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

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!

 

Can Garlic or a Cross repel a nuclear blast?

Posted in Science by earthling on July 11, 2017

I think I’ve found out how Neil Armstrong and friends just may have been able to fly through the Van Allen belts with no issue. So perhaps we DID go to the moon after all? (Not!)

Perhaps not only freemasons but perhaps Neil, Buzz etc were all jesuits?

Isn’t the following VERY odd? It would appear the jesuits ARE on top and the jews just tucked in underneath because the jews need texts to advise them to get the hell out of the way when something is about to “go down” while the jesuits don’t need to. The latter are completely immune! OR (and it’s a BIG “or”) is it perhaps possible that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not Atom bombs at all but they were firebombed? Many people have suggested this and this article does (unless you believe in garlic and crosses that is) suggest there is “mileage” in such an assumption.

 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-miracle-of-hiroshima-jesuits-survived-the-atomic-bomb-thanks-to-the-rosary-69261/

 

So what do you make of that?

A jewish cabalist can create evil but a jesuit can overcome it? Or is it just all “Noetic science” bullshit?

Taxing you, literally, to death

Posted in "Climate Change", Agenda 21, Science by earthling on December 6, 2015

My first and my last words on Climate Change which is in print and for all to see while it’s from the same body of people who, essentially, lurk in the shadows and “advise” governments and the United Nations. One must also simply understand that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families control so many of these little known organisations – little known, not to those of us who research it all but to the vast majority of the population who just do not and have no interest in doing so but just accept everything the BBC and the rest of the mainstream press and media tell them on whatever subject.

 

While I’m glad to see this on the BBC, I think to myself “Why now? And why Piers Corbyn? There have been others who have spoken out but they have been silenced and, on a few occasions, sacked by the BBC”. So, again, why now and why Piers? Could it be the timing is perfect to undermine Jeremy Corbyn from another angle? “The Corbyn family all have ‘extreme’ views” and while it has been essentially the left who have supported and been vocal on Climate Change and the need to do something about it, the BBC then use Jeremy’s brother to create a significant split in Labour and their supporters, therefore diluting Jeremy’s position even further. Some other Labour candidate comes along to unite Labour and take on the party leadership role and they suit the establishment far better than Corbyn – Hilary Benn for example?

 

Anyhow, “Climate Change” (or “Global Warming”) was promulgated by the Club of Rome. Do your homework on the Club of Rome if you do not already know who is in it, who the movers and shakers are, how they influence, who they influence etc if you haven’t already.

Here is those first and last words:

“Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.””

In one passage the authors conjecture about new needed enemies or rally points for global society, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

Now really, be my guest if you simply wish to ignore what you’ve just read but remember, insodoing, you have no idea what you are allowing to happen to your children and your children’s children. Piers says it’s just a con and a fraud. It is, but it’s not just that. It has a far greater purpose than that. If you are a climate change enthusiast, totally invested in believing it to be real and you also are totally invested in the belief the world is overpopulated, then sit your children down and explain to them you are supporting their ultimate demise. Tell them you’d like them to be sterilised. In fact, sterilise them at birth. Even better, don’t have children. Not even one.

51zr8J75J6L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

Is Caitlyn Jenner a murderer?

Posted in Law, Media, Science by earthling on June 6, 2015

INSANITY FAIR INDEED!

556c7a224ae56e586e457d3e_vf-cover-bruce-jenner-july-2015

Did this “woman” murder this man?

In the fictional realm of “law” (which we all live under), indeed she did!

The case of Caitlyn Jenner is a perfect example of the basic jurisprudence of law – the “legal person” – displaying itself as a joke but a very dangerous “joke” upon the men and women of this planet earth. But, of course, the cultural marxists, the “libertarians” (now that will be a surprise to those of you who are) and the simple, emotional, “feel gooders” of the world will not see, or wish to see, the reality of this. Nevertheless, it needs to be brought to your attention because it is through the fundamental con of the “legal person” (a fiction at law), that all of us are entirely controlled due to the fact very few of you understand it.

Bruce Jenner was a sportsman who won olympic medals. Bruce Jenner no longer exists in law. It is existence in law which gives us the “benefit” of “human rights”. You do not have “human rights” if you do not exist. I have explained this before in a previous few blogs.

In the airy fairy world of LGBT rights, we are told to accept that a person can simply become another person altogether and we should be accepting of this. Ok, let’s say we are.

So, again, Bruce Jenner no longer exists! What does this mean?

Well, let’s consider a wealthy person with a ton of insurance and their spouse murders them for that insurance. It does happen you know!

Would that spouse be liable and be imprisoned for the murder? Of course they would!

So what has “Caitlyn” Jenner done to Bruce Jenner? In the legal world, she has caused him to cease to exist. This is murder. Was it pre-meditated? Yes, of course it was. So it is 1st degree murder.

Is it possible there was a motive? After all, Caitlyn could hardly then ask for the insurance which was in Bruce Jenner’s name could she? But, perhaps, Kris Jenner could if we followed law properly. A legal person who existed is now, effectively, deceased!

But back to Caitlyn: What does she gain out of the murder of Bruce if not insurance? So it wasn’t an insurance job!

Well, what about this:

 

Insurance fraud

Now, if any of you out there want to make some serious money before you die, just get to the point where you are a 3rd rate celebrity – do anything to get there; go on a reality TV show and make a huge arse of yourself, anything at all to get that public attention – and then MILK IT!

Once you’ve done that, adopt a seriously “out there” message – like becoming a tranny – which is highly acceptable to the cultural marxist, political agenda and they’ll create the environment and the media attention you need plus support you to spread your message worldwide through talks giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars and TV appearances etc – a little like the £000’s Tony Blair gets for talks supporting the globalist agenda which, of course, Caitlyn is now a poster “girl” for!

But back to the legal issue:

There’s a petition started to demand that Bruce Jenner’s medals be given back. Is this fair? Well, of course it is! Bruce is dead and a “woman” by the name of Caitlyn has the medals in her property which do not belong to her. She is NOT Bruce Jenner and does not wish to be. She killed Bruce Jenner!

Further, it has to be asked why Kris Jenner – Bruce’s wife – is not being handed her husband’s estate?

The stupid woman should have waited! He’s no longer “Bruce Jenner” but Caitlyn Jenner so then she wouldn’t have had to file for a divorce from a non existent person! She should have just stated her husband was dead and his estate would have gone to her lock stock and barrel!
Ask yourself Kris: “Am I married to a woman called Caitlyn?” You bloody idiot!

Why did Kris Jenner apply for divorce from Bruce Jenner before he died? She should have simply hung on until he died and she would have inherited his property anyhow! What a silly woman! She could then pursue Caitlyn Jenner for all the money she is about to make by capitalising on the death of her husband. But, in reality, Caitlyn Jenner should not be able to make any money in such a fashion because it is argued she should be in jail for first degree murder!

Kris Jenner

Let’s assume “Caitlyn” Jenner now is recognised as a legal person (I don’t know if he/she has applied for such but I imagine he/she will). Then Bruce Jenner does not exist (in law).
Therefore, all of the property of Bruce Jenner (did he make a will?) is in testate”.
Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies owning property whose value is greater than the sum of their enforceable debts and funeral expenses without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the “intestate estate”.
Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law (statutory and case law) that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.
Under English law (given the probable conditions, Bruce Jenner died under):
The husband, wife or civil partner keeps all the assets (including property), up to £250,000, and all the personal possessions, whatever their value.
The remainder of the estate will be shared as follows:
the husband, wife or civil partner gets an absolute interest in half of the remainder
the other half is then divided equally between the surviving children
If a son or daughter (or other child where the deceased had a parental role) has already died, their children will inherit in their place.
So, in accordance with law, the death of Bruce Jenner means that his wife and children get all of his possessions and property. That would include the medals.
In law, your dad’s dead kids!

But there’s one further aspect: Should the legal person known as “Caitlyn Jenner” be charged with the murder of the legal person Bruce Jenner?

In law, the answer would be a resounding YES if the law wasn’t such an ass and used and abused by the lawmakers in whichever way they so choose!

But of course, now he’s a “woman” I guess you would expect him to become a money grabber! 😉

Women just remember this: You aren’t one unless the law says you are! You don’t even exist unless the law says you do!

Womanhood is nothing special ladies and you even support that idea yourselves. Any man can be a woman and don’t you dare think you’re anything special!

It’s ironic that women are, by their own will and ignorance, destroying womanhood!

Knock yourselves out girls! 😉

Now just remember when your little boy says “Mummy, I want to be a girl”, don’t be a bigot! Dress him up in little knickers, a dress and when he hits about 12, tell him he needs to wear tampons just in case!

 

Caitlyn: She didn't marry for money, she murdered for it!

Caitlyn: She didn’t marry for money, she murdered for it!

AIDS

Posted in Media, Science by earthling on February 15, 2015

Why has our media never picked up on this? They love their big stories after all don’t they?

He is totally convincing (to me anyhow) and he’s injecting himself with the blood of an HIV sufferer.

Spanish media covered it but then, it seems, no other country’s media did.

This is spectacular information but, like anything else, if it isn’t given coverage on mainstream media, noone knows OR, if they are exposed to the information, they think it’s bullshit. But then, as has happened so many times now, years later, it comes out and people finally accept the truth because it’s on the BBC. Science is only as good as the media which promotes it.

Tagged with: , ,

Diego Garcia: How it works

HC Deb 21 June 2004 vol 422 cc1221-2W1221W

§Jeremy CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. [179700]

§Mr. RammellThe US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.

§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. [178580]

§Mr. StrawIn exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.

§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. [178581]

§Mr. StrawThe United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman has used the words “overwhelming force” three times already. Does “overwhelming force” include the use of B61–11s? Those are the earth-penetrating nuclear weapons which, we are told, are based in the British Indian ocean territory of Diego Garcia. If there is to be overwhelming force, and if it is to involve nuclear weapons, with the B2 bombers that are based in the hangars at Diego Garcia, ought not the House of Commons to be told about it?

§Mr. AncramThe force that will be required is that which is appropriate and most effective in achieving the objective. I am certainly not going to speculate at this stage on what that force will be. Indeed, at this particular stage we need to make it clear that the United Nations resolution is the first objective to be fulfilled: only if Saddam breaches that will we consider the second option.

 

 

 

HC Deb 15 October 2002 vol 390 cc528-9W

Jeremy Corbyn 

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [74654]

529W

§Mr. Mike O’BrienThe issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, “Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence”.

DG2

 

HC Deb 07 July 2004 vol 423 cc271-96WH271WH§2 pm

§Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North (Lab)I welcome the opportunity to debate what I consider to be a very serious issue. It touches on honesty in politics and in government, and it touches on issues of constitution and law and the way in which a group of people have been grievously treated by this country and, to some extent, the United States for more than 40 years.

The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra, and they inhabited an idyllic and pristine environment. Their problem was their location—the Indian ocean. The United States was eyeing it up in the 1950s and 1960s as a potential base, and subsequently decided to build what they euphemistically called a “communications facility” on the island of Diego Garcia. The communications facility turned out to be two of the longest runways that the world had seen and a base from which 4,000 US troops could operate. The base is now routinely used for the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States ‘considers it to be a crucial communications facility.

Prime Minister Wilson and President Johnson discussed the matter in the 1960s and decided to do a deal and evacuate the population of Diego Garcia to make way for the American communications facility. The Americans insisted on the evacuation of not only Diego Garcia, but the entire archipelago, despite the fact that its other islands were some distance from the putative communications facility.

The language used by the then Colonial Office was outrageous beyond belief. Simon Winchester wrote a wonderful piece on the subject in Granta magazine in which he quoted the then permanent secretary in the Colonial Office who described the population inhabiting the islands as a group of “Man Fridays” and stated that it would be simple and easy enough to move them out of the way. The deal subsequently went through and, to make ready for the American base, the British authorities proceeded to remove people from the islands. However, it was never done openly.

Only two days ago outside the Foreign Office, I met a man who was part of a demonstration there. He told me that he had left the islands in 1966 and that he was not allowed to go back, as many others were not. When they went to Mauritius or the Seychelles—mainly Mauritius—for medical treatment or education, they suddenly found that they could not go back.

When the time came for the British to remove the population in earnest, they did so —putting them on a ship, taking them to Port Louis in Mauritius and simply dumping them on the quayside. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) speaks, I am sure that he will describe the conditions that he saw when he went to Mauritius at the time. The people were dumped there in terrible destitution. To ensure that nothing was left on the islands, the British commissioner had the problem of what to do with the islanders’ domestic animals and pets. The dogs were rounded up 272WHand gassed, all the animals were killed and the islands were left empty and uninhabited to make way for the American base.

The poor islanders were forced to eke out an existence in terrible poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Ignored by everybody, they managed to survive and they never gave up two things: first, the hope, determination and desperation for the right of return; and secondly, the hope that one day, somebody, somewhere would recognise the fundamental injustice of their treatment.

Time has moved on and it is 48 years since the original and disgraceful deal was done between Wilson and Johnson, but the injustice has not gone away. I visited Mauritius a couple of years ago to meet the Chagos islanders and to see the conditions in which they live. They are very poor indeed. We have to remember, and we should remember, that the compensation that they finally won, some 15 years after the original removal from the islands had begun, was mainly eaten up by debt collectors and land agents. No one was given sufficient compensation and no one was made rich or wealthy by the process. This has been the subject of a court case that is still going on, so I cannot comment on anything more than the original facts of the case. However, it seems that the islanders were cajoled into signing what they did not believe to be a full and final settlement, and were told to accept it as such. The injustice and the poverty go on.

When I was in Mauritius, I spent a week visiting as many Chagossian families as I could. I talked to them about their lives on the Chagos Islands, when they lived there, and their lives now. They described their sustainable form of living, the type of community, religion and schools that they had and their lives in general. It was fascinating to talk to them, but one could see the hurt in their eyes at the way that they were taken from the islands and dumped on the quayside at Port Louis. Many of those families still live in desperate poverty in metal huts with outside toilets and little furniture. Although the current Mauritius Government have been kinder to them than previous ones, they are still very poor people.

Those people, however, were always going to campaign for their hope of a right of return; they would never give up. Eventually, a case was lodged in the British legal system and, in a court order of 2000, they were granted the right to return under British immigration law. It was ruled that they had the right of return. The following year, a further step forward was taken when theBritish Overseas Territories Bill was introduced in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I raised the question of the eligibility of the Chagos islanders for British citizenship, on the basis that they would be entitled to British citizenship like everyone else in overseas territories had they not been removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. To their credit, the Government accepted the thrust of our argument, and a Government amendment was tabled and accepted in Committee. Therefore, the islanders were given the right to British citizenship. There is, unfortunately, a grey area in which I hope ministerial discretion will be used to deal with the small number of those who have fallen outside the provisions of that law.

273WHThings looked quite good in 2000 and 2001, and a compensation claim was lodged to re-open the issue. In meetings we had at the Foreign Office with the Minister’s predecessor, Baroness Amos, on the right of return and the possibility of a visit, we thought that things were going very well. Indeed, in the Commons, Ministers have asserted two things. One is that there is a right to return, and the second is that there was no impediment to anyone going back at any time. Things were looking good, and we had hope, as did the islanders.

On 10 June this year, which everyone will remember as election day, staff at the Foreign Office were not out ensuring that people were voting. Instead, they were at the palace asking the Queen to sign an Order in Council. When I was told that an Order in Council had been signed, I misheard or misunderstood. I thought that it was a statutory instrument that I would be able to pray against, as I assumed other hon. Members would, so that decisions made by Ministers would be subject to some form of democratic accountability. I had to reconsider, and I spoke to Sheridans’ Richard Gifford, the excellent solicitor who has represented the Chagossians for many years. He calmly explained to me that I had misunderstood, and that an Order in Council signed by her Majesty was law. It overrides everything in which we believe about the democratic accountability of the Government.

There are two orders: one is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order and the second is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order. I shall just quote a little of one, to give the Chamber a flavour of it: Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Commissionerappointed under the constitution order— may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory”. The order then goes on to declare, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”, that the commissioner in effect becomes the supreme Governor of everything in the territory. The order says: All laws made by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette in such manner as the Commissioner may direct. Every law made by the Commissioner under subsection (1) shall come into force on the date on which it is published”. We have handed power over to a commissioner. Never mind the fact that there were islanders living there and that several thousand people until that point had every right to live there; apparently, they now have no rights whatever. So much for the constitution order.

The immigration order was the second one passed, and I shall quote just two of its sections. Article 7 says: An immigration officer, acting in his entire discretion, may issue or renew a permit or may cancel a permit before the expiration, subject to the right of appeal provided in section 10. That is for people who wish to visit the Chagos Islands. Article 10 says: A person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer may appeal to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final and conclusive. 274WHSo the only person to whom one can appeal if one does not agree with a decision to prevent Chagos islanders going to their own islands is a commissioner appointed specifically to control the Chagos Islands in every way for evermore.

The Minister made a written statement to the House on 10 June, although frankly it should have been an oral statement and made at a time when he could have been cross-questioned about it. At least, however, we are debating the subject here in Westminster Hall today. His statement said: Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 33WS.] I have some comments to make on that. The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands. Let us not beat about the bush: that was a disgraceful, immoral act. It is time that a Minister stood up and apologised for that act committed by the Government of the time and for the treatment of the Chagos islanders by succeeding Governments.

I was kindly given the three volumes of the feasibility study by the Foreign Office when it came out in November 2000, and it said that there were problems with water supply, periodic flooding, storms, seismic activity and so on, as the Minister points out. However, it did not say that no one could live there or that life was impossible on the islands. When pressed on the matter, the Foreign Office retreats into arguments about the potential cost of resettling the Chagos islanders. I have two points on that. First, they have a moral right to return. Secondly, would any Minister stand up in the House and say that the cost of keeping the population on Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha or the Falkland Islands was such that we were going to withdraw the entire population? They would not dare.

§Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland Islands. Has he made any comparisons between the costs that he is talking about and the amount of money spent on defending the Falkland islanders when the Argentines invaded?

§Jeremy CorbynIndeed, the costs are on two completely different scales. The costs involved in administering the Chagos Islands are very small. At the current time, all the income from fishing licences—about £50,000 a year—is taken up by administration, and other money is paid to continue that administration. Were the islands to be resettled, however, and were there to be serious discussions with the islanders about resettling them, there would be an economy on the islands. There is fishing there, and the possibility of ecotourism or copra. Quite a lot of activities could take place on the islands. However, I do not get the feeling that there is any wish, desire, hope or intention of going down that road. The whole desire is to put the issue to one side and forget about it. That is because of an American base on Diego Garcia, for 275WHwhich I suspect nothing is paid, and because the Americans have said that they do not want anyone anywhere near their base owing to security concerns.

I think that we have every right to ensure the settlement of the outer islands—at least—and that we have a right to know exactly what is happening on Diego Garcia, which is, under the terms of the colonial order, sovereign British territory. Are there any prisoners on Diego Garcia? Is it being used for the sort of vortex of American justice such as occurs in Guantanamo Bay? I am assured that it is not. I want to hear that assurance again today and it would be much better if there were an independent inspection of what is going on.

I will make only a couple more points because I want to make sure that other Members get a chance to speak. On Tuesday, a group of Chagos islanders went to the Foreign Office to demonstrate. They handed in a petition signed by a substantial number of Chagos islanders who are living in this country legally. The petition demands:  

  1. “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
  2. 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
  3. 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
  4. 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
  5. 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
  6. 6. The organising of a visit to the ancestral sites in the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians living in Mauritius, Seychelles and the UK”

—and, presumably, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that that is a minimal demand. I had a response from the Minister today and I hope that he will be able to give us further positive news on the possibility of a visit and a return to it.

Mr. HopkinsIt strikes me that there is something of a parallel between what has happened to the Chagos islanders and the highland clearances in Scotland, when the rich and powerful drove the poor and weak from the land. That has scarred and informed Scottish politics ever since. Is it not significant that two of the three speakers here today are Scots?

§Mr. SalmondI am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was about to come to it. One of the first and better acts of the Scottish Parliament when it came back into existence on the mound was in a debate such as this when it apologised collectively for the historic injustice of the highland clearances. They were not the responsibility of any Scottish Parliament, but it was felt none the less by all parties in that Parliament that such an apology should be offered, and that was done by representatives of all the parties. I very much hope that the Minister will do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested and proffer some sort of apology to the few thousand Chagos islanders who deserve not just an apology but some sign that future action and policy will be different from that in the past.

The islanders won the High Court judgment in 2000, which was in the days of ethical foreign policy. I shared the hopes that were expressed earlier that at last something would be done to rectify the historical 278WHgrievance and injustice. I accepted, as I think did many islanders, that there was an American base of long standing on Diego Garcia and that it might not be possible for all the islands to be reinhabited. However, basic rights—such as the right to visit the graves of ancestors, to occupy the outer islands and to receive reasonable compensation, and the right of the duty of care that any Government and the Crown should have over these people—should have been respected as de minimis compensation for the wrongs and injustices of the past. In fact, none of that occurred, and instead the Government, in a sneaky, underhand way, passed two Orders in Council on European election day to prohibit debate, to remove what little rights had been won and to rectify loopholes in legislation that allowed the assertion of the human rights of the islanders and their descendants.

The analysis that the islands are no longer capable of sustaining occupation because of global warming must be pretty bad news for the American military base—perhaps the runway is about to disappear under water. I have an overwhelming feeling that if Mauritius could be persuaded to send just one gunboat to the outer islands to establish the Mauritian flag again in what is arguably its territory anyway, we would decide that the islands were worth reclaiming on behalf of the Crown and dispatch a taskforce to the Indian ocean.

Global warming is an interesting concept, because it conflicts rather dramatically with what is on the US navy website. In a welcoming introduction to “The Footprint of Freedom” and Camp Justice, Diego Garcia is described as a paradise on earth and it is said that one of the best stationings that any US serviceman can have is on Diego Garcia. The website states: Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island. The Minister had better explain how the Government claim to know better than many respectable outlets of the US press. The Washington Post, for example, claims that prisoners are held on Diego Garcia for “rendering” before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. How confident is the Foreign Office in the information that the US authorities have offered it on what is happening on Diego Garcia, given that the Prime Minister seems to be revising his previous confidence in judgments that he has made about the international situation? Ultimately, the Minister should accept the collective responsibility of this and previous Governments for what has been done to the islanders. An apology should be proffered, but above all there should be a change of approach and of policy by the Government, who should offer some justice and some compensation to the islanders.

It may be thought that because of indolence or lack of concern among most Members of Parliament—there are a few honourable exceptions, who are here today such an issue is of no great moment, but it is precisely such issues that are of great political moment, because no member of the public could hear and understand what has happened to the islanders without having an overwhelming sense of injustice. If the Government cannot rectify the wrongs of the past for these few thousand people, what hope is there for their having any moral compass on the great issues of the day? Unless the Government are prepared to act and rectify the wrongs of the past, they are, in a moral sense, every bit as homeless as the islanders of Diego Garcia.

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow) (Lab)

Let none of us suppose that there is a complete lack of interest in this country on this issue. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had the opportunity to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was in company in Scotland. However, I subsequently heard, not only in university circles but more widely, that it was an important question. Indeed, some people went so far as to observe that it was the most sensible question asked of the Prime Minister for some weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has inspired an important debate, but perhaps it comes 40 years too late. It was in 1964 that the Government began misdescribing the long-settled population as transitory workers in order to mislead the world into thinking that they had no obligations to that population. My clear recollection is that I raised the subject with the then Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker. Frankly, having been defeated at Smethwick and about to be defeated at Leyton, his mind was on other things. A later Foreign Secretary was George Brown. When the general problem of the British Indian Ocean Territory was raised with him, he told me, in colourful language, to mind my own business. Perhaps I was not as tough then as subsequently, but George Brown was a formidable operator in his heyday. I raised the subject on the prompting of the late Sir Ashley Miles, the biological secretary of the Royal Society. It was his concern about the Indian ocean that first raised my acute interest.

Article 73 of the United Nations casts a “sacred trust” on a sovereign power to promote the welfare and advancement of the people, but the Government surreptitiously deported the islanders and misled the world about their status. At the United Nations on 16 November 1965, the British representative Mr. F.D.W. Brown, acting on the instructions of the Foreign Office, misdescribed the islands as uninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population as labourers from Mauritius and Seychelles and misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had been freely worked out with the…elected representatives of the people concerned”. Instead, they bought the plantations, closed them down, forced the people to leave on boats, which incidentally were horribly overcrowded, and led them to exile, where they still remain. Their lives have been a tragedy of misery, poverty and despair, the only alleviation of which has been the heartfelt desire to return to their homeland, where their villages and ancestors lie.

In 1969, on my return from Australia, I stopped in Mauritius to stay the night with the former general secretary of the Labour party, Len Williams. Harold Wilson had wanted him out of Transport house and made him Governor-General of Mauritius. His wife Margaret Williams was a very intelligent and nice lady, and she decided that I should spend a morning with some Ilois people. It made a strong impression on me.

What is remarkable is that in the same speech by Mr. Brown representing the Foreign Office, he described the wishes of the Falkland islanders, whose 280WHrepresentatives were consulted. Here we return to a previous intervention and a proper comparison with the Falkland islanders, of whom Mr. Brown said: It has been suggested that this population is somehow irrelevant and that it has no claim to have its wishes taken into account …it would surely be fantastic to maintain that only indigenous inhabitants have any rights in the Country”. He then quoted Woodrow Wilson from 1918: Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game”. Within months, the Chagos Islands had been given to the United States and the destruction of the islanders’ homes and lives was soon to follow.

These days, we are all too familiar with conducting foreign policy on the basis of false or misleading facts. The historical record now revealed by the islanders’ legal struggle has after 30 years shown that a small and vulnerable population of British subjects can safely be written out of the history book on the pretext that they are not really a population at all. There is nothing new in deceiving the world while acting in breach of civilised standards of international and constitutional law. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his powerful speech.

When the islanders finally won their struggle to return in the High Court in November 2000, Lord Justice Laws stated: The people are to be governed, not removed. He also stated that the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was an “abject legal failure”, which had no colour of lawful authority. That is not my view but that of a distinguished Law Lord.

We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), accepted the Court’s judgment and said: I have decided to accept the Court’s ruling and the Government will not be appealing.The work we are doing on the feasibility of resettlement of Ilois now takes on a new importance. We started feasibility work a year ago and are now well under way with phase two of the study.Furthermore, we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which allows Ilois to return to the outer islands while observing our treaty obligations.The Government has not defended what was done or said 30 years ago. As Lord Justice Laws recognised, we made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened”. History is repeating itself with the same moral turpitude. This time, given that the islanders had already been promised that the Government’s policy was to move towards their resettlement on the islands, the new banishment is a cruel change to what has already been offered. Moreover, the reasons given are again based on inaccurate and misleading information.

The Foreign Office press statement claimed that it was the feasibility study that prevented resettlement. I am glad that this Minister is replying to the debate, and I thank him for his personal courtesy in seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and me in the Foreign Office. He cited a conclusion, supposedly made by the consultants in their executive summary, that the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to 281WHbe prohibitive. However, that was not based on any work of the consultants, whose terms of reference precluded any consideration of cost. Even if he had read only the executive summary, he would know from page 3 that the consultants reported: This report has not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”. I feel entitled to ask where the conclusion came from. It was certainly not from the consultants.

The Minister further stated that human interference within the Atolls…is likely to exacerbate the stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effect of global warming. However, other things might accelerate global warming. Thus”, he continued,resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time”. Again, that judgment was not based on the work of the consultants, who stated in volume 3, paragraph 8.3: At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands. The Minister’s conclusion had crept in from somewhere else.

Finally, it is impossible to take seriously the suggestion that only a resettled population will face difficulties. Are we really to believe that the 64 islands offered back to the islanders by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, are going to sink under the waves, while the one island occupied by the Americans is to provide defence facilities for generations to come? It is the biggest military base outside the continental United States.

Only yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley referred to the shameful treatment to which the islanders were subjected: The deliberate misinterpretation of Ilois history and status, designed to deflect any investigation by the United Nations, the use of legal powers designed for the governance of the islands for the illicit purpose of depopulating them, the consequent uprooting of scores of families from the only way of life and means of subsistence that they knew, the failure to make anything like adequate provision for their resettlement, all of this and more is now part of the historical record. Moreover, he went so far as to compare those removals with the highland clearances of the second quarter of the 19th century. He stated:Defence may have replaced agricultural improvement as the reason, but the pauperisation and the expulsion of the weak in the interests of the powerful is the same. It gives little to be proud of. Now there has been a cruel new blow to this mistreated population. Their hopes, which were raised by this Government, have been dashed. Nothing in this game of cat and mouse is any less culpable than the lies and inhumanity that characterised the removal of the population.

It is not, however, too late to render justice. The right of the islanders to return to their homeland should now be recognised, and proper scientific studies should be undertaken, with proper, independent input from respected scientists whose conclusions ought to be binding on the Government.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow)I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about the affront to democracy. I shall set an example by making a speech which is much shorter than 10 minutes. It is in the form of a question, and it is apposite that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence should be answering this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have been much involved in the case of the Chagos islanders. Their lawyers told us of a problem with the Ilois returning to Diego Garcia because of the building of six huge temperature-controlled hangars. We were asked what we would do to protest to the Government about that. We asked what the hangars were for. Apparently they are for B52 bombers and, particularly, B2 bombers that have to be repaired and maintained in a particular temperature. Why does one have B2 bombers? It is particularly to carry earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, specifically the B61–11.

My question, which I hope will be addressed in the reply, is this: we are talking about a British base, the British Indian Ocean Territory, of which Diego Garcia is a part and which is a House of Commons responsibility. The House of Commons should be told if nuclear weapons, albeit tactical, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy bunkers—one can understand why the American air force may wish to have this particular weapon in relation to Iraq—are to be launched from British soil, with or without agreement by the United States air force. We should be told in the winding-up speech tonight.

2.45 pm

§Mr. Francis Maude(Horsham)I have only a few points to make and I shall endeavour to be brief.

First, the issue is not about human rights in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary made great play of them and the dossier covers them. We need no persuading that Saddam Hussein’s regime is about the most evil in the world today. It has committed atrocities on a scale unseen almost anywhere else, but that does not justify armed intervention 52in Iraq. If I may say so, it is something of a red herring. The debate is about something wider, more important and of greater application to the world outside Iraq.

Secondly, there can be no controversy about the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed, and is continuing to develop apace, weapons of mass destruction. The dossier, which puts forward the evidence in a calm and measured way, makes the case conclusively. Surely that can no longer be a matter of dispute.

Thirdly, does Saddam having and developing such weapons amount to a threat sufficient in immediacy and gravity to justify armed military intervention, even as a last resort? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in a powerful, lucid and cogent speech—I am afraid that I did not agree with much of it—the threat issue is a matter of judgment. Everyone has to make their judgment about the gravity and immediacy of that threat.

We must look at other countries that have developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and ask ourselves what it is that distinguishes Iraq from, for example, India, Pakistan or even Iran. The answer is that there is clear evidence from the history of the Saddam Hussein regime that it is fundamentally an aggressive regime. He has developed these weapons, not as an instrument of deterrence to deter attacks on Iraq, but as weapons of aggression. In the past 20 years, the regime has twice invaded its neighbours. On a number of occasions, it has launched ballistic missiles against neighbouring states. It is not a regime under external threat that has developed these weapons to create a mutual deterrence, as is the case with India and Pakistan—regrettably, perhaps, but one can understand the reason for them doing so. Those considerations do not apply to Iraq.

In my judgment, this threat is clear, serious and present enough to justify decisive intervention by the international community in whatever shape that takes to enforce a disarmament of the regime.

My fourth point is about the threat to the stability of the middle east and was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and others. We should be very clear about this: the greatest threat to the stability of the middle east is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the actual attacks that he has mounted against his neighbours in the past 20 years, the fact that he consistently sponsors suicide attacks by Palestinians helps to prevent the peace process that we all yearn to be restarted from resuming. It is hard to see how the successful disarming and removal of Saddam Hussein can do anything other than contribute to the stability of the middle east.

Of course, the same concerns were expressed before the Gulf war, 12 years ago, but in fact the successful conclusion of the Gulf war was the trigger for the start of the Oslo process—

HL Deb 24 February 2004 vol 658 cc121-30

My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community……

In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.

MH370: Pilot had Diego Garcia included on his simulator

12.46 Intriguing new line from The Malay Mail Online.

Police scouring Capt Shah’s flight simulator – which he installed in his home – have found five Indian Ocean practice runways.

One is in the Maldives.

One is on Diego Garcia.

The other three are in India and Sri Lanka.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10704769/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-live.html

So, not such a crazy idea after all. We have the Anwar/Globalist issue. Anwar now coming out to admit he’s related to the pilot. We know why the west wants to destabilise Malaysia and we know the CIA are active in Malaysia and have been for some time. We also know the Council on Foreign Relations is happy with Anwar and the west definitely want him as their man in Malaysia.

We know it is highly unlikely that this plane could have travelled across multiple territories such as the northern arc suggests without being spotted. The southern arc leads to nowhere. So what’s left?

Ping DG

 

Why fly over Maldives instead of direct to Diego Garcia? Well it makes sense to me. You see, by doing so (if, in fact it did) it would give the possibility of being spotted by the Maldives. It would then suggest that the plane was heading to Africa. The straight line between Maldives and Africa suggests the flight is heading toward…..

SOMALIA!

Somalia

 

And we all know who live in Somalia don’t we? It’s full of pirates and Al Qaeda! 🙂 So we’re told by our wonderful media programming on behalf of our governments.

So then what do we expect next? Well, what I expect is for Israel to start screaming! “Oy vey! Oy Vey! They have a plane now in Somalia loaded up with nuclear bombs. The Iranians are in on it! We need to destroy Iran before they use it. They’re going to wipe out Jerusalem and the Temple Mount! Oy vey! Oy vey! The International community must now attack Iran and Somalia and destroy half the middle east so we, god’s people, can continue to live on this planet, in peace and suck the life out of every last living human creature with our monetary system!”

Ok perhaps I’ve slightly overdone what the Israeli’s might say and demand but have I? They’re fricking “religious” (yet atheist?!) nutters! And they’re desperate for a war!