Earthlinggb's Blog

LGBT: LIES, GAS, BUBBLES, TYPHUS?

Posted in Political History, Politics, Science by earthling on May 15, 2020

How many did you say? And was it by bubble injection or gas?

The following article from the Sarasota Herald Tribune (25th November 1942) lays bare the lies told by Rabbi Stephen Wise to the U.S. Government regarding the “plight of jews” in Nazi occupied Europe during WW2.

It is an astonishing article when one understands the reality. Transparent in its abject bullshit to be “Frank”. (see what I did there? LOL)

Before reading, please note the following facts:

  1. Auschwitz was originally reported as having gassed 4 million jews with Zyklon B.
  2. This 4 million figure was later reduced to the 1.2M it is today (and that 1.2M is ALL people, not just jews).
  3. The obvious point is that the 6 million has to be revised down, by at least 2.8M, to 3.2M. You cannot lose 2.8M from a 4M figure, which was deemed a proportion of the 6M total, without revising the the total figure. But this “6 million” is STILL accepted as “fact” which it cannot possibly be.
  4. The article also suggests a total population of 4M jews in nazi occupied Europe at the time. NOT 6 million. So how could 6 million die?
  5. While Wise purports to have had documented proof of Adolf Hitler’s extermination order, he never produced it and, since, during the court case of Ernst Zundel, in Canada, in 1985, “key expert testimony” against Zündel’s alleged Holocaust denial was provided at great lengths by Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, who refused to testify at Zündel’s 1988 trial. Hilberg refused to testify in 1988 because, during the trial in 1985, he was asked if there existed documentary proof of an execution order by Adolf Hitler and had to admit there was none. Proving, once more, that Rabbi Stephen Wise never had such a document.

 

But here is the most egregious lie (to be frank, they all are egregious):

“There, he said nazi doctors were killing them at the rate of ‘more than 100 an hour per doctor,’ by INJECTING AIR BUBBLES INTO THEIR VEINS” – “the simplest and cheapest method” they could find.

Please remember this is November 1942. No mention of Gas Chambers, Zyklon B, nothing. Why? Because, just as you have been totally unaware of “air bubbles in veins” and just as the “shrunken heads” and “lampshades and soap made from skin” were proven and admitted lies (“mistakes”)………..

I have, elsewhere in my blogs on this subject, given proof that no “Gas Chambers” were ever mentioned in UK Parliament archives until many years after the war and that a huge effort was made by the allies to “re-educate” both, the Germans and the world to believe the later propaganda we were subject to.

No Gas Chambers and Re-education

Meanwhile, the “Sacred Cow” story.

Mark Jacobsen had, in his possession, what he believed (and hoped fervently – you can imagine why of course) was a “human lampshade”. It’s worth watching his journey and his reactions to the results. It is also worth noting the storyline of the “history” which goes with it.

Interestingly, in the case of Ilse Koch, proof of her ever having possession of such a lampshade never materialised and she was given 4 years in prison before a public outcry resulted in her getting life (trial by ignorance and brainwashing then. It reminds me of what is happening today with Covid 19 – the ignorants demand we wear masks for a non existent threat. However, what is also interesting is that it is stated “I wonder if the judge would have had a different original verdict if he had seen the lampshade” (which, strangely, had just gone missing even though in US Military hands). Here’s the problem with such a statement: If, as of today, the labs we have have such a hard time proving, by PCR testing of DNA, what the skin is made of, how, by just producing a lampshade, could the judge – never-mind the Military who put it on display – prove it was human skin in the first place? Do you clearly see the problem there? When did we first introduce the capability of DNA testing? It wasn’t 1945!

Also, one last thing on these labs and the issues they had proving what the skin was made of using PCR: Today we’re being told that these same techniques are being used to test everyone for Covid 19. Think carefully about that. Difficult enough, it seems, to differentiate a cow from a human yet they can identify a specific strain of virus just like that? I have my strong suspicions.

Even Wikipedia admits typhus killed millions of prisoners in the concentration camps. A bit of a waste, then, using all that gas right? Let’s get serious here!

“Epidemic typhus has historically occurred during times of war and deprivation. For example, typhus killed millions of prisoners in German Nazi concentration camps during World War II. The deteriorating quality of hygiene in camps such as Auschwitz, Theresienstadt, and Bergen-Belsen created conditions where diseases such as typhus flourished.”

“During World War II, typhus struck the German Army during Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia, in 1941. In 1942 and 1943 typhus hit French North AfricaEgypt and Iran particularly hard. Typhus epidemics killed inmates in the Nazi concentration camps; infamous pictures of typhus victims’ mass graves can be seen in footage shot at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Thousands of prisoners held in appalling conditions in German concentration and death camps such as AuschwitzTheresienstadt, and Bergen-Belsen also died of typhus during World War II, including Anne Frank at the age of 15 and her sister Margot. Even larger epidemics in the post-war chaos of Europe were only averted by the widespread use of the newly discovered DDT to kill the lice on millions of refugees and displaced persons.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic_typhus

“The Nazis began using Zyklon B in extermination camps in early 1942 to murder prisoners during the Holocaust. Approximately 1.1 million people were killed using this method, mostly at Auschwitz.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

Well, what was it? Zyklon B or injected air bubbles? Or, perhaps just typhus?

And look at what Zyklon B was actually developed for and then look at what DDT was actually developed for.

Oh, and as for the “shrunken heads”:

The genetic evidence for human origin of Jivaroan shrunken heads in collections from the Polish museums

“Analysis of nuclear short tandem repeats located at autosomal or sex chromosomes proved that all the studied shrunken heads were of human origin. Nevertheless, Y-STR haplogroup I2 of the sample no.4 suggested a Southeastern European ancestry precluding a genuine Jivaroan origin. Two other samples (no.1, no.3) were Amerindians and probably consanguineous by a common male ancestor, because they shared identical profile of Y-chromosome haplogroup Q1a2-M3. This haplogroup is characteristic for the Native Americans (Ecuador).”

Nothing to do with jews OR even western european.

PMC5388730

This blog could go on and on with immense detail but people, generally, don’t have the concentration (no pun intended) span so I’ll leave it to the reader to do their own homework to check what I’ve written and probe further. If you’re intellectually honest, you WILL see the truth and recognise the lies.

Anne Frank’s Step Sister…..

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gRemXnwQMG9J/

You know what’s also odd though? Going back to the lampshade issue:

‘After the defeat of Nazi Germany, claims circulated that Ilse Koch, wife of the commandant of Buchenwald concentration camp, had possessed lampshades made of human skin, and had specifically tattooed prisoners killed in order to use their skin for this purpose. After her conviction for war crimes, General Lucius D. Clay, the interim military governor of the American Zone in Germany, reduced her sentence to four years’ prison on the grounds “there was no convincing evidence that she had selected Nazi concentration camp inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins, or that she possessed any articles made of human skin”.

Jean Edward Smith in his biography, Lucius D. Clay, an American Life, reported that the general had maintained that the leather lamp shades were really made out of goat skin. The book quotes a statement made by General Clay years later:

There was absolutely no evidence in the trial transcript, other than she was a rather loathsome creature, that would support the death sentence. I suppose I received more abuse for that than for anything else I did in Germany. Some reporter had called her the “Bitch of Buchenwald”, had written that she had lamp shades made of human skin in her house. And that was introduced in court, where it was absolutely proven that the lamp shades were made out of goat skin.

The charges were made once more when she was rearrested, but again were found to be groundless.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampshades_made_from_human_skin

So, while the Jacobsen video suggests the lampshade was never produced in court, General Clay suggests it was and “proven” to be goat skin. These people just can’t keep the conflicting stories from cropping up can they? And the conflicts are so numerable that the entire story of the holocaust cannot, possibly, be taken as fact no matter what courts wish to lock you up for questioning it.

But in a “democracy” it’s a case of the brainwashed ignorant masses forever winning over the knowledgeable, educated, informed minority. Scary huh? Also what is going on with this “Covid 19” rubbish. And have you fully considered the people who are promoting that story also? Oddly, the same tribe in the main. Granted, they have their gentile lackey helpers.

 

THE WORLD IS TRULY MISSING THE POINT AND BEING BRAINWASHED TO THIS VERY DAY. AND NOT JUST ABOUT WW2, HOLOCAUST AND A MULTITUDE OF OTHER HISTORICAL EVENTS. ABOUT JUST ABOUT ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF YESTERDAY AND TODAY.

IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP!

It’s not about you and me anymore, it’s about our kids and their kids. Or doesn’t that concern you?

Nice & Sleazy Whitty

Posted in "Climate Change", "Terrorism", Agenda 21, Politics, Science, The Corrupt SOB's, Vaccinations by earthling on April 30, 2020

“Liar!” basically covered it BUT this new Gresham College upload today by Whitty, seals it.

This man is murdering by numbers and deception.

CHRIS WHITTY: LIAR!!

Takes a little concentration (but it pays off) and if you don’t like the music, sorry, it’s how I roll. This info KILLS the bastard. It is correct. There are no mistakes in the general figures and extrapolations I make. I’d debate it with him any day of the week and, with a fair jury, it’s either me or him who goes to jail.

The mystery of the true coronavirus death rate

I seriously don’t know why people are so willing to walk in line re this fake pandemic? A “pandemic” which has been created out of manipulated statistics of numbers of cases and deaths attributed to it. A “pandemic” created by propaganda like we’ve never experienced before. Is it because even exceptionally intelligent people can’t grasp the idea (even though we’ve seen it before in the last 20 years) that what is actually going on is a globalist (do you know anything about the globalist agenda? Do you know what a globalist is and how they operate?) power grab from sovereign states/leaders and influence over them through NGO’s, Foundations and PPPs?
Is it because otherwise intelligent people just accept what they’re told by mainstream news sources and don’t delve a little deeper? Is it because otherwise intelligent people are just ‘frozen’ and worried about the impact on them, their job, their livelihood and families, in the here and now, that they don’t step back, look wider and deeper and THINK?
Is it just because you’re frozen in fear?
Or is it because you just refuse to believe that a “smart person” like you could get duped so easily and those who tell you you are, such as I, are somehow, deluded idiots?
I wonder.
Any input would be appreciated because I’d dearly love to know.

What IS a “virus”? A virus is an infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Think of that “living cell” or organism being a Nation or National Government. The “infectious agent” is the influence of non democratically elected (but immensely wealthy and powerful) people and Non Governmental Organisations who have immense resources globally but tied to no sovereign nation. You will see such agents (Chris Whitty, Dr Fauci and Tedros Adhanom (WHO), to name a few names who have all had Bill Gates funding to the tune of tens of millions for example) “advising” Trump and Johnson (and the rest of world leaders). You will see the leaders of Brazil and of Venezuela being silenced by what is another globalist powerbase – Twitter (or Google or Facebook) and yet they are sovereign elected leaders of nations. You will “see” the actual virus everywhere you look IF you look! Why do sovereign, national governments play ball? Are you naive? Also, who controls and owns practically all mainstream media outlets globally? Who then presents to you the statistics while, if you pay attention, you will clearly see they never state “X died of coronavirus” but “x, having been tested positive for coronavirus, died”.

Any other day of the week you’ll accept that government is corrupt to all hell. But not on this. Why? Because you don’t understand it. Why? Because you’ve never studied it. THAT is the ONLY difference between you and I and why I’m telling you this is all fake. Faker than Katie Price’s mammaries.
The Police just do as they are directed. As do the Doctors and nurses (do you think for one second our health professionals understand the complexity of virology? What about those virologists who are speaking out but never allowed on your mainstream networks?) as do the absolutely brainwashed “Queen and Country” military who take their orders from on high and the higher ups from Whitehall (in the UK at least). Yes, the NHS are great but they have no clue how they are being used. And day after day, hour by hour, you’re getting inundated by that propaganda scaring the crap out of you. And you’re swallowing it.

I have to applaud them though. They certainly have a keen grasp on behavioural traits to have pulled this off so brilliantly.

COULD NOT BE CLEARER!
What you have heard or read about the number of deaths (particularly in Italy) is CRAP and it is ADMITTED even in the Financial Times.

“But different countries are also reporting cases and deaths in different ways: in Italy, Covid-19 is listed as the cause of death even if a patient was already ill and died from a combination of illnesses.”

“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus,” said the scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health last week.”

That was March 30th. I understand that figure of 12% is now something like 1%. However, even that 12% or 1% is suspect for other reasons!!

Financial Times: The mystery of the true coronavirus death rate

God Almighty would some people PLEASE use the brain god gave you!

Explosive. Please share (for you)

Posted in "Terrorism", Media, Politics, Science, Vaccinations by earthling on March 31, 2020

Get this info out there because your mainstream news isn’t going to!

 

THE EHRLICH CODE

First, I have to say I am repeating things in this video but, to an extent, it is for those who may not have watched the others.

However, I came across something that Paul R Ehrlich said and my jaw dropped. This gives you a greater insight into how these men think, collectively, PLUS it considers what you may consider as a ‘code’ being dropped into Ehrlich’s talk. Now, I do not believe things such as this are just coincidences. Not when you know the background and the connections of these people. Make of it what you will however.

 

 

BORIS JOHNSON’S FATHER WANTS YOU DEAD

Unfortunately, these days, all the points of connection I have, to put this “jigsaw puzzle” together, reside in my head and there is just so much of it, gathered over the last 12 to 15 years. Plus, I’ve recognised that, no matter what you place in front of the majority of people, that “penny” won’t drop. So, to piece all of the articles and all of the book quotes and people involved etc, is just not something I can motivate myself to do any longer.

One gets tired of trying and trying and trying to alert and explain OVER and OVER again to tons of different people over years. Granted, people who first considered me ‘nuts’ years ago, have now come to realise – after time and again my previous comments on news items and what the reality is, being, now, clearly seen by them – that there is, definitely, an agenda at play. But that said, even today, these people do not grasp the enormity of it and how they can, possibly, get away with it all.

Case in point: Covid 19. Their heads cannot compute how this entire episode could possibly be a full on hoax. It’s exactly like the moon landing issue or 9/11 for them (or many of the terrorist shootings): “How could the world’s media present this to us; Show us photos and video; Have real people on our TV talking about their loved ones dying” etc. “Too many people would have to know! It’s just not possible!”

So, re “the virus”. Let me state my opinion as clearly as I can:

  1. Today, Covid 19 is a total hoax.
  2. The people dying ARE dying but are so old they are dying anyhow of various symptoms.
  3. Certain people who die are being ‘picked’ to be used as “Covid 19 deaths”. I do not know the criteria they are using for choosing which people they will label as such.
  4. “But people are being tested and come up positive for the virus”: So? Throughout your whole life, when you have had a cold/flu, has your GP (Doctor) tested you for the cold/flu? Or has he simply said “Take Lemsip”; “Go home and sweat it out; Plenty of water and rest and keep warm”? It’s the latter, right?
  5. Corona viruses are a family of flu-like viruses – different strains. So then, if they are doing tests (and note the figures we are given, and the positive diagnoses, always seem to be very well controlled and then advised by Nation’s Health Ministers) then those tests can simply be coming up positive for “corona virus” which is a family including the common flu. Yes they are stating this is a “Novel Corona virus” but are YOU in control of the tests and procedure? No. The tests appear to have to be verified by being sent to specialised labs – very convenient.
  6. So then why do I suggest they wish to kill us? Why, then, is this not real if they wish for that? To be honest, I don’t know for sure because it certainly would appear they could get away with it. My personal belief is that they haven’t, yet, manufactured a virus they can totally control while it being infectious and pathogenic enough. They wouldn’t wish to kill themselves too now would they? I also believe that, at this moment, they are more interested in gathering data, including behavioural analysis re the wide population and, if you consider the varying degrees to which countries’ governments have reacted (Italy compared with the UK for instance), it would appear to me that they are assessing how people react to various levels of enforcement and lockdowns. Also, this has been a global heist just like 9/11 was to an extent; the dotcom crash; the house price crash AND it is allowing them to put in place even greater draconian measures for when they ARE ready to unleash whatever they have planned.

So who are these people?

Well, they are the usual suspects: The wealthy families who have their Foundations and their wealth wrapped up in both, those Foundations and in Nominee Accounts globally, as well as their investments in the entire Corporate infrastructure of the world.

The big names are:

Rothschild, Rockefeller, The old money families; British and wider royalty; The Gates family and many more.

The lackeys are people like Blair and Cameron and Johnson and Johnson’s father, Stanley, Paul Ehrlich, Jame Lovelock etc.

The Groups of course are: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign relations, Tavistock, The Royal Society, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) etc.

Below that, you have all the little “ants” scurrying around who are in awe of the people they work for, get a decent salary and produce the reports and every other little nuance of what these people want produced. You then have their “Talking Heads” in the media who are just as awestruck and want the ‘big names’ to interview and to wine and dine with. It’s easy when you break it all down. How many paedophiles have been honoured by the Queen? Have you ever counted them?

Now, these people are in a hurry. Yes, the patiently take their steps – each step gathering greater power and momentum (this Covid 19 is one of them) – but they want what they want and that is wide open spaces which they own outright. The heists are all about gathering the money to enable them to have the influence and power over the politicians. They are NOT interested in money for money’s sake. It is only a tool for them to finally achieve what they wish. Full spectrum dominance over land, resources and population.

How is this done? Here’s an example of the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations:

Agency Through Adaptation: Explaining The Rockefeller and Gates Foundation’s Influence in the Governance of Global Health and Agricultural Development
by
Michael Stevenson
A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Global Governance

Abstract
The central argument that I advance in this dissertation is that the influence of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in the governance of global health and agricultural development has been derived from their ability to advance knowledge structures crafted to accommodate the preferences of the dominant states operating within the contexts where they have sought to catalyze change.
Consequently, this dissertation provides a new way of conceptualizing knowledge power broadly conceived as well as private governance as it relates to the provision of public goods.

As a perspective on the distribution of power in world politics, global governance has effectively illuminated the increasing authority conferred by states to private actors in pursuit of resolving complex problems.
This rise in private power is closely linked to the unprecedented level of interdependence associated with the global expansion of the liberal economic paradigm.
The ensuing ‘‘uncoupling’’ of territorialism has diminished individual state capacity to limit domestic exposure to external problems.
To compensate for the shortcomings of the Westphalian model in the globalization era, states have relinquished long-held responsibilities to private actors, who now play key roles in establishing and enforcing regulatory frameworks governing whole industries, and in facilitating the provision of public goods.
While still contentious, the argument that some degree of private participation in global governance is necessary, for collective action problems to be successfully resolved, has been widely embraced by states and international organizations alike.
In this section, I look at how existing literature examining the means through which private actors have become formally involved in the construction and management of institutions of global governance can explain the influence of RF and BMGF in world politics.

Arguments have been made that the rise of PPPs [Public Private Partnerships] has led to a reduction in transparency of process, evidenced by the fact that while particular partnerships such as the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (hereafter the Global Fund) rely on public authorities such as the World Health Organization (WHO) for funding and administrative support, as legally independent not-for-profits, they are not required to have the same high levels of transparency or oversight as their public sector benefactors. Other PPPs created to raise and disperse large funds for specific purposes such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) have been criticized for distorting the policy objectives of their public authority hosts (e.g. UNICEF), while fragmenting agencies at the operational level. The most cynical assessments suggest that PPPs constitute a misguided institutional experiment, which firms have strategically embraced to stifle civil society driven criticisms over their role in perpetuating global inequalities.

This dissertation shows that RF and BMGF have been instrumental in the evolution and institutionalization of the PPP as a form of global governance in public health and agriculture.

If RF and BMGF are indeed uniquely positioned to shape global governance, then why have these two actors largely operated under the radar of scholars examining the rise of private governance arrangements? Certainly the UN classification of private philanthropic foundations, as non-governmental organizations, is not the cause of their being viewed largely as peripheral actors, for Multinational Corporations (MNCs)–which have attracted tremendous scholarly attention–are also categorized as such. Instead, I am suggesting that the reason RF and BMGF have not attracted more scrutiny from International Relations (IR) scholars has to do with the intangibility and invisibility of power attained through the construction of knowledge, which I argue has been and continues to be the basis of their influence in global governance.

Now, you’ve heard about the Pandemic exercise carried out and literally just completed in November last year called “Event 201”? Bill & Melinda Gates and John Hopkins University working hand in hand with the UN and WHO. Public Private Partnerships.

What a coincidence right? Just as we have the Trump transition coincidence. So many coincidences but so many, otherwise considered “intelligent” people (even up to the level of PhDs) can’t compute the odds but can’t grasp the reality of it either. But then PhD and similar is a sign of very good conditioning, answering in the form and manner expected and being a person of ‘immaculate behaviour and principle”. In other words, useful twats.

 

But on to the main topic: Stanley Johnson, his co-conspirators (that is what they are when you have a group of people who work toward the same goal of depopulation of a planet – let’s get real here). Is this REALLY what they want? What lies behind it in terms of ideology? And are they actually connected and do they have a plan? If so, how is that plan progressed? What groups/clubs etc? Is the Club of Rome, for example, not just a “Conspiracy Theory”?

Let’s take a look shall we?

 

But you know? People are going to all go back to work, to school etc and breathe a sigh of relief when this all blows over. In the TOTAL IGNORANCE of the fact it has only been a step toward the real end goal:

LESS THAN 1 BILLION ON THE PLANET

But let the poor dears be sheep to the slaughter. Their lack of care about it has diminished my interest in trying to be a voice in the wilderness trying to alert them. Another way of saying would be rather coarse and I’m trying so hard not to be.

 

CORONAVIRUS DEAD AS A DODO! This is IMMENSE!

Now PLEASE people!

You CANNOT ignore this!

Of ALL the coincidences around this “virus”, you CANNOT ignore this one. The writing is all on the wall! You must be NUTS to believe this virus is real! These sorts of coincidences DO NOT HAPPEN!

The odds are immense! But there’s no-one listening! I lose the will to live at the thought of how gullible and pathetic people are!

Politico Article…

 

 

 

HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE IGNORED AND THEY STILL GET AWAY WITH THIS?

I LOSE ALL FAITH IN MY FELLOW MAN!

 

Meanwhile, this is the enemy and their wished for end goal….

Stanley Johnson is Boris Johnson’s father….

THIS IS, QUITE LITERALLY, THE MEDICAL EQUIVALENT OF 9/11

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!

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!