. Surely the size and shape of the Scottish Cabinet is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It is again clear that the Tories have no trust or faith in the Scottish people or their democracy. (Nothing to do with trust in the scottish people. It is to do with there being no trust in politicians by another politician because he knows what a bunch of corrupt gits look like because he is one. Neither are YOU saying that such a call would be made by the scottish people themselves but by the scottish government ministers, so we’re back to square one asshole!)

§Dr. FoxQuite the reverse—the issue is about having less faith in politicians than in the people. (Hah! I hadn’t even read this before I made the above comment! How about that?! :-))‘t are concerned with the ability of politicians to rein themselves in when offered a blank cheque. We have tabled the amendments from the point of view of protecting the electorate from politicians. (This is Liam Fox saying this! How do these people say what they say without going red in the face? How about protecting us from you then you corrupt bastard!) When the people of Scotland voted in large numbers in favour of the proposals in the referendum, I do not think that they ever wanted to give such a blank cheque to the Parliament or for there to be an unspecified number of Ministers.

Given that in this House Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister, and that the First Minister will have to have the Scottish Parliament’s approval, it would be excessive to stipulate that all Ministers had to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. To introduce an American style of approval of Ministers, such as that welcomed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, would be excessive control over the First Minister’s freedom. Such control does not apply in Westminster, and the case has not been made for it to apply in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

Now we get into the “meat” of it all…..

§Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The amendments would delete the following phrases: appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”, with the approval of Her Majesty”—in clauses 44 and 46— seek Her Majesty’s approval”, and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”. in clauses 44 and 46.

I would not want the group of amendments to be represented as an attack on either Her Majesty or the monarchy. That would be a misreading of the intent behind them. It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and I hold certain views about the legitimacy of an hereditary institution exercising what should be democratic power in a democratic society. I for one have never understood those who argue for modernising the British constitution and who speak about sweeping away powers of hereditary peers, while at the same time talking about entrenching the powers of an hereditary monarch. (No mate, neither do I nor many of us)

191 I very much take to heart my hon. Friend’s arguments, particularly those on the 1974 election and what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia. (Now, you SNP supporters out there: If you do not understand what happened in this case, for one, then you have no idea what this has to do with Scottish “independence” do you? And why you NEED to know!) The future role of the monarchy is not at the heart of the amendments. The amendments focus on the Scottish Parliament’s right democratically to elect Ministers who will hold office in the Scottish Government after 1999.

The Bill technically says that the First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at Her Majesty’s approval. We know that that is a constitutional fiction. We know that the Queen will not in fact appoint anybody in the Scottish Parliament. She will do so only on the advice of the British Prime Minister and the British Cabinet of the day. (as you will see, this isn’t actually true and he may well have been playing “Devil’s advocate” here. On the face of it, she “takes advice” but she already tells her ministers what “advice” she wishes to take and they simply then tell her majesty what she wishes to hear) We are really talking about the right of the United Kingdom Government and Cabinet to appoint the First Minister, other Ministers and junior Ministers in a Scottish Parliament. Without the approval of the UK Cabinet, that could not go ahead—otherwise, the provision would not be in the Bill. Even the right to hold office is contingent on the continuing approval of the British Government and Cabinet.

There is danger in such a system. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said in an earlier debate that we cannot always assume that the British Cabinet will be in sympathy with the Scottish Parliament and necessarily want it to stand on its own feet, as the Minister would like.

§Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument most closely. He seems to be making a case for a separate Scottish Head of State. If that is so, why is he sitting on the Government Benches and not with the Scottish nationalists? (Interesting comment because, as you are aware, the SNP as “Scottish nationalists” do not make the case for a separate Head of state do they? At least not a change of who that Head of state is!)

§Mr. McAllionI do not think that I have referred to the Head of State. My opinion on the Head of State—which I presume the hon. Gentleman seriously wants to hear, or he would not have asked—is that the Queen could do a lot worse than put herself forward for a referendum to endorse whether she should be the Head of State. The legitimacy of the Queen’s role will always be questioned as long as she does not subject herself to the consent of the people.

If I were a monarchist—which I am not—I would be arguing for the Queen to call a referendum on her role in the British constitution. If, in such a referendum, she received the endorsement of a huge majority, as everybody says she would, I am sure that that would improve her situation. Others of us would also like a referendum so that we could vote for the kind of Head of State we wanted. It is not a matter of treason to want a democratically elected Head of State—although, judging from the Tories’ comments, it would sometimes seem so.

The heart of the problem is the relationship between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. All the phrases—which the amendments would delete—mean this: the Scottish Parliament would be allowed to appoint its own Ministers only so long as they met with the approval of the Westminster Parliament and Government. That lies at the heart of my objections.

§Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)I think that the clauses about which the hon. Gentleman is complaining mean the complete opposite of what he is saying. The very reason why it is stipulated that the Scottish First 192Minister will hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure is that that asserts absolutely and categorically that he has a direct link with the sovereign, which cannot be overridden by the United Kingdom Prime Minister in devolved matters. That is an essential protection under our present constitutional arrangements. (Question: Why does he need the link? ;-))

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman is arguing as if the Queen had real constitutional powers. (Yes he is, because she does as is becoming obvious with every word) We have always been told that, of course, she does not have any real powers, because all constitutional power is exercised on the advice of the British Prime Minister. She would not dare to do anything on her own that a British Prime Minister would not allow her to do. (Of course not because that would give the game away. So, with the PM being a Crown Minister also, he keeps Her Majesty’s secrets, one of which is that he “advises” her rather than the reality which is she tells him what it is she wants him to advise her of! She gets rid of PMs she doesn’t like! Gough Whitlam being just one. I would posit that Maggie Thatcher was another due to her “No!” stance on Europe) Now, all of a sudden, the argument is very different. The hon. Gentleman is saying, “Yes, the Queen does have constitutional powers.” He is agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, who is concerned about the powers that an unelected monarchy exercises in the British constitution. I am increasingly concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s tone and the way in which the argument is developing. (You know precisely what the “Crown” is mate so don’t play silly buggers!)

§Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the implications of what he is saying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested, it matters not whether in practical terms the Head of State uses the power, but it matters from where the power is derived. The practical exercise of power and the source of power are two quite different things. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clauses. (No they are not two different things. Only power can exercise power. The PM exercises that power delegated to him/her. This was a bullshit statement and transparent)

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman, who goes to Scotland on holiday only occasionally, also totally misunderstands the situation. I will tell him where the source of the power of appointment in a Scottish Parliament is. It is the people who elect that Scottish Parliament. There is no need for any reference to the United Kingdom Government, Cabinet or heir to the Head of State. A Scottish Parliament will be democratically legitimate because it will be elected by the Scottish people; it should be allowed freely to appoint its Ministers. That is the bottom line for those of us who agree with the Claim of Right and who believe that sovereignty rests with the people and not with the institution in Westminster. (He’s right in his ideology but totally naive! Or, again, is he just playing a game here? Feigning ignorance?)

Worse than that, throughout the debates, there has been a tension between the UK Parliament wanting to keep control and a leash on what the Scottish Parliament might do, and those of us who want the Scottish Parliament to get on with the job of governing Scotland’s domestic affairs free from interference, control and any dependence on the British Parliament.

§Dr. FoxBut the logic of that position is to move to independence, not devolution. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a separate Scottish Parliament. (Never Liam! Very observant of you!)

§Mr. McAllionThe Tories have a blanket approach to this debate. They envisage only two possibilities: either there is a toy town Parliament that is under the control of the British Parliament, or there is independence. They say that time and again, but they are wrong. There is a middle position, in which sovereignty is shared between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament does not need to seek anyone’s approval for 193the appointment of Ministers—it has the approval of the Scottish people, which is all the sovereignty that is required. That is not to argue for independence. (Notice the word “sovereignty” in all of this and notice he makes the point that there is a difference between the words “sovereignty” and “independence”. This is why I ask Scottish nationalists what it is they want? You see, I have no interest in “Independence”. I want sovereignty! Yet, many nationalists can’t understand what I’m saying so they lambast me for being a unionist! Yet the reality is that I am WAY more “nationalist” than they are!)

Earlier, we debated whether, if the Scottish Parliament broke down and did not work, that would lead to independence or whether it would benefit the Tories and lead us back to a United Kingdom unitary state. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond): if the Scottish Parliament is a success, it will greatly increase the confidence among the Scottish people. Yes, the Scottish Parliament will argue for more and more powers to be devolved to it—there is nothing wrong with that. The real wreckers of the Scottish Parliament, who are sitting on the official Opposition Benches, do not want the Scottish Parliament to work, so they want the Bill to contain all these various control mechanisms.

6.30 pm

I have great sympathy with the idea that the number of Ministers should be restricted, not only in the Scottish Parliament but in this Parliament. The example of Nepal was cited, where of 130 Members 85 are Ministers. Everyone who is not a Minister wants to be one, so the Executive have complete control over the legislature, much as they have in this Parliament. As a point of principle, I want the Executive to be limited, but not to 10. I want a series of Departments to be set up under the Scottish Parliament, each with its own Minister, so that there are separate Departments for housing, health and local government. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on the number of Ministers and whether that number should be limited.

There is much to be said for Bank Benchers having the power to hold the Executive to account. Any Parliament that is worth its salt has to have a number of independent Back Benchers. The trouble with the Westminster Parliament is that there are not enough independent Back Benchers—the Executive tightly control the Back Benchers, which is the wrong way round. We could easily ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets things the right way round, but that will not happen if we check and limit its powers to get on with its own business.

The aim of the amendments is simple. It is for the Scottish Parliament—not for Westminster, the monarch of the United Kingdom state or anyone else—to decide who the Ministers are in the Government of the day in Scotland, as the Scottish Parliament alone will be elected by the Scottish people to fulfil that task.

§Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)There is only one Liberal Democrat amendment in this group. It is a tidying-up amendment that relates to amendment No. 275, which was tabled by the Conservatives. We fully support that amendment, as it deals with the important issue of the mental health of the First Minister. There is a risk that the First Minister will suffer from megalomania. We already have a Secretary of State who single-handedly decides where the Parliament should be, so there is no knowing what may happen when power goes to people’s heads in the Scottish Parliament and they are corrupted, as all people in power always are. By the law of averages, Conservative Members must sometimes be right—on this occasion, we believe that they have a good point.

We do not agree with the two other points that Conservative Members have made. First, we do not see why there should be a limit on the number of Ministers 194in the Scottish Cabinet. The Scottish Parliament may decide to operate totally differently from Westminster—for example, there may be a flat structure rather than one that includes Secretaries of State and junior Ministers. It should have the scope to approach matters in a modern way and to organise its affairs as it wishes. The electorate will soon respond if there are jobs for the boys and girls, and will punish those responsible. Things can be left to the good sense not of the politicians, but of the electorate. (That’s what the US Constitution framers thought! Look what’s happened there! Are these people for real?)

Secondly, the Conservatives have moved against what we believe is one of the Bill’s best proposals—the introduction of the concept, which is new to Britain, that Parliament must approve all the Ministers. That is a great step towards democracy, and it is a pity that the Conservatives want to remove it.

I shall now deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Falkirk and for Dundee, East and West respectively, I think, although I never remember—

§Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)There is a subtle difference.

§Mr. GorrieThe difference is not so subtle.

The hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are two of the most refreshing hon. Members, and we have the greatest sympathy with the angle from which they are coming. On this occasion, however, although we understand their argument, we do not agree with it. We believe that the matter is covered in clause 43(1), which states: the Parliament shall within the period allowed nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister”. That makes it clear that the Parliament chooses the First Minister. As I said, it also has the power to approve the Ministers.

There is a good argument for continuing to mention the Queen in this context. People may feel that there should be a different constitutional structure, but that is a debate for another day. Under the existing structure, the fact that the Queen has the same relationship to the Scottish premier as she does to the British premier gives legitimacy and status to the Scottish Parliament. It demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament is not a toy town Parliament, a parish council, a regional council or a city chambers—it is a Parliament with a direct relationship to the Queen. (Note: ONLY legitimacy IF a direct relationship with the Queen!)

The language may be archaic, but the point at issue is sound—the Scottish Parliament should choose the First Minister. The Parliament will meet to elect the First Minister; he or she will not have to drive in a horse and carriage across the road to Holyrood palace, although the Queen will do whatever she usually does and bless the premier, perhaps—I do not know, as I have never been present at such an occasion.

Clause 47 deals with civil servants. Liberal Democrats strongly believe that a new atmosphere should be created, in which the civil servants are responsible to the Parliament and do not work for the Government only. This is not the appropriate time to ensure that that happens, but when the Parliament’s methods of operation and Standing Orders are considered, we shall push strongly in that direction. Civil servants should continue 195to advise Ministers, but they should also give information to and have much more open discussions with Members from all parties in the Scottish Parliament.

§Mr. DalyellGiven the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), I have a sneaking suspicion that he has read the first leader in this morning’s The Scotsman.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question. If there is a conflict of opinion over a United Kingdom reserved matter, whose advice will the Queen take? Will she take the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament or that of the Prime Minister of the UK? If the matter is a devolved one, will the Queen take the advice of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? Furthermore, if the matter is devolved but the UK Parliament is legislating under clause 27(7), whose advice will the Queen take—that of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? (And here you have the strongest of evidence of the Queen’s ultimate power: The two PM’s -or, in this case, at the time, the PM of Great Britain and the First Minister of Scotland – have to COMPETE regarding who’s advice the Queen ultimately takes. It shows, then that it is not the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen today which the queen just accepts in some form of acquiescence, but she CHOOSES which advice she wishes to take. That is, after all, what makes her and her Crown “SOVEREIGN”. No-one dictates to her, it is quite the opposite. If she decides on one of their “advices” then the other has to take it on the chin. SHE is the decision maker! And it is the decision maker who wields the power! Just as in the case of a board meeting with the CEO – the Directors can make their pitches and give their advice but once that CEO decides, that’s it. The Directors do his bidding or else)

§Mr. GrieveI broadly welcome clause 42. Its purpose is to emphasise the importance of the First Minister’s role and his direct relationship with the sovereign. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does not like the principles underlying that but, as has properly been said, unless there is a change in our constitutional arrangements, it will be wise to observe constitutional conventions, so as to ensure a good working relationship between Westminster and Edinburgh and to secure the status of the Edinburgh Parliament. The First Minister should be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at her pleasure; that will be an important constitutional safeguard, which will be to the advantage of the Scots.

In tabling amendment No. 254, my concern was that, although clause 42 (1) to (3) properly sets out the First Minister’s role, subsections (4) and (5) go off the boil and refer to a curious hybrid entity. Subsection (4) mentions a person designated by the Presiding Officer in circumstances where, I infer, the Parliament has not nominated someone for appointment. I do not want to get involved in an exercise in semantics, but as the Secretary of State and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution are here, I ask them to consider carefully whether clause 42 is properly drafted. The references in it to the designation “by the Presiding Officer” of a First Minister ad interim, while Parliament makes up its mind, would be better transferred to clause 43.

Clause 42 should define simply and neatly what the First Minister is supposed to do. Some other part of the Bill should emphasise what the designated First Minister is supposed to be. I assume that he or she is to be the person appointed to stand in for the First Minister if the office is vacant, and so is supposed to have all the powers, rights and obligations that the First Minister has. If that is the case, it would be sensible not to leave the wording in this hybrid condition. The legislation should make it clear that we are talking about a First Minister ad interim, who holds office at Her Majesty’s pleasure exactly as any other Minister would do. As that is a non-party political issue, will the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution look into it?

In conclusion, there has been some discussion of the role of the advice given by the First Minister and by the Prime Minister in the event of conflict—a matter 196raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is obvious that that is a real live issue. In defining the role of the First Minister, it is important that his status should be emphasised and that his direct position as the adviser of the Queen on matters relating to devolved issues should be at the forefront. In so far as clause 42 does not do so, I ask the Minister to look at it again and consider whether there should be some rejigging along the lines I have suggested in amendment No. 254 and the associated amendment, No. 255, which has not been selected because it relates to clause 43.

§Mr. SalmondI am surprised that there was not more enthusiasm from the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for limiting the number of Ministers. If the Minister of the dome has any say in the appointments, I suspect that neither of those hon. Gentlemen is knocking at the door of ministerial office at present. Indeed, if the Minister of the dome has anything to do with it, the public gallery is the nearest that they may get to the Scottish Parliament. We all hope that that will not be the case and that more democratic processes will be allowed to be carried forward. However, we should be grateful to those two hon. Gentlemen for enabling us to have an important debate.

Tory Members should not misunderstand the position that has been put forward in the amendments. It is not an attack on the monarchy, or the Queen as Head of State, but an attack on one aspect of the royal prerogative, particularly as it applies to the choice of Ministers. That is a legitimate argument. If the amendments were successful, the Queen would remain Head of State, but one aspect of the royal prerogative as regards the appointment of Ministers in a Scottish Parliament would have been removed.

Certainly, it is difficult to argue with the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West that the position of the First Minister, and indeed other Ministers, should depend on the approval and appointment of the Scottish Parliament as opposed to an aspect of the royal prerogative.

6.45 pm

We heard a fascinating interchange between the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Dundee, East. The latter argued that because the Queen normally takes advice from her first Minister, the Prime Minister, and therefore exercises the functions of the royal prerogative on the advice of that person, it could be a dangerous intervention in the ability of a Scottish Parliament to choose its own Ministers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield says that the clause is some form of entrenchment because it would give the First Minister of a Scottish Parliament a direct line to the head of state and therefore would put that person as a Prime Minister inter pares with the United Kingdom Prime Minister in terms of the relationship with their Head of State.

The interchange was fascinating and not one to which I had paid close attention before this debate. (Bloody lying toad. He’d have given every thought to it. He’s playing ignorant) The question has to be resolved one way or the other and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution would do the Committee a service if he could adjudicate and tell us whether the interpretation of the hon. Member for 197Beaconsfield or that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was correct. The logic of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is impeccable in the amendments and I am sympathetic to them, but that issue, which determines in practical terms the position of the Scottish Parliament and its standing with regard to the sovereign and her advisers, needs to be clarified.

Finally and briefly, Conservative Members seemed concerned about protecting the people from the Scottish Parliament, but many people in Scotland voted for that Parliament to protect them from the Conservative party. (Because they’re ignorant enough Alex, to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than work on a real workable solution to both of you) The need to box in the Scottish Parliament’s powers, as opposed to leaving them for the Standing Orders of a Scottish Parliament, betrays an underlying attitude that is not reconciled to the reality of that Scottish Parliament. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, although perhaps not some of the Back Benchers, are still in a process of denial as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. They may not like hearing this, but the Conservative recovery will not start until that process of denial in Westminster comes to an end.

§Mr. McLeishFirst, on the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about mental health issues, I have consulted the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who is a neuro-surgeon, but he did not want to offer any suggestions to the Committee at this point. However, he suggested that the Scots are slightly better at differentiating between those who have a mental health problem and those who do not. I shall leave that as a question for the Committee. (haha! Cracking. Talk about a put down!) Interestingly, paragraph 9 of schedule 7 amends the Mental Health Act 1983, so the procedures to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred will apply in a modified way to the Scottish Parliament. I will touch on some of the more serious issues when I refer to the amendments.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who made a point about this—I do not know whether it was a slip—the Bill provides no role for the United Kingdom Government in the selection of the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and junior Ministers, so there is no locus for this Parliament or this Government in that regard. I do not know whether that was his point.

§Mr. McAllionCan my hon. Friend make clear the distinction to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred? If the Scottish Parliament chooses a First Minister and proffers that choice to the Queen for appointment, but the advice of the British Prime Minister is not to accept the choice, whose advice would the Queen follow? (So. Repeated. And the fact that she chooses who to follow is the proof of her power. If, as the government continuously wishes to tell us, she must follow the advice of her Prime Minister, then how could it possibly be that a PM would end up putting himself in the position where he has competition? Logic, my friends, logic! They give the entire game away with this debate.)

§Mr. McLeishThe British Prime Minister would have no locus in that appointment.

§Mr. McAllionMy hon. Friend is clearly stating that the Queen would take the side of the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the Bill, against the British Prime Minister. Therefore, the British Prime Minister does not exercise sovereign control over the affairs of this country. (Absolutely correct! BINGO!)

§Mr. McLeishThe Scottish Parliament would approve the appointment of the First Minister. The Presiding Officer would submit that appointment to the Queen and that would be it. We are talking about a substantial 198devolution of power and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. Devolution means devolution. It will be up to the Scottish Parliament to approve the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and the junior Ministers. Of course, those appointments will then be approved by the Queen. It is straightforward and there are no complications.

§Mr. DalyellI will not ask my hon. Friend for an answer off the top of his head, but will he write to me, because this question is not as simple as he makes out? Clause 27(7) states: This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland. In the light of that, I think that my hon. Friend should give me a considered answer in a letter.

§Mr. McLeishI shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend, but we should make it clear that clause 27(7), and the debate on it, is about sovereignty and the ability of the Westminster Parliament to make laws in any area, devolved or reserved. This evening, we are talking about the First Minister, and I repeat that he or she will be selected by the Parliament after the election and the choice will be passed to the Queen by the Presiding Officer. That is the process.

§Mr. SalmondThe point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is wrong, because it relates to legislation, not to appointments. However, is it not correct that, under clause 27(7), the UK Parliament could legislate to change the method of appointing the Scottish First Minister?

§Mr. McLeishWe have debated the issue and points have been exchanged across the Committee; the view taken depends on one’s political perspective. We have made the point that this measure devolves substantial powers to Scotland—it is about devolution, not separation or independence.

The Government cannot agree to amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 87 to 90, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East. The amendments would remove the involvement of Her Majesty in the appointment of the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers appointed under clause 44 and junior Ministers appointed under clause 46.

The Scottish Ministers, headed by the First Minister and assisted by the junior Scottish Ministers, will exercise, on behalf of Her Majesty, her prerogative and other executive functions in relation to devolved matters. (They are DELEGATED her power. It is exercised on BEHALF of her. It is not THEIR power) They will, in effect, be Her Majesty’s Government in Scotland (not a scottish sovereign government. Not even under independence with the Queen as Head of state) in relation to devolved matters. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the Queen should appoint the First Minister; that she should approve the appointment of other Ministers and junior Ministers to the Scottish administration; and that each of those appointees should hold office at her pleasure.

The involvement of Her Majesty does not, of course, exclude the involvement of the Parliament. On the contrary, in line with the White Paper, the Bill provides a significant role for the Scottish Parliament in the appointment of the Scottish Executive. It is a point worth making that in this place, Ministers are not approved or, selected by the House, but the Scottish First Minister and the other Scottish Ministers will be approved and voted on by the Scottish Parliament.

199That is a significant step forward in the scrutiny of the Executive. It starts at the foundation: the people will have spoken in electing Members of the Scottish Parliament who then, for the first time and unlike here, will have the ability to influence who represents the people of Scotland in ministerial posts. The significance of that step should not be lost on the Committee this evening. We see no need to amend the Bill in the way proposed, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West withdraw the amendment.

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West and for Dundee, East in support of amendment No. 75. The nature of the post of junior Scottish Minister will differ from that of a member of the Scottish Executive. The nature of their task will be to assist the Scottish Ministers in the exercise of their functions. With that in mind, the Bill proposes a simpler mechanism for their appointment. Nevertheless, I am also aware that the Scottish Constitutional Convention recommended that all Ministers should require to be confirmed by simple majority of the full Parliament.

I am therefore happy to accept the intention behind amendment No. 75 that the Parliament should be involved in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers. I therefore undertake to bring forward an appropriate Government amendment on Report. With that undertaking, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West not to press the amendment.

The Government cannot agree to amendment No. 254. The provisions in the Bill are intended to ensure that there is always someone able to perform the functions of the First Minister and act as head of the Scottish Administration. In practice, it is expected that each First Minister will hold office until replaced by his or her successor. However, circumstances could arise where the post falls vacant, for example on the death of the First Minister or if the First Minister is temporarily unable to act—that may fall partly into the definition proposed by the hon. Member for Woodspring. In such an event, a caretaker can be appointed to fulfil the role, pending the nomination and appointment of a new First Minister.

§Mr. GrieveI understand that point, but the clause as it stands conveys the impression—it may be no more than an impression—that the person who is acting is somehow a different animal from the First Minister, whereas my understanding is that an acting First Minister would still hold office at the Queen’s pleasure and have all the First Minister’s powers. That is the point that is opaque in the clause as it stands.

§Mr. McLeishThat is a reasonable reflection, but I must get on and cover some more of the points raised in the debate.

The mechanism for appointment of such a caretaker reflects the exceptional and transitory nature of the appointment. It lacks the formalities of the appointment of the First Minister precisely so as to avoid conveying the impression that the person is the First Minister rather than a temporary incumbent. On balance, the Government believe that the arrangements should be kept as simple as possible. The Presiding Officer is well placed to be able 200to judge which Member of the Scottish Parliament has the capacity and political credibility to fulfil that important role and I believe that it should be left to the Presiding Officer’s discretion.

The Government do not accept amendments Nos. 276 and 277. Amendment No. 276 would restrict the number of Scottish Ministers whom the First Minister can appoint. It would be inappropriate to do that, for a variety of reasons. The First Minister will have to seek the agreement of the Scottish Parliament; therefore, within the group of 129 MSPs, there is accountability and a chance to make a judgment on the number of Scottish Ministers. The Parliament will be able to withhold its approval if it thinks that there are too many nominations. In addition, through its control of salaries and allowances, the Parliament will be able to limit to a reasonable sum the expenditure on ministerial salaries.

There is a feeling on both sides of the Committee that the matter should be left to the Parliament. It is a question of maturity and of adopting a sensible perspective. Ultimately, the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament will be accountable to the people of Scotland for their actions. That will, in our view, provide the proper means of ensuring that the size of the membership of the Scottish Executive is truly appropriate.

§Dr. FoxWe are missing a great opportunity. Such a self-denying ordinance would have sent a signal to the Scottish electorate that a blank cheque is not being handed over. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment, but we shall press it to a Division.

§Mr. McLeishThe Committee is not offering a blank cheque to anyone. We are setting up a mature, serious and responsible Parliament, and it will be up to the Members of that Parliament to decide what Ministers are required to carry out the functions and represent the interests of the Scottish people. That is appropriate and proper. We do not share the Opposition’s concerns, and I hope that they will not press the amendment.

The Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 275 and 313, which are both unnecessary and inappropriate. The circumstances described are unlikely to arise in practice, and if they did, there are mechanisms in the Bill to deal with the problem. If at any time it appeared to the Presiding Officer that the First Minister was unable to act for whatever reason, including mental illness, it would be open to him or her under clause 42(4) to designate an MSP to exercise the functions of the First Minister.

Should it become clear that the First Minister’s inability to carry out his functions was not going to be merely temporary, he would be expected to resign. In the unlikely event of his being unwilling to resign, the Scottish Parliament could effectively remove him and his Executive through a vote of no confidence. That would require the First Minister to resign and would, in turn, lead to the appointment of a new First Minister. That may seem a drastic course of action, but the likely political reality is that there would be a general recognition of the need to address the problem and the Parliament could act to ensure that the matter was resolved without delay. In any case, I submit that clauses 42(4) and 43 provide a serious process to deal with a potential problem. First, there is a temporary acceptance and accommodation of the fact that the First Minister is unable to do the job; then there is a proper procedure to repair the situation.

201The Government cannot accept amendment No. 278, which would remove from the First Minister some valuable flexibility to tailor the structure of the Scottish Administration to the demands upon it. In view of the time, I shall now sit down.

§Mr. CanavanThis is a somewhat historic occasion, as it has been many years since I last tabled an amendment that was accepted in principle by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that. I am pleased that the appointment of all Scottish Ministers, whether the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers or junior Ministers, will be subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced of the arguments for the role of the monarchy in the appointment of Ministers, but I shall not press that point. I shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 44 at the end of the debate and I look forward to the Government tabling an amendment similar to my amendment No. 75 on Report.

§Mr. WallaceJunior Ministers will not be members of the Scottish Executive under the terms of clause 41. Will the Minister explain why?

§Mr. McLeishThe simple answer is that we shall have the First Minister and the Scottish Ministers, and we hope that the junior Ministers will have a supportive role in the work carried out by the other Ministers.

§Mr. CanavanI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to 
Forward to 

Jewkraine 3: Planned decades ago

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Political History, Politics by Earthling on March 4, 2014

Late 2002 Viktor Yushchenko (Our Ukraine), Oleksandr Moroz (Socialist Party of Ukraine), Petro Symonenko (Communist Party of Ukraine) and Yulia Tymoshenko (Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc) issued a joint statement concerning “the beginning of a state revolution in Ukraine”.

From the “New York Times” March 9th 2007:
In five short years, the man in line to be the fifth Baron Rothschild is close to becoming a billionaire through a web of private equity investments in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and most significant, his partnership stake in Atticus Capital, the fast-growing $14 billion hedge fund.
 
The ascent of Mr. Rothschild is a vivid illustration of how the still glittering, if somewhat faded, prestige and wealth of Europe’s most storied banking family has been reinvigorated from bold bets in this era’s new-money investment vehicles.
 
Like his forebears, he prefers that his influence remain unseen.
 
Mr. Rothschild is a principal adviser to Oleg Deripaska, one of the richest oligarchs in Russia and the owner of the aluminum giant Rusal, which recently merged with two other companies to create the world’s largest aluminum company. Mr. Rothschild received no public credit despite having played a crucial role in getting the deal done.
 
And like a true Rothschild he has a taste for the good life: as an avid skier, his principal residence is in Klosters, Switzerland, and he uses his Gulfstream jet to shuttle among his other homes in Paris, Moscow, London, New York and Greece.
 
But he is also a man of contradictions: he dates supermodels and actresses, sits on an advisory board of the Brookings Institution, a research organization in Washington, and serves his guests the best wines from the Rothschild vineyards, which he himself will not drink.
Please bear in mind that the Brookings Institute is the top of the tree – Number 1 – worldwide “Think Tank” as shown in a previous blogpost regarding “Think Tanks”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/business/09rothschild.html?ref=rothschildfamily&_r=0

GEORGE SOROS IS a Hungarian Jew. Soros was born in Budapest in 1930 as Gyorgy Schwartz. When young Gyorgy Schwartz enrolled in the London School of Economics in 1947 he changed his surname to Soros. In 1956 Soros settled in NYC. George Soros then built his multi-billionaire international hedge fund called the Quantum Fund.Geroge Soros is known for saving George Bush Jr from a 1990 bankruptcy. Soros still works with Bush Sr in the Carlyle Group a powerful financial organization & international weapons dealer controlled by the Rothschilds. Take note of the Carlyle Group.

Russia expelled the Open Society Institute at the end of 2003Recently, George Soros played an important role in the change of governments, especially in central and eastern Europe. He was particularly active in Poland, where he was, at the same time, friend of General Jaruselski and of the main official patron of the Solidarnoc (Solidarity) trade union, the Polish Bronislaw Geremek, who is currently member of the ICG administrative council. He was also very active in Hungary, his native country.It is highly probable that he also engaged in the preparation of the “Velvet Revolution” in the Czech Republic, an action that culminated with Vaclav Havel as President. He repeated the same model in Serbia to defeat Slobodan Milosevic and, recently, in Georgia against Edouard Shevarnardze. Every time he has been served and supported by Otpor-style youth organizations. He has been accused of stirring popular disturbances in Ukraine and Belarus. In order to put an end to his intervention in Russia, authorities have resorted to the pretext that the rent was not paid to expel the Open Society Institute some days after Mijaíl Khodorkovsky was detained under complot suspicions.

 

THE GRAND CHESSBOARD

Now let’s turn to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” which, I have said for years now, is the “blueprint” for western/zionist moves to destabilise the world for exploitation by the western oligarchy (with help from their Eastern jewish oligarchical pals).

Page 46:

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chess- board, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an inde- pendent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predom- inantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitat- ing conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would

also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly inde- pendent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine’s loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe 

Page 47:

Almost as much as in the case of Ukraine, the future of Azerbaijan and Cen- tral Asia is also crucial in defining what Russia might or might not become. 

Page 52:

To what extent should Russia be helped economically—which inevitably strength- ens Russia politically and militarily—and to what extent should the newly independent states be simultaneously assisted in the de- fense and consolidation of their independence? Can Russia be both powerful and a democracy at the same time? If it becomes powerful again, will it not seek to regain its lost imperial domain, and can it then be both an empire and a democracy?

U.S. policy toward the vital geopolitical pivots of Ukraine and Azerbaijan cannot skirt that issue, and America thus faces a diffi- cult dilemma regarding tactical balance and strategic purpose. In- ternal Russian recovery is essential to Russia’s democratization and eventual Europeanization. But any recovery of its imperial po- tential would be inimical to both of these objectives. Moreover, it is over this issue that differences could develop between America and some European states, especially as the EU and NATO expand. Should Russia be considered a candidate for eventual membership in either structure? And what then about Ukraine? The costs of the exclusion of Russia could be high—creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in the Russian mindset—but the results of dilution of ei- ther the EU or NATO could also be quite destabilizing. 

Pages 57/58:

Europe also serves as the springboard for the progressive ex- pansion of democracy deeper into Eurasia. Europe’s expansion eastward would consolidate the democratic victory of the 1990s. It would match on the political and economic plane the essential civ- ilizational scope of Europe—what has been called the Petrine Eu- rope—as denned by Europe’s ancient and common religious heritage, derived from Western-rite Christianity. Such a Europe once existed, long before the age of nationalism and even longer before the recent division of Europe into its American- and Soviet- dominated halves. Such a larger Europe would be able to exercise a magnetic attraction on the states located even farther east, building a network of ties with Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, draw- ing them into increasingly binding cooperation while proselytizing common democratic principles. Eventually, such a Europe could become one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored larger Eurasian structure of security and cooperation. 

Page 72:

Neither France nor Germany is sufficiently strong to con- struct Europe on its own or to resolve with Russia the ambiguities inherent in the definition of Europe’s geographic scope. That re- quires energetic, focused, and determined American involvement, particularly with the Germans, in defining Europe’s scope and hence also in coping with such sensitive—especially to Russia—issues as the eventual status within the European system of the Baltic republics andUkraine. 

Page 84:

Accordingly, the process of widening Europe and enlarging the transatlantic security system is likely to move forward by deliber- ate stages. Assuming sustained American and Western European commitment, a speculative but cautiously realistic timetable for these stages might be the following:

1. By 1999, the first new Central European members will have been admitted into NATO, though their entry into the EU will probably not happen before 2002 or 2003.

2. Inthemeantime,theEUwillinitiateaccessiontalkswiththe Baltic republics, and NATO will likewise begin to move for- ward on the issue of their membership as well as Roma- nia’s, with their accession likely to be completed by 2005. At some point in this stage, the other Balkan states may likewise become eligible.

3. Accession by the Baltic states might prompt Sweden and Finland also to consider NATO membership.

4. Somewhere between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, especially if in the meantime the country has made significant progress in its domestic reforms and has succeeded in becoming more evidently identified as a Central European country, should become ready for serious negotiations with both the EU and NATO. 

Pages 92/93:

Most troubling of all was the loss of Ukraine. The appearance of an independent Ukrainian state not only challenged all Russians to rethink the nature of their own political and ethnic identity, but it represented a vital geopolitical setback for the Russian state. The repudiation of more than three hundred years of Russian imperial history meant the loss of a potentially rich industrial and agricul- tural economy and of 52 million people ethnically and religiously sufficiently close to the Russians to make Russia into a truly large and confident imperial state. Ukraine’s independence also de- prived Russia of its dominant position on the Black Sea, where Odessa had served as Russia’s vital gateway to trade with the Mediterranean and the world beyond.

The loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, for it drastically limited Russia’s geostrategic options. Even without the Baltic states and Poland, a Russia that retained control over Ukraine could still seek to be the leader of an assertive Eurasian empire, in which Moscow could dominate the non-Slavs in the South and Southeast of the former Soviet Union. But without Ukraine and its 52 million fellow Slavs, any attempt by Moscow to rebuild the Eurasian empire was likely to leave Russia entangled alone in pro- tracted conflicts with the nationally and religiously aroused non- Slavs, the war with Chechnya perhaps simply being the first example. Moreover, given Russia’s declining birthrate and the ex- plosive birthrate among the Central Asians, any new Eurasian en- tity based purely on Russian power, without Ukraine, would inevitably become less European and more Asiatic with each pass- ing year.

The loss of Ukraine was not only geopolitically pivotal but also geopoiitically catalytic. It was Ukrainian actions—the Ukrainian declaration of independence in December 1991, its insistence in the critical negotiations in Bela Vezha that the Soviet Union should be replaced by a looser Commonwealth of Independent States, and especially the sudden coup-like imposition of Ukrainian command over the Soviet army units stationed on Ukrainian soil—that pre- vented the CIS from becoming merely a new name for a more con- federal USSR. Ukraine’s political self-determination stunned Moscow and set an example that the other Soviet republics, though initially more timidly, then followed. 

Pages 95/96:

This staggering new reality was bound to affect the Russian sense of security in its Far Eastern region as well as Russian inter- ests in Central Asia. Before long, this development might even over- shadow the geopolitical importance of Russia’s loss of Ukraine. Its strategic implications were well expressed by Vladimir Lukin, Russia’s first post-Communist ambassador to the United States and later the chairman of the Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee:

In the past, Russia saw itself as being ahead of Asia, though lag- ging behind Europe. But since then, Asia has developed much faster. . . . we find ourselves to be not so much between “mod- ern Europe” and “backward Asia” but rather occupying some strange middle space between two “Europes.” 

Page 104:

In this regard, Ukraine was critical. The growing American incli- nation, especially by 1994, to assign a high priority to American- Ukrainian relations and to help Ukraine sustain its new national freedom was viewed by many in Moscow—even by its “westerniz- ers”—as a policy directed at the vital Russian interest in eventu- ally bringing Ukraine back into the common fold. That Ukraine will eventually somehow be “reintegrated” remains an article of faith among many members of the Russian political elite.5 As a result, Russia’s geopolitical and historical questioning of Ukraine’s sepa- rate status collided head-on with the American view that an imper- ial Russia could not be a democratic Russia. 

Page 113:

Ukraine’s determination to preserve its independence was en- couraged by external support. Although initially the West, espe- cially the United States, had been tardy in recognizing the geopolitical importance of a separate Ukrainian state, by the mid- 1990s both America and Germany had become strong backers of Kiev’s separate identity. In July 1996, the U.S. secretary of defense declared, “I cannot overestimate the importance of Ukraine as an independent country to the security and stability of all of Europe,” while in September, the German chancellor—notwithstanding his strong support for President Yeltsin—went even further in declar- ing that “Ukraine’s firm place in Europe can no longer be chal- lenged by anyone … No one will be able any more to dispute Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity.” American policy makers also came to describe the American-Ukrainian relationship

as “a strategic partnership,” deliberately invoking the same phrase used to describe the American-Russian relationship.

Without Ukraine, as already noted, an imperial restoration based either on the CIS or on Eurasianism was not a viable option. An empire without Ukraine would eventually mean a Russia that would become more “Asianized” and more remote from Europe. Moreover, Eurasianism was also not especially appealing to the newly independent Central Asians, few of whom were eager for a new union with Moscow. Uzbekistan became particularly assertive in supporting Ukraine’s objections to any elevation of the CIS into

a supranational entity and in opposing the Russian initiatives de- signed to enhance the CIS. 

Page 121:

Most important, however, is Ukraine. As the EU and NATO ex- pand, Ukraine will eventually be in the position to choose whether it wishes to be part of either organization. It is likely that, in order to reinforce its separate status, Ukraine will wish to join both, once they border upon it and once its own internal transformation be- gins to qualify it for membership. Although that will take time, it is not too early for the West—while further enhancing its economic and security ties with Kiev—to begin pointing to the decade 2005-2015 as a reasonable time frame for the initiation of Ukraine’s progressive inclusion, thereby reducing the risk that the Ukrainians may fear that Europe’s expansion will halt on the Polish- Ukrainian border. 

Page 122:

The key point to bear in mind is that Russia cannot be in Eu- rope without Ukraine also being in Europe, whereas Ukraine can be in Europe without Russia being in Europe. Assuming that Russia decides to cast its lot with Europe, it follows that ultimately it is in Russia’s own interest that Ukraine be included in the expanding European structures. Indeed, Ukraine’s relationship to Europe could be the turning point for Russia itself. But that also means that the defining moment for Russia’s relationship to Europe is still some time off—”defining” in the sense that Ukraine’s choice in fa- vor of Europe will bring to a head Russia’s decision regarding the next phase of its history: either to be a part of Europe as well or to become a Eurasian outcast, neither truly of Europe nor Asia and mired in its “near abroad” conflicts. 

 

UKRAINE CURRENCY

Now, think about the dates mentioned by Brzezinski. It would all start in the mid 2000s. Well, we had the Orange Revolution in late 2004/early 2005. Perfect timing. While, having had a leadership who had just begun the process of democratisation in 2002, Ukraine then, in 2003, had a whole new set of currency designed and printed. It looks like it was all “approval stamped”.

The highest denomination banknote is the 500 hryvnia note and this is it:

On the “face” side you have this. Quite normal.

6324-780314

On the reverse side however. Take a close look.

ukrainian-money-1d820

Now who is it that designed and issued this currency? It just so happens that DeLaRue were provided the new contract for design and printing.

DeLaRue

And it just so happens that N.M.Rothschild are prime advisors to DeLaRue as are J.P.Morgan.

Then Carlyle Group – controlled by Rothschild – buy out a significant chunk of DeLaRue…

Carlyle

You see folks, you don’t get coincidence after coincidence after coincidence like this in the real world. All you get is planning and strategy. Now please, don’t expose yourself as a rather mentally retarded, gullible idiot and try to make up some plausible excuse for a book written in 1997 with a “future history” of the Ukraine and Russia as of today, plus the fact that you have Rothschild influence directly and indirectly crawling all over it AND you have a currency which, never in its history, had the All seeing eye in the pyramid designed into it.

You now belong to the jewish/freemason/Western oligarchy Ukraine and you have been led to believe that you did this all yourselves.

You didn’t!

So just remember all of your friends and family who have died over the course of the last decade or so and remember – it was all for a purpose. Just not yours!

YOU’RE PAWNS AND EXPENDABLE!

The Rothschild-Disraeli Jewish pact.

Posted in Political History, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by Earthling on December 10, 2011

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

ROTHSCHILD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!

 

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

 

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

 

HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

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

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

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

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

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

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

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

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

 

 

D’ISRAELI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.

HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now consider THIS little exchange:

 

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

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

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

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

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

new-writ-for-london#S3V0139P0_18550626_HOC_52

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

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

William Gladstone

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

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

 

QUESTION.

HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

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

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

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

question#S3V0227P0_18760228_HOC_7

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

 

RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

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

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

resolution-adjourned-debate#S3V0227P0_18760221_HOC_55

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

 

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

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

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

david-cameron-my-values-are-yours

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

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

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

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

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

 

Judaism’s Redefiner

By ANTHONY JULIUS   

Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Queen/Crown: The quiet Dictator!

Posted in Law, Political History, Uncategorized by Earthling on December 4, 2011

The Bitch of Buckingham!

An Overview Of The Whitlam Dismissal

A Vice-Regal Sacking

On Tuesday November 11th, 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Mr Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and appointed Mr Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister.

The dismissal was the most dramatic event in the history of the Australian federation. For the first time, an unelected vice-regal representative had removed from office a government which commanded a majority in the House of Representatives. (equivalent to the UK’s House of Commons)

Now, let’s consider the Governor General’s role and responsibilities/authority:

The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia at federal/national level of the Australian monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II). He or she exercises the supreme executive power of the Commonwealth. The functions and roles of the Governor-General include appointing ambassadors, ministers and judges, giving Royal Assent to legislation, issuing writs for elections and bestowing honours. The Governor-General is President of the Federal Executive Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. All these things are done and all these posts are held under the authority of the Australian Constitution. Further, the Governor-General acts as vice-regal representative to the Australian Capital Territory.

The Constitution provides that a “Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth . . .” The Constitution grants the Governor-General a wide range of powers, but in practice he or she follows the conventions of the Westminster system and (with rare exceptions) acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia or other ministers. Even in the appointment of the prime minister, the Governor-General rarely exercises any discretion, usually appointing the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties in the House of Representatives.

Interestingly, then, in the 1975 case, the Governor General DID NOT keep to convention nor the Constitution and did NOT listen to the advice of the Prime Minsister – which demonstrates what utter shit this is! They keep to convention as long as it pleases Her Majesty! Who ELSE has the power to change the way the Constitution is interpreted by a Governor General who is not meant to have such power? And neither does it fall to Garfield Barwick. These men acted upon the instruction of a higher power! A power that the British people fail and refuse to acknowledge!

A Double Dissolution election was held on December 13th, 1975, at which the Whitlam Government was soundly defeated.

The dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government was the culmination of a series of dramatic events which began in October, 1975 with the refusal by the Senate to pass the government’s budget bills.


Out of the Wilderness

The Labor Government had been elected on 2 December 1972 after 23 years of Liberal/Country Party coalition rule. The ALP slogan, “It’s Time”, seemed to capture the mood of the nation, although the ALP’s margin of victory was relatively slim.

Gough Whitlam

Whitlamwas the first of the new-style Labor leaders. He had been elected to Federal Parliament in 1952, became Deputy Leader in 1960 and Leader in 1967. He had experienced early success in a number of by-elections and had won 17 seats at the 1969 election to take Labor close to victory.

Whitlam took office determined to implement a wide-ranging program of reforms. Such was his devotion to his “program” that Whitlam and his deputy, Lance Barnard, ran a two-man government between December 5-19, 1972, after which the full ministry took office.

[So Whitlam was a reformist: Something the Monarchy just can’t allow to happen. His ideas were entirely contrary to the Constitution and, therefore, the Monarchy. He seems to have believed in government by the people for the people – far too dangerous an idea for Liz and her crew]


Gair Affair

Following an attempt by Whitlam to appoint the former leader of the Democratic Labor Party, Senator Vince Gair, as Ambassador to Ireland, the Opposition Leader, Bill Snedden, threatened to force an election by blocking Supply in the Senate. Whitlam responded by calling a double dissolution election for 18 May 1974 at which the government was returned.

[What is “blocking supply? Well it is very simple but one needs to read and understand the following:

A “Money Bill” is a Supply bill. The Hose of Lords (or, in this case, Senate) is by convention, AND by Constitution, disallowed from REJECTING a Money Bill.

In the Westminster system (and, colloquially, in the United States), a money bill or supply bill is a bill that solely concerns taxation or government spending (also known as appropriation of money), as opposed to changes in public law.

It is often a constitutional convention that the upper house (Senate or House of Lords) may not block supply. There is often another requirement that non-money bill type clauses may not be attached to a money bill.

Loss of supply in the lower house (House of Commons or House of Representatives) is conventionally considered to be an expression of the house’s loss of confidence in the government resulting in the government’s fall.

Now, bear in mind that the Gough Whitlam Government had both a majority in the House of Representatives AND the Senate! There was NO “loss of confidence” in this case whatsoever.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that the House of Lords may not delay a money bill more than a month. It is at the discretion of the Speaker of the House of Commons to certify which bills are money bills, and his decision is final and is not subject to challenge. Section 1(2) of the Act states:

A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, the National Loans Fund or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions “taxation,” “public money,” and “loan” respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.

In Australia’s case in 1975, Fraser’s Opposition rejected supply; they merely refused to consider the Bills which meant that no vote was ever taken.

The wording of the Australian Constitution on their actions is interesting. The Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, thought that the Senate had the power to do what it did. It did not! But do you seriously believe that Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice, would not know this?  Having been briefed in many of Australia’s defining constitutional cases (e.g., the Airlines case, and the Bank Nationalisation case), he was knighted in 1953. Knighted in 1953 by Her Majesty – think about that. A Knight does NOT work against his Crown!

From Wikipedia:

“During the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, he controversially advised Governor-General Sir John Kerr on the constitutional legality of dismissing a prime minister who declined to advise an election when unable to obtain passage of supply. This was significant, because Barwick and Gough Whitlam, whose government Kerr dismissed, had a history of antipathy dating from the mid-1950s.”

Barwick’s Awards:

Garfield Barwick

In June 1953, he was made a Knight Bachelor, “in recognition of service to the Public service”.

In 1964 he was appointed a Privy Counsellor.

In January 1965 he was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG), honouring his contribution as Chief Justice of the High Court.

In June 1981 he was appointed a Knight of the Order of Australia (AK), “in recognition of service to the Australian Parliament, government and the law”.

{Meanwhile, as an aside, recognise what a bastard “the law” is when it can free 12 and murder 1:

A famous example of Barwick’s astute advocacy involved thirteen Malaysians sentenced to death who appealed to the Privy Council. Twelve retained Barwick, who duly found a technical deficiency in the arrest warrants and secured their freedom. The last, whose counsel was not so thorough, was executed.

The man was executed because he did not choose the right counsel! It’s not law, it’s how well you can argue it!}

But the wording of the Constitution on this point is very interesting. Section 53 which deals with this supposed power does say, expressly, that the Senate may not amend any proposed taxation or appropriation bills. As was his way, Barwick read this to mean that the Senate could do everything else but it could not amend the legislation.

Barwick’s reading of the Constitution is therefore at odds with what the Constitution actually says. Why would a Constitution remove a particular power from the Senate but, according to Barwick, provide it with as many practical alternatives of achieving the same end as malicious minds can invent? Who needs the power to amend if an Opposition controlled Senate can hold an elected government penniless until they agree to its amendments?

If we look at what the Australian founding fathers intended, we find that section 53 incorporates, quite succinctly, the traditional understanding of the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in respect of appropriations and taxation bills. The following passage from Wikipedia states the practice accurately:

Even before the passage of the Parliament Acts, the Commons possessed pre-eminence in cases of financial matters. By ancient custom, the House of Lords may not introduce a bill relating to taxation or supply, nor amend a bill so as to insert a provision relating to taxation or Supply, nor amend a Supply Bill in any way.

This convention, which vests the power of the purse in the popularly elected chamber, was, like the convention that the monarch only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, incorporated implicitly into the Australian Constitution by their Founding Fathers. Both conventions had been long recognised and adhered to in the United Kingdom at the time of the Constitution’s drafting. We may suppose that the conventions were so well known at the time, that it was not considered necessary by those men, that anything more than a general statement of principle was needed. It was, after all, such a reasonable and practical way of acknowledging the source of the government’s power in the people. Barwick and the Liberal Opposition thought differently. They thought differently because they were instructed to think differently in this case. The BITCH of Buckingham Palace wields her power subtly and quietly through her Knights.

Now compare with the United States:

 United States

While the United States of America is not a parliamentary democracy, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with British constitutional practice; by convention, appropriation bills (bills that spend money) also originate in the House. Unlike in most Westminster systems, there are no limits on the Senate’s ability to amend revenue bills or any requirement for the Senate to approve such bills within a certain timeframe.

We will come back to this United States situation in a moment when we introduce Evelyn Rothschild into the equation.


Changing the Senate Numbers

Despite this, the Senate continued to frustrate the government, resulting in the first and only Joint Sitting of the Parliament, allowed for under Section 57 of the Constitution.

Following the appointment of the government’s Senate leader and Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, to the High Court bench in February 1975, the Liberal government of New South Wales, under Premier Tom Lewis, refused to follow convention and appoint a Labor replacement for Murphy in the Senate. The independent Mayor of Albury, Cleaver Bunton, was appointed instead. On his departure from parliament, Lewis was permitted by Queen Elizabeth II, on the Governor’s recommendation, to continue to use the title “The Honourable”.

Following the death of Queensland Labor Senator Bert Milliner, the Country Party Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, also refused to appoint a Labor replacement, opting instead to appoint Albert Patrick Field.

Bjeke-Petersen’s uncompromising conservatism (including his role within the downfall of the Whitlam federal government), his political longevity, and his leadership of a government that, in its later years, was revealed to be institutionally corrupt, made him one of the best-known and most controversial political figures of 20th century Australia. An ironic feature of his government was that while Premier Bjelke-Petersen relentlessly preached the maintenance of law and order as a reason to suppress political opposition, a number of senior government figures, including a Police Commissioner he appointed, were subsequently jailed for corruption.

Ma’am, you make your appointments and choose your friends well!


Now, the following is a very interesting and telling point wrt the reasons of why Whitlam was under attack by the establishment:

Overseas Loans Affair

The Loans Affair, also called the Khemlani Affair, is the name given to the political scandal involving the Whitlam Government of Australia in 1975, in which it was accused of attempting to borrow money illegally from Middle Eastern countries by bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury.

Note, however, the following re the Australian Treasury:

Treasury’s independence:

Treasurer Wayne Swan has previously called Henry an independent economic regulator, similar to the governor of the Reserve Bank. When asked after the 2009 Budget about Treasury’s independence, Henry replied:

Strictly of course we’re not. The Treasury Department is a department of state. It is part of the executive government. It works to the government of the day, whatever the political persuasion of the government of the day. And so in that sense of course the Treasury is not independent from government and it can never behave as if it is independent from government. But there’s another sense in which it does have a degree of independence and that is that the Treasury conducts its analysis without government interference. It’s up to the government of the day to decide whether to accept that analysis or whether to reject that analysis.
ABC Radio, Tuesday, 19 May 2009
“Bypassing Standard procedure” then? Or just rejecting the Treasury’s analysis?

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, Treasurer Dr. Jim Cairns, and others, were prime identities in the scandal.

The Whitlam Government attempted to raise a loan of approximately US$4 billion. The money was intended to be used to fund a number of natural resource and energy projects, including construction of a natural gas pipeline, the electrification of interstate railways and a uranium enrichment plant.

Tirath Khemlani (1920 – 1991) played a pivotal role. He was employed by Dalamal and Sons, a London-based commodity-trading firm.

The raising of foreign loans for the Australian Government at the time required the authorisation by the Loans Council. It was common knowledge that funds were usually borrowed from European banks or financiers. Connor’s attempt to secure the loan was unusual for several reasons:

  1. The size of the loan was extremely large for the time.
  2. When a project of this scale and cost is undertaken, governments often attract foreign investment and ultimately form a business partnership, whereby the foreign investor would retain partial ownership and/or rights over the resources once the project is complete. (So there is an insight as to how the bankers take control and in this case, the zionist west was not going to allow cheap Islamic money gain leverage in any shape or form in a western and commonwealth nation). However, this option was rejected by Connor who was renowned for his desire to have Australian resources controlled and owned by Australians.
  3. The Minister for Minerals and Energy was raising the loan independent of Treasury. (Can’t have that now can we?)
  4. Rather than attempting to raise the loan from US financiers, Connor attempted to raise the loan from Arab financiers, with Khemlani acting as the intermediary. There are unconfirmed reports that Arab financiers offered lower interest rates on governmental loans than US Banks/financiers. The Middle East at the time was awash with “petro-dollars”, as the price of oil quadrupled between 1973 and 1974

Connor was duly authorised to raise loans through Khemlani in late 1974. Between December 1974 and May 1975, Khemlani sent regular telexes to Connor advising that he was close to securing the loan.

However, the loan never eventuated and, in May 1975, Whitlam sought to secure the loan through a major US investment bank (name undisclosed). As part of the loan procedure, this bank imposed an obligation on the Australian Government to cease all other loan raising activities pertaining to this loan and accordingly, on 20 May 1975, Connor’s loan-raising authority was formally revoked.

A special one-day sitting of the House of Representatives was held on 9 July 1975, during which the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam tabled the documents containing evidence about the loan and sought to defend his government’s position.

Beset by economic difficulties at the time and the negative political impact which the Loans Affair conjured, the Whitlam Government was very vulnerable to further assaults on its credibility. Gough Whitlam was prompted to sack Dr. Cairns from his cabinet.

Although Rex Connor’s authority to seek an overseas loan was withdrawn following leaking of the scandal, he continued to liaise with Khemlani. The Herald Newspaper based in Melbourne published documents confirming this and Connor was forced to resign from the cabinet. He was replaced by the future Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

[Note: The Melbourne Herald was owned by Sir Keith Murdoch, father of Rupert Murdoch. The latter then took over ownership in 1987]

Rupert Murdoch: His father, Sir Keith Murdoch, owned Melbourne Herald,

The Melbourne Herald newspaper journalist Peter Game tracked down Khemlani in mid-late 1975 and following an interview, he broke the story that ultimately opened up the Loans Affair. When Connor directly denied Khemlani’s version of events, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Khemlani flew to Australia in October 1975 and provided Peter Game with telexes sent to him from Connor that refuted Connor’s denial.

On 13 October 1975, Khemlani provided a statutory declaration and a copy of the incriminating telexes sent from Connor’s office, a copy of which was forwarded to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Upon receiving the documents, Whitlam dismissed Rex Connor from his government for misleading parliament. In his letter of dismissal, date 14 October 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam wrote: “Yesterday I received from solicitors a copy of a statutory declaration signed by Mr Khemlani and copies of a number of telex messages between office Mr Khemlani’s office in London and the office of the Minister for Energy. In my judgment these messages did constitute “communications of substance” between the Minister and Mr Khemlani.”

The loans affair embarrassed the Whitlam government and exposed it to claims of impropriety. The Malcolm Fraser-led Opposition used its numbers in the Senate to block the government’s budget legislation in an attempt to force an early general election, citing the loans affair as an example of ‘extraordinary and reprehensible’ circumstances. Whitlam refused, and this led to the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

The Loans Affair was dramatised in the 1983 ABC miniseries called “The Dismissal”.

We can’t have a western government accepting “unacceptable” Islamic financing now can we? You get your loans from the Zionists and no-one else do you hear? Otherwise non-usury may just catch on in the West! So we get our Zionist press to break open the scandal and then we have our Knights in the Senate and judiciary turn the screws even in opposition to what the Constitution says because it doesn’t matter what it says as long as you do what you’ve meant to do.

After the resignation of Rex Connor in October 1975, the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, announced that the Senate would defer passage of the Supply Bills until Whitlam called an election. Whitlam refused. There followed three weeks of constitutional crisis as the parties confronted each other in Parliament and the country.


Constitutional and Political Issues

The crisis raised a number of crucial questions about Australian democracy and centred on a disagreement between Whitlam and Fraser over the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Whitlam asserted the primacy of the House of Representatives and his right to govern so long as he retained a majority there, whereas Fraser claimed that a government denied Supply by the Senate should resign. This was a fundamental dispute about how we choose Governments. The conflict also highlighted the importance of constitutional conventions in the Australian system.


Kerr & Barwick

The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, took an active interest in the crisis, talking to both Fraser and Whitlam at various points during the period following October 15. At one point, Fraser offered to pass Supply, provided an election was called by the middle of 1976.

It is now known that Kerr sought the advice of Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of the High Court. Barwick and Kerr met on Sunday 9 November and Barwick endorsed Kerr’s decision in writing the next day.


Remembrance Day

On November 11, 1975, Whitlam proposed calling an immediate half-Senate election, but the Governor-General rejected this advice and instead dismissed Whitlam from office. Later, Kerr issued a statement of reasons for the dismissal.

Fraser was offered a commission as caretaker Prime Minister which he accepted, and immediately sought a double dissolution election for 13 December. In the meantime, the Senate passed the Supply Bills, with the Labor senators unaware that their government had been dismissed. The House passed several motions of confidence in the Whitlam Government and instructed the Speaker, Gordon Scholes, to relay this to Kerr. The Governor-General refused to see the Speaker until after he had dissolved the Parliament. Scholes subsequently wrote to the Queen and received a letter in which the Queen indicated there was no place for her involvement in an Australian political conflict.

The Bitch of Buckingham Palace suggests she has no involvement while the letter is written to her because the people writing it KNOW it is HER government and HER Constitution! But she can’t be recognised for what she truly is now can she? Yet it is all so obvious to a 10 year old child!

At the ensuing election, Fraser’s conservative coalition was resoundingly elected.


Aftermath

The dismissal remains a controversial subject in Australian history. It is central to any understanding of the current debate about becoming a republic. The constitutional and political effects of the Dismissal remain of importance to anyone interested in Australian politics. OR ANY POLITICS WHERE THE BITCH IS INVOLVED!

The main players in the Dismissal have experienced different fates. Sir John Kerr’s Australia Day Address on 26 January 1976 belied the crisis about to beset him. After a drunken performance at the 1977 Melbourne Cup winner’s presentation, he was forced by public outrage to relinquish an appointment as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. He lived in England for some years and died on 7 April 1991. Even in death, he remained controversial, the parliamentary condolences provoking a spirited intervention from Paul Keating.

Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister for seven and a quarter years, before losing an early election in 1983. Ostracised by many in the Liberal Party during the 1980s for failing to capitalise on his majorities in both houses of parliament, he was rehabilitated in the public mind during the 1990s. He campaigned against racism and media monopolies, supported an Australian republic and acted as Chairman of Care Australia. HOW IRONIC THAT FRASER THEN WENT ON TO SUPPORT A REPUBLIC!

Gough Whitlam retired from Parliament in 1978, following another massive election defeat in 1977. Ironically, he was appointed by the Hawke government as Ambassador to UNESCO in the early 1980s. When he turned 80, even Prime Minister John Howard issued a congratulatory press release.

Whitlam published an account of his years in office in 1985, calling it simply “The Whitlam Government”. Named a “living national treasure” in 1997, “Abiding Interests” is a recent publication.

Now, back to the US Senate and it’s Constitutional place.

The US Senate is filled with Lawyers top to bottom. Members of the BAR. And THIS man knows what that means. Just listen to his first response (and the veiled threat):

Now why is this piece of shit so confident? And why does he snigger at the fact the Senate is the more powerful? (and why is it so?) And if it doesn’t go through then there will be consequences which he says we will have to learn from?

Then we have this from House Representative Brad Sherman:

Now who do you think OWNS you America? Do you REALLY believe in your “Democracy”? Well you’d be right because a democracy is the worst thing you or anyone could have. Your Founding Fathers knew this but you’ve forgotten why!

ROTHSCHILD AND THE CROWN OWNS YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

LOOK UP AND RESEARCH FOX ROTHSCHILD AND LOOK UP AND RESEARCH THE TREATY OF 1783.

“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc……”

Prince Elector of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?

text.html

I suggest you read it and recognise that America was simply granted privileges. You do not negotiate a peace agreement if you win a war. YOU dictate terms!

Your Federal Government is in Washington D.C. for a reason and your Federal Government and Federal Reserve are owned by Globalists (primarily British/Israel/European) and your Armed Forces do THEIR will – nothing at all to do with keeping YOU safe! The same goes for the British Armed Forces. THEY take oaths to a Crown which they think is the Queen and that the Queen gives a shit about the people of the UK.

As Kissinger said: “Dumb and stupid animals used in foreign policy”.

Thomas Paine re-affirms the illigitimacy of the UN Articles of Human Rights!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by Earthling on November 1, 2011

Having written the blog entitled “U.N. inadvertently confirms Freeman concept” u-n-inadvertently-confirms-freeman-concept  a week or so back, I must admit that I had no idea that such an ideology expressed within that blog would be further supported by such a figure as Thomas Paine. I have also, here, to admit my own ignorance in much of historical and political writings up until a few short years ago. Life, career and family tends to keep one busy and the last thing I was interested in, like so many still today, was politics and the finer details of Human Rights and other legal acts.

So, I am immensely surprised and delighted in stumbling over this book today by Thomas Paine because I couldn’t have asked for a better affirmation of what was written in the above blog.

The “Rights of Man” was written by Paine in 1791 and posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard its people, their natural rights, and their national interests. Using these points as a base it defends the French Revolution against Edmund Burke’s attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

The publication of Rights of Man caused a furor in England; Thomas Paine was tried in absentia, and convicted for seditious libel against the Crown, but was unavailable for hanging, having departed England for France.

Principally, Rights of Man opposes the idea of hereditary government — the belief that dictatorial government is necessary, because of man’s corrupt, essential nature. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) Edmund Burke says that true social stability arises if the nation’s poor majority are governed by a minority of wealthy aristocrats, and that lawful inheritance of power (wealth, religious, governing) ensured the propriety of political power being the exclusive domain of the nation’s élite social class — the nobility.

Rights of Man denounces Burke’s assertion of the nobility’s inherent hereditary wisdom; countering the implication that a nation has not a right to form a Government for governing itself. Paine refutes Burke’s definition of Government as “a contrivance of human wisdom”. Instead, Paine argues that Government is a contrivance of man, and it follows that hereditary succession and hereditary rights to govern cannot compose a Government — because the wisdom to govern cannot be inherited.

The arguments put forward in the “Rights of Man” are:

Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Government’s sole purpose is safeguarding the family and his/her inherent, inalienable rights; each societal institution that does not benefit the nation is illegitimate — especially the Monarchy, the Nobility, and the Military.

In essence then, Paine is stating (as expressed in bold type above) precisely what the blog regarding the UN’s Human Rights Charter based upon the deception of “LEGAL rights” is saying.

Isn’t it then interesting to note the British monarchy and nobility’s reaction to such simple, straightforward expression of man’s inherent rights and freedoms? Even today we see they do not wish you to simply have them but that THEY must bestow them upon you. Privileges therefore and not Rights. People MUST wake up and smell the coffee!

Thank you Mr Paine!

“Rights of Man”: index.htm

ADOLF HITLER DID NOT WANT WAR!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Political History by Earthling on October 21, 2011

 

I have NEVER been a fan of Hitler nor the Nazis, nor the IRA or any Dictator during the vast majority of my life. Who the hell would be if they were sane individuals?

But, in recent years – just the past handful – I have researched so much into history and particularly hidden history and peered beneath the surface because I was compelled to do so by events which unfolded in my own life and left me speechless about the lies, deception and guilt of my own government, judiciary and western governments in general, that my entire belief system has been turned inside out. I have to say that this “research” of mine has not been minimal in any shape or form. It has been wide and deep and has taken up 4 solid years of my life (luckily I have immensely enjoyed it) and the blinkers are off and the eyes are wide open.

I can’t point the reader to every single book and text and paragraph and documentary that I have read or watched, nor regurgitate the entirety of the hours and days I have spent reading congressional and parliamentary minutes so as to crystallize everything which has led me to the conclusions and statements I make in my blogs. I would love to write a book but it would be enormous and I wouldn’t know where to begin (or end), This jigsaw puzzle is just so immense such that it involves every single subject associated with life and history and sociology itself. I have two degrees: In Physics and in Business studies which took 6 years in total to complete but, incomparison to the time I’ve spent on this in the past 4 years, those studies were “part time”. If there was such a thing as a PhD in this overall subject, I’d have two of them by now!

So, what I write and blog about is really just short insights into subjects I have looked at and, for everything which I do post, I expect the reader, if they are interested either to confirm for themselves or for the purpose of challenging and denying, to research for themselves.

Not wishing to offend anyone but the more I read and learn of this character, the more I admire him and disbelieve the absolute shit we have been conditioned into believing of him. Further the more I understand of the zionist creeps, liars and thieves in our own governments and establishment, then even more to I admire this guy for his achievements. So very similar to Gaddafi’s. There is no doubt that we have been seriously deceived.
And no, I am no Nazi but I seriously question whether it would have been a bad thing.

Of course, from the amount I have to say negatively about Zionism – and those who would wish to consider this to mean all jewish people and is just a “front” for an assumed “Nazi” to be “anti semitic” – and now praising, or at least admitting admiration for Adolf Hitler, those who would wish to label me whatever will. For those people let me be blunt: I do not give a FCUK any longer. Your perception is just that and is coloured by what you wish to believe and your own prejudices.

So with that, I ask you to listen to this video speech by Adolf Hitler where he, in his own words, makes it quite clear that he never wished for war with America and had not with Britain either.

 

Now, of course, you are going to suggest “well that’s Hitler talking – a crazed genocidal dictator” etc etc. He lied.

Ok, sure I understand that. After all, that’s what we have been led to believe for decades. I don’t know about you though but I wasn’t born until well after the war and yet, what I see from “our side” re Hussein, Gaddafi etc, is a solid block of bullshit. Why should it have changed?

So here is someone else saying, concretely, Hitler did not wish for war with Britain:

“I received a telephone call from my friend ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengi, who was at that time Hitler’s personal private secretary and court jester. He told me that the Führer had been reading my speeches with interest, and would like to see me at his headquarters in the Esplanade Hotel.

It is true that when I walked across the long room to a corner in which he was sitting writing, in a brown shirt with a swastika on his arm, he waited without looking up until I had reached his side, then sprang to his feet, lifted his right arm, and shouted ‘Hitler!’; and that I responded by clicking my heels together, raising my right arm, and shouting back: ‘Boothby!’

I talked with Hitler for over an hour; and it was not long before I detected the unmistakable glint of madness in his eyes. I was much impressed by his grasp of Keynesian economics at that time. He said that I was quite right about economic
expansion, and the means by which it could be achieved. But he added that this was now a political crisis, and that political forces would bring him to power. “After that,” he said, “I shall bend economics to my will; and I have in my hands the necessary instrument, a man called Schacht.” He had no sense of humour. He asked me how I would feel if Germany had beaten us in the last war, and driven a corridor between England and Scotland. I said: “You forget, Herr Hitler, that I
come from Scotland. We should have been delighted.” He did not smile. Instead he brought his fist down with a crash on the table and said: “So! I had no idea that the hatred between the two peoples was so great.” Perhaps this was one of the reasons why he sent Hess to Scotland in 1940, for I am sure that he did; and why he never bombed Edinburgh.

I then asked him, point-blank, what he was going to do to the Jews. I thought Hanfstaengi was going to faint, but only a flicker of irritation crossed his face. After a moment he said: ‘There will be no pogroms.’ I think that, at the time, he probably meant it. He had already planned to take over the whole of central and eastern Europe, and intended to deport all German Jews to those countries. What I cannot bring myself to believe is that he was unaware of what Himmler ultimately did to them.

That night I thought long and earnestly about the interview. I came to the conclusion that his plans were far more advanced than I had thought. He did not then wish to attack Britain and the British Empire, or even France. What he was determined to do was to bring the whole of central and eastern Europe under German control; and for this purpose Austria, and above all Czechoslovakia, were the key points”.

From Lord Boothby’s biography: “Recollections of a rebel” 1978. 

Boothby, while a homosexual and having a relationship with Ronnie Kray while the British government hushed it all up and told the Met Police to lay off – thereby allowing the Kray twins to carry on for another few years (says a lot about how the Police are controlled by a corrupt government doesn’t it?) – there is hardly any reason for him to lie about the intentions of Hitler when he was so ardently opposed to the regime and any threat to the British Empire. Yes they still spoke of the British Empire in those days because, in fact, that Empire still exists today but simply in another form and it is based upon the money power. Always was. Adolf was a serious danger to that money power as was Gaddafi today. 

So. What are you going to do? Say on one hand that people have freedomm of speech and of expression and when they encounter factual data which has them form their own conclusions which don’t quite agree with those the government demand they should have, you act in the very same way that you try to teach the population that this guy acted with his population? So it goes something like this: “Listen, if you start talking about a fascist dictator like he wasn’t quite a fascist dictator then we will come and shut you up and shut you down so that you cannot express freely your beliefs or conclusions but WE’RE not fascist dictators!”? Is that what you’re saying Officers?

YOU FCUKING JERKS!

Don’t let the bastards close you down!

Yes, that’s my MAC Officer. And YOU fcuking stole it! In total about 2 grands worth. You fcuking THIEVES! You ignorant dirty fcuking thieves make me sick with your ignorance and your excuse of “just doing our job”. You fcuking STOLE my property based upon BULLSHIT! And I intend getting it back and in poerfect working order or you will fcuking pay for it!

Islamic fundamentalism (Wahhabism) created by Zionists! (Update)

Posted in Political History by Earthling on August 3, 2011

Recently released documents by the US Dept of Defense have now supported the information in a previously blog written approx 2 years ago regarding the founding of the Wahabi sect of Islam and the relationship between the Al Saud family and jewish roots. The US Dept of Defense have culled a number of Iraqi intelligence documents from 2002.

Document:  wahhabi.pdf

Original blog:  407

Time and again, the information which has previously been condemned as “ridiculous” and “Conspiracy theory” is proven to be factual.

I only wonder why all of this is finding its way out into the public domain.

I have stated many times that, having read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” it is clear to me that the west is no longer (and perhaps never was except for when it was of use) interested in the state of Israel. The true nature of the west’s gameplan is to have a united Middle East and that United Middle East (and Africa) – the Muslim world in total in fact – to be led by a strong leader who will be in the pocket of the west. They are never going to achieve this by retaining a zionist threat in the shape of the state of Israel. They will, therefore, sacrifice Israel and have a strong Muslim leader to unite the region instead. This muslim leader COULD be Ahmadinejad (or another Iranian figure) or it may be a grouping of leaders all under western control. To eliminate Israel however, also means eliminating the Saudi support of Israel – Wahhabism. We may yet see the downfall of the Al Saud family.

Personally, I would like to see the Muslim world wake up to this while I would not want to have a muslim take over of the west. The people of Islam and the people of the west need to destroy both sets of leadership through knowledge and intelligence. Only then will we have peace.

We can live harmoniously with the two cultures which, at their root, have the principle of “Non usury” in common. It is a simple fact that the jewish religion (and the zionists who now control it from a political standpoint) has no issue with usury while it is the most disgusting form of a Crime on Humanity that you can think of. After all, the entire planet is in financial turmoil right now entirely due to it.

It MUST be eradicated.

I still think how telling it is that the names given for 9/11 were, for the most part, Saudi nationals. It would make a great deal of sense considering 9/11 was carried out by Israeli interests.

SNP checkmate!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by Earthling on July 8, 2011

Update December 5th 2011:

Kirk, What were you saying lad? Do you want to have another stab at your answer and your ignorant suggestion that the Crown Estates belong to the Crown but not to Her Majesty?
Or would you like to explain to the people of Scotland (and of the UK) the difference between “The Crown” and “Her Majesty”? Would you wish to explain what the “Crown Corporation” is? Thanks buddy!

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL

HL Deb 11 November 1976 vol 377 cc659-754

Lord PARGITER
My Lords, may I draw attention to one thing that is rather interesting. I think this is the first occasion on which the immunity of the Crown has been challenged.

§The Earl of KINNOULL
My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord on that point. I am speaking about the Crown Estates, which is a corporate body, a very large landowner and is nothing to do with the Crown itself. It is a corporate semi-quasi public Government body.

§Lord PARGITER
Belonging to Her Majesty, my Lords.

§The Earl of KINNOULL
No, my Lords; it does not belong to Her Majesty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will confirm that.

The Earl of CAITHNESS
My Lords, I should like to answer on behalf of the foresters, having put my name to the Amendment. I think the reason why we have excluded forestry is that there has not been a report satisfactorily conducted at the moment. There is a report in progress and I think we deleted forestry until that report had been put before the public.

§The Earl of PERTH
My Lords, perhaps I may just intervene about the position of the Crown estates, because I happen to be the first Crown Estate Commissioner. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is wrong in saying that the property does not belong to the Crown: it does. What happens is that the Crown of its own volition may cede its rights for the period of the reign but when the time comes a new Sovereign has the opportunity of resuming the property. I hope that this will help the House and clear up the point.

 I think the above puts paid to wee Kirk’s ignorance (or innocence?). Grow up lad and stop being such a condescending little fool to your elders who may just know a thing or two more than you! After all, Alex wouldn’t want you or your SNP sheep to understand this now would he?

 

 

 

I had a response from some young condescending little prat by the name of Kirk Torrance from the SNP. He can’t quite grasp it can he?

Whereas, I sincerely hope YOU can. At the very least, even if you can’t – as an SNP supporter – I’d think you’d wish to understand it rather than just accept the ignorant dismissiveness of a young lad who gets paid to do a media job by the party and has not been out of diapers that long!

While the thing is, I have the arrogant little ass over a barrel (as I do Salmond) because, as you will note, he states it clearly that only if Scotland gets control of the Crown Estate, can we benefit financially from it. Do you see the absolute admission in that? No?

Well, it’s this: IF Scotland were truly sovereign and independent, then we would not need to control a “Crown Estate” because the Crown Estate would have ZERO to do with Scotland (no matter WHO currently controls it). And THAT is where the little lad makes this bullshit clear as day. So let’s see Salmond drop the monarchy and drop the Crown Estate. If Scotland is sovereign then it’s sovereign. We’ll create our OWN Crown eh Alex? CHECKMATE asshole!

Now, I am happy to have this “debate” in public SNP. Are you?

Meanwhile, you evade the direct questions Kirky! Perhaps it’s more than your job’s worth to do so huh? 😉

UPDATE Wed 13 July 2011:

From: Earthling
To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; info@snp.org
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:25:38 +0000

Oh dear Kirk! Seems I have upset you! I’m not on the defensive lad, you are. Don’t apologise – it’s empty and you’ll get none from me!

Meanwhile, you ignore every factual element of that which I have brought to your attention. Not me making sweeping generalizations Kirk. Not at all.

Fantasizing and moaning about invisible enemies? LOL
How old are you Kirk? And is it difficult for you to follow logical, factually based reasoning?
You’ve failed to respond in any way to absolute fact you have been presented with. No comment on Bernanke and his remark. Or the parliamentary minutes over decades to support it all. I guess Douglas Carswell, Captain Kerby and Lord Sudeley as well as a host of American Congressmen are all “Conspiracy theorists Kirk? Is that what you’re saying? Or is it just that you don’t understand it? Are you thick Kirk?
You have not responded to the CIA issue in funding the European Movement during the early 70s campaign. You brush it all off as “fantasy” and fallacious”. What drug are you on Kirk? Ritalin?
You admit the Crown Estate administers and profits from the resources throughout the UK and yet you can’t grasp that, if Scotland were a fully independent nation, then the we wouldn’t require the profit from the Crown Estate because the Crown Estate would then only have England, N Ireland and Wales. Are you seriously incapable of logically deducing this?
But that is not going to happen is it? Because the Crown Estate won’t LET Scotland go and Salmond needs to negotiate to access Scotland’s portion of the estate WHEREAS, if we were truly independent, no negotiation is necessary because we would tell the Crown Estate where to go.
But Kirk refuses to see this. And you wonder why anyone would consider taking the proverbial out of you? 🙂
Working hard? You could work as hard as you want Kirk but if you’re ignorant it’s a total waste of energy. Try working smart but then, no, the SNP doesn’t want SMART they just want you to stay dumb!
Question them Kirk and see how long you’d last! But you don’t have the balls do you? It’s a nice little number working in the SNP office.
You’re a boy doing a wee job for the SNP in media and you think you have it sussed. Oh the arrogance!
Proof by verbosity? The writings are backed up and mostly from Parliament! Seriously, how hard are the arteries in your brain Kirk? You’re a little too young for that aren’t you?
Kirk take your accusations re “Culture of Conspiracy” and stick them where the sun don’t shine lad. If you’re incapable and impotent minded to simply throw wild unsubstantiated tripe like that then I just haven’t got the time or inclination to educate you.
The only reason I’ve bothered to take the time to respond to you today is because your demonstrable willful ignorance and stupidity is just providing a little fun. The big fish is a Salmond! 😉
I wish you all the best though. Another few years and you’ll grasp a little more I’m sure. Once life hits a little harder!
Earthling

Subject: Re: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: kirk.torrance@snp.org
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:48:48 +0100
CC: snp.hq@snp.org
To: Earthling

You’ve clearly been upset with what I said and for that I’m sorry – it wasn’t my intention to put you on the defensive.

But I must say that your repeated emails with wild and unsubstantiated assertions about me, and how I’m somehow facilitating a coverup; satisfies me that I was completely correct in my analysis of your positions. In a phrase: you’re talking absolute nonsense!

By all means entertain your beliefs, but know this, those of us who see [substantiated rather than fallacious] problems in the system are working hard to make this country the best it can be as opposed to fantasising and moaning about invisible enemies.

Everyone flirts with conspiracy theories at some point in their lives because they are exciting and give you a sense that you know things that others don’t – which can give a sense of empowerment. But, in complex reality simple conspiracy theory models just don’t stack up to scrutiny.

To address the only point you’ve made that values consideration: “Now, in my belief that we still have a democracy, when it comes to the point you have just made re “causes”, I would consider it democratic to allow Scottish nationals to state their views (not MY “cause”) on a Scottish Nationalist page.

There are two fallacies here:

The Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalisation AND the Fallacy of False Clause
Firstly, the SNP Facebook page is property of the Scottish National Party which is a political party – you seem to be confusing the party with the Scottish Government – they are not the same thing. The SNP forms the Government of Scotland and if you would like to make your claims on Scottish Government websites then that is your prerogative and it would be up to the Civil Service to decide whether or not to allow you to do so.

Because you understand the SNP form the Government of Scotland you believe they are one and the same [sweeping generalisation]. Now since you feel hard done by because the SNP (as a party), don’t think it’s reasonable to endorse your beliefs by allowing you to post them on party property, you jumping to the conclusion that the SNP Scottish Government are silencing you and in doing so are acting undemocratically [in you doing so, you are committing the fallacy of False Cause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)].

Additionally…

You then go on to commit the fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion and Affirming the Consequent by saying: “Furthermore, if it is not a “cause” that the entire Scottish public should know about from your perspective, then I would have to assume, as I do, that the SNP is defrauding the Scottish people.”All conspiracy theorists and cranks use a tactical approach that is very well demonstrated in your videos and writings. It’s called, “Proof by Verbosity” and it is a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
It is very likely that the ideas of others you’re read and which have brought you to your conclusions would have used this technique to convince you of all this “forbidden knowledge”. In actuality, it’s all nonsense.This is the only reason that I’ve bothared to take the time to reply to you today – I won’t let such gumf be spoken about the SNP and the decision we’ve made in keeping discussions around the party web properties in the realms of reality and logical reasoning.
You’re clearly passionate and talented, however the content of your arguments are totally built on fallacies (no matter how much you assume that correlation implies causation – because it simply doesn’t).
I sincerely hope that you’d put your energies into something more constructive and worthwhile by perhaps in the first instance seeing that your arguments are built on very unstable ground.

I’d like to suggest a good book for you to read called: “A Culture of Conspiracy” [read for free here http://www.scribd.com/doc/11443886/A-Culture-of-Conspiracy] or buy at http://amzn.to/r0MxhL .I think this will be the only reply you’ll be getting from me as I just don’t have time for email sparring – particularly when I am appalled at the errors in deduction.
I wish you all the very best though.
Kirk

From: Earthling

To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; snp.hq@snp.org
Subject: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:17:49 +0000

And one further thing Kirk buddy!

Nothing “sinister” re the EU? Really?
Now tell me – were you even remotely aware of this? Meanwhile, do you understand the first thing about Constitutional Law?
You need to learn a few things Kirk!
Pause and listen before you consider the fact that the CIA were involved in funding the European Movement in the 1970s as some “fallacy”.
As I said Mr Torrance. Consider before assuming the intellect of those you respond to and dismiss. Dismissiveness in ignorance is not an attractive quality, it is just simple arrogance.
Regards,
Earthling


From: Earthling
To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; snp.hq@snp.org
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:50:36 +0000

Hi Kirk,

May I first state that this so called “abuse and insult” has nothing to do with people simply not accepting MY world view. I tend not to wish to be abusive nor insulting in any way but when faced with what I consider insulting condescension, I tend not to take that too well either. So the point may be made – who’s opinion do you find it useful to agree with? I tend, however, not to go running off making complaints about what I find insulting. I tend to have a stronger disposition that some it would seem.
As for having my “own cause”. That is patently ridiculous to suggest such. Furthermore, this is a democracy am I right? What is the SNP page if not one for your “own cause”? Such hypocrisy in your remarks Kirk. Now, in my belief that we still have a democracy, when it comes to the point you have just made re “causes”, I would consider it democratic to allow Scottish nationals to state their views (not MY “cause”) on a Scottish Nationalist page. Furthermore, if it is not a “cause” that the entire Scottish public should know about from your perspective, then I would have to assume, as I do, that the SNP is defrauding the Scottish people.
Please be more specific with regard to which style or type of logical fallacy you refer to. I think it is clear to a blind man to be honest Kirk, that once you consider the attached document from Hansard, which states it quite clearly, that the oil/petroleum is vested in Her Majesty; when you consider the £38m that the monarchy (the Queen personally) is making from the offshore windfarm income and once you consider facts such as there is NO true allodial title to land for anyone in this country; it is patently obvious that Her Majesty controls practically every resource in this country. I find your naivety and ignorance overwhelming. So, if you would be so kind, do not attempt to brush me off with some assumption that I accept internet information at face value without fact checking or accuracy. Unless, of course, you wish to state that the information which is posted in Hansard is fallacious and untrustworthy? By all means do!
You may also, then, wish to state that our printed media perpetrates a lie when stating categorically that the Queen owns the seabed? If that is so, then I suggest you and the government of the United Kingdom sue them for libel!
I fully recognise that “Crown property” should NOT be the personal property of the Queen for the Queen is but a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH and holds an office by swearing an oath at her Coronation which she has since broken MANY times! However, as Upton Beall Sinclair stated: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” That quote would most certainly apply to you in this instance! While the fact remains, the Queen is personally profiting o the tune of £38m. Do you contest this? If you do, Mr Torrance, then please do so constructively, intelligently and in precise detail.
It matters not who administers the Crown Estate and, in fact, that is precisely my point: Alex Salmond wishes to administer it, in part, and that is precisely why he is wishing to retain the monarchy as the Scottish Head of State. How simple must this be for you? I can appreciate YOUR confusion however!
“Additionally, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on matters such as Europe; but to suggest there is something sinister going on is fear-mongering and incorrect”. Please do not presume to make simple statements and dismiss a subject you either are very poorly versed upon or, alternatively, you simply wish to shut down debate on. Who exactly are you to state what you do and believe it to be the last word on the matter? That is just sheer arrogance Mr Torrance!
Meanwhile, you may rest assured I have contacted the Scottish Executive regarding this. I do note, however, you have made absolutely no comment on the matter of a Scottish sovereign currency. Do you even understand this issue? I would guess the answer is either “No” or, again, you simply wish it to be ignored and dismissed.
I suggest you consider carefully before you make assumptions regarding the intelligence of people and the due diligence and care they take to check their facts. You may also wish to fully consider the currency issue before responding on it for you can rest assured I have a significant amount of factual data related to it and if you think for one moment you can dismiss it with one of your “statements” you are sadly mistaken.
Your response thus far is insulting but I shall choose to refrain from reciprocating too drastically.
I await your comments on it.
Regards,
Earthling

Subject: Re: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: kirk.torrance@snp.org
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:54:50 +0100
To: Earthling

Hi Earthling,

Thanks for getting in touch – apologies for the delay in reply, I’m sure you can appreciate how busy we’ve been of late with the by-election, etc.
You’re clearly talented at creating video presentations.
Regarding your commenting ban: in checking the records, I notice the reason why you were banned was because of some abusive and insulting comments made by you towards others who didn’t accept your world view.
Our policy is clear – we encourage intelligent and positive conversations about Scotland and the governance of the country and her Independent future, but we cannot allow our conversation forums (either online or offline) to be used as a platform by people who want to promote their own causes – especially when they are of a dubiousness and discredited nature.
For instance, your claim that the Queen owns Scotland’s oil fields and wind turbines and suggestions of conspiracy involving the First Minister of Scotland is at best a logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy] and at worst quackery. The Crown Estate is indeed property and area belonging to The Crown. However, it is not the private property of the monarch and is administered by Crown Estate Commissioners, who are accountable to the Westminster Parliament. I can understand however why people might get confused.
If control of the Crown Estate was devolved to Scotland then it would be Scottish Parliament that would be accountable for its management with any excess revenue from the estate going to the Scottish Government. As reported yesterday the Crown Estate has achieved record profits this year, with access to these funds the Scottish Government would be able to provide better support to our economy and help create jobs and support employment. The SNP has been and continues to campaign for control of Scotland’s share of the Crown Estate.
Additionally, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on matters such as Europe; but to suggest there is something sinister going on is fear-mongering and incorrect.
The Internet is a terrific tool and has opened up information and knowledge to billions of people around the World. Unfortunately, it has also means that people often accept information at face value without fact checking for accuracy. As a result fallacious arguments and untruths are propagated time and time again.
At this time, I’m afraid we cannot re-instate your commenting privileges as there is a 12 month ‘cooling off’ period before consideration to lift any bans.
Please feel free to get in touch directly with the appropriate offices for answers to any questions you may have in order to get the full picture of events. Contact details for MSPs can be found here: http://voteSNP.com/sh
Regards,
Kirk

— 
Kirk J. Torrance

New-Media Strategist | Scottish National Party


On 4 Jul 2011, at 16:46, SNP HQ wrote:

FYA

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Earthling
Date: Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
To: snp.hq@snp.org

Hi Susan,
Any thoughts on what I sent? Do you think the penny will drop? 🙂

An additional one Susan. Guernsey Susan. Ask Salmond about Guernsey. Ask him to explain what all of this is I’m talking about.

Meanwhile, I STILL haven’t heard from the Facebook people regarding my reinstatement. I suggested to you I wouldn’t while you promised I would.
I’m not surprised however but I would appreciate it if you would advise me why I have not heard. Thanks.
Regards,
Earthling


Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:30:45 +0100
Subject: Re: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: snp.hq@snp.org
To:  Earthling

Hi Earthling,
I have the email thank you.
Susan

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Earthling wrote:

Hello again Susan,

Can you please just acknowledge receipt of this email so that I know, for sure, you have it?
Thanks,
Earthling


From: Earthling
To: info@snp.org
Subject: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:13:22 +0000

Hello Susan,

I started off putting together a highly detailed explanation on video for you but I’m afraid I felt it may be too much to “hit” you with for the moment so i have kept it as succinct and to the main points as possible. I believe it is detailed enough and more than adequate to capture your and your colleagues attention to issues you may have no idea about – not many people do unless they have taken the time I have (and others) to study it. I have studied this entire issue in depth and very widely over the course of almost 4 years since returning to the UK having spent 10 years as an expat in Asia.
I do not hold a PhD nor an MSC or MA in Finance, I just hold a humble degree in Physics and a University Diploma in Business Studies. I simply add that to ensure you I am no idiot! Meanwhile, you can rest assured that if Mr Salmond were presented this information by you, he would completely dismiss it and myself as ridiculous no matter whether what he is presented with is all verifiable fact which he cannot deny.
Please watch the video and then read through the detail of the attachments: All UK Parliament and House of Lords.
This entire “story” or “picture” is immense in its connotations but it is something which, unless the Scottish public and the world at large can grasp (it is simple but for some reason people cannot take it onboard), people like Alex Salmond, David Cameron, the EU bureaucrats, her majesty’s loyal opposition (if they were to get back in government) all our Chancellors (and I have called out Darling and Osborne on this as well as my local MP – they refuse to answer and/or evade) will continue this con on you, me, everyone including your own SNP colleagues who have to pay their taxes, their petrol, their heating, gas, electricity, mortgages etc etc. Sovereignty and Independence is a joke and the joke is on us.
Mr Salmond wants his little piece of the power within the EU. he simply does not wish to play second fiddle to a UK government. It is transparent when you understand what I have presented to you here. I want what you want and we all want but none of us shall have it unless we call these people to answer. To do that, it needs good intentioned, intelligent people to bring this into focus and call Salmond to account. There is simply no other way. So the question is whether people just wish to be part of a group, a “bandwagon” and toe the party line which SUGGESTS it is for the best interests of Scotland, or whether they wish to seriously work for the best interests of people. And remember, we have people dying due to these issues and this corruption.
I hope you will take this, understand it and share it. It is of fundamental importance and I, for one, despise being lied to. That is why I may occasionally use language which may offend but ask yourself, would you rather be offended by language or be lied to and offended by action which steals your wealth and freedom and makes a mockery of this so called “democracy”?
This is all just the “tip of the iceberg” regarding the information, evidence I can produce to back it all up but, in itself, it is clear anyhow. I would be keen, if the opportunity ever arose, to call Mr Salmond to account on every point made and so much more within a public forum so that the people of Scotland recognise how they are being told what they wish to hear but not the true, honest reality. That reality meaning that, effectively, nothing will improve for them “Independence” or not.
Thanks for listening.
Earthling

The Crown is profiting from your misery! Fuel bills anyone?

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Political History by Earthling on June 3, 2011

Petroleum (Production) Act 1934

1934 CHAPTER 36

An Act to vest in the Crown the property in petroleum and natural gas within Great Britain and to make provision with respect to the searching and boring for and getting of petroleum and natural gas, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

[12th July 1934.]

Be it enactedby the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1Vesting of property in petroleum in His Majesty

(1)The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to petroleum which at the commencement of this Act, may lawfully be gotten under a licence in force under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1918, being a licence specified in the Schedule to this Act, so long as that licence remains in force.

(2)For the purpose of this Act the expression ” petroleum ” includes any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata, but does not include coal or bituminous shales or other stratified, deposits from which oil can be extracted by destructive distillation.

2Licences to search for and get petroleum

(1)The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum.

(2)Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit.

(3)The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after granting a licence under this section, publish notice of the fact in the London Gazette stating the name of the licensee and the situation of the area in respect of which the licence has been granted, and, if the said area or any part thereof is in Scotland, the Board shall also publish the said notice in the Edinburgh Gazette.

Queenie is screwing you and you refuse to listen!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Law Reports.

Perhaps it does require spelling out:

The Queen owns the seabed – see the Daily Mail article – she does.
The Queen owns mineral rights all across the country AND beneath HER seabed.
The petroleum (oil) in the ground and in the seabed is vested in the sovereign – Just like the seabed is owned by the Queen (and she profits from it) the oil pumped out of her owned seabed (the UK Continental shelf) is licensed and she will profit from it. She effectively then owns the oil rights because no-one can touch her seabed unless she allows.
Now, think why our oil is all exported and we import all our requirements.
If she were to allow the use of her oil (our oil) within the UK, we would have no problems when the price of oil spiked now would we?
BUT – and here’s the BIG BUT – her “Majesty” would lose the profits within an international market where,as things stand, “her” oil can be sold to the most profitable markets.
Who benefits from that? The British people?

OH NO!!

And THAT is why we export our oil rather than use it for our own consumption!

Meanwhile:

The Crown not only owns the seabed, minerals an oil within it but the Crown also owns the Nuclear industry.

“The British Nuclear Company and all its property, rights and liabilities shall remain wholly owned by the Crown”.

british-national-nuclear-corporation#S6CV0150P0_19890405_HOC_354

Your fuel bills are going through the roof and the Crown owns and controls it all!

QUEEN BITCH ONCE MORE. Profits from exporting oil from HER seabed WHILE she demands her government to promote green tech and windfarms in the UK and, AGAIN, only built on her seabed so she profits from that too.

Our Queen is a CON ARTIST!

HOW CLOSE TO UNDER YOUR NOSE DOES THIS HAVE TO BE BEFORE THE BLOODY PENNY DROPS? THESE ARE PARLIAMENTARY FACTS! 

More…..

THE JESUIT ANTI-CHRIST ARRIVES!

Posted in New World Order Religion, Political History, Politics by Earthling on April 6, 2011

Ah! So now we have the JESUIT in charge!

New pope greets crowds in Vatican City

Edit 16th April 2022. Please note: The following post was published in 2011 before I understood things re the jesuit/jew issue more correctly. It also refers to an ‘event’ which, even at the time, I did not buy into.

The point of republishing is because the NA-ZI point I make seems, to me, even more ‘sound’ with the current events in the Ukraine (a jewish President and a ‘Nazi’ battalion fighting for him).

But, just for a moment, let’s consider the word NA-ZI. National Socialist or….?

Let’s consider, once more, a little logic here.

We are, and have been, consistently led to believe that Nazi is a term – similar to any acronym – which stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or, in German: Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei.

Now please try and erase the word “Nazi” from your mind – imagine that it had never existed and we are now sitting here, pre – 1920/30. The word “Nazi” never yet having been coined.

Look at the German again: Nationalsozialistische. National- Sozialistische.

Now look at basically any and all acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations and you will find they use either the first letters of each word or a mix of the first few letters of each word in the name or term abbreviated. It is uncommon (and I cannot think of any right now although I am sure many will) to use letters in the MIDDLE of a word. So why use “Zi” rather than “So” for “Sozialistiche”? Why not the NASO party rather than the NAZI party?

COULD it be that NA-ZI stood for National Zionist? It is certainly a more credible idea is it not?

However, as I hope the following demonstrates, ZION and ZIONIST does not necessarily ultimately mean a jew with aspirations for the political movement of zionism (Israel having the right to exist). It may well, and I’d argue does, have its origins within the Priory of Sion. I am absolutely convinced that the jewish/zionist ideology is but a subset of the real power: The Jesuit Order or “Society of Jesus”. It then answers a great deal of questions which have, otherwise, been considered as contradictions within the “Conspiracy”.

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color (official Vatican colors), and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls (the Vatican is filthy rich), having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations (the Holocaust, inquisitions, etc.) and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY (very few people realize where the Catholic religion started), BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (Many heathen religions have spawned out of Catholicism) AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” ―Revelation 17:4,5

The Vatican, the Jesuits, and the new world order

Hello to all. The following is about Vatican/Jesuit connection to the new world order. It has been neglected by even those in the so-called “alternative media.“ We know their names. Anyway, these facts are for others who want to know more elaborate information about the wickedness of the Jesuits and the rest of the Vatican (especially in their leadership). This work is also a guide for those who haven’t understood this information before. This is the 21st century and it’s time for us to be men and women.

I’m going to do this in an excellent, fun, accurate, and serious way at the same time. Since people have tons of interest on this issue, it’s time to coherently outline this connection. Now, all Roman Catholics are not to be blamed for all of the evils in the world. I want to make that perfectly. If I’ve believed in that, I will be no different than a bigot hating people of different races. What is true is that the leadership of the Vatican (including the Roman Catholic Church) follows unscriptural doctrines and are aligned with the agenda of the new world order. There‘s no doubt about it.

With the rise of the Papacy, immorality and false doctrines came about. Romanism teaches that Peter is the Rock of the Church, but Jesus Christ has always been the real Rock of the Church: “…And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4 AV). The Old Testament clearly says: “My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him. He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.” (Psalms 62:5-6 AV). There has been controversy over the Priory de Sion.

According to Mary Ann Collins’s work on the Priory de Sion, the real one was called the Our Lady of Zion. (In French, the name “Zion” is spelled “Sion.”) It was made of Catholic monks who venerated Mary. The fake one was created by Pierre Plantard. He was an occultist and praised Hitler.

He invented it in 1956. Yet, Freemason Michael Baigent (an editor of Freemasonry Today magazine), Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln believed the stories about the Priory of Sion. They were deceived by Plantard’s forged documents. They wrote the book entitled “Holy Blood, Holy Grail.”

You can’t talk about Secret orders without mentioning the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar was founded in 1111 AD. to protect the pilgrims along the path from Europe to the Holy Lands (Jerusalem). They took a vow of poverty which was rare for knights who had to supply themselves. 9 knights joined in the beginning and took no new members until 1118 A.D. That was the year when it went public and received papal sanction as a Catholic order (or the Order of the Poor Knights of Christ) in 1128. The Knights Templar was soon recognized as Roman Catholic crusaders.The Templars were the first international bankers in Europe.

Because of their wealth and competitions, monarchs and the Roman Church sought to destroy them. At this time, the Ismalis existed. They were Muslims who merged Islam (a religion with many similarities to Romanism like both having beads for worship, praising Fatima, having of history of hating Jewish people, and believing that works have a role in human salvation) and the Mysteries. A radical offshoot were known as the Assassins. They were on drugs murdering people. Many orders were influenced by the Ismalis.

On 1314, King Philip had the Grand Master of the Templars Jacques DeMolay burned at the stake for heresy. There is controversy to this day on whether the Templars performed obscene sexual acts or not. Yet, you can see the Vatican as a foundation in the creation of the Templars, the Knights Hospitallers (who became the Knights of Malta), the Tuetonic Knights (which Himmler copied for his SS), and a host of elite groups. Venetians, the Jesuits, Marco Polo, and others traded with the Chinese in the Middle Ages and beyond. Pope Martin V and others existed to claim lands from Africa, Asia, etc. to be controlled by the Pope.

The Vatican invented the modern international slave trade system. Papal terrorists also murdered Native Americans. Their names include the conquistadors Almagro, Cortez, Pizarro, Valverde, de Meza, Gregory, Sepulveda, Valega, and Cornado. Even Roman Catholic Christopher Columbus (whose ships had Knights Templar crosses on them. He had Knight Templar relatives in his family tree) allowed atrocities to occur in Grenada. In 1542 Pope Paul III established an inquisitional office in the Vatican called the “Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition,” in order to fight the spread of Protestantism. The Papal Inquisition would kill people with dissent with the Roman Catholic Church, which was evil. In one day alone (August 24, 1572) between 50,000 Huguenots (French Protestants) were massacred in Paris during the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. The Inquisition Office still exists being renamed, “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Pope Benedict XVI used to head that Office. King Henry IV of France has an interesting history. He was a great lover of religious freedom. He lived from 1553 to 1610. He was a Huguenot or a Protestant of the Reformed faith. In 1598, he issued the Edict of Nantes. This edict guaranteed religious liberties to the Protestants and thereby effectively ended the civil war in France.

This angered rabid Jesuits. In fact, Jesuit Jacques Commolet called for Henry IV’s death from his pulpit. Henry was forced into coverting into the Roman Catholic religion by the encouragement of his wife Gabrielle d’Estrées. This angered Queen Elizabeth (his former ally) and the Hugenonts. He was a popular ruler because of his reforms in France. He was murdered by a rabid Catholic named François Ravaillac. He stabbed Henry to death.

The Origin of the Jesuit Order

The Jesuits were created by Ignatius Loyola in 1534. Loyola’s real name is Inigio Lopez De Recalde. The purpose of the Jesuit order was to end the Protestant Reformation and allow the Papacy to rule the world (from Jerusalem if possible. Wyile, Eric Jon Phelps, Jack Chick, Alberto Rivera, and other writers have proven this point). The Jesuits are an enemy of the world. They are divided into many components. The Jesuits supported the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. That Council condemned the study of Scriptures in the original languages, condemned the idea that man is saved by God alone, and condemned the idea of not venerating images as representation of God including others legitimate beliefs. The Rheims – Douay Bible [1582] was the Bible of the Jesuits, who supported the murder of Baptists and Protestants via the Gunpowder Plot. The Vatican issued the Vatican Edict in 1778 after the American Independence. This edict condemned the United States Constitutional Republic as an abomination, wickedness and sin that must be destroyed by any means possible. Notice how the Vatican never apologized for this error at all. By the later part of the 1700’s, the Jesuits (who were suppressed in 1773. Later, Catholic monarchs kicked the Jesuits out of many nations. Even France booted the Jesuits out by November of 1764. Up until the year 2000, the Swiss Constitution (article 51) prohibited the presence of the Jesuits anywhere in Switzerland. Here’s a source on why the Jesuits were expelled from France:

“On April 27, 1761, the abbé Chauvelin, one of the most radical members of parlement, denounced the Jesuits as the opponents of good order, ecclesiastical discipline, and the maxims of the kingdom. ‘As a Christian, a citizen, a Frenchman, a subject of the King and a magistrate,’ the abbé cried, ‘is it not necessary to examine the institution and the régime of the Jesuits? That is what I ask you, Messieurs, to consider.’ The Jesuits were already unpopular, unjustly suspected of complicity with the would-be assassin Damiens, of foreign intrigue, a fifth column, out of the state’s control. When parlement, in its verdict on May 8, demanded that the society pay one-and-a-half million livres to their creditors, there was wild enthusiasm in the streets of Paris. Next, parlement appointed a commission to review the whole question of the Jesuits position in French society.”(Algrant, Madame de Pompadour, p, 267).

Such great military and political pressure was brought by the European nations that were the objects of Jesuit subversion that Pope Clement XIII decided on the 3rd of February 1769 to dissolve the Jesuits. The night before he was to execute the dissolution, however, he suddenly fell ill and died. Prior to his death he cried out “I am dying . . . It is a very dangerous thing to attack the Jesuits.” (EDMOND PARIS, THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE JESUITS, p. 70 [1975]). Pope Clement XIV issued the papal brief of dissolution, Dominus ac Redemptor, on August 16, 1773. This bull banned the Jesuits from Europe forever. Clement mysterious died on September 22, 1774. So, they united with other Secret orders like the Masons. Mason Frederick the Great of Prussia harbored the Jesuits in his own country), Freemasonry (including the Grand Orient), and the Jacobins orchestrated the French Revolution. Even Popes once opposed the Jesuits. Even Pope Gregory IX had to admit: “The Jesuit foxes have various faces, but they all hang together by their tails.” The French Revolution was a program not only to punish the Monarchs, but to try to create an anti-religion utopian society. Its history is a complex one. “The Grand Design Exposed” book written by John Daniel exposed the Jesuit link to the French Revolution. A host of factors caused it. The poor and middle classes accused the aristocracy of economic corruption and high taxes (including King Louis XVI and the Austrian Queen Marie Antionette. King Louis was more righteous and compassionate than the Queen was). In that time, St. German, who was a mystic and occultist, said that Louis XV’s grandson will be beheaded. His grandson was beheaded indeed. Cagliostro was another famous person related to the French Revolutionary history. He (or Cagliostro, whose real name was Joseph Balsamo) was a disciple of St. Germain and was a Jewish Masonic founder of the Mizraim rite in Masonry. He even wanted the Pope to accept his order as a merging of Roman Catholicism with the Egyptian mysteries.

King Louis XVI created the Third Estate to try to solve the economic disparities, but it failed. Opponents of the King exploitated these problems to create Revolution in their hatred of a monarchy. The National Assembly (its members included Roman Catholics like Abbe Sieyes and Talleyard) rebelled against the King’s Estate. Sieyes inspired the Revolution in pamphlets. King Louis XVI tried to stop it, but a mob stole weapons from the Bastille prison in July 14, 1789 (Webster wrote that revolutionaries strategically paid the mob to conduct the French Revolution).

This marked the beginning of the French Revolution. Jesuit trained Camille Desmoulins called for this Revolution as well. By the 1790’s, the Reign of Terror began headed by the Jacobins. The Jacobins and others murdered millions of people thoughout France in a depopulation control scheme. Folks were beheaded. Religious services were banned under the guise of “Reason.”

Many Masons who were Jacobins or supported the Revolution included Voltaire, D’almbert, Diderot, Helvetus, Marat, and Camdoret. Many of them were part of the Grand Orient of Masonry. The Jesuits trained many of the Revolutionaries (i.e. the Archbishop of Paris Jean Baptiste Gobel supported it. Catholic Sieyes advised the pro-Jacobin Freemason Napoleon Bonaparte, pro-Jesuit Champion de Cice supported the Revolution, and Robeispierre was trained by the Jesuits in the College Louis le Grand). Voltaire supported the Jesuits and his friend was a Jesuit named Poree.

On his deathbed according to John Daniel, Voltaire wanted to be a Catholic as he revealed to the Jesuit named Gaultier. The French Rights of Man was created in August 25, 1789. Jewish people were emanacipated in 1791. Even Robeispierre was beheaded in July 24, 1794. Basically, the Revolution was about extremists executing the punishment of the Monarchs for the suppression of the Jesuits and to enact the Masonic aim of a “Republic” by any means necessary. This wasn’t about “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” but terrorism 101. It would be the Jesuit stronghold Bavaria where the Bavarian Illuminati and Nazi Germany would be born. Illuminati-like organizations existed for thousands of years. One single example is the ancient Alumbrados of Spain during the 1500’s.

John Robison, Professor of Natural Pholosophy, who was General Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinborough and an influential Freemason, was one of the leading intellectuals of his day He was a witness to the influence of the Illuminati and the Jesuits within Freemasonry (Robison wrote that the Jesuits wanted to maintain their power by trying to influence Freemasonry). In 1798 he published a book titled Proofs of a Conspiracy. In his authoritative book, Professor Robison stated the following regarding the amalgamation of Freemasonry and the Illuminati as:

“…an association has been formed for the express purpose of rooting out all religious establishments and overturning all the existing governments of Europe. I have seen this association exerting itself zealously and systematically, till it has become almost irresistible: and I have seen that the most active leaders in the French Revolution were members of this association, and conducted their first movements according to its principles, and by means of its instructions and assistance, formerly requested and obtained.” (JOHN ROBISON, PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY at pg. 7 (1798).

Opposition to the Jesuits was made manifest by many quarters. In 1816 (After Pope Pius VII restored the Jesuits as a Catholic order in August 7, 1814), John Adams wroteto President Jefferson: “Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gypsies can assume, dressed as painters, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell it is this Society of Loyola’s.”

(EDMOND PARIS, THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE JESUITS, p. 75 (1975).

Thomas Jefferson answered Adams: “Like you, I object to the Jesuits’ reestablishment which makes light give way to darkness.” During the 1800’s, Samuel Morse wrote numerous public papers on the threat of the Jesuits to the United States. He of course invented the Morse Code. Morse was the inventor of the telegraph. In 1835, Samuel Morse wrote of the Jesuits that:

“..And do Americans need to be told what Jesuits are? If any are ignorant, let them inform themselves of their history without delay: no time is to be lost: their workings are before you in every day’s events: they are a secret society, a sort of Masonic order, with superadded features of most revolting odiousness and a thousand times more dangerous. They are not confined to one class on society; they are not merely priests, or priests of one religious creed, they are merchants, and lawyers, and editors, and men of any profession, and no profession, having no outward badge (in this country,) by which to be recognised; they are about in all your society. They can assume any character that of angels of light, or ministers of darkness, to accomplish their one great end, the service upon which they are sworn to start at any moment, in any direction, and for any service, commanded by the general of their order, bound to no family, community, or country, by the ordinary ties which bind men; and sold for life to the cause of the Roman Pontiff…” (SAMUEL FINLEY BREESE MORSE, IMMINENT DANGERS TO THE FREE INSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH FOREIGN IMMIGRATION AND THE PRESENT STATE OF THE NATURALIZATION LAWS, p. 9-10 [1835]).

The Civil War was organized by Vatican and Masonic interests to divide up the United States of America. British and many Europeans powers (who were connected to Confederate leaders like Caleb Cushing, Albert Pike, John Slidell, Mississippi Freemason John A. Quitman, August Belmont, and Judah Benjamin) wanted a divided America, because America’s financial strength was rapidly increasing. If America was divided, European countries could control North America more easily. The Roman Catholic bishops supported the Mexican dictator Santa Ana to not only break down the Constitution of Mexico, but to oppress many of the Protestant/Baptist human beings living in Texas in the 1840’s. A war occurred between Mexico and Texas, which resulted in the Independence of Texas. Soon, Texas would be apart of the United States of America.

The Jesuits have many connections to the Skulls and Bones. The Skulls and Bones was definitely popularized when George W. Bush ran against John Kerry for the Presidency of 2004. Both men were Bonesmen. George W. Bush told the TIME’s magazine reporter Walter Isaacson that he had no qualms joining the Skulls and Bones. The Skulls and Bones take an oath to submit to the order. Some believe that the Skulls and Bones is nothing more than a covert chapter of Adam Weishaupt’s Bavarian Illuminati. The Bones group was created by William Huntingon Russell and Alphonso Taft. Russell had a tour of Germany and was initiated into an Illuminati-like group. Russell took the order’s secrets to form the Skulls and Bones at Yale University from 1832. “The Skull and Bones” was modeled after the old Phi Beta Kappa Society of 1776 and set up as Chapter 322 of the German Illuminati. The Skulls and Bones is also called Russell Trust. ABC News in April 23, 2001 discovered much of the Skulls and Bones initiation ritual.

These rituals take place in a building called “The Tomb.” In the ceremony, a person dresses up like the Pope, one is dressed like Hiram Abiff (who is a Masonic representation of a Christ figure), and the other is Don Quixote. What is significant of Don Quixote to the Jesuits and the Vatican? Now, de Cervantes Saavedra is the author of Don Quixote and he was a strict Catholic. de Cervantes in the Don Quixote book praised Pope Pius V and called the Pope “His Holiness.” De Cervantes used Don Quixote as a representation of Ignatius Loyola, who was the founder of the Jesuit Order.

The skulls and crossbones is a known Jesuit emblem (when a Jesuit goes into a Chapel of the Order to be apart of a position of command from a lower rank).

There are colors of yellow and white, which are of the Pope. There is a black banner with a dagger and a red skulls and crossbones as symbols. the skull and crossbones is the symbol of the Chancellor for the Knights of Columbus.

The Historian Albert C. Stevens offers similarities between the Masonic Kappa Sigma society and the Skulls and Bones. The figures of the Pope, Hiram Abiff, and Don Quixote are admired in the Skulls and Bones ritual. That is why the initiate kisses the toe of the Pope figure in the Bones ritual. The person is also knighted a Knight of Eulogia in front of the Don Quixote figure. At one stage in the ritual initiation of Skull and Bones the initiates must “lay naked in coffins and tell their deepest and darkest sexual secrets as part of their initiation.” (according to Esquire Magazine from September, 1976, on p. 85). Coffins rituals refer to an occult version of being born again (according to Anton LaVey). The Skulls and Bones would go on to be apart of the Opium Trade, slave trading, and the funding of the Nazi Empire (via Bonesman Prescott Bush and others). Bush is born again to an occult group of the Skulls andBones.

The Civil War and the Guilded Age

In the Civil War, Northern industrialists and Southern agriculturists also competited for the territory in the West (for its wealth and profit potential). Much of the Union was infiltrated by Secret orders, so it wasn’t just a one region deal. Now, first the Jesuits and Masons agitated the nation to war. Mason Henry Clay supported the Missuori Compromise, which divided the states in the ante-bellum period. One group to further cause division in America was the Young America group (with members like ex-3rd Degree Freemason John Brown). The Kansas Nebraska Act caused violence since it made both Kansas and Nebraska to decide whether they would accept slavery or not. Immoral acts of arson and murder came about by pro-slavery Missourians. John Brown organized acts of violence as well. Rosicrucian William Lloyd Garrison created the Anti-Slavery Society in 1832. Rosicurcian George Lippard was a major anti-Slavery proponent. I don’t agree with involuntarily slavery, but secret orders have infiltrated both sides of the Civil War. Also, many Confederate and Union officals were Masons. Confederate President Jefferson Davis was not only an ally of Pope Pius IX. Davis’ relatives were well known Masons and Roman Catholics. Davis was educated in a Roman Catholic school. On April 12, 1861 General and Freemason P. T. Beauregard (and he was apart of the Knights of the Golden Circle) ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter, SC. In fact, South Carolina seceded first in December 20, 1860. When Britian and France desired to control America via Mexico and Canada, Lincoln responded. He allowed the Russian Czar Alexander II (who was anti- Mason and anti-Jesuit) to use his ships to guard NYC and San Francisco to protect America from invasion. Freemason Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens’ grandnephew John Salter (1877-1933) became a Jesuit. Abraham Lincoln’s assassination is easy to explain. Even skeptics realize that this incident was conspiracy. Lincoln’s assassination was done by Vatican (Thomas M. Harris was a Brigadier General of the U.S. Army. He was a member of the Military Tribunal and wrote the book entitled, “Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”) and Masonic interests. The reason is that Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union and he refused to accept a more explicit National Bank which would be owned by foreigners.

Abraham Lincoln signed the National Banking Act, which Treasury Secretary under Lincoln named Salmon P. Chase later regretted as a pro-monopoly law. Lincoln did issue Greenbacks of U.S Notes to pay for the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln publicly warned that the future might see a select few of people in corporations controlling the wealth of America. John Wilkes Booth murdered him and he rumored to being a 33rd Degree Freemason. John Wilkes Booth was a member of the KGC (or Knights of the Golden Circle). According to Edwin A. Sherman, Booth secretly converted to Roman Catholicism 3 weeks before Lincoln’s assassination under Archbishop Martin J. Spaulding. An Indianapolis trail impacted many Masons in Lincoln’s death plus the trial found that the Bank of Montreal, Canada funded $180,000 to put the plot into motion. Also, John Surratt was a major co- conspirator. John Surratt was in Washington on April 14, 1865 helping Booth prepare for the assassination, which was carried out by Booth that day. Catholic priest Charles Boucher stated under oath that only a few days after the murder, John Surratt was sent to him by another Catholic priest “Father Lapierre.” Surratt left Montreal and went into England and Rome. Surrat also hid in the Vatican bodyguard unit called the Zoaure before being captured.

Freemason Edwin Stanton & 32° Freemason President Andrew Johnson covered up Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. Johnson revoked the reward for the capture of John Surratt. He pardoned many co-conspirators. In fact, 4 people were tried, convicted and executed for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Their names were Davy Harold, Lewis Payne, George Atzerodt, and Mary Surratt. All 4 of these people were Roman Catholics. “The Suppressed Truth About The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln” by Burke McCarty and recently CT Wilcox’s “The Transformation of the Republic” document the Vatican/Jesuit link to the assassination and the coverup of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination as well.

The Bohemian Grove has many Vatican ties that isn’t shown much even in some of the alternative media. Saint John of Nepomuk (in Bohemia) is the Patron saint of the Grove. Nepomuk in some stories refused to tell the confessional secrets of Queen Johanna of Bohemia to King Wenceslaus IV of the Bohemians (He was also King of the then Holy Roman Empire). John of Nepomuk was killed in 1393 according to a legend. King Rudoph II of Bohemia was another occultist in the 1500’s. There is even an old Bohemian Grove picture of a Mass being performed there. Hence a Vatican/Bohemian Grove link is there. Both George W. Bush John Kerry are related to Borivoj I and Saint Ludmila, who are the oldest rulers of Bohemia.

The Bohemian Grove was created in 1872 where men worshipped an Owl statue. Their motto is “Weaving spiders, come not here.“ These words existed from Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.“ Some believe that the owl image in the Grove looks similar to Molech, who is the pagan deity of Canaan. Yet, Molech doesn’t look like an owl, but a bull creature. Therefore, Molech isn’t in the Cremation of Care ceremony (once the Care statue was a 70 ft. high Buddha statue). The Cremation of Care ceremony was invented by Joseph D. Redding in 1893.  The owl statue (in the Cremation of Care ritual) is more related to Minerva (or the Goddess like Lilith). Lilith represents wisdom (This has been proven by the research of Conspiracy Archive.com. This site proves that the Bavarian Illuminati used the owl as a strong logo of this group). A 2006 occult work by ceremonial magickian Donald Tyson, titled Liber Lilith, details the secret cosmology for the ‘Mother of Harlots’ and the spawn of all nightbreed monsters called Lilith. The book proclaims itself as saved from the ashes of Dr Dee’s library at Mortlake in the 1580’s. The owl is therefore one major symbol of the Bohemian Grove. Some point to the owl design in a section of Washington, D.C. as another proof of D.C.‘s Masonic/occult origin. The owl emblem of Minvera in the occult world again represents wisdom. One symbol of Adam Weishaupt was the owl representing wisdom also.

Additionally, the Bethren of Minvera was a degree in the Bavarian Illuminati. The Care according to Peter Martin Philips relates to Bacchus (a Roman false god which is better known as the Greek false god of Dionysus. Dionysus is the god of wine, sexual freedom, and ecstatic freedom). The ceremony portrays the Grove members as being afraid of Care. The ritual wants to rid of Care. Care is posing as a mocking spirit in the Cremation of Care ritual. These actions go back to the Druids, Babylon, Greece, etc. Also, the Grove members have a human sacrifice in effigy (or a dummy) and do other things. In the Bohemian Grove, there is a priest wearing a mitre (which looks similar to the Pope’s mitre, and the Dagon fish gods of the Middle East). Dagon is the half man, half fish god that was believed by the ancient pagans to have brought humankind civilization. It was worshipped under many names of Enki, Ea, Dagon, and Oannes. This tells me that the Bohemian Grove high priests existed from the Sumerian-Babylonian high priests not just having connections to the Papacy. People have sexual orgies and the members of the Bohemian Grove have sex with prostitutes from across the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if human sacrifice and sexual abuse is done there as well. Similar groves occur worldwide in Europe, etc. It isn’t just one place in Northern California where some world leaders perform occult, degenerate acts near Groves. The Bohemian Grove today owns about 2,712 acres of land. On July 15, 2000, Alex Jones and Mike Hanson used cameras to successfully capture one of the rituals of the Bohemian Grove. This ritual was the Cremation of Care.

This is an image of a Bohemian Grove meeting in 1957. There, you see David Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, Glen T. Seaborg, and Richard Nixon. The Bohemian Grove hosts some of the most powerful men in the world. Seaborg is one man who headed the Plutonium work of the Manhattan Project (which formed American nuclear technology into the next level). The Manhattan Project had many Grovers that worked on it.

It’s silly to praise Molech or an Owl statue anyway, since Molech can’t do anything. Here’s a quote from the Bible about the fantasy of Molech: “…Thou shalt not let any of they seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.”– Lev.18:22. One of the most powerful cliques of the Bohemian Grove is called Mandalay filled with CFR members, SMOMs, Pilgrims, and corporate cheiftans. Mandalay seems to be the camp of international relations. Those in Mandalay include Samuel H. Armacost (from Bank of America), Ralph E. Bailey, George H. W. Bush, the late William J. Casey, Henry Kissinger, George P. Schultz, etc. Mandalay is the top of the capstone of the Bohemian Grove in terms of political power. You can’t just talk into the Mandalay location. The Syllabus of Errors in the late 1800’s had the Vatican to condemn the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, and other legitimate freedoms in the world. William Randolph Hearst, Bay Area shipbuilder Arthur W. Moore, writer Ambrose Bierce, writer Henry Georg, and other famous Grovers existed in times past. The Bible is clear that we should make owls and animals into godlike images: Romans 1:22,23 comes to mind: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” The Bohemian Grove deal with sexual debauchery and the praise of false gods in simply terms.

There is the Dreyfus Affair. Alfred Dreyfus was convicted in 1894. This affair was that an innocent Jewish Captain named Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of treason in France. He was jailed in an island for a long time and then his name was cleared. He was imprisoned in Devil’s Island, which was a dangerous, horrible location. Eric Jon Phelps said that The Assumptionists and the Jesuits were involved in agitating the Dreyfus Affair to promote anti-Jewish sentiments in Europe. Now, according to Eric Jon Phelps and other sources, the Jesuits were definitely involved in the Franco-Prussian war of the 1800’s. That’s true. Since, “The Affair” deeply divided the country into Dreyfusards (supporters of Dreyfus) and anti-Dreyfusards.

Generally speaking, royalists, conservatives and the Catholic Church (the “right wing”) were anti-Dreyfusards, while Dreyfusards were socialists, republicans and anticlericalists, though there were exceptions. Edmond Paris’ book about the Jesuits conclusively prove that the Jesuits agitated anti-Semitism as an excuse to convict the innocent man of Alfred Drefyus. The “Civilta Cattolica”, which is the Jesuits’ official publication, under the article title of “Il caso Dreyfus” pretty much bashed Jewish people in a hardcore anti-Semitic way (This article even called for Jewish people to be sent away from various European nations).

This injustice led to the strengthening of the modern Zionist movement.

The Crimean War (which lasted from 1853-1856) definitely had Vatican ties to it. Napoleon III was the ruler of France during the great deal of the 1800’s. According to Edmond Paris’ research, the Jesuits had tolerance under Napoleon III even thought the Jesuits were banned in that time. Napoleon III is also known as Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. He was the first President of the French Republic. He soon made another attempt to gain Catholic support, however, by approving the Loi Falloux in 1851, which restored a greater role for the Church in the French educational system. The Crimean War was about France claiming to have influence in the Ottoman Empire and region surrounding it (in the Crimean Peninsula along with other places). France allied with the British to fight Russia. The British Prime Minister during the Crimean War as Freemason Viscount Palmerston. Interesting enough, France and Britian would later unite together in the war against the Manchu Dynasty (in China), WWI, and WWII. Russia lost the Crimean war. There was also a bigger component to this war. Napoleon III wanted the Ottomans to recognize France as the sovereign authority in the Holy Land (of whom Napoleon III’s ally, the Vatican wanted to control). Even Papist Abbe Brugrette said that Napoleon II sent an image of the “Virgin Mary” to the French fleet. Monseigneur Sibour, who was the Archbishop of Paris said at that time that: “…The Crimean War, between France and Russia, is not a political war, but a holy war; it is not a State fighting another Sate, people fighting other people, but a singularly a war of religion, a Crusade…“ Thousands among both sides died in the Crimean War. Napoleon III would sponsored the Maximilian and Carlota expedition to Mexico in 1864. Napoleon III would be involved the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Napoleon III declared war against Germany and he was soundly defeated. In Edmond Paris’ “The Secret History of the Jesuits” book, M. Gaston Bally wrote that: “…France herself declared war: this war of 1870 was proved by history to be the work of the Jesuits.” After the war, Napoleon III, took his troops from Rome. Soon, Italy created a Kingdom of Italy. Victor Emmanuel II became the King of Italy. Pius IX fled Rome and declared himself a prisoner in the castle of St. Angelo. He then excommunicated Victor Emmanuel II (who temporarily destroyed the Temporal Power of the Pope). Ironically, the Pope excommunicated Victor, but not Adolf Hitler who slaughtered millions of people during WWII. I don‘t agree with Victor Emmanuel II being a Freemason, but he was right to disagree with the doctrines of the Papacy. By 1872, even Germany banished the Jesuit Order. Charles Joseph Bonaparte was a grandson of Jérôme Bonaparte (the youngest brother of the French emperor Napoleon I), and attorney general in the Roosevelt administration from 1906 to 1909. This Charles Joseph Bonaparte would form the Bureau of Investigation. This U.S. BI group would later evolve into the FBI or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1851. We know the corrupt history of the FBI indeed from COINTELPRO to the other violations of citizens’ civil liberties.

Edward L. Hearn is the fifth Supreme Knight of Columbus. He was the President of the Insurance Firm the Casualty Company of America. He was honored by Pope Pius XI.

The Knights of Columbus was invented in the 1800’s to submit under Papal authority to make America as Catholic as possible. The Founder of the Knights of Columbus was Michael J. McGivney. He was trained by Jesuits in Canada at the Order’s St. Mary’s College in Montreal. Their logo is the fasces symbol, which would later symbolize fascism. In early 1900’s, Freemasons and Knights of Columbus worked together to build a Columbus Monument. Secretaries of State Elihu Root and Philander Knox were Masons. They worked with a K of C to build a Columbus Monument. Taft was a Mason and the Speaker of the House in the 1800’s (named Champ Clark) was a Missourian Democrat and he was a Freemason. In 1920, Mason Secretary of War Newton Baker gave a Service Cross to Supreme K of C James Flaherty. Freemason Theodore Roosevelt was not only a proponent of American Imperialism, which is evil. He was an ally of Cardinal Gibbons and called those with legitimate dissent with Romanism “bigots.” Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1864 issued an encyclical letter Quanta Cura, containing the Syllabus Errorum, in which he condemned freedom of conscience as “an insane folly” and freedom of the press as “a pestiferous error, which cannot be sufficiently detested.” DAVE HUNT, A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, p. 55 (1994), quoting J.H. IGNAZ VONDOLLINGER, THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL, p. 21 (London 1869).

In the Syllabus Errorum, Pope Pius stated: “No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason.” That’s wrong since the freedom of conscience is one of the holy keys to success in following God. Also, the freedom of press outlines creativity without authoritarianism.

This blasphemer is Pope Leo XIII. He reigned form 1878 to 1903. He said that, “[W]e hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” (ALBERTO RIVERA, DOUBLE CROSS, Chick publications, p. 27, 1981(quoting THEGREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII, p. 304, Benziger Brothers [1903]). He isn’t the first Pope to claim God’s authority, which is blasphemy. Pope Boniface VIII pronounced: “I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God, Himself and I, The Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God.” This quote is from his The Bull Sanctum on November 18, 1302. The truth is that God’s authority can’t be sent unto a mere man at all. The Bible from 1 Timothy 2:5 is clear that the mediator between God and man is Jesus Christ.

World War One

There was a Vatican link to WWI. Pope Pius X expressed hatred of the Serbians. The Serb definitely deserve their national sovereignty. Now, Austria Hungary attacked Serbia in August of 1914 (according to Edmond Paris, the Hapsburgs running the Austria-Hungary Empire wanted to punish the Orthodox Serbian people). When Austria-Hungary Archduke Francois-Ferdinand, the heir apparent to the crowns of Austria and Hungary, was murdered at Sarajevo by a Macedonian student, Gavrillo Princip, on June 28, 1914, the Pope took the opportunity to push the Catholic Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia . On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, which plunged all of Europe into World War I. The Bavarian Charge d’Affaires to the Vatican, Baron Ritter, wrote to the Austria-Hungary government that Serbia should be punished greatly. Baron Sonino required the allies to oppose any intervention by the Vatican in the peace arrangements. The Russian Revolution occured during and after World War One as well. The Russian Revolution is more complicated than one sees. Communism existed from Thomas More and others before Karl Marx. Empress Catherine I of Russia founded the Order of St. Catherine. This was a knighthood for women, which was similar to the Eastern Star of America. Russian Czars have a history of both supporting and banishing the Freemasons and the Jesuits. While the Vatican overtly sometimes criticized Communism, they covertly aided its growth. The Russian Revolution was created by the Vatican/Jesuits (i.e. A priest named Theodore Maly fought in the Revolution with the Cheka and the Red Army to defeat the mostly Orthodox White Army. Lenin allowed the Jesuits to live in Russia in 1922 as proven by Priest James J. Zatko. Bishop Edward Ropp was a key figure in the Revolution allying with the Bolsheviks to decrease the power of the Orthodox Church as well) and high level Freemasonry (in English Freemasonry and especially Grand Orient Masonry) to end the pro-Orthodox Romanov monarchy. Pope Paul VI cultivated close ties with Moscow.

World War Two

Here’s the long history of WWII. Adolf Hitler was not only funded by the Knights of Malta and Freemasonry, but the Vatican placed him in power. For example, Knight of Malta Franz von Papen from the Center Party helped the Nazis to recieve political power in the German Parliament. The Vatican entered into a concordat with Hitler [which was signed in the Vatican by Von Papen and Cardinal Secretary of State: Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII), on July 20, 1933], as with Mussolini, Franco and Salazar. Von Papen was the personal advisor to Pope Pius XII. Adolf Hitler parents by the names of Alois and Klara Hitler were dedicated Roman Catholics.

Adolf was a confirmed Catholic at Linz Cathedral. Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in January 30, 1933. Roman Catholic priest Ludwig Kaas supported Hitler’s Enabling Act (which has similarities to today’s Patriot Act. The Jesuits would support absolutist, authoritarian governments for centuries. That time was no exception. Papal leaders like von Papen, Kaas, and others wanted to destroy the Protestant-based Weimar Republic. The Liberal Social Democrats opposed fiercely the Enabling Act). Zentrum leader Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, a close friend and advisor to Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII. Pius XI tried to get the Enyclical called Humani Generis Unitas passed or “The Unitry of the Human Race.”

This document upheld the Catholic doctrine against Jewish doctrine, but opposed racism against Jewish people. Pius XI could of more opposed the Nazis, but he died. Pius XI also was about to publicly denounce both Hitler and Mussolini. He arranged to make the public denunciation on February 12, 1939, the eve of World War II. Jesuit General Wlodimir Ledochowski was the key man in suppressing that document. Pope Pius XII never revoked the concordat with Hitler or excommunicated him at all. Hitler admitted that he based his Nazi SS after the Jesuit Order. Adolf Hitler greeted Muller “The Bishop Of The Reich” and Abbot Schachleitner. Adolf Hitler greeted a Roman Catholic Cardinal. Roman Catholic Bishops are pictured giving the NAZI salute in honor Of Adolf Hitler. Cardinal Michael Faulhaber marched between rows of SA men at a NAZI rally in Munich, Germany. Roman Catholic Priests gave a NAZI salute at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin Neukolln Stadium in August 1933. Here’s other sources on this issue:

“The SS had been organized by [Heinrich] Himmler according to the principles of the Jesuit Order. The rules of service and spiritual exercises prescribed by Ignatius de Loyola [Ed. Note: the founder of the Jesuit Order] constituted a model which [Heinrich] Himmler strove carefully to copy. Absolute obedience was the supreme rule; every order had to be executed without comment.” – Walter Shellenberg (Chief of the Nazi Sicherheitdienst)

Walter Schellenberg, chief of the German counter-espionage, said after the war: “The S.S. organization had been constituted, by Himmler, according to the principles of the Jesuits’ Order. Their regulations and the Spiritual Exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly… The “Reichsfuhrer SS”- Himmler’s title as supreme chief of the SS-was to be the equivalent of the Jesuits’ “General” and the whole structure of the direction was a close imitation of the Catholic Church’s hierarchical order. A mediaeval castle, near Paderborn in Westphalia, and called “Wewelsburg”, was restored; it became what could be called a SS monastery”.

“The [Nazi] Third Reich is the first power which not only recognizes, but which puts into practice the high principles of the papacy.” (Statement made on January 14, 1934) Franz von Papen (German Roman Catholic Knight of Malta)

“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory”. – Spanish dictator (Francisco Franco, Knight of the Order of Christ) published on the 3rd of May 1945, the day of Hitler’s death. (“Reforme”, 21st of July 1945.)

“Fascism is the regime that corresponds most closely to the concepts of the Church ofRome.” – Civilta Cattolica (House organ of the Jesuits)

“I can see Himmler as our Ignatius of Loyola” ~Adolf Hitler: “Libres propos” (Flammarion, Paris 1952, p.164).

Even his Mein Kampf book was written, for Hitler, by German Jesuit Staempfle (as confirmed in literature from Andrew Sinclair mentions on page 9 of his book, The Great Silence Conspiracy). Otto Strasser, a Roman Catholic, was one of the founders of the Nazi Party. Stempfle, a notorious anti-Semite and was a member of the Roman Catholic Order of Saint Jerome. Nazis Thoedor Eicke, Rudolf Hoess, Joseph Goebbels (he would met with the Vatican including General Steinman), and Joseph Mengele were Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics in the Third Reich or supported it include Hitler, Mussolini (Jesuit priest Pietro Tachi Venturi advised the Italian dictator), Henry Philipe Petain of France, Francisco Franco of Spain, and Seyess Inquart. Others include Tiso, Pavelitch, Antonio Salazar (he was the Portuguese dictator), Frank, and Degrelle of Belgium. According to Rabbi Antelman’s research, Catholic Professor Josef Mayer inspired Hitler to exterminate the handicapped and those with mental illness. Roman Catholic dictator Tiso brutally persecuted Protestants and Jewish people in Jews. Some of them were even sent into concentration camps. There are even some pictures of Dominican monks serving meals to Nazis. Knight of Malta Joseph Kennedy supported Hitler’s regime. When Hitler started rounding up the European Jews and putting them into the camps, it was the Knight of Malta Joe Kennedy that assembled together Hollywood’s most important Jews. There he ordered them not to oppose Hitler, to which order every Jew obeyed including Louis B. Mayer of Metro-Goldwin-Mayer. Pierre Laval, the Pope’s count and president of the Vichy government said the following on French National Radio, January 2, 1943: “..I hope Germany will be victorious. It may seem strange to hear the one who is defeated wish for the victor’s victory. It is because this war is not like previous ones. It is a true war of religion! Yes, a war of religion…” (EDMOND PARIS, THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE JESUITS, Chick Publications, p. 158, 1975).

So, a Vatican/Nazi link is for real. The great author Jack Chick is absolute correct to point to the Holocaust as a 20th century Inquisition. I will mention that many Liberal Catholics and Protestants were killed by the Nazis. Many Patriots tried to protect their nations’ people during WWII. One example is how Russian General Andre Vlasov tried to free Russia from the reign of Joseph Stalin. He was later betrayed by Hitler and he was soon murdered. Wilhelm Franz Canaris was once a German Admiral. He later was apart of the German Resistance to end Hitler’s reign (He even helped people including Jewish people to escape the Holocaust). He was murdered in April 9th, 1945. Even the great war General Rommel opposed the Holocaust of the Jewish people.

The Ustashi massacre was when Catholics killed innocent Serbs, Jewish people, and Gypsies . Roman Catholic Fuehrer Ante Pavelic was a leader murderer of people in the Ustashi massacres. Franciscan priest Miroslav Filipovitch was a commandant of the Jasenvac concentration camp. Ustashi is another name for Catholic Action. This history is confirmed by many services. At least 600,000 innocent men, women, and children were killed by the Ustashi death squads. This religious genocide includes the most brutal forms of torture, forced conversions, burning people alive, raping and murdering girls and women, impaling young children alive on stakes, gouging out the eyes of victims to make necklaces, starving children to death, burying victims alive, crucifying Orthodox priests to wooden doors, and some other atrocities.  Attorneys Levy and Easton had already filed a case at the Federal Court in San Francisco against Vatican’s war crimes against the Jewish people and Serbian People killed by Ante Pavelic and Archibishop Stephinac and his cohorts – Ustashi Militia. Since the religious lead of Pavelic was Pope Pius XII, some of the Masterminds of the Holocaust were Pope Pius XII and the Jesuit General.

William (“Wild Bill”) Joseph Donovan is an elite Vatican personage. Donovan was a dedicated Roman Catholic until his death. He was the leader of the OSS. The OSS was the precursor of the CIA. Donovan was also a member of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, and he graduated from Columbia in 1905. Being a veteran of WWI, he will get an abundant of military including intelligence experience in his life. He was awarded the Lateran medal and the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Sylvester. Many other Directors of the CIA would be ironically Knights of Malta like William Casey (who would die before testifying to Congress about the Iran Contra scandal).

World War II ended in 1945 and the Nuremberg trials commenced. Roman Catholic Chris Dodd’s father Thomas J. Dodd worked in the trials against the Nazis. Dodd worked with high level Freemason Robert H. Jackson. 33rd Degree Freemason Edward Carter was a 5th judge in the Nuremberg Tribunal. Jesuit priest Edmund Walsh had a big role in the Nuremberg trials by advising Robert Jackson. Walsh was a friend of 33rd Degree Freemason Douglas MacArthur and other elites. High level Jesuit Walsh wore an officer’s uniform when he apprehended General Karl Haushofer in Bavaria for interrogation at Nuremberg.  The Jesuit Edmund Walsh had chatted with Grigori Zinoviev, who was president of the Petrograd Soviet. This proves that high level Jesuits and high level Freemasons worked together for centuries on many endeavors. That is why Knight of Malta Franz von Papen was acquitted in Nuremberg.

The Vatican Ratline allowed the Vatican to make Nazi (plus Ustashi) fascist war criminals to escape justice. They were smuggled into Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Australia, Canada and of course the U.S. Mark Aarons and John Loftus wrote a book entitled, “Unholy Trinity” exposing the Ratlines.  Nazi General and war criminal Reinhard Gehlen would work with the CIA. Gehlen also was given the highest honor of the Knights of Malta called the “Grand Cross of Merit” award. Knight of Malta J. Peter Grace would be a key figure in Operation Paperclip where Nazis war criminals were sent into America for technological reasons. According to State Department documents, Angleton decided to give money to an organization called Catholic Action and use it to help the right-wing win elections in Italy. The author Ralph Epperson documented in his literature about how the U.S. government covertly gave information about atomic weaponry to the Soviets. This is one out of enumerable examples proving that the Cold War an utter hoax. Fidel Castro was trained by Catholic. Many Catholic bishops opposed Castro’s dictatorship. For example Miguel Angel Loredo, a Catholic priest, was arrested by the Cubans and sent to prison. He was beaten severely by Cuban prison guards and lay hospitalized. Although, the leadership of the Vatican supported Castro clearly. Monsignor Cesar Zachi was the Vatican’s ambassador to Cuba. As the official representative of the Catholic Church, Zachi avidly supported the communism of Fidel Castro. Zachi extolled the virtues of the communist revolution and continually asked the young people in Cuba to join the communist revolutionary militia. In fact, Fidel Castro was the guest of honor at Zachi’s episcopal consecration. Fidel Castro was the honored guest of the Pope John Paul II at the Vatican in November of 1996 and the pope in turn visited Castro in Cuba in January 1998. Both meetings were marked by cordiality, which puzzled and upset many in the American Cuban community, who don’t yet understand the close ties between communists and the Vatican.  The late John Paul II opposed the embargo against Cuba.

The Ecumenical Movement and the Modern World

The Modern Ecumenical Movement was invented by the Vatican via Vatican II Council in the early 1960’s. Around this time, Pope John XXIII was a friend of Liberation Theology. He was Pope from 1958 to 1963 (He wanted to talk to the Communists when components of Communism is apart of the new world order agenda from a central bank to the stealing of private property). Jesuit John Courtney Murray, was called one of the “architects of the Second Vatican Council.” Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae Personae claimed to support religious liberty. Yet, Vatican II never revoked the anti-religious freedom proclamations of the Council of Trent. This Vatican II Council promoted false Alexandrian corrupt Bible versions (like the NIV. The NIV is heavily influenced by Papal Knight of St. Gregory Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch had to apologize for a racist cartoon about Obama in the New York Post. The NIV and other modern version omit hundreds of words), and the compromise of many Protestant & Baptist churches. Just recently in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI called non- Catholic churches defective. Therefore, Vatican II wasn’t about reconciliation, it was about Rome trying to control all Christian churches via compromise. Today, famous Ecumenicals include Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, even John Hagee, Robert Schuller, and Rick Warren. Billy Graham would praise the Roman Catholic Mass. The late Jerry Falwell was apart of the Moral Majority group. This organization had tons of Roman Catholics in its group. In his January 1985 Moral Majority Report, Falwell called the Pope and Billy Graham great moral and religious leaders. Rick Warren (who loves the modern Bible versions. These versions were pro-Latin Vulgate, pro-Jesuit Council of Trent, Westcott and Hort Greek Text) is a friend of pro-abortion President Barack Obama. Rick Warren is loved by the mainstream media, because he is a 21st century version of a calculating, compromising professing Christian in America. He does talk about controversial issues much and even compared Fundamental Christians to jihadists in an evil way. The Ecumenical movement is about merging Christianity into a global system basically (under the bigger goal of a one world religion. That‘s why there are global religious organizations today wanting this goal including Theosophists). Cardinal Spellman is an important Cold War figure. In my opinion, he was the most powerful American clergyman of the 20th century. He had ties to the CIA, Chiang Kai-shek, President Roosevelt, MacArthur, the Pentagon, and Wall Street. Cardinal Spellman was nicknamed Cardinal “Moneybags” because of his immense wealth.

Pope Pius XII greets Cardinal Spellman of New York City. Cardinal Spellman was a supporter for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam as early as the 1950’s. In the 1960’s, he would call the American soldiers fighting in Vietnam as the “soldiers of Christ.” Cardinal Spellman was pound for pound the most powerful clergyman in America during the 20th century.

The year of 2000 started with a bang. In November of that year George W. Bush was elected as President by the Supreme Court (Historically it has been very Masonic and now its composed of a Knight of Columbus Samuel Alito and is majority Roman Catholic). There are also pseudo- conservatives in the 21st century like Dame of Malta Phyllis Schlafly, Reed Irvine, Dusty Rhodes, Rush Limbaugh (who denies a global conspiracy to this day. He refuses to expose the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, or the Bohemian Grove), Tim La Haye, Pat Robertson, high level Freemason Jack Kemp, George Will, Charles Colson, etc. All of them have their puppet strings pulled by the Jesuits, the Knights of Malta, the Skulls and Bones, high level Freemasonry, the CFR, and other elite groups. The CNP or the Council on National Policy is one sinister group. Its purpose is to infiltrate conservatives as an alternative to the CFR, but it’s filled with SMOMs all over the place. Members inlcude D. James Kennedy (He unfortunately died recently in September 2007 because of a serious illness he had), Jesuit Avery Cardinal Dulles, Larry Pratt, Dr. Stan Monteith, Joe Coors, Oliver North, etc. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina damaged New Orleans and much of the Mississippi Delta. Problems existed among all levels of government.

SMOM is short for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta aka the Knights of Malta. The USA has its Knights of Malta, some of whom have used their influence to promote right-wing causes in South America (during the Cold War). In Chile, Opus Dei sought support from Chilean bishops for the overthrow of President Salvador Allende. In Chile, Opus Dei worked closely with CIA-funded groups which later merged with the Chilean secret police. John Paul II made Opus Dei a “personal prelature.” John Paul II made Alfonso Lopez Trujillo a cardinal. Lopez Trujillo was a Colombian sympathizer with Opus Dei and an opponent of liberation theology. American Knights of Malta such as William Simon (Citicorp) and Francis X.

Stankard (Chase Manhattan Bank) have spoken at Opus Dei meetings. Presently, the Knights of Malta (who exited since the 1100’s A.D. According to William Cooper and Fritz Springmeier, almost half of the Knights of Malta are in the Black Nobility families) still have great corporate power. Carl Nicholas Karcher (the head of Hardees) and Thomas S. Monaghan (head of Domino’s Pizza) are all Knights of Malta. Knight of Malta Alexandre de Marcendes was in the France intelligence agency called SDECE. Knight of Malta Juan Carlos of Spain today (who is pictured with Bush, Pinochet, and other world leaders. Juan Carlos is a member of the Order of the Garter and the head of the Golden Fleece) is a significant force in Middle East negiotations. The Knights of Malta today are ruled by Matthew Festing, who is the worldwide Grandmaster of the Knights of Malta. The SMOM Joseph E. Schmitz had ties with the mercenary Blackwater organization. Blackwater has been caught murdering Iraqis, even by American investigators. Their leadership has been in controversies spanning years now. SMOM Giscard D’Estaing is a huge promoter of the European Union. An European Union has been a Vatican brainchild for centuries. SMOM Frederic V. Salerno was the President of NYNEX Worldwide Services Group and a Senior Advisor to Gabelli Group Capital Partners.

*The Knights of Malta—has been caused “the most exclusive club on earth,” according to Stephen Birmingham, author of Real Lace: America’s Irish Rich.

George H. W. Bush (who was the 41st U.S. President) is meeting with Cardinal Egan.

Bush 41 was the Director of the CIA during the 1970’s. He was also awarded the Knight of Malta award of Savoy. He was in WWII, he was a Bonesmen. George H. W. Bush is famous especially for calling for the existence of the new world order in 1990 during his State of the Union Address. He was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath One of his sons named Jeb Bush is also a member of the Knights of Columbus.

Edward Cardinal Egan of the Archdiocese of New York knighted Salerno to the Order of St. Gregory the Great in 2006. Salerno is on the Board of Viacom and a member of the Board of Hedrick & Struggles. SMOM Joseph A. Unanue is the Founder, Goya Foods the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the U.S. Tom Monaghan is the Founder of Domino’s Pizza. SMOM Geoffrey T. Biois is Trilateral Commission member and a leader in many corporate boards. This shows that Knights of Malta have many ties to the banking international elite. Even Rick Joyner is a Knight of Malta. He is the Charismatic/Word Faith/Dominionist proponent. He claims to have visions about the Kingdom of God on Earth (being man-made) that going on. This is unscriptural of course. There is even a Danish version of the Knights of Malta existing now.

Other Orders

There are other high level Vatican knighthoods that few know about. One is the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. Troy was the first researcher who brought this information to the forefront in the alternative media. Its 2 major branches are the Franco- Neapolitan branch and the Hispano-Neapolitan branch. According to Troy, their stated goal is to continue the war on terror to fight against Muslims (which they call “infidels“). The fight against Muslims, Jews, and Christians (especially if they are conservative) have been a real agenda of the new world order for centuries. Now, the leader of the Franco-Neapolitan branch is French Jesuit Albert Cardinal Vanhoye. The leader of the Hispano-Neapolitan branch is named Infante Carlos or the Duke of Calabria. There has always been big connection between high level Freemasonry and these very powerful Papal Knighthoods. For example, Prince Michael of Kent is the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons. Prince Michael is the Duke of Kent’s brother. The Duke of Kent is the head or the Grand Master of the UGLE. The Duke of Kent’s wife (Katherine) and their son Lord Nicholas Windsor are Roman Catholics. Michael’s wife is not only a Roman Catholic. She is the senior Dame of the British and Irish Delegation of the Franco-Neapolitan branch of the Constantinian Order. She is also a Dame of the SMOM within the Order’s British Association. Prince Michael of Kent is the cousin of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK (the Queen is apart of the Order of the Garter and the Sovereign of the Order of St. John. These group are high level British Royal orders).

The Queen is a part of the Saxe-Coburg Gotha family with family members being Roman Catholics. The Saxe-Coburg Gotha’s ancestor was Ernst II. Back then, Duke Ernst II was the protector and inheritor of Adam Weishaupt (who formed his Bavarian Illuminati group. The Illuminati wanted to use enlightenment principles to create an utopian new world order system. Weishaupt‘s group was banished by the Bavarian government in 1782). The Knights of Malta predate the Order of St. John. The Archbishop of Cantebury is even a Papal Knight of Francis I. Jacob Rothschild is the Knight of the Queen’s Order of the British Empire and the Order of merit. The Queen defers to the Pope, so the Rothschilds are directly related to European Knighthoods (these Knighthoods are allies of the Papal Knights of Malta. Even Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush received the Knight of Malta award of the Order of Merit). Author F. Tupper Saussy in his book, “Rulers of Evil” found that the Rothschilds bore the title of “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury.“ Pat Buchannan is a famous Knight of Malta that worked with someone that was apart of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird Program (this program was about the CIA controlling the US media). The Duke of Kent’s brother, the Duke of Gloucester, is the Grand Prior of the Knights of St John (or Most Venerable Order of St John). He is also the First Grand Principal of the Supreme Grand Lodge of Royal Arch Masons of England. The Pope defers to the Jesuit Superior General. Even King Abdullah of Jordan was Jesuit trained from Georgetown University.

This I.H.S. symbol is found in the Jesuit World Headquarters as found in Rome, Italy. This picture above is from the World Jesuit headquarters. On the top left and right parts of this image shows nests. According to the Eye of the Phoenix documentary, this nests shows a growing Phoenix. The Phoenix according to Manly P. Hall represents resurrection and a Christ-like figure. According to Chris Pinto, the Phoenix represents the false Christ of the new Aquarian Age.

These Papal Knighthoods as proven by Troy rule over many Jewish and Arabic leaders in the Middle East as well. For example, the Arabic man of Nadhmi Auchi is not only a Papal member of the Royal Order of Francis I. He is also an Iraqi-British billionare businessman man who is worth at least UK £2.15 billion. Mainstream newspapers claim that Auchi had links with Saddam Hussein’s old government. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has meet up with the Syrian President Al-Basshad. Al-Basshad is another Knight of the Order of Francis I. Troy says that he is associated with the Constantinian Order. Ex-President of Lebanon Emile Lahood invested into the Vatican-loyal Constantinian Order (of the Franco-Neapolitan Branch). 2 members of the House of Saud (with the names of Governor of Mecca Prince Khalid al Faisal & Prince Bandar bin Khalid) are members of the Papal Order of Francis I. The PLO opened their Vatican Office in 1994. There is the Jesuit-trained Shimon Peres with support of the Vatican as well. In 1993, Shimon Peres deeded the Temple Mount to the Vatican (after the Olso Accord). Shimon Peres has been knighted into the British Queen’s Orders of Saints Michael & George. Barry Chamish and other write assign Peres with the label of Sabbeteans, because they act in the interest of the Vatican more so than in the interest of regular Jewish people. In fact, it would be the same apostate Labor Zionists (who are mostly Ashkenazi Jewish people) that aided Hitler’s Nazi Empire during WWII, they harmed Sephardic Jewish children with dangerous radiation, and they still hold mighty influence in Israel today. Numerous leaders in Israel are notorious Freemasons (ironically, Freemasonry respects the Kabbalah. The Kabbalah is a Mystery school teaching that the Torah have hidden codes. Some of the dogma of the Kabbalah originated from ancient Babylon. That is why that there are similarities between Romanism and the ancient Babylonian religion), not only allies of Papal Knighthood. Hence, these Jewish and Arabic puppets are subservient to the Vatican, while the Middle East is in chaos right now. These puppets (both Jewish & Arabic human beings) are utilized to facilitate the new world order (whose headquarters is desired to be in the Middle East among many individuals).

Vernon Walters is a Roman Catholic Knight of Malta (including Jesuit educated from Stonyhurst College in the UK) and one of the most powerful American military leaders of the 20th century.  He had ties with Le Cerle and was involved in various CIA coups (in Iran at 1953, in Brazil in 1964, and in Chile in 1973). He would meet with John Paul II and Vernon would support the overthrow of the Sandinista government of Honduras.

He spoke fluent languages of German, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, and Chinese.  He was an aide of Pilgrim Society member Averell Harriman. Lord Inge is the President of the Pilgrim Society (Inge is member of the Privy Council and the Order of the Garter). Inge is the non-executive chairman of the mercenary firm Aegis Defence Services. Aegis has been awarded a $293 million contract for Iraq in 2004. In 2004 he was made a Privy Councillor. Walters attended Pan American conferences. The Pilgrim Society is a very powerful order that rules much of the Anglo-American establishment. It was created in 1902 .Queen Elizabeth II is the Patroness of world Freemasonry and the patron of the Pilgrim Society as well.  He was a co-founder of the secret group called 61. He was a great promoter of the Cold War hysteria (when both sides were funded by the same people in the Vatican, the Pilgrim Society international bankers, and the rest of the global elite).

Le Cerle is a famous Papal group that desires the building of a European continent. Henry Kissinger is working with Pope Benedict XVI to promote the new world order agenda. Papal agents Tony Blair and Hugo Chavez have called for a new world order as well. Hugo Chavez is nothing more than a pro-Vatican “left wing” controlled opposition to the establishment like George W. Bush was definitely a pro-Vatican “neo-conservative” controlled opposition. When you eliminate the smokescreen, you see that the real players are found in the Vatican/Jesuit network (with their Knighthoods, etc.) and various elite bloodlines spanning thousands of years (from ancient Babylon & Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Merovingians, the Monarchs, and today). That is why over a dozen Presidents (even the current President of Barack Obama) are related to European Royalty.

There are also Vatican groups such as the Knights of Columbus, Opus Dei, the Order of St. George, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, the House of Savoy’s Order of Sts Maurice & Lazarus, the Teutonic Knights, and the Knights of St. Gregory with mighty power as well. For example, Roman Catholic and Knight of St. Gregory member Rupert Murdoch is the billionaire owner of News Corporation. He is the biggest media mogul in the planet Earth today.  Even the Order of the Golden Fleece is still very potent now. The Order of the Golden Fleece mainly is consisted of Royals from around the globe (like King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and SMOM King Juan Carlos of Spain).  These organizations have links to world political power, world finance, world media, and other spheres of influence. Bill Clinton is a famous Jesuit-Georgetown University trained person. He was given the Rhodes Scholarship as well when Cecil Rhodes based his group upon the Jesuit Order. Others people refuse to expose the Pilgrim Society. Lord Inge is the President of the Pilgrim Society. The Chairman of the Pilgrim Society is Chairman is Sir Robert Worcester KBE DL. Many of their leaders in times past were leaders of the Federal Reserve. Pilgrims today include Sandra Day O’Connor, David Rockefeller, Edmund Leopold Rothschild, Henry Kissinger, and Paul A. Volcker. The Order of the Garter is a British group whose members are chosen by Queen Elizabeth II. Today, the Chancellor of the Order of the Garter is the very powerful Peter Carrington since 1994. Carrington was a Bilderberg Chairman from 1990 to 1994. Their members include Prince Charles, Prince William, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and others.

21st Century Developments

George W. Bush seems to be more Pro-Roman Catholic than even President John F. Kennedy. Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) was a member of the Hitler Youth movement and did wartime service with a German army anti-aircraft unit. Ratzinger’s mentor was Jesuit Karl Rahner. Rahner was crucial in the development of the Vatican II Council. Today, Pope Benedict XVI is the present Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Just before the election of 2008 ended, both John McCain and Barack Obama meet with Cardinal Egan at the Alfred E. Smith dinner. Barack Obama was elected President from November 4, 2008. Edward Cardinal Egan is America’s head of the Knights of Malta, a Knight of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, and a Constantinian Knight. It’s easy to find Jesuit ties to the President of Barack Obama. Barack (whose wife Michelle Obama is a leading member of the Chicago CFR) is rumored to be a 32nd Degree Prince Hall Freemason (Barack Obama‘s replacement to the Senate named Roland Burris is a 32nd Degree Prince Hall Freemason ironically). Burris is now fighting for his political life being accused of financial connection with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Michelle Obama was an associate to the Chicago Loop law firm, Sidley Austin. She was a friend to paralegal named Mike Strautmanis. Barack Obama had more ties with the Catholic Church [and the Jesuits] when he worked as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. He studied under Zbigniew Brzezinski (the Papal Marxist utopian who advocates the new world order and the break of our national sovereignty. He also advocates more aggression toward Russia even in the Eurasian region). Brzezinski was the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission. Pope Benedict XVI according to a report in the National Post has blessed Barack Obama. Barack Obama is surrounded with Jesuit trained confidants. Roman Catholic Vice President Joe Biden and Mike Strautmanis’s (who is the senior legal counsel to the Obama Presidential team) are Jesuit trained. Mike attended a very special school: the Jesuit-run St. Ignatius College Prep, one of Chicago’s influential Catholic schools. The Vice President’s Chief of Staff is Ron Klain, who was trained by Jesuits at Georgetown University and worked for Jesuit-trained Congressman Ed Markey.

Obama’s Chicago mentor is the former Jesuit priest Gregory Galluzzo.

This is President Barack Obama shaking hands with CFR member John McCain during the Al Smith 2008 annual dinner. Now, the person with the religious garb is Cardinal Egan of NYC. Cardinal Egan is the spiritual head of the U.S. Knights of Malta. Both Obama and McCain are definitely political allies (who are pro-Vatican) even if they don’t agree on every issue. Ironically, both men are for gun control, abortion in certain circumstances, global warming hysteria, and for the Wall Street bailout. John McCain has Jesuit ties as well.

The Jesuit priest Greg Galluzo founded the Gamaliel Foundation. This is a subsidiary of the Ford Foundation. Barack Obama worked for this Gamaliel Foundation in Chicago for years. Furthermore, Ann Dunham, who is Barack Obama’s  mother, worked for the Ford Foundation as did the father of Timothy Geithner, Barack Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury. Jesuit trained Jon Favreau is Barack Obama’s chief speechwriter. Obama’s Senior Military and Foreign Policy Advisor, Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, was Jesuit-trained. Obama’s National Security Adviser is James L. Jones, who was trained by Jesuits at Georgetown University. Jones is a retired four-star general and formerly served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (2003-2006). Until a few days ago, Jones was on the board of directors of Boeing, Obama’s Deputy Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, was Jesuit-trained. Barack Obama’s CIA pick of Leon Panetta is Jesuit trained (he entered Santa Clara University in 1956) as well. Leon Panetta compromise and said that there will be no prosecutions for CIA interrogators who committed torture in the rendition program. It appears that the new Barack Obama administration have as much ties to the Vatican as the previous administration had.  It’s apparent that the Vatican/Jesuit goal of ruling the world under the Papacy hasn’t ceased to function. This information about the Vatican’s manipulation of world events (with the influence of the Jesuit/Vatican network) is not shown in the mainstream media. Tony Blair is another prominent Roman Catholic. He is known for supporting immoral war in Iraq and expanding the police state in Britian to unheard of levels. Blair has been speaking across the world now to promote ecumenicalism and the new world order. That is why he is partnering with the Yale University Schools of Management and Divinity.

Blair is doing this order to make his “The Tony Blair Faith Foundation” to use “education” as a means to bring about the New World Order. Tony Blair is a supporter of the pro-Knight of Malta Carlyle Group (with members like Roman Catholic Frank C. Carclucci and Knight of Malta award receiver George H. W. Bush. Bush would support the new world order via a famous speech in 1990. That’s why the leadership of America, Saudi Arabia, and even Israel work together. For example, the Bush family, the Bin Ladens, and Bandar all worked together in business endeavors for decades). Blair’s wife is Roman Catholic Cherie Booth (of whom she and Tony Blair have been involved in New Age practices).

Two Temple University professors and Knights of Malta Jesuit-trained (Gregorian University) Dr. Craig de Paulo and Patrick Messina are some of the leading Vatican agents supporting the war on terror (under the guise of a “just war” which is supported by Papists Augustine of North Africa and fanatical Catholic Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas wrote Summa Theologica). There are interesting Vatican/Jesuit connections to the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein had CIA ties since the late 1950’s. The CIA utilized Saddam and others to overthrown the Iraqi government of Qasim in 1963. Knight of Malta Rick Joyner arranged a meeting between Paul Cain and Saddam Hussein, the President of Iraq. The Jesuits were later expelled from Iraq in 1969. 34 years later, the US-UK invasion of Iraq existed. Nicholas Rivera and other truth seekers found out that that during that time Peter Pace, the Commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq General David Patraeus, Donald Rumsfeld, and General James Jones were involved in the war. They were all Jesuit trained from Georgetown University (Its President now is Jesuit & Knight of Malta John J. DeGioia).

This can’t be a coincidence. This proves that the Iraq War was influenced by the Jesuits in order to pacify the mostly Muslim peoples in the Middle East (to promote the new world order). The researcher Mark Brewer found this out in his own words: “…Ahmed Chalabi was trained by Jesuits at Baghdad College in Iraq. Chalabi was the primary lobbyist for the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. That act was the cause of the current Iraq war, which has enabled the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq to gain control of the country and institute Sharia law. Chalabi has many connections to the neoconservatives as well, which shows whose side they are on…” Other reports have exposed the depleted uranium, poisons against soldiers, the war crimes, the torture, the dangerous vaccines, etc. doing on in Iraq. SMOM Joseph Schmitz is a leading member of the  Blackwater USA mercenary organization. Now, with so much controversy, Blackwater has changed its name to another. The Jesuits have been anti-gun for centuries like the late Jesuit Drinan is anti-gun (He and other deposed CFR apostate Quaker Richard Nixon by introducing a resolution to impeach him after Watergate). Drinan voted against the criminalization of abortion being pro-abortion.

It’s totally true that the Vatican (who are in league with really powerful bloodlines like the Orsini, the Aldobradini family, the Habsburgs, etc.) is still the richest religious institution in the world. The Pope claims Temporal power over the whole world as various quotes dictate. Today, the Jesuits act as agents in numerous arenas. American historian J. Wayne Laurens writes: “They [the Jesuits] are not merely priests, or of one religious creed; they are merchants… and editors, and men of any profession, having no outward badge by which to be recognized…. ”  [ J. Wayne Laurens, The Crisis in America : or the Enemies of America Unmasked (Philadelphia: G. D. Miller, 1855), p. 265; cited in Codeword Barbelon].

Pope Benedict XVI arrives near past and present British politicians to give a speech at Westminster Hall in London September 17, 2010. From left are former British prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, Cherie Blair, Norma Major, former prime ministers John Major and Margaret Thatcher, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. REUTERS/Christopher Furlong/POOL (BRITAIN – Tags: POLITICS RELIGION)

Who’s “the man” in this photo?

Tagged with: , ,

American Congressional Record 1940.

Posted in Political History by Earthling on April 6, 2011

Joseph Hodges Choate

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read the speeches given by the American members of the Pilgrims, for they, like all converts, and more un-American and pro-English than the British themselves. The address of Joseph H. Choate is an example of Anglo-phile, pertinent at this time in view of the conditions that exist today. I shall now requote some of these statements in order to show how deceptive they can be. Mr. Choate states: We have no difficulty and never have had that I know of with the people of England. A statement that is perfectly true, because the people of England have little or nothing to say in the British Government. Our trouble has been with the British Government, which has never at any time been friendly toward the United States—but the gentleman did not make such statement. Furthermore, it is well to note the servile attitude of the speaker to the Crown of England, and his praise of the rulers, which again is perfectly all right, yet he has failed in his speech as others have in theirs, to say one good word for the Government of the United States. He then goes on to say: The people of England and the people of the United States are always friendly to each other; another statement which no one can criticize, but to which I want to add that the people of all countries—the common people—have always been and are now friendly to each other. If war depended upon them there would be no war. The trouble lies with the rulers of the different governments. It is they who advocate war; war of destruction, not only of property and human life but of Christian civilization itself. So in view of this, let us remember that no country has been at war so much as England and no country has brought about more misfortune and suffering than the British Government. This should be clear as we review the early history of our own colonies, of India, Ireland, and the 400,000,000 opium addicts in China, all of which may be charged to the greed of the British Government. Mr. Choate, in making his statements, spoke for the people of the United States, when in reality he should have hesitated even to speak for himself. His sole concern appeared to have been our friendliness toward Great Britain, but not their friendliness toward us; and again he placed the United States in the position of a suppliant to the British throne. 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. Continuing his discussion on this topic, Mr. Choate expressed himself as being quite willing to leave the decision of the Panama Canal in the hands of the British and American pilgrims, which anyone can readily understand would be a one-sided decision; i. e., all for England and nothing for the United States. Mr. Choate then makes his most extraordinary statement, upon which every Member of Congress and the people of this Nation should ponder—particularly in view of the happenings since 1912: 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. It was also the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone does not know is that we were committed to this war in 1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan’s own testimony before the Senate committee investigating the munitions industry. Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British- Israel movement. Now remember, this was not Congressional record of the 17th, 18th or 19th century, this was 1940! The commonality in all of this? British – Israel Movement = Rothschild Zionism Suez Canal = Rothschild purchase Cecil Rhodes = Rothschild Agent J.P.Morgan = Rothschild Agent

British Law: Usurped by our very own Government. IMPORTANT!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Political History, Politics by Earthling on April 3, 2011

I have discussed the Bill of Rights (and the Scottish equivalent: The Claim of Right) on many occasions within this blog. I have posted email communications between myself and my MP, MSP (and others) on the subject and, I hope, shown to an extent, their refusal to enter into any detailed discussion on the matter. I have also posted a reply regarding the Privy Councillors’ Oath of office, received from a certain Peter Mandelson where he confirms the seriousness of the oath taken. Such confirmation is extraordinary given that he has broken this oath as have his Privy Council colleagues.

I wish to say, at this point, that this specific blogpost ranks as one of the most important I have posted in terms of bringing to your attention one of the most important, yet misunderstood if people are at all aware, aspects of the United Kingdom’s continuing rapid decline.

The oaths these people take are steeped in COMMON LAW. Common Law is the ultimate law of the United Kingdom and the noncompliance to such law is the highest form of criminality. The problem is that the British people have lost sight of what this means and what our real laws are. It is this ignorance which allows the criminal actions across the board by our government.

To demonstrate clearly the importance of the COMMON LAW statutes which form the basis of ALL law in the United Kingdom, please take serious note of the following:

 

“Article 9 of the fundamental constitutional law of the UK of course trumps statute and statutory instruments
Hansard Debate 17th March 2011:   110317h0001.htm
Referring to article 9 in particular because that was the article having relevance to the debate.
This is Common law = BRITISH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
 
Now PLEASE take note of the following words of the Viscount of Oxfuird during a debate in the House of Lords with respect to the attack upon the Hereditary peers within the House by the sitting Labour government (it matters not which party was in ‘power’ at the time however):
“The present proposal, as framed, carries great dangers since it tinkers with a well-established protocol of checks and balances. I believe that the simple removal of the sitting and voting rights of all hereditary Members of this House, without defining clearly what will replace them, is a dangerous step which will be both destructive and divisive. It will further tilt the balance in the direction of the overwhelming power that the Prime Minister and his executive Cabinet already wield.”

“This country does not understand the way in which your Lordship’s House as it is currently composed carries out its duties. Sadly, our education curriculum no longer teaches the importance of our constitution to the ranks of students and citizens of this country. As a result, the so-called modernisers are able to pursue a path of radical and ill-conceived change without a full understanding by the public at large of what is going on.”

Now, like most of you, I also have a serious issue with the ideology of hereditary peerages. I find the genealogy basis of such repugnant while the same MUST be said for the Monarchy therefore. One cannot find issue with the former and have no issue with the latter since they are steeped within one and the same ideology. However, no matter what you may think of hereditary peerages, the point this Lord is making is correct and absolutely valid. Our education system stopped teaching the Constitution within our schools many decades ago, as well as any Law. There is religion aplenty in schools but no law. It is interesting to note, as an aside however, that the law “taught” to children is so basic that it IS Common Law – One must not cause Injury, harm or loss to another. It really is that simple but we have lost sight of this due to immense and ever increasing statutory acts by government which, over decades, have purposefully created a manipulated (think Political correctness) and controlled (smoking laws, census fines, attacks on freedom of speech, the list is endless) society. There IS a reason for this just as there is a reason for the flood of immigration coming into the UK via the never-ending powers of the EU. The EU wins hands down with this immigration because it dilutes any sense of Britishness (or any other nationality). The electorate is composed of an ever growing number of “alien cultures” within British society while such people are as oblivious to their manipulation within the divides created as we are. This is not the immigrants fault. This is the conscious agenda of the ruling class within the non-democratic, bureaucratic EU leadership helped by their same ruling class friends within the UK. This is why one must look at and take seriously the immense influence of people like our Justice Minister Ken Clarke, Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair, the Milibands, Nick Clegg and many others within the political ruling class. One MUST look at the strong connections such people have to the financial ruling class which includes, not least, the Rothschild family who, in turn, are connected to our Monarchy. One cannot simply ignore or dismiss these connections. They are solid and they are powerful.

If you think for one moment that Tony Blair, for example, is no longer PM and, therefore “out of the loop” and of no political importance in this country, you are very wrong and naive. Tony’s very close association with Rothschild is the reason why you have someone like Saif Gaddafi, right now, still looking for his support. The Ken Clarke Bilderberg connection is of fundamental importance to all of this British decline you see as is Mandelson’s strong Rothschild connections. There is good reason why someone like Nat Rothschild can threaten to destroy George Osbourne. Such isn’t an empty threat and Osbourne knows this only too well as does Cameron.

So why bring the above into this blog on the Bill of Rights and British Constitutional law?

I hope the following explains:

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Rockefeller – Memoirs.

Rockefeller is the man behind not ONLY Bilderberg but also the United Nations (include within the UN the IMF and the W.H.O). Now, turn back to Ken Clarke for a moment:

Ken Clarke is now the UK’s “Lord Chief Justice” and has been an ardent Europhile for his entire political career INCLUDING when Margaret Thatcher was ousted from office (the Poll Tax protests, whether justified or not, were not spontaneous. They were controlled by Thatcher opposition similarly to the Trade Union/Labour/UKUncut protests today). Ken clarke is also, however, a Bilderberg Steering Committee member for some decades.

Now let’s crystallize something for you regarding the Bill of Rights:

snpc-04559.pdf

You may wonder why, no matter which political party enters government – even IF, as prior opposition, they contested strenuously the government of the day on some serious issues – there is no real, tangible change for the better within this country called UK. The last few decades, since “winning” WW2, have seen a constant decline of the British nation across ALL fronts whether that be industry, social/family cohesion, division of wealth. You may notice that ALL governments/parties (the main three) speak in unison on the issues of the most fundamental importance. The REAL issues:

  • Membership of the EU.
  • Climate Change legislation.
  • Wars.

And, referring to the subject at hand, the arrival of a “New Bill of Rights” (and do NOT forget “Duties”) for Britain.

It is most interesting to delve into the UK Parliament archives and find that the attacks upon the Acts of Settlement of the Monarchy, the Bill of Rights, Royal Marriages etc etc, have had their origins within the Fabian Society. Then you find that, from those origins, the Labour Party (Jack Straw), the Conservative party “Democracy Task Force” (KEN CLARKE) and the Liberal Democrats (Clegg) have all adopted the basic principle that our fundamental Constitutional documents require alteration if not outright replacement.

Now, ask yourself: Why would we find ALL three parties, once more, in one “moment” in time, so solidly in agreement that the British Constitution, in place for hundreds of years, need be substantially altered? Because of catholicism and the Monarchy issue? An issue which has ZERO bearing on anyone’s everyday life in the UK but they – the political establishment along with SOME clergy – consider it SO important an issue in “today’s modern society”.

No. Again, we see SMOKE AND MIRRORS at work. The focus on this issue is purely to enable deeper and deeper integration within the EU and disintegration of a nation named the United Kingdom.

Let us consider just ONE aspect of the above document/paper issued by the government regarding these “Rights” they are promising (which you must understand you already have for NO-ONE bestows “rights” upon another. Such practice proves you are not free. If you are free then no-one can OFFER you a “right”, you simply have them, otherwise they are privileges. As privileges, they may also be REMOVED at will). But let us zoom in on one single issue shall we?

The Committee recommended that some additional rights, such as the right to trial by jury and the right to administrative justice should be included in a Bill of Rights.  They also considered the inclusion of environmental rights (or ‘third generation’ rights as they are known).  The Committee did not recommend fully justiciable social or economic rights but a situation where the Government would have a duty to progress towards realising certain rights of this kind:

We suggest that the Bill of Rights and Freedoms should initially include the rights to education, health, housing and an adequate standard of living.  Government would have a duty to progress towards realising these rights and would need to report that progress to Parliament.  Individuals would not be able to enforce these rights through the courts, but the courts would have a role in reviewing the measures taken by Government.

“Rights” which are “non justiciable”. “Rights” which you cannot enforce. What a WONDERFUL ideology our government have in being so kind to OFFER you “Rights”. Please just be aware that that is what they are doing: OFFERING. If you ACCEPT that offer you are binding yourself to an agreement with them and the ONLY “Rights” you will have will be those they deem you worthy of as and when they see fit.

 

THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT NEED A NEW BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS. IT ALREADY HAS A BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH RECOGNISES COMMON LAW. WE NEED OUR GOVERNMENT BROUGHT INTO LINE WITH THE RULE OF LAW.

AND THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S PROBLEM! JURY TRIALS? THEY DON’T WANT THOSE. THEY CANNOT THEN SIMPLY ADMINISTER FINES AND PENALTIES ON YOU BY COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENTS ON BEHALF OF PURELY COMMERCIAL INTERESTS.

 

The following section has been lifted from the blog of Centurean2. It captures the detail of our existing Bill of Rights from 1688/89 as published on the TPUC.org website. I have added one or two comments and also highlighted certain aspects.

 

In a British court of law – know your rights and how True British Law can protect you

THE UNLIMITED LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY NOW IMPOSED ON
ALL OFFICERS AND MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BY
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 1689

It is respectfully submitted to you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1689 make clear in law that no Officer or Minister of the Crown may depart from the duties that are imposed by the provisions of the Act, under any circumstances whatsoever.

It is respectfully submitted to the you that all members of the Courts, being themselves Officers of the Crown, are legally obliged to maintain those particular provisions of law that are defined by the Bill of Rights, 1689, notwithstanding any provision that may be made by other legislation and/or by any other forms of regulation.

It is respectfully submitted to you that no member of the Courts may
act in any way that serves to deny or otherwise remove those legal responsibilities that are imposed upon all Officers of the Crown by the provisions of the Bill of Rights, 1689.

It is respectfully submitted to the you that the particular responsibility in
Law that is imposed upon the Courts by the Bill of Rights, 1689, is contained
within that particular provision of the Act, which states as follows –

“Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing
the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained
by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it
may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted
and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights
and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed,
adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in
the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their
Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come

In both Common Law and in Statute Law, it is provided that –

“No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor (condemn him) (defined by the Statute as meaning ‘deal with him’), (1) but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man; we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Item (2) “That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.” Bill of Rights 1689 Section 2 clause 12

Simply put; if you are given a fine without being put in a court of law first, the fine is invalid. This applies to any fine given to you including speeding fines, congestion charge, and a fine given to you by a policeman, any fine you receive. Item (2)

When you go to the court for non payment of the fine, or you fill in the slip to have the matter dealt with in a court of law, you must demand to be tried by a jury, (trial by the judgment of my peers or by the law of the land) the magistrate will say “I cannot offer you that option “. You reply “I want a jury and that is not your option, it belongs to me the defendant”. They will say “we are bound by statutes” which in reply you say “I am glad you are bound statutes and I am glad you have said that for it is statute that gave you your existence as a magistrate” and further more “you are bound by the first of these statutes The Bill of Rights 1689, which clearly states; item (1)

The magistrate will probably say “I still cannot give you that option” so you reply “The Bill of Rights 1689 requires you, as an officer of the crown, to serve the crown in accordance to the provisions of the Act” and furthermore “you must serve your majesty in accordance to this Act, for you cannot break your Oath of Allegiance you swore to become a magistrate, the option is mine and if you refuse to grant me my option, which is my right under the Act, then you yourself are in breach of common law, so you have no choice but to acquit me, for you have no right to deny me my birthrights as a British subject”.

If they do not send you a court date, and they just send bailiffs to your house, then just comply with the bailiffs wishes. Then go immediately to your nearest magistrate court and apply for a “Statutory Declaration”. The Statutory Declaration is your chance to put to the court you were unaware of the trial to convict you, and you were not given your rights to defend yourself. This will overturn the ruling against you and the bailiff must return your money or your goods forthwith.

In a court of law the jury is sovereign which basically means they make the ultimate decision of guilty or not guilty. The jury under common law can go against any law if they feel the law is unjust. They have the power to “null” a case if they feel the charge is unjust. No judge can rule against the jury’s final decision.

Protect yourself with this knowledge, for as we will prove very soon, Judges and magistrates dare not go against the Bill of Rights 1689, for it is the very statute they must obey.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/38

OUR BILL OF RIGHTS- 1689- THE ONE AMERICA USED FOR THEIR OWN BILL OF RIGHTS!!

Bill of Rights 1689

Please scroll down to see notes added;
An Act Declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne
Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Commons in the Words following viz
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Counsellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.
1. By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without consent of Parlyament. (with this in place legally no sovereign could ever break the original contract (the holy alliance) and subsequently the contract would always be protected. As in the rest of this legal document no soveriegn could do anything from this point without the consent of parliament, not only creating the constitutional sovereign, but also succeeding to lock them in a legal cage in legal bondage. Wheather they wanted to do something or not they cannot for this document re-enforces what was set out by magna carta and creates a re-enforcement of such maintained to this day)
2. By Committing and Prosecuting diverse Worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power.
3. By issueing and causeing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seale for Erecting a Court called The Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.
4. By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parlyament.
5. By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.
6. By causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
7. By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parlyament.
8. By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegal Courses.
9. And whereas of late years Partial Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons have been returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls and particularly diverse Jurors in Tryalls for High Treason which were not Freeholders.
10. And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects.
11. And excessive Fines have been imposed.
12. And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.
13. And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levied.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.
And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant, his [Highnesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause
Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare;
1. That the pretended Power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
3. That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.
5. That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
6. That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.
7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
8. That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free.
9. That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
10. That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted.
11. That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned and Jurors which passe upon Men in Trialls for High Treason ought to be Freeholders.
12. That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons (are you a ‘particular person’ and if you are not who is – what is the criteria that makes you a ‘particular person’ – maybe you should ask?) before Conviction are illegall and void.
13. And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.
And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgments Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example.
To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of his Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onley means for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing therefore an entire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance so farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve that William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and Princesse to accept the same accordingly.
And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.
I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God. (all well and good for the spiritual side of things, but what about the ‘temporal’? It seems they forgot to put this word in (or did they) and without it this passage is worthless, even if it was wrote for all of us which I can assure you it was not!)

Upon which their said Majestyes did accept the Crown and Royall Dignitie of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging according to the Resolution and Desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said Declaration. And thereupon their Majestyes were pleased That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly.
*Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and things therein contained by the Force of a Law made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People (plural of person) what about the serfs?) of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come.

Please note what is highlighted in red.

Comments by John Harris.

The Bill of Rights was an Act of re-enforcement and re-statement of the Common Law legal system of this land. True! But it is not what it seems. I will update what is written below and the rest of this document very soon with a new perspective!!

The Bill of Rights was enacted by Parliament in recognition of the conditions contained within the Declaration of Rights its preamble document.

Parliament itself has provided evidence of its own responsibility to uphold Common Law. FACT!

So for an example of their blatant disregard for the Common Law of this land; the clause that says… That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void…Quite clearly states that all fines given without first being tried in a court of law are void and subsequently so are all forfeitures. So why are many people paying fixed penalty fines and allowing forfeitures of their property before conviction? The simple answer is you do not know your own laws and the MP’s passing these Statutes/Acts to make you submit to this are illegally using these Statutes and Acts to fool you.

Earthling note: I would wish to add to this that there is a VERY IMPORTANT issue we must recognise here. That is something which I term the “Compartmentalization of law”. This is that the Courts have certain “JURISDICTIONS” whereby they use an EXCUSE for not offering your “rights” by stating words to the effect: “This court is concerned with matter ‘A’  ONLY and the statutory law which applies”. They will entirely ignore ALL higher laws to pursue their aim in that singular court. The court system is constructed purposefully in such a fashion to allow this but it is a FRAUD.

This relates to any fixed penalty fine given to you and any attempt to remove your property before you have been convicted in a court of law, by a jury of your peers (equals in status). This pertains to another clause found in Magna Carta 1215, article… [39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. So any court of law that denies your right to a jury, is acting outside of its lawful duty to uphold the Common Law of this land and this should be maintained by all those swearing the Judicial Oath of Allegiance. Please note a jury is the most powerful element in any court of law for they have the power to null a case and even to go against the law if they feel the law is unjust, hence why juries are being denied in the courts; even more evidence of the power of the people!!

Let’s take for another example the MP’s Oath of Allegiance and their blatant disregard for the Oaths they swore and Parliaments conduct over the past 100 years. All Statutory and Parliamentary Acts of law must adhere to one simple ruleall Statutes/Acts of Parliament must only be for the strengthening and preserving of the Common Law of this landAny Statute/Act of Parliament to the contrary is not valid as proven by…. That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holdenand observed as they are expressed in the said DeclarationAnd all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in alltimes to come.

So all Ministers who have swore allegiance to Her Majesty are required by Common Law and by the evidence of their sworn oath, to maintain the format of Government in accordance with the terms of the Coronation Oath, an Oath taken by the Queen to regulate the Government in accordance to the laws and customs of the people entrenched in the Common Law of this land. Any minister who breaks this oath has removed his legitimacy to his position within Parliament by his own actions and the evidence of his none legitimacy is in the above.

As Major and Straw have both said on past occasions…Parliament is without the authority to require the Queen to break the terms of her coronation oath….this, quite simply, say’s it all.

SO WHY DOES CAMERON AND CO- WANT TO REWRITE THIS BILL- THATS’ OBVIOUS WHEN YOU READ THE BILL WE ALREADY HAVE IN FORCE- A BILL FOR ALL TIME!!!
Earthling note: Again, they wish to rewrite the Bill and all others regarding the British Constitution, to achieve the aims of the International Bankers and nobility (including our ‘Royalty”), i.e. To destroy nations and nationalities so as to achieve a singular Global governance where EVERY (previous) nation, nationality, culture and religion accepts this singular global governance and law.
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

The scourge of ZIONISM

Posted in "Terrorism", Political History, Politics by Earthling on March 24, 2011

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY. THE WALLS HAVE EARS! AND THE ZIONISTS HAVE THE JDL, ADL, AIPAC and Mr ROTHSCHILD JUST WAITING TO POUNCE ON THE “ANTI SEMITE”.

TO ALL THOSE MPs NOT MEMBERS OF THE FRIENDS OF ISRAEL I SAY: “What? Are you stupid? Don’t you think of your career?”


The young rabbi, Yaakov Yisrael Dahan was murdered on July 1, 1924. He was a man who devoted all his energies and the best years of his life to saving the remnant of loyal Jews, and to promote peace with the veteran Arab residents of the Holy Land. Through his knowledge of politics and diplomacy, Dahan contributed much to crystallizing an independent position for Orthodox Jewry unaffiliated with the Zionist leadership.

At a time when the first followers of the Zionist movement began streaming into the Holy Land in large numbers, defiling the holiness of the land, and by virtue of their idiotic ideas began to work to expel the Arabs who had been living there for centuries in order to establish a Zionist state.

The Zionists first approached the British authorities by pretending to present themselves as the representatives of the Jewish nation, who desired to establish a “national home” without any regard whatsoever of the fact that the vast majority of the Jewish People opposed Zionism in those days. However, through their various contacts, the Zionists managed to bring about the Balfour Declaration (known among our rabbis of the time as the Baal Peor Declaration – a pun referring to the idolatry mentioned in the Bible), based on the “right” of the Jews to establish a state in Palestine, and ultimately the state itself to our great misfortune.

Read more about the murder of Dr. DeHaan in online book, “A Martyr’s Message” by Emil Marmorstein

Good relations existed between the Jewish and Arab communities, and the leadership of the Orthodox Jewish community conducted themselves according to the principles of Judaism, never provoking their non-Jewish neighbors. The Arabs were very friendly and neighborly, and a spirit of mutual respect was typical.

When the winds of Zionism began to blow through Palestine, the Arabs began to change their attitude because of the fact that they heard that the “Jews” wanted to grab the Land from them and expel them. Of course, they did not distinguish between the Zionist troublemakers and the members of the loyal authentic Jewish community that advocated tolerance and peace. There were outbreaks of violence here and there, until bloodshed began and many people died.

However, instead of learning from this experience that brought suffering upon the Jewish People in the Holy Land, and ceasing their dangerous lawless behavior, the Zionists used these events as “additional proof” for the need for a state and an army to protect the Jews from violence. Jewish blood was of no importance to the Zionists in comparison to their “lofty” nationalist goals.

It was clear to the leaders of the Orthodox community that there was an immediate need for an organization to confront the Zionist organization, and demand that the British desist from endorsing the idea of a Zionist state, and resolve Arab-Jewish tensions peacefully.

A great and unexpected opportunity presented itself in the form of Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Dahan, who had embraced Judaism from a life of secularism, and had made his way to the Orthodox community of Jerusalem during those difficult days. He sensed the truth, and from then on never ceased to march with the great rabbi of Jerusalem, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, who wisely advised Dahan.

Dahan established extensive contacts with many governmental authorities in Europe, including the English, and proceeded to carry out his work immediately. In no time at all he transformed the loyal Jewish community from a tiny one without any international recognition to a community standing up against the Zionist heretics. He and other members of the community represented the Orthodox Jews under the name of “Eida Haredis” (G-d-Fearing Community), and represented the position of the loyal Jewish community.

It goes without saying that the Eida Haredis was accepted warmly among non-Jews, much more so than was the case with the Zionists – both because of the fact that the Eida Haredis represented traditional, authentic Judaism against Zionism that openly rejected Judaism in its entirety, and because of the fact that the Orthodox position made more sense in order to prevent bloodshed and promote harmony in Palestine.

Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld
View the video of Rabbi Sonnenfeld
meeting with Lord Winston Churchill
to see film images of Dr. DeHaan

Rabbi Dahan then organized a delegation of Orthodox leaders to meet with Arab leaders headed by King Abdullah. The Jewish delegation was headed by Rabbi Zonnenfeld, and was welcomed by the Arabs like royalty. The king even gave them expensive gifts as a sign of his affection. Of course the Zionists were gritting their teeth when they learned of this event, and saw the possibility that all of their projects may end up collapsing in front of their very eyes. The Zionists began their attacks against the loyal Jewish community in general, and against Rabbi Dahan in particular. They slandered him with increasing brutality until they went so far as to call for his murder.

In those days the G-d-fearing Jews were persecuted greatly by the Zionists, and whenever they ran into Dahan in the street they would insult him. However, Dahan never ceased his holy work on behalf of our rabbis. When the Zionists realized that their persecution of Dahan had no effect, they decided to kill him.

In a plan approved by the leading Haganah Zionists a number of young Zionists encountered Rabbi Dahan as he left the Shaarei Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem. The Zionist Avraham Tahomi, may his name be obliterated, shot Dahan three times in the chest, and shortly thereafter Dahan expired, returning his soul to heaven. This murder was carried out with the approval of the Zionist leadership.

On that fateful day of July 1, 1924, when the Zionists committed their crime, for which we suffer to this very day and still do not see the end in sight, they shot him in his pure heart. But they did not only shoot him and kill him, but they shot and killed the entire People, thereby preventing any plan that did not comply with their wicked intentions.

Nevertheless, some seventy-eight years after that horrible day, there is still a community of Jews following in the authentic path, and refusing to bow to the Zionist idol. It is in large measure due to the selfless holy efforts of Yaakov Dahan, a martyr of his people who paved the way with self-sacrifice that there are still Jews who refuse to succumb to the Zionist regime of heretics despite the fact that the Zionists overpower the authentic Jews with their laws and power. It is in the merit of Yaakov Dahan that there are still Jews today throughout the world who stand and announce unflinchingly their unswerving loyalty to the countries in which they live, and that there are still Jews in this world who declare to the nations of world that the Zionists and their state have no link with Judaism or the Jewish People.

His murder proved to every loyal Jew that the Zionists appearing on the scene were no friends of the Jewish People, but were murderers who hated Judaism, something that was the beginning of the opportunity of recognizing the enemy. On the most recent anniversary of Dahan’s murder we remembered the good work of Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Dahan on behalf of authentic Judaism in his war against Zionism and its wicked plans. Let us learn from his work to strengthen our resolve and dedication in refusing to bow to the Zionist idol, and to pray for divine providence to redeem the world.

British Parliamentary record on news of the murder.

When it came to ISRAEL (and still to this day, when it comes to ISRAEL), the British government feel they should never intervene. Everywhere else is fine. But if Israel wishes to be brutal, that’s just hunky dory. It’s none of our business. Funny that isn’t it? I can only surmise it must be because ISRAEL is a “democracy” and in democracies, brutality is fine. Well, it doesn’t really happen in democracies after all does it? It’s always just “an unfortunate error” like the Police knocking down and innocent bystander who dies hours later or “Oops! We shot him in the head SEVEN times but we really thought he had a bomb”.

Isn’t that right UK government?

PLEDGES to the Head Zionist Lord Rothschild – the family which owns and controls ISRAEL:

A Commons exchange in 1982 which offers a little insight:

Another little exchange within Parliament decades earlier:

Now, I may say THIS is a cracker: A solid parliamentary statement referring to the Zionist organisation’s affiliations with the Nazis:

Reference to the IRGUN Jewish Extremists while Palestine was still governed by the British:

The desperation of the British Government not to equate Zionist organisations with terrorism. They can’t be called “Jews” and they can’t be called “Zionists” so we’ll call them “abnormal sort of zionist kind of terrorist groups”:

No no no, WE don’t supply money to zionist terrorist groups! We just supply money through “charities” to zionist organisations. We can’t be thought of as having supplied arms to the Irgun who ended up blasting our people and other jews and arabs to kingdom come in the King David hotel and a host of other incidents now can we?

So question: WHERE did these groups get their arms from and the money to equip themselves? Was our government of Palestine so impotent at the time? LOL

12th August 1947 British Parliament:

Even in the British Parliament, the same “card” is used if anyone has the audacity to criticise Israel. The “Anti Semite” card gets played everytime (while Lord Rothschild keeps a check on who’s who):

Jewish banishment and The “City” of London

Posted in Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Money, Political History, The Corrupt SOB's by Earthling on February 26, 2011

I think it’s important, for the “naysayers” who visit this blog, that I prologue it with a point re the “Crown of England”. The following is a statement made by Tony Benn in the Houses of Parliament not too many years ago (and it matters not when such was said anyhow). This is very very simple: The British people have no idea who this “Crown” is. It acts outside of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. As such, it acts outwith the law yet decides what this thing called “Law” is!

The Crown prosecutes. Our Armed Forces fight and kill and destroy nations on its say so. Our Police and Forces take an oath to this “thing” called “the Crown”. They believe it to be “Her Majesty” the monarch without understanding at all that the monarchy is NOT a person or the Queen and her family. The Monarchy is a Constitutional Office. When it comes to the profit of the British Queen and her family from the “Crown Estate”, it is, in actual fact, deceptive criminal theft by the “reigning monarch” (like a reigning CEO of a corporation stealing the wealth of the company yet, the person in the office of CEO does not have the legal or lawful entitlement to take the wealth of the company because it is the Corporation in total as a legal person which owns the wealth and NOT the CEO). This is PRECISELY the same when we look at this “Constitutional Monarch” in office profiting no longer from a Civil List but from various sources of the country’s wealth.

Our Armed Forces, Police and judiciary are immensely ignorant but do what they are told otherwise they will not eat. They do as the “Crown” bids simply because, if they question it, then their wealth and the wealth of their family disappears. The Policeman with integrity would be sacked and the soldier fighting for his dearest “Crown” would find himself at the mercy of “friendly fire”.

So, what were those words of Tony Benn which crystallises the seriousness of this issue?

Here they are:

“I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not.The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”

tony-benn-the-straight-man

Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:

WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE’S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.

Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits

“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”
Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)

Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?

Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —

Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.

1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )

[As an addendum to the above, I feel it is necessary to clarify that, before the expulsion in 1290, there was the Statute of the Jewry in 1275, entirely based upon the moneylending and usury issue:  jews1275.html

Now please understand that this is just pure factual history and the pieces fall where they fall.

It seems very obvious to me that, while the Islamic religion has not forgotten one of its fundamental cornerstones: NO USURY, the Christian world simply has. For NO USURY is a cornerstone of the christian religion too. I wonder, then, why Christians call themselves christians? They don’t follow Jesus’ teachings and haven’t done so in the west since the following took place – the readmission of jewish usury into England by Oliver Cromwell during the 1640 – 1660 period and then the establishment of the Bank of England where one can see, William of Orange and his Queen, Mary became original investors – it is on Bank of England documents]

JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —

To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS
MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.

A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.

With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )

ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN
(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.

A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.

The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.
* The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.

Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )

Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.

Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England

Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange

Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby

Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery

UPDATE 4 Nov 2011: George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper. Although he just doesn’t go quite far enough into the history and the connectivity. Mainstream media now supporting much of the above regarding the “above the law” nature of the City of London. I rest my case your honour!

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance.

    • George Monbiot

Daniel Pudles 01112011

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

It’s the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it’s the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, “among local authorities the City of London is unique”. You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You’re most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don’t even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you “must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery”. You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a “contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year.” This is, in other words, an official old boys’ network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.

The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation’s unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.

The Lord Mayor’s role, the Corporation’s website tells us, is to “open doors at the highest levels” for business, in the course of which he “expounds the values of liberalisation”. Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it “handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City”, such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts “extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services.” But this isn’t the half of it.

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London’s mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.” The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it’s colluding with Babylon.

If you’ve ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. “The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …”.

The Corporation’s privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK’s dependent tax havens.

But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor’s Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.

Article: corporation-london-city-medieval

Now, when you think of “an Empire” and you may think America is the Empire of today, think again. Britain “lost” it’s Empire didn’t it?

Well maybe or….. Maybe not.

I go with the latter. You see, it does NOT take an army to ensure an Empire. What size if the Commonwealth? The Commonwealth is THE largest group of human beings (and resources) in the world. What is the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government of the United States? What controls them? What if it were that the City of London and Bank of England controlled them? So many (the majority) people believe this is just a “flight of fancy”. It isn’t.

Watch this next movie (very enlightening) and consider the following Telegraph article (which I have blogged about elsewhere on this blog):

The United States becoming an “Associate Member” of the Commonwealth? Now WHY would they “need” to do that? And what about Brexit? What’s that all about?

Well, this is what it may well all be about:

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.”

“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. It was also the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone does not know is that we were committed to this war in 1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan’s own testimony before the Senate committee investigating the munitions industry. Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British- Israel movement.”

Please note that the following movie (and other such movies) will NEVER mention jewish control of the banks or banking system, so don’t be looking for it. But bear this in mind while watching.

NOW, IF YOU WANT A LIST OF THE ORIGINAL JEWISH HOLDERS OF STOCK IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/the-jew-bank-of-england/

I hope you notice the myriad of Spanish and non jewish sounding names in that list. This list, as I know, is not available anywhere else in blogs throughout the internet. I may be wrong.

All of the above can then lead me into tying this up to what is happening in China and Hong Kong today but that would have me simply regurgitating my blog “CAPITALIZING CHINA”.  How has the City of London then taken significant control in China?

Enter the concept of the “Legal Person” – a British legal basic jurisprudence term: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/capitalizing-china/

Am I a “Conspiracy theorist”? YES….. indefatigably YES! Why?

Because I’ve researched, done my homework and I have found that the entire globe is shaped by events which are entirely linked. So yes, there IS one umbrella conspiracy. Not to say there are not factions within it who play on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”, BUT they all use you and I as pawns in this big game.

Let the naysayers in media and elsewhere scoff as they will but they are entirely ignorant; generally, have never fully immersed themselves into research and know that to do so and then speak of it, they would lose their well paid positions.

A couple of things to ponder over:

LEGITIMACY BILL

HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

With all deference to the most reverend Primate, that is not what the court is            338            asked to declare. The court is asked to declare that the child was born in lawful wedlock between Mrs. X and Y. Otherwise, by the laws of legitimacy as understood in this country, it could not be a legitimate child. It is that which personally I find so shocking.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seemed to think—at least so I understood—that there was no material difference between the situation which I have just described and the situation which was dealt with by the Act of 1926, under which both the parents were unmarried at the time of the birth of the child and they merely, as it were, anticipated the ceremony. But to me at any rate, there is all the difference in the world between the two cases. In one case both were free to marry each other; in the other one or both was solemnly linked at the time in wedlock to another man or another woman. How is it possible for the court to ignore that fact? If I may say so with all deference—and this is a great impertinence—some lawyers always seem to think that by adding the adjective “legal” to the word “fiction” it makes it much more respectable, just as in politics when a Government wants to do something which is manifestly unjust to some section of the community it thinks it makes it sound better by calling it “social” justice. In both cases, the addition of the adjective is intended to produce a different and more agreeable atmosphere. But to the ordinary man, such as most of us in this House are, a fiction remains a fiction, whatever adjective is attached to it; a lie remains a lie even though it is condoned by the law.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………

Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

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

 

“It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”