Earthlinggb's Blog

EPSTEIN’S DEAD MAN’S SWITCH

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 16, 2019

I just can’t fathom these naysayers who continue to dismiss the possibility Epstein is alive and drone on and on about “Was it a suicide or was it a murder?” without giving a moment’s consideration to the third option. It makes you wonder how many alternative news sources are simply gatekeepers. I believe a lot!

That was not Epstein on that Gurney and here’s a simple and totally plausible reason why Epstein WOULD have a “dead Man’s Switch” and an ability to use it. If you don’t think he is totally hooked in to Israel and their Intelligence services while Israel continues to want control over the US congress and Senate (while it isn’t “Israel” on its own by the way, it is those who control/own Israel), then you’re just not willing to think.

From Virginia (Roberts) Guiffre’s 2015 sworn affidavit:

So not only “leniency” but even more: ESCAPE TROUBLE ALTOGETHER.

And why? Because all of that information on them still exists and the man wasn’t stupid!

“YOU PUT ME AWAY OR YOU ATTEMPT TO TAKE MY LIFE AND ALL OF THIS IS DUMPED FOR THE WORLD TO SEE”

And Netanyahu, Israel, the Rothschilds – perhaps even the Royal Family and the Vatican: All of them very happy to let the man live out the rest of his life quietly and, in the eyes of the public and the victims, “dead”. It then all disappears into the past like Jimmy Savile.

There is no honour among thieves BUT, just like the mafia families, they stick together when they, as a whole, are under threat – and they are.

Just found this today, Sunday 18th August. I concur with every word.

The Rothschild – D’Israeli jewish pact.

Posted in Political History, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 15, 2019

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

Britain WAS a Christian nation until……

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

 

 

 

 

ROTHSCHILD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!

 

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

 

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

 

HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

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

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

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

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

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

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

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

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

 

 

D’ISRAELI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.

HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now consider THIS little exchange:

 

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

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

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

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

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

new-writ-for-london#S3V0139P0_18550626_HOC_52

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

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

William Gladstone

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

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

 

QUESTION.

HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

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

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

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

question#S3V0227P0_18760228_HOC_7

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

 

RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

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

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

resolution-adjourned-debate#S3V0227P0_18760221_HOC_55

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

 

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

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

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

david-cameron-my-values-are-yours

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Judaism’s Redefiner

By ANTHONY JULIUS   

Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

Posted in Media, Money, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 10, 2019

A “Dead Man’s Switch” is a backup plan in case of untimely death or incapacitation, used as a threat to protect the holder. If that person dies or fails to issue some form of communication within a set period of time, the plan goes into action automatically, making it in the interests of the threatening party to not harm that person. Provided, of course, that the threatening party knows about it.

In 2004, American librarians recoiled at the FBI’s demands to rummage through their patrons’ reading habits and use them to infer terroristic intent, and at the FBI’s gag orders preventing librarians from telling their patrons when the police had come snooping.

Jessamyn West, a radical librarian, conceived of a brilliant solution, a sign on the wall of her library reading “THE FBI HAS NOT BEEN HERE (watch very closely for the removal of this sign).” After all, she reasoned, if the law prohibited her from telling people that the FBI had been in, that wasn’t the same as her not not telling people the FBI hadn’t been in, right?

NOW, IF YOU THINK FOR ONE MOMENT, THAT JEFFREY EPSTEIN DID NOT HAVE HIS “DEAD MAN’S SWITCH” WHICH WOULD EXPOSE – IN DETAIL – EVERY LAST PAEDOPHILE HE KNEW OF (INCLUDING ANDREW) TO ENSURE HE REMAINED ALIVE, YOU ARE EXTREMELY NAIVE!

One thing about Stefan Molyneux: He’s a sucker for Mainstream news!

 

 

They’re not called “The synagogue of Satan” for nothing you know!

 

 

 

China, Hong Kong and the “Faren”: What is behind the current crisis?

Posted in Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 10, 2019

A couple of years back or so, I wrote a couple of blogs related to the Capitalizing of China. When it was done, who worked on it and how it was achieved.

Recently, I attempted to make an “engaging video” based on those blogposts but, due to copyright infringement issues on Youtube and just the general subject matter, it proved impossible.

Here is what I did upload to youtube but I would stress that it really acts as an intro or summary of the issues which, if you wish to dig deep into them and understand what is affecting Hong Kong/China at the moment from a “bottom line” perspective, I suggest you read the blogs written previously.

I do, genuinely, believe that anyone in China or Hong Kong will find the blogs extremely enlightening when considering today’s (2019) struggles.

 

The two blogs will be found here: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/?s=Capitalizing+China

First, there is a “condensed” version, however, to really grasp the entire issue(s) the follow on is the detailed version.

China and Hong Kong’s friction today has been started a long time ago and started by the same globalist/jewish interests which are waging war, at the same time, on the west today.

CHINA, HONG KONG AND THE WEST ALL SHARE THE SAME ADVERSARIES. THOSE ADVERSARIES, HOWEVER, SIT AMONG US WITHIN OUR CORRIDORS OF FINANCIAL AND LEGAL POWER. THEY USE TWO TOOLS: MONEY AND LAW, THE LATTER, MORE EXACTLY, BEING THE USE OF THE “FAREN” OR “LEGAL PERSON”.

Don’t be SILLY! “They” can’t control the entire world!!

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Paedophilia, Politics by earthling on July 1, 2019

It’s now well over 10 years since I started talking about all of this. I’ve had to pay for it in various ways over that time. I have also had to take the bullshit of people dismissing it all and throwing accusations and have even landed in court due to it. I’ll land in court again if I have to.

That said, will I stick my neck out as far as I have in the past? I would if it meant anything to people (en masse) but it just seems the masses are accepting it.

Here is the CLEAREST (by far) video of part of the agenda AND a demonstration of how a man (and this stretches to ANYONE in any sector of public service including police, education, you name it) will go against what he knows to be true because “it is policy”. 1+1=3.

There is nothing to argue here. This is a man in sheer turmoil because he cannot argue what he doesn’t believe in. He is in between knowing the kid is right but knowing what acknowledgement of that would do to his career, and having to “lay down the ‘law'” purely from an authoritarian standpoint and he will take the latter route because the kid is easier to handle than the system.

How far does that go? How far would he go, depending upon the power bestowed to him, to shut the kid up? Step by step, anyone stepping out of line on “policy” and “law” WILL be dealt with more and more vigorously. And the world just says “Don’t rock the boat” just as this teacher is saying.

If you (the teacher in this scenario) just happen to stumble upon this blogpost – LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR AND ASK YOURSELF “WHO AND WHAT AM I?” I know what you are but you need to answer it for yourself.

It would not surprise me if this video is removed from Youtube at some point so I suggest, if you can, download it.

BUT PLEASE, FOR GOD’S SAKES, SHARE IT!

Brian Harvey: More shit surrounding the issue

Posted in Law, Media, Money, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on May 3, 2019

Leah Betts eh? “Oh isn’t it an awful tragedy” said the worms in Westminster as they pushed to get their Parliamentary Bill through to crack down on ecstasy and the raves and clubs.

As is always the case, however, time and again and it will go on forever – that was bullshit.

Do you remember that video of Tim Fortescue? “They’ll do whatever we ask forevermore”?

Well keep an eye on this guy….

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/10/how-case-against-nigel-evans-fell-apart

And make sure to read the whole thing because, if you do carefully and think about it, it’s apparent that each of these young guys have been got at in one way or another – perhaps threats, perhaps money.

Think on this: Why would they have even agreed to stand in court in the first place – before their “oh it was nothing” stories – just to then all say they didn’t believe Nigel putting his hand down their pants etc was any sort of “sexual assault”.

In walks the equivalent of Tim Fortescue today (or handy men) to deal with the situation and Nigel is free. “Now Nigel, you do understand your freedom comes at a price don’t you?”. “Yes Chief Whip! Do you want a blow job?”

“BRIAN! DON’T YOU DARE THREATEN THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY’S PROFITS!”

“HERE’S A TOAST TO LEAH BETTS!”

Brian Harvey: “I’ll make sure you never work again” Part 2

Posted in Law, Media, Money, Music artists, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on April 30, 2019

I’ll write more later….

 

Brian Harvey: “I’ll make sure you never work again”

Posted in Media, Money, Music artists, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on April 29, 2019

Why am I doing this?

Because I know a decent bloke when I see/hear one!

I was never an East 17 fan (though looking over what I’ve been having to research, I appreciate them more now) but what has drawn me to Brian’s story is the obvious. He was seriously screwed over. Also, I know when a guy is being 100% real.

I’d also add this: Brian does not have any mental issue whatsoever EXCEPT the strain (and depression which came with it) caused by a multitude of people who “made” off him and being thrown to the kerb by, essentially, not just the media and Tom Watkins but a UK Parliament (at least a small section of it) which needed a scapegoat and an entire country that just, like sheep, listen to what they’re told to believe and never question it.

My heart goes out to the guy. I picked up on the story no more than approx 6 months ago. It’s only the last few days that I have been doing a little “detective work” on it.

Yes, there’s Mazher Mahmood, Kemal Zorba (quite obviously a sting operation to set Brian up further – Zorba didn’t even turn up to court to testify and it’s obvious why – the phone transcripts were fiction and there were no recordings to back them up), Robert Kellaway (Sarah Arnold?… Interesting!), Conrad Brown, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw etc. Then there’s the amateur twats like Puddick and Maloney. However, all of them and the hacking can be traced back to January 1997 when John Major made his statement in the House of Commons. WHY did he do that? Well, I think I’ve found a part of the answer.

However, this video is just an introduction to it. The follow up will put more “skin on the bones”.

Did Tom Watkins act out a personal vendetta on Brian? My opinion: Yes.

Why? My opinion: He resented Brian. Also, if Brian and John Hendy DID witness what is suggested, then the big, gay, fat bastard would definitely want Harvey destroyed. But then he’d have to ensure Brian remained destroyed.

How could Watkins get Brian’s name to be mud in Parliament? What did Parliament gain from it? Or WHO in Parliament had something to gain?

Is there a “Gay mafia”?

Just another Jewish administration

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Gross stupidity within society, Media, Politics by earthling on April 8, 2019

JUST ANOTHER JEWISH ADMINISTRATION

But then, I think I mentioned that while America was celebrating at their “non-controlled new President”.

They swing from Democrat to Republican but never figure it out – just like here in the UK.

But the “Boys” at the top keep swinging and the “boys” always work it out while Americans keep sleeping.

But America still thinks “Heaven loves ya” if you keep protecting the jews and Israel. Such a cuckolded nation with a cuckolded Armed Forces. Keep doing what you’re told America. Keep fighting the British-Israel wars!

 

 

KEEP LISTENING TO YOUR MAINSTREAM GARBAGE AND LET THEM DESTROY THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND INTERNET (WHILE YOUR PRESIDENT HELPS THEM).

AFTER ALL, SANDY HOOK WAS A REAL EVENT RIGHT? LOL

JUST LIKE CHRISTCHURCH!

 

STILL NOT CLEAR ENOUGH HUH?

WHAT IS THE AVERAGE IQ IN THE USA?

Bush passed it on to Obama and Obama passed the baton to Trump while the real power lurks behind washing their sweaty little hands with their hand sanitiser.

And they wash their hands, not to keep their hands clean. More likely, they’re washing their hands of the shit they keep delivering on the rest of the world.

If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into the pit!

And BOY, are the jews guiding you!

Say after me…. 1, 2, 3:Oh, say can you see by the dawn’s early light, What so proudly we hailed at……….. Oh forget it!

Try this one you idiots:

Alternatively, try these two because it won’t be too long until you’re singing one of them. In fact, while you’re singing your “Star Spangled Banner”, the nations of Israel and Britain are smirking quietly knowing who really owns you!

Donald Trump: Leader of the free world indeed! Hilarious!

It really is!

 

#GDL

All part of the same agenda.

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Media, Politics by earthling on March 29, 2019

…. By the same people!

First post in a good while. However, everything’s accelerating isn’t it?

Just thought I’d drop this in…..

 

 

And…

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cultural-marxism-suella-braverman-conservative-mp-antisemitism-a8842806.html?fbclid=IwAR29zZxagXbduGvRpLv9MuyvEVEe1LgCqEcJeLzzaaINsX_w-pH-47hHao0

The jew of Facebook is entirely ok with the call for whites to be killed but, any whites (or “goy” of any colour) calling out REAL issues by choosing their words carefully (and correctly) are labeled “murky” elements and “anti semitic” extremists. And IT IS STILL WORKING toward the vast majority of plebiscites out there for which the penny STILL hasn’t dropped!

And rest assure, Braverman will apologise and bow at the feet of Zion!

Meanwhile, the plebs keep singing the praises of Tommy Rabbison!

After all these years, instead of the penny dropping for these plebiscite masses who refuse to see what is in front of their bloody eyes, I’m still walking around irritated and disgusted by the vast majority of my countryfolk.

And don’t get me started on “Christchurch”. One word: Hilarious!

Earth’s gravity to fund President Trump’s wall!

Posted in Money, Politics, Science, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on September 24, 2017

Isaac Newton was a smart bloke but I’d bet he’d never, in a million years, think that his calculations wrt gravity would fund a border wall between the United States and Mexico.

I know, you can’t fathom it either (and neither could I until I thought about it). So here goes: After all, we all know the CIA, working for the deep state, does a lot of the importation of cocaine etc – just ask Bill and Hillary Clinton! After all, it was in Mena, Arkansas, while Bill was Governor, that a lot of the shit came in to airfields by CIA propellor craft. Or didn’t you know that?

So, with this in mind and the ongoing battle between Trump and Enrique Peña Nieto regarding who’s going to pay, a source close to Trump has leaked that the two corrupt Presidential bastards are finalizing an arrangement between them based on Earth’s gravity, latitude difference between Mexico City and Washington D.C and the price of cocaine.

Let me explain (bear in mind this is explosive yet very hushed up information. If the FBI and CIA knew I knew this, I’d be suicided ;-)):

The earth’s gravity is said to vary between poles along the lines of latitude on the globe. For some reason, in international trade, this difference is never taken into account when weighing goods transported from one region of the globe to another – odd when you really think about it.

Now, weight = mass x gravity. We all know that right? Well, it appears Enrique gave Donald a call and said “I’ll be happy to fund the wall for you if we can come to an arrangement regarding the price and weight of cocaine in the US market”. Donald was confused but Jared, his son in law, was all ears. He was confused too but, being jewish, he’ll listen to any old shite to make a buck. Except this wasn’t shite – it was coke! I suppose the same could apply to the export of manure but manure doesn’t exactly hold the same price tag as coke. You could wait until the cows come home for a manure deal to have the same impact (yes, thrown in deliberately as a pun!).

“The wall that President Trump has vowed to build along the U.S. border with Mexico could cost more than $21 billion, nearly twice the amount of previous estimates, according to an internal Homeland Security Department report that was obtained by Reuters.10 Feb 2017”

Enrique went on to explain that, while the coke being weighed in Mexico was a given and exact amount of kilograms, when weighed in Washington D.C., due to the local gravity effect, it would, effectively, weigh more so the US consumer was making on the deal quite significantly when one considered the tonnage that was transported over the border in a year. “Come on Senor Donald” said Nieto, “you amd I both know it’s a win win situation”. “No…eh…no…no I don’t. Jared, are you getting this?”. “Let him continue Donald…” said Jared while Ivanka lay on the sofa in the Oval office, filing her nails thinking “Thank God Jared’s a jew and not a muslim otherwise it wouldn’t be him with the male mutilated genitalia!” and reading her latest edition of Tatler.

“Ok…ok….I’m sending you a link by email. Have a look…” Enrique exclaimed somewhat exasperated. “Send it to my personal email server….. eh, no….I’m not a Clinton. Oh bugger! Send it to the Oval office fax machine…. no, no, you can’t do that either! Shit! Shit! Ummm…. Ah! Send it to my daughter’s email” replied Trump.

“What’s your daughter’s email?” asked Nieto.

“daddysprincessiskosher@yahoo.com”

“Ok. It’s on its way……. Got it?”

“Yup! Got it!”

I’ve been sent a copy of the document sent to Trump:

“Now Senor Donald…”, Nieto continued, “All the Cocaine which ends up in the United States makes its way through Mehico. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. The people who control your CIA know that and are happy to continue that. I am also happy to continue it and I will ensure that the cartels are well regulated and the Mehican government makes a good profit from it. However, there is a disparity at the moment between how much we are making and how much we could be making and it is all due to that English bloke with the jewish first name (can’t say “christian name” can we when it’s obviously jewish), Isaac Newton. You see, in Mexico City, when we weigh the amount transported, due to local gravity conditions, us being nearer the equator, our value for the weight is different from yours. 1Kg of cocaine (mass) multiplied by our local gravity figure of 9.7791m/s2 is 9.7791N, whereas, weighed in Washington, with a local gravity of 9.8007m/s2, it is 9.8007N. You’re gaining 0.0216N of weight on every Kg!”

Local Gravity: Mexico City

Local Gravity: Washington D.C.

 

“You’ve lost me!” blurted Trump.

“Jared… at, let’s say, 100 tonnes of product streaming over your border every year – and that is a conservative figure and, being conservatives yourselves, you may appreciate this. 100 tonnes is 100 x 1000Kg = 100,000Kg. The price of 1gram of coke in the US is approximately $150. Now, take 0.0216N (or Kg) and multiply by 100,000 and you get 2160N or 2160Kg additional weight you’re presently receiving for nothing. That 2160Kg is 2,160,000 grams of coke at $150 per gram which is US$324,000,000. However, a fair estimate of the tonnage flowing into the U.S. per year is about 500 tonnes but let’s say 300 for the sake of argument. That’s just under US$1Billion per year we’re losing out on supplying your people’s demand for cocaine every single year. So here’s the deal: You guarantee me that you’ll increase the price on the streets of Washington and all over the U.S. to make up that shortfall so that your side maintains its profit while I increase the kickbacks to the Mehican government to the same value. I’ll then use that increased revenue to fund your wall, assuming a 25 year agreement – discretely of course and everyone’s happy. Well. except the coke sniffers across the States. Just another hidden tax though Senor Donald eh?”

“Brilliant…brilliant…. ahh well it sounds brilliant…Jared? What do you think?”

“It is brilliant Donald and I know just the guys who can ensure the price on the street meets Senor Mieto’s needs”.

“Ahhh Jared. When Ivanka told me you were her guy, I knew it. I knew she was a smart cookie. Owner of 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan and shagging my daughter PLUS, a jew. What more could I want?”

“That’s right Donald. Shalom Daddio!”

“So gentlemen…” continued President Nieto, “Let’s call it a ‘Trade deal under the cloak of National Security’, do we have a deal?”

Presidential Address by President Donald J Trump:

“To the people of this great nation of ours, under God, I want to tell you, President Nieto of Mexico and I are great friends… really GREAT friends… and the President has graciously agreed to fund the wall between our great nations because we are great nations and we not only are great friends but respect each other greatly and that is why we need to build this great wall. It will be a stupendous wall, a wall to out-wall any other wall, even Pink Floyd’s – great band by the way, even greater when Waters left… great great band and they had a great wall too. Even China…China has a great wall and so does Israel but OUR wall will be the greatest. So great, they say China’s can be seen from Earth orbit; Ours will be seen from Proxima Centauri it will be so so great!”

“Dear God! I told him not to say we’d pay! What the hell do I tell MY people now? exclaimed Nieto to Kushner.

“Don’t worry Senor President, just tell them he’s mad. They’ll believe you. The whole world will.”

How cocaine enters America
The simplest way to transport a drug is also the best for cocaine producers. Hundreds of tons of cocaine are packaged and put on trucks to make the long journey up through South and Central America and into Mexico. Along the way, drugs and money can change hands many times as the drugs are shipped northward by criminal cartels.

http://www.cocaineaddiction.com/much-cocaine-brought-us.html

“The price of cocaine in the United States has hardly moved,” Wainwright said. “In the past couple of decades it’s been about $150 per pure gram, and that’s barely budged, so there’s a puzzle there.”

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-much-does-cocaine-cost-in-the-us-2016-10

 

The establishment would like to thank the following for their contribution to maintaining us:

Coke heads and other such addicts.

Thank you!

 

Fake News

Posted in Media, Politics by earthling on September 7, 2017

First of all, RIP Ernst Zundel. And that is not said lightly because, today, if ever anyone was to ask me who some of my “heroes” are (although, generally, I don’t have any anymore), Herr Zundel would definitely be one of them. What this man endured for the sake of honesty, truth and for the right to express his own opinion, was monstrous. However, “monstrous” is the right word for the people he was up against. People who, amongst other things, arsoned the man’s home and walked away scot free because nobody even bothered to look for them. Why? Because they are the “chosen race” – they get a “pass” for everything and anything they say or do just about.

So, on to the topic – and it’s a short one.

Donald Trump and “Fake News”. Where did all this “Fake News” business come from? Was it just something made up in Donald’s head? No, I doubt that because both sides of the political spectrum are using it to attack the other side’s supportive media outlets. “Fake News” has become a weapon of sorts. So where did it originate – the idea of referring to “fake news” that is. Well, I was watching a video regarding the late Ernst Zundel just yesterday and the oddest thing in what he said, during this interview with Jim Fetzer, just jumped out at me. I’ve captured the segment here. Have a listen:

Now, while I’m not saying, for definite, that this is where the idea, within the establishment, came from for the label of “Fake News”, I will say I’m pretty damned certain of it. “They” (both sides and particularly the “Pharisee types”) want a way of legislating to shut down what THEY suggest is “fake news” sites, youtube videos and the rest (including what would be this blog and a myriad of others with a far greater reach than mine). As Zundel says, it was/is a law from 1275 when the King of England wanted to stamp out any and all criticism of him. Well, today, it is just, now, the establishment and “pharisees” who wish to achieve that and what better way of doing it than using this old law as a basis. Of course, they will never refer to this law as being the catalyst for it but, nevertheless, I am convinced this is where the label and idea of being able to shut down “fake news” has come from. It’s been on my mind for a while as to where this “fake news” label appeared from and how – I am positive this is my answer.

The following is from the site MLDI who provide legal defence to journalists, bloggers and independent media, worldwide. [One must bear in mind, once more, however that, as lawyers, they are members of the Bar Association – please make sure and remember and appreciate what this means and the limitations within which they can possibly defend anyone – you do understand this don’t you?]

Americans please note because, while you cheer Donald Trump and his accusations of “Fake News” against CNN and others, you don’t have a damned clue regarding what you are actually supporting and what is lurking very quietly behind it. You are so damned quick (and gullible) to believe that “This President is different” – it amazes me. So many thought Obama would be because he was “black”. He was GIVEN to you! Donald Trump is GIVEN to you! They ALL are “Establishment” whether you wish to believe it or not. They may just be more your “colour” of establishment. What better way to have people “invest” their belief in one of their chosen people than to have you believe they are despised? It’s simply the use of reverse psychology and you are falling for it hook, line and sinker!

So, please read carefully and note “and to prevent the population from rising up in rebellion”. This is what your “fake news” is all about. No more, no less. Yes, you can say (and you are right to) that CNN, BBC, Fox etc etc have significant volume of fake news in them BUT they are the establishment’s fake news and that, my dear friends, is A-OK. Yes yes, Trump is attacking CNN… and?….So? Do you honestly think CNN is going to go out of business because of this? If they were to, don’t you think it would be controlled? Again, Trump firing at them is to give you the impression he’s on your side. Did he incarcerate Hillary? Anyhow, I digress (although it’s a valid and important digression).

 

http://www.mediadefence.org/news/explaining-issues-false-news

It seems that, if you want freedom of speech these days, it can be had in places like Uganda and Zimbabwe! How about that? But the United States and the United Kingdom? Well, just ask Ernst Zundel! Granted he was in Canada but what the hell.

Here’s another thing – Jacob Rees-Mogg I see is getting a lot of attention and supporters these days. I listened to this yesterday too. Hear him regarding freedom of expression and the right to open debate (on anything).

Damn! Damn! and Double Damn! The BBC has had it removed from youtube on Copyright grounds! Well, let me explain. He said, essentially, that it is his belief that any and all opinions should be allowed about any subject whatsoever to ensure we retain absolute freedom of expression in this country. I happened to comment on the now deleted youtube comment section that I believed him to be a hypocrite because I doubted whether this “freedom” would stretch to opinion on the holocaust. Interesting that the video was actually posted by the Jacob Rees-Mogg channel itself. Wouldn’t he have known it would be removed on copyright grounds (being a legislator and all that, you know?). Please note the man’s “christian” name (and yes, he’s a catholic but is he a JESUIT catholic? ;-)) – JACOB!

From his Wikipedia page: “After leaving Oxford Rees-Mogg worked for the Rothschild investment bank before moving to Hong Kong…”.

It amazes me, once more, that British people (like Americans) can be so gullible and “sucked in” to believing that these sorts of people actually speak for them. Rees-Mogg is a monster like the rest of them. Just read his Wikipedia page and think on it. Trump, Rees-Mogg, even Nigel Farage and the like are INCUBATED and then,when the right time comes along, they are “fed” to the populace and their “stances” on various topics are “spun” to make it LOOK as if they are in tune with your beliefs. They are NOT!

Anyway, I’ve said my peace. I’ve been at this blog since 2010. There was a time (and I think many bloggers are similar) that I had the time and inclination and fervent passion to write about all of this over so many subjects and, when I was in that “zone”, I’d pump out regular blogs and my readership was of the order of about 1000/day. The thing is, I’ve said really all I have to say. All of the false flags and news that comes out day after day in our media is just more of the same and we can analyse it for all it’s worth but… BUT…. it’s all the same. The same old shit and people either wake up to it or they don’t. The fundamental issue in this world is the money system and debt interest coupled with a legal system and “legal personality” that people STILL don’t understand or wish to. I’ve blogged about all of that and explained everything in as clearest of terms I can but, these days, I don’t have the time or inclination to just keep pumping out blogs on every subject and every false flag or false premise and attempt to expose shit for what it is. Frankly, it’s boring to me now and if the human race wishes to remain stupid, then so be it. These recent blogs of mine, over the past year or two, have been nothing in comparison to the time and effort I put into my major blogs a few years ago and which hardly get read. Today, I’m down to about 50 readers per day. I never looked for readership for the purpose of being  a “renowned blogger” in this space. The purpose of this blog was to educate and to highlight the issues. I look at the like of Infowars and think “There you go! People are still gullible enough to get led by the tail by a fat bastard who sells potions and “spun truth” mixed with bullshit.”

Serious pieces delving into money, the legal system and archival material to fully support it, is just not “sexy” enough and doesn’t give people that feeling of being part of a “gang” like “BLM” or “White supremacy” or even “Libertarian” and “Liberal” and Conservative”… or “anarchist” for that matter. People don’t want to understand and recognise solutions and the real issues. People want “leaders”. They always have and always will.

So fuck it. I have a personal life and in that personal life, I’m on to something big so, while I may still throw the odd thing out there that tickles my interest, I’d say “Appreciate all those guys (and women perhaps) who are providing you with SOLID alternative content because, for example, just this one blogpost alone, has taken me almost two hours to create and write. Imagine those who – like I used to be – are giving you masses of content everyday. They’re putting full days, everyday, into bringing you that content. So support them.”

Then again, some are definitely not doing sufficient research and background digging if they can pump out tons of content everyday so be careful about what you read.

And with that – ta ta till next time.

 

There’s life in America yet!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on August 13, 2017

As much as I denigrate Americans for their ignorance (I do the same for the UK and all other countries too), it seems there’s life left in the old dog yet if this is anything to go by. I’d estimate a good few hundreds if not a couple of thousand or so.

“You will not replace us!”

What you’re getting is Mainstream news talking about “White Nationalists” as if it’s a derogatory term. What you will NEVER hear is that same news media calling out the biggest nationalists on the block – JEWISH ones! Remember, a Nation is a people more than it is simply soil. The Jewish Nation exists, it’s just it exists globally!

And I get the idea they know who damned well is trying to! To my readers in Asia, Africa, South America, Middle East etc, don’t simply accept that which the mainstream media will push at you – that this is racist toward all non whites. I don’t have a racist bone in my body and respect every race EXCEPT one! The one which is trying to replace, not just us, but you too!

Sure, you’re going to get a few outright racists in this group – there’s always idiots in all groups – but this is about white genocide and white’s are not going to take it sitting down by the look of things. It’s been brought on by a little clique – you might be able to guess who – who want and need the demonisation of white christianity and brown islam because it then leaves THEM in pole position in being a – the only – group who have maintained their race as PURE! What most people fail to understand is that this same “race” I speak of PROJECTED their own belief system upon Adolf Hitler and Germans when they accused them of wanting a “pure race” of Aryans. Hitler recognised the “chosen ones” as having their own REAL version of this and that was what created the backlash against them in Germany. That and the fact they controlled germany’s economy purely for their own benefit.

History works in circles it seems and, perhaps – just perhaps – there is an awakening to the fact that this same clique, after winning that war with help from scum like Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin (all “incentivised” by the clique – particularly the drunken, gambling asswipe Churchill), have capitalised on their position globally so that now we are witnessing the bolshevism of the globe. The little talmudic, communist pricks might just see another backlash but far greater this time. However, it has to be an intellectually inspired one and NOT a brute force version. Brute force begets force. An intellectual revolution and attack on this clique is what is needed and shall overcome it. What’s done with them afterward is another story but it needs to attack the top. I include the jesuits in this too – don’t forget that aspect.

I should point out, I am neither on the right nor on the left – they mean nothing. I hope, if you have read enough of my blogs, that, by now, you will appreciate why.

Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, VA

Will it grow? Can it grow? Or will it be stamped out and infiltrated like “Occupy”? “Occupy” wasn’t focused. They didn’t know what the core of the issue was. They were “hippies” rather than a force. If this force understands its enemy, then we’re on to something. If not, then it’s just another waste of time. Did they chant “Jews will not replace us”? I don’t know. It was very clearly “You” and not “Jews” but then perhaps there were a number who decided to chant “jews” and the media picked up on it. If they were smart, they’d leave it as “You” – for now.

As for this guy and his speech about the usual “we won’t accept this” and “we need to bring this nation together” – just have a read of his Wikipedia page and you’ll get a good “feel’ for this creep McAullife.

 

But let me just point to one glaring fact: He invested $100K in Global Crossing in 1997 (it’s year of start up) and he walked away with $8.1M while Global Crossing crashed and burned in the Dotcom crash. I was in the industry at the time and I had my shares too. It’s a funny thing: Joe Bloggs never wins (we’re not meant to) because we’re barred from selling our Ordinary shares/stocks for 6 months after the date of stock flotation. However, it’s an odd thing but Executives and people like McAuliffe here, always seem to walk away smelling or roses. There is NO WAY this guy would have known to sell unless he was WELL “inside”. And these bastards with the black uniforms are dull, incompetent, unthinking “Yes sir, no sir” twats who, like children who need adult supervision and direction, just do as they are told. I knew a Police Inspector like that once too. A long time ago in a “galaxy” far far away, this Police Inspector even managed to get me off a road traffic fine (I know, it’s ‘nothing’, but it IS something just in a very very small way). At the time, I was exceptionally grateful – he couldn’t have his “son in law to be” fined by his own cult now could he? But, in retrospect, it’s just a peek at what can be done if there is influence in the right place eh? I’d spit in the bastard’s face today with his “holier than thou” attitude and “I’m an ex Police Inspector you know!”. You’re a twat Ken!

If you happen to read the above, the last two paragraphs cover not only Global Crossing but another company I happen to have worked for at the time (which will remain nameless) who did precisely what is described here in inflating its value to the market, its executives getting the cream and the employees getting shafted.

Anyhow, that’s off topic.

Zieg Heil!

(for all the right reasons, not the wrong ones)

Lat thing re the Unite the Right march: I’m not sure at what point this happened but it would appear that some “anonymous” American had a real beef with these people. He drove his very grey, unmarked car into them and then reversed, backed up and, seemingly, disappeared.

This shit is getting real!

The media saying “it seems, according to witnesses that the car deliberately tried to murder people” is just a little redundant given the obvious footage of it!

 

Still Waters run deep

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Media, Music artists, Politics by earthling on August 13, 2017

While the US and Russia are groups/factions within one and the same World Order, Roger Waters, nevertheless, talks sense and, somewhat like Zappa before him, points at the elephant in the room. But still, not anywhere near enough people listen. What is it with most people? Why do they possess a disability to recognise what is plainly staring them in the face? Why can’t they grasp the simple and obvious, that people in power want power and wish to maintain it? Why can’t they grasp that when, every single day – whether it’s from the left or the right in political terms – all functions of state are corrupt to the absolute core? Why do they still cling on to their preferred “colour” of corruption? “Any colour you like”. Why can’t they see there is an “Us and Them”?

The “Anti Semitic” Roger Waters:

Why do so many STILL refuse to see the power of the jew!

Had to add it. It’s such a great track….

I hate to admit this but it’s something that’s been bothering me for quite some time now. When I think of all of this stuff and its impact on the human race – I can be watching or reading something which just hits me quite often – and I get this intense welling up of emotion. I then suppress it before the tears roll over the eyes. It’s difficult understanding all of this – the immense lies and deception across so many fronts. Then you think of people you love and who used to love you and you still care about the life they lead and how it is impacted by this shit. You know they don’t recognise it (or care to). They don’t give it a moment’s thought. They’re young still. However, they will and, perhaps, one day, they won’t think “He was just a nut. He had it all and gave it all up – what a loser!” However, I wonder, is it just me? Sometimes I really would have liked to have taken the blue pill and remained in that matrix.

Anyhow, that’s another story.

I’m still asking: What is “semitism”?

Frank Zappa – Man of his time…. and ours.

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on July 31, 2017

Terrible quality but well worth listening to – Great interview with a great mind: You never see that today! He, however, thought the corruption and extortion was peaking in the early 80s with Reagan. I wonder what he’d have to say now.

Whether he said he wasn’t “anti semitic” but, secretly was (and I don’t think he was) or whether he truly wasn’t, I don’t know but I do know his offspring aren’t by the look of things. I simply do not understand how people – even like him – can look around and not see the issue.

I mean, he speaks of the military/industrial complex. He speaks of the educational system and politics etc etc – he “sees” all the symptoms BUT, for some odd reason, although he’s done all his homework (as many of us have), he has never picked up on the people behind it which, if you do this sort of work, it comes and hits you in the face like a double decker bus! However, he is nevertheless, a smart guy. Wish he was still around.

He even refers to Reagan as a “teleprompter president”. Whoa! He hadn’t seen anything yet had he? 🙂

The ADL came after him for this song. They’ll come after anyone for anything of course.

I want a nasty little Jewish Princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish Princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I need a hairy little Jewish Princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish Princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don’t want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish Princess
Who don’t know shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish Princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee that’s snappin’
All up inside
I just want a Princess to ride
Awright, back to the top…everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish Princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish Princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor
(Vapor-lock)

I want a dainty little Jewish Princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish Princess
With Roumanian thighs, who weasels ‘n’ lies
For two or three nights
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites

It reminds me of Alison Chabloz in a way. As Zappa says, the song was based upon mainstream news commentary about a real phenomena called the “jewish Princess”. Well, Alison’s songs are precisely that – commentary on what has been reported openly.

However, the tribe wants its “holocaust denial” laws to be brought in to the UK and the USA and, while the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) initially decided to drop the case against Alison, the “Campaign against Anti Semitism” took out a private prosecution and then the CPS took it on again! Baroness Arbuthnot was the original Judge but recused herself after Alison found photos of her attending a Conservative Friends of Israel gathering a few years back. The Baron Arbuthnot just so happened to be the Head of Conservative Friends of Israel a few years back. So, a conflict of interest. Of course, the fact there is a new judge does not mean there still isn’t a conflict of interest. After all, the CROWN Prosecution is prosecuting and who does any and all judges work for? The Crown! Also, with the number of jewish judges on the Supreme Court, how do you think this is going to work out? And to think that most idiots in this country of ours truly believe we have freedom and freedom of expression etc. It’s sad, it really is. When agenda ridden groups of people can get away – with impunity – with trying to destroy someone’s career and way of making a living (as they have done with Alison), and THAT is not blatantly impinging her human rights? Something is VERY wrong! But then you and I know something is very wrong AND we know from where it stems!

Alison’s last post/comment on her blog was June 22nd this year. Her next court date was June 23rd for discussion on the points of law. Nothing posted since so I imagine she has been advised or told to stop posting anything whatsoever. The actual trial, as I understand, was meant to have been 17th July this year, so just a couple of weeks ago. I do hope (for all our sakes) that this bullshit has been dropped. If not, we have a “war” on our hands and people better start getting savvy to this.

Alison’s song (((Survivors)))

My name is Irene Zisblatt and I come from Hungary (Fact)
Can you believe what evil Nazi bastards did to me (Poetic licence by Alison to describe what Irene is suggesting happened)
They gassed me once, gassed me twice, (According to Zisblatt, this is what happened)
But escape I did (Fact according to Zisblatt)
Over the electric fence (Camp had an electric fence so how else?)
Landed on the train (Reference to Zisblatt’s testimony that she had been saved by a young Sonderkommando (Jewish crematorium worker) who rescued her after she was thrown out of the Krema III gas chamber because the room was too full. He wrapped her in a blanket and tossed her over the 10-foot-high barbed wire fence around Krema III; she landed in an open railroad car of a train that was bound for the Neuengamme concentration camp in Germany.) Incredible strength eh?… And luck!

I saw them taking babies and tearing them in two (According to Zisblatt’s testimony)
And creepy Dr Mengele he removed my tattoo (Again Zisblatt’s testimony)
They tried to turn my brown eyes blue (Zisblatt said that she was one of the prisoners chosen for Dr. Mengele’s medical experiments. Zisblatt said “Mengele was trying to change the color of our eyes. So he injected our eyes and put us in a dungeon in the dark.)

Make lampshades from my skin (Zisblatt’s testimony)
For months I swallowed diamonds (Zisblatt’s testimony)
And shat them out again (Zisblatt’s testimony)

The point here is that Alison is taking Zisblatt’s testimony and simply raising an eyebrow. Why? Well, if you wish to swallow this, be our guest BUT it is your gullibility and naivety which will lead a lot of people who have done their homework on this whole story, into jails – it happens all over Europe and is coming to the UK unless you sit up and take notice and care about something other than Kardashians and other such shite! The rest, regarding the verses, is the same. It is all fact and reported fact. 

Tell us another
Come on, my brother
Repeat the cover
For tribal gain
Safe in our tower
Now is the hour
Money and power
We have no shame

Let’s lie and cheat on film
No one suspects a thing
Bigger the lie is better for us!
Every fake survivor
Every fake survivor’s laughing
Fake survivors’ tongues are wagging
All us frauds are busy blagging
Spin and yarn there’ll be no gagging
You shall pay
All the way
Every night and day!

My name is Elie Wiesel may I show you my tattoo
I wrote a book for US kids to study while at school
It’s full of nonsense tales of course
What do you all expect
But it made me very wealthy
As a liar I’m the best

At Auschwitz they burned
babies tho the water table’s high
Fred Leuchter’s work on ditches well it almost made me cry
Treblinka was a another one
There was no funeral pyre
I cannot speak Hungarian
But oh boy can I lie

History repeats itself
No limit to our wealth
Thanks to your debt we’re
Bleeding you dry
We control your media
Control of your books and TV
With the daily lies we feed you
Suffering victimisation
Sheeple have no realisation
You shall pay…

My name is Otto Frank and my daughter’s name is Anne
The poor girl died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen camp
She wrote an introduction
To her famous diary
The rest was penned by Levin then publishèd by me

Two thousand and sixteen the copyright came to an end
The Anne Frank trust decided once again the rules to bend
We truly had no choice although
The whole thing really stank
But the book now has two authors
Anne and Otto Frank.

Ballpoint pen:

People already knew that the dairy was written with a BIC ballpoint pen, which was only a prototype at that time and was in no way industrialized, let alone sold on the market. They were commercialized in 1951. This already permitted many people to determine the book to be a fraud

Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain in February 2015.
But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by admitting that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a “co-author” after all.

Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences”, said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.”

Bank notes let’s print some more
We love to see you poor
Let’s start a war
Our pockets to line
There is no more doubting
Every nations debt is mounting
While the bankers keep on counting
Pension fund has now gone awol
Nothing left upon your table
You shall pay..

Regarding the choruses, Alison does not, at any time, mention jews – neither in the verses – she is providing commentary on fake individuals (PROVEN fakes) and is then extrapolating from that, there being an “industry” surrounding this entire holocaust story. Is she attributing it to judaism? I see no evidence of that at all! If ANYONE wishes to take out a private prosecution, let it be Irene Zisblatt or any of the other fakes. What has this to do with “Anti semitism” and the Campaign against it? Further: What IS “anti semitism”? To understand that, one MUST ask the question: WHAT IS “SEMITISM”? Because I’ll be damned if I know! Do you? Can you define it? If not, how can ANYONE be accused of being “anti” a non defined word? And if something is truth, then truth NEEDS no legal protection!

You think if you’re not even remotely involved in anything “anti semitic” (how would you know?) then you don’t need concern yourself about this, right?

Well, just wait until they get their oppressive law(s) on this subject and you’ll see, because once they do, it’s game set and match and you’ll then see how “non anti semitic” you will be! The more they get in their favour, the more it will all become apparent to you! Those of us who already know, have had to put time and effort into studying it while you who can’t see it, doze. Once they have it all wrapped up nice and tight however, it WILL become far more apparent even to those who are asleep!

“ First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

OH THE IRONY!

THE BIG LIE!

The propagandised re-education of Germany AND, in fact, the world. You had BETTER believe it or else!

From UK Parliamentary archives…..

“There is a terrible prospect if there exists in this country now even a small body of opinion which will not accept this evidence. For if it is not accepted now there is little chance of its being remembered ten years from now…..

What are the facts? Why were these things clone? My noble friend Lord Addison and I have asked ourselves that question both during our trip and since. Why did not the Germans feed their prisoners sufficiently well to get a full day’s work out of them, and then when they were unfit any longer, from some cause or other, to do that work, shoot them? Why waste food in keeping them going for a few weeks longer? Why all these elaborate arrangements by which they were taken away in trailers to the crematorium and there put into ovens and their bodies burned?

So far as I know, there is only one of these camps, that at Belsen, within the British area; and that is obviously not one which ought to be visited, because it was discovered to be full of typhus, and we do riot want to add to our many problems in occupied Germany by spreading typhus in regions which I hope our troops are going to occupy for many years.

….when things settle down and cinemas are opened, and the curfew, which now operates at six o’clock, comes to an end, the Germans should be compelled to go to the cinemas and see the photographs taken of these camps, taken soon after their occupation by Allied troops. I think that that would be wise.

LORD ADDISON The second reflection in my mind is that if you can intensify the egotism of a nation in twelve years to the extent that the Nazis have done, so that they become regardless of the sufferings of others, that dreadful fact really gives some small ground for hope. It is an illustration of what you can achieve by intensified propaganda. It gives perhaps some little reason to think that if the Allied Nations deliberately arrange for the teaching of opposite doctrines to German children over a long period of years we may begin to have some hope that the national point of view will be improved. But I cannot help thinking that long continued propaganda amongst the Germans that the rights of others must be recognized—prompted and assisted by the occupying authority over a long period of years—will be essential.

In the second place, I consider that the Allied Nations must set up an organization which contemplates the occupation of Germany and its deliberate re-education over a long period of years. How successful that will be is a matter upon which we can only speculate. But one is impressed by the fact that well-directed, sustained propaganda, in these days, while on the one side it is an immense danger, does also, on the other side, present a certain degree of hope. It affords us ground for hoping that we may be able, with the aid of propaganda, if it is well directed, gradually to change the point of view of the German children during a long period of years. I feel no reason whatever to hope that the world will be secure in the future unless, at the same time as force is applied to prevent the recurrence of war, there is a deliberate and sustained endeavour to re-educate the German people and to remould their minds.”

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/uk-parliament-archives-no-gas-chambers-german-re-education/

Only agenda filled liars in the British courts and politics can maintain that there is no evidence to justify people questioning this entire story.

The question is: WHAT does this tribe really have on our politicians and court system? It must be something big!