Earthlinggb's Blog

BILL GATES PAID WHO TO DECLARE A PANDEMIC

Posted in "Terrorism", Law, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized, Vaccinations by earthling on June 7, 2020

 

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Long title An Act to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to make it unlawful for an issuer of securities registered pursuant to section 12 of such Act or an issuer required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d) of such Act to make certain payments to foreign officials and other foreign persons, to require such issuers to maintain accurate records, and for other purposes.

The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of securities, to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person. Since the 1998 Amendment of FCPA they also apply to foreign firms and persons who take any act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment while in the U.S. the meaning of foreign official is broad. For example, an owner of a bank who is also the minister of finance would count as a foreign official according to the U.S. government. Doctors at government-owned or managed hospitals are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA, as is anyone working for a government-owned or managed institution or enterprise. Employees of international organizations such as the United Nations are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA. A 2014 federal appellate court decision has provided guidance on how the term “foreign official” is defined under FCPA.

If you work for a US Corporation, you are well aware of this act and its details because, like you, I have worked for US Multinationals and their “ethics” tests are continuously warning you of your responsibilities and the outcome if you even accept, or give, the smallest of gifts.

PUT BILL GATES IN JAIL FOR THE REST OF HIS NATURAL LIFE. NOT JUST FOR BREAKING THIS ACT BUT FOR CONSPIRACY AND FOR THE PURPOSEFUL, PREMEDITATED PLANNING WHICH HAS BROUGHT THE WESTERN WORD TO ITS KNEES BY ATTACKING EVERYONE’S CAPABILITY TO MAKE A LIVING.

PERSONALLY, I’D WANT HIM DEAD (ALONG WITH QUITE A FEW OTHERS) BUT THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW, UNFORTUNATELY.

HOWEVER, BLACK LIVES MATTER MAY WISH TO CONSIDER HIS, HIS WIFE AND HIS FATHER’S INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNED PARENTHOOD – WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING YOU PLAN BUT IN ENSURING AS MANY ABORTED BLACK BABIES AS POSSIBLE. YOU MIGHT BE PROTESTING GEORGE FLOYD’S SINGULAR DEATH BUT YOUR IGNORANCE REGARDING THIS MAN AND MANY OTHERS, IS ASTONISHING.

YES HE’S WHITE BUT SKIN COLOUR DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU A GENOCIDAL CUNT!

KOBAYASHI MARU

ARE YOU WHITE?

If so, are you kneeling due to something entirely out of your control, you were born with white skin?

Are you apologising for it?

Did your white skin murder anyone?

Does your white skin automatically make you a racist?

Do you know what happens when you appease your enemy? Have you ever handed your lunch money to the school bully? What happens next?

Are you cucked?

ARE YOU BLACK?

If so, are you beaming with joy as you see thousands upon thousands of whites kneeling and protesting saying only your lives matter? After all, to say ALL lives matter has a hint of racism doesn’t it? Talk about turning things on their head.

Are you happily taking advantage of what you see as being to your advantage? Are you thinking – even just for a moment – that your black skin is going to win something out of all of this? So, you managed to loot a toaster! Woopeedoo!

Is THIS what you are?

You’re going to call the cops (who are currently cucked to you while you attack them) if people protect themselves and don’t allow you to beat, maim, kill and destroy/steal their property?

And you think all of that is just going to continue?

Or let’s say you’re one of the ‘good’, well behaved protestors BUT you’re still protesting for one man’s death which “exemplifies”, to you, a core racism within the white race. You have no clue about the history of slavery and who ran it. Yes, you were segregated for about a century and treated like 3rd class citizens. Etc etc etc.

BUT just like women who were not ‘legal persons” until, essentially, the 20th century and the LGBT crew who recently won their right for recognition as “legal persons” (by the way, not one of these groups resorted to the violence you have shown), yo now not only want equality but you want revenge. You all want either males to kneel, straights to kneel or whites to kneel.

IF YOU’RE A GAY BLACK MAN – HOLY FUCK, YOU WANT IT ALL!

But here’s the thing: In your emotional state of mind, thinking of all the wrong committed toward you, you blame the white for your blackness, the straight for your gayness and the male for your femininity. But the white can’t help being white like the straight can’t help not preferring a dick up his ass and for those of us who stand up when we piss, well it’s what god gave us just as he gave you your black skin.

But if it were a fact that blacks were suppressed and held back from achieving anything (due to inherent, systemic racism by whites), then how come we’ve had a Barack Obama? After all, you believe he was black don’t you? You believe he was “one of you”. How about his lawyer wife, Michelle? She’s black isn’t she?

How about all the black actors and comedians and rappers and sportsmen and the list goes on….? All of these people are making six figures at the very least. But not you, right? And it’s all about you!

I’m white. I have zero privilege in life and certainly in law. I know, trust me on that! But you won’t just because I’m white. And you call ME “racist”? I see, in the UK at least, MILLIONS of white people who have no privilege at all and it shows in the way they live. IS that due to suppression by coloured people? Well, bear with me here, but in a way it is because our GOVERNMENT have something called positive discrimination which they consistently use, while bringing more and more immigrants into the country, to show straightforward preference treatment to non whites within our society. YET, I know (and many do) that it is not black or coloured or muslim who are directly impacting us; It is an agenda enforced upon us by an untouchable elite. Strangely, you black people are very aware of this untouchable elite BUT you refer to it as “white supremacy”. However, you just need to look around and you will, if you’re honest, see just how much that elite share their supremacy with other whites. Do they? Do they hell! Are they even really white?

This elite can be found in Asia, Africa, Latin America as well as Europe and the USA. They are NOT all white. Many are yellow and brown and black but there always seems to be a “Cohen” hanging around somewhere among them. Ever noticed that?

These “elite” are the programmers. They’re programming us and they’re programming you. They’re playing a game with us and it’s a dangerous one. You seem to have no conception of this as you demand we bend a knee to you. However, these people are never going to give you (or us) what you want…… NEVER! Don’t be so naive!

What you’re seeing as “spontaneous” protests around the world are not that. Hard on the heels of a virus which attacked the respiratory system (totally fake in my view), we now have “I can’t breathe”. You think that’s coincidence? Or Cohencidence?

So they’ve taken two steps: 1. “Virus”. 2. “Protests/Riots”. What do you think 3 could be? Because trust me, there is going to be a 3. Either a global financial meltdown (affecting the west the most); A major outbreak of war (could be both) or it could be a REAL plague this time (created). There could be another 9/11 type of event but, if there were, it would have to be much larger than the last. But we have to remember the importance of destroying the USA so it may be a civil war of some kind, “isolated” in the States but, ultimately, affecting the globe. Who knows?

But here’s the main point: Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Africans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Male, Female, “Non CIS”, Gay, Straight – will ALL lose because it is a “NO WIN” game for us while we continually allow the programmers to programme.

Yes, the programmers want us all to “Come Together” and be a “One World” but, ironically, it is these same programmers who are creating the division! They are demanding this “togetherness” under their rule and THAT is the problem! What they don’t want is for us to create that togetherness ourselves, in recognition of their programming and their game (or test – after all, you could see it as a test, but a test they mean for us to lose).

If someone ever asks you “What’s going on in the world today?” Just tell them:

IT’S OUR KOBAYASHI MARU

And the only way for you, me or anyone else to win it is by not playing and then fucking up their programme!

It’s the ONLY way so make your choice. I don’t expect you to kneel for me but I certainly won’t be kneeling for you. It’s not in my “programming”.

ALL LIVES MATTER OR NONE DO!

THE CASHLESS SOCIETY: GRESHAM COLLEGE LECTURE 26TH MAY 2020

Posted in Finance, Law, Money, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on May 28, 2020

First of all, may I state, it was dreary having to listen to this “Professor” drone on for an hour, live.

First of all, an introduction to our dear Professor, Richard Harvey…

Who are the “Worshipful Company of Information Technologists”?

Ahh! Bill Gates and International Bankers among others.

While, as you know, the liar, Chris Whitty, funded by Gates to the tune of £31M for “Malaria Research”.

So, ok, here’s the “lecture”. We do need to be lectured to you know, by these people, who need to keep to the script like their lifestyles depended on it because, oddly enough, they DO!

Here’s the original youtube comments from the live lecture. The comments relate to points our “Professor” is making.

Rikin Patel
​will the talk remain on youtube after it finishes?

Gresham College
​Yes, the lecture will stay up after it is finished.
Welcome to live chat! Remember to guard your privacy and abide by our Community Guidelines.

Earthling
​The Worshipful Company eh? Nice one!

Earthling
​Quite right too!

Michael E.
🙋 Hello

Earthling
​Electronic money is absolutely fine. The issue is how money is created.

Earthling
​The obfuscation of how money is actually created.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​cashless tyranny? indeed. this lockdown you’ve all harped on about…. a mere diversion and experiment r.e what various aspects of surveillance culture can be bolstered and improved upon.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​why the borse countries are being touted as the instigators of this is beyond me..

Earthling
​The charging of usury and the fact that promissory notes are exchanged for bank notes with the bank then charging interest on them of your own created money.

Conway Yury
​And, if the power grid is down!

James Driscoll
​Mammon must feed

Earthling
​Ah Sweden that didn’t have a lockdown?

Earthling
​Hmmmm

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​why you think virtual currencies will ease terrorism is also beyond my comprehension. that cash virtual or no is the main symbol of personal liberty is pause for thought.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​why are crazy religious people being allowed to hound me from pillar to post? can you answer me?

Earthling
​Before you discuss cashless society, discuss the creation of money! Otherwise everything you say is of no value. It is misleading.

Earthling
​Are you Gresham people intelligent but, at the same time, ignorant? Or do you just stick to the agenda?

Earthling
​One minute with Whitty he says Ro<1 means a disease is dying, the next Covid 19, even at Ro<1 will never be wiped out.

Earthling
​Odd that don’t you think?

Helen
​@Earthling hes literally discussing cash creation/production right now

Miguel Rodriguez
​Hi 

Earthling
​No-one DOES want it in the present state of money creation.

Hugh MacDonald
​@Helen Yeah they’re being a bit shrill

Earthling
​@Helen: Continue your ignorance madam.

Hugh MacDonald
​And that was that

Earthling
​Then again, I’m 3 mins behind.

Gresham College
​Keep it civil in the comments please! We have lots of lecture on the subject of business, economics etc at our website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch/

Hugh MacDonald
​I think the relationship people have with banks is interesting and important. I don’t know how much people actually trust banks, and yet practically people put significant trust in them.

Hugh MacDonald
​@Gresham College Yes I’ve been watching numerous of your lectures.

Gresham College
👍

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​maybe bring back paper notes if plastic notes are so apt to be breeding grounds for viruses…

Earthling
​You are speaking about the physical cost of manufacturing paper and distributing it. that has nothing to do with money creation.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​virtual credit i.e digital based economies will be far easier to destabilize and steal or replicate fake accounts than forge hi-tech notes. surely you need to be serious about this…

mark wood
​I like to keep both options open. Cashless is useful and also makes you less of a target for street crime. If you card is stolen you can ring the bank, but if cash is taken then its gone.

Earthling
​Cash is NOT money! Cash is a physical representation of it.

mark wood
​But cashless also has problems. I have cash at home in case I lose my card or it mistakenly gets taken by a faulty cash machine. Cash can carry you over till the problem is resolved.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​most governments rushing into this without thinkingit through – like most things.

Deborah Adeniji
​IV a question 4 professor: The British Empire first instituted a world without cash, right?

Earthling
​We can have a cashless society within an entirely different system of money creation and economics based upon mathematics where the money created represents the property within the economic system.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​i.d theft, hacking into accounts, theft of bank details and transfer of monies, virtually, are all palpable fears…

Earthling
​The issue is not cashless, the issue is creation.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​you are suggesting that fiscal institutions need to be mature enough when dealing with other folks’ money. you surely know thay are not…

Earthling
​And that hyperinflation is due to how money is created and the usury added to it. If you create £100 and distribute it, only that principal exists so how, then do we pay back principal and interest?

Earthling
​You can’t. It’s impossible.

Earthling
​I have no fears of cashless. The issue is creation. Talk creation before talking physical manifestation.

Deborah Adeniji
​If so, then wouldn’t the British Empire be a foreshadowing of what Revelation 13 is talking about?

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​it would be easier to flood an economy with virtual monies than palpable. the system is far too flawed to sustain a country’s economy. computer wizardry is needed to fend off these hacks…

Fat5h
​why do not anyone define a new concept of value relying on real assets and production which has basically 2 variants: time and energy?

Earthling
​Sorry but your talk really is redundant. And I am sure you know why.

Earthling
​@Fat5h That’s the sort of conversation these people never wish to have.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​bit coin. you’re going to erase a historically entrenched virtual coinage system for this virtual economic forum? i don’t thinkthis is the way forward

Gresham College
​@Earthling We’re sorry you feel that way – there are a lot of people out there talking about money and this lecture is just on one aspect of the discussion.

Gresham College
​Heres an example of another lecture on money from Gresham: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Gresham College
​Or this one: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Gresham College
​[message retracted]

Earthling
​@Gresham College Point me to any of your lectures which discuss a genuinely different (and more correct/non corrupt) way of creating money. I assume, then you must know the present way is corrupt?

Earthling
​I will check those out.

Michael E.
​Anyone who thinks they have complete anonymity should google trap wire surveillance system.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​no issue with budgeting at all. issues with this lackof maturity required in others e.g thefts and the like.. refer to banks… simple, really.

Earthling
​But here is my question: Why does the college not promote a countrywide debate on money creation? You have that ability and it is clear to anyone with any intelligence on the subject that the current

Earthling
​system is flawed and corrupt to the core.

Conway Yury
​Hang on, the US Treasury has its own trading desk!

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​chinese inability to comprehend western style banking… flooding building market with cash, building home for no one.. whole cityscapes bereft of residents… refer to brazilia..

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​brazilia? city in brazil which built some socialist idyllic city scape and was left deserted. the chinese model seems similar… if we believe reports…

Michael E.
​There was a episode from the tv series sliders from the 90’s that go fairly deep into what the faults could be in a society was run by digital banks.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​our friend here seems to be promoting asiatic designs on economic platform. system – key word. the design is totally flawed.

Conway Yury
​Agree with you JS!

mark wood
​They also like to boil folk in hot oil:)

Gresham College
​Here is a series from Jagjit Chadha on Money, Monetary Policy and Central Banks: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/series/mone

Earthling
​You can have a cashless society without an existing bank system account.

Earthling
​A human right or a legal person’s right? Can we get the terms right please? You don’t have “human” rights unless you are considered a person.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​uk decimization. destabilization of uk economy in readiness for euro or as was the ecu… whatever happened to the ecu?

Earthling
​You can go cashless without a bank account per se. Just not in today’s system.

Earthling
​@Gresham College Thanks, I’ll check it out.

Gresham College
​Our business professor was recently talking about the vodafone M-pesa system in this lecture: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Gresham College
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

Earthling
​I remember. My ice creams became more expensive!

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​no need to implement experiments with economy if sweden is so keen to be at the forfront of casless. cashless? i aint keen…

Miguel Rodriguez
​A cashless society will be a society and an economy run solely on a digital invisible sphere. I think Nations should be more concerned about their citizens means of creating and allocating wealth.

Earthling
​I really do wonder why you academics are so willing to go with the flow though since it impacts you just as negatively as the rest of us while those who own the system just enjoy the show.

Earthling
​It just seems like a waste of brainpower speaking and debating all this instead of concentrating fully on the main issue.

mark wood
​It is easier to keep track of your spending with cash. If you have little in your account and someone you pay takes the cash at a time other than immediately you are at risk of going into overdraft.

mark wood
​One instance can incur banks charges higher than a weeks income. So for low income cashless can be risky and harmful to your well-being.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​that fraud you described is rife within banking community and most fiscal institutions is it not. so if they’re in on it then you or i have no chance of parity or redress

Miguel Rodriguez
​Not to mention the harm an EMP can cause to such electronic system. Computers aren’t permanent and are flawed by its creators.

mark wood
​But for most of us that does not apply

Earthling
​My concern about security is not the money being stolen by anyone “on the street” but the total control of the “authorities” to simply shut down your access to it because you may be a dissenter.

Earthling
​Do you address the control aspects?

mark wood
​Earthling. One doctor could put you away if wanted. Credit checks already have a hierarchy of acceptance that place you as a citizen as worthy or not.

Earthling
​That ratio is far less than Covid 19 deaths yet the government assumed control! Hmmmm.

mark wood
​The individual is just a cog in the machine, unless you are wealthy:)

Earthling
​@mark wood Indeed. Scary huh?

mark wood
🙂

Earthling
​JP Morgan? Respectable? LOL

Earthling
​This has been very entertaining.

Miguel Rodriguez
​I will accept finely carved rocks as payment.

mark wood
​Compressed carbon is also accepted:)

Earthling
​@Miguel Rodriguez I’ll accept your promissory note directly rather than through a bank but in a database.

Earthling
​@Miguel Rodriguez And you wouldn’t even have to pay a cent of interest.

Earthling
​JP Morgan wouldn’t suck you dry!

Earthling
​Bob agrees to buy with conditions and he presents his promissory note directly to her. She accepts and the exchange is presented on a database. No bank necessary.

Earthling
​Mortgage interest free. Every transaction interest free. No problem.

JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE
​excellent. the happy fraudsters go on their way…. maybe present a lecture on the ills of those who defraud one of one’s savings… again via bank staff interaction with extraneous know how

Gresham College
​@Earthling What you are suggesting sounds very much like bitcoin to me.

Gresham College
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an

Earthling
​@Gresham College Nothing like bitcoin. I would not touch bitcoin with a barge pole. It inflates for one thing.

Earthling
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/…/the-new-economics-will…/

Miguel Rodriguez
​I’ll accept Laser encrypted quantum quasi crystal structures as payment.

 

NOW, the explanation to Gresham College (left in the comments section of the video) regarding what needs to be implemented first, before ANY cashless society is acceptable:

 

The solution where “cashless” would not be an issue (but Gresham College, nor any other institution allied with the City of London, would ever discuss this in any depth). It would not be perfect from day one BUT it would be non corrupted and there would be no possibility of elite control. Further, the “elite” would lose their power and wealth unless they were willing to do solid work rather than use “speculative” means to establish their wealth: 1. Ex a £100K house. What if you did not issue a promissory note to the banks but simply issued it direct to the owner of the house? (this can be applied to any and all scenarios – private, public or corporate). 2. You would issue a promissory note for £100K to the house owner and the house owner’s account would be credited with the £100K directly and instantly. 3. Your account would show a debit/debt which must be paid down (and out of circulation entirely) over a period of time fitting with the type of asset purchased. In this case a house. The paydown period, in this case, could be 100 years. £100,000 paid down over 100 years is £83 per month. NO INTEREST BECAUSE THERE IS NO MIDDLEMAN WHO SIMPLY RE-PUBLISHES YOUR DEBT – i.e. The bank. Any renovations/improvements would add, appropriately, to its value. On death, the house would be sold and the asset continued to be paid for. 4. The accounting of that transaction (and all transactions nationwide or globally) would be handled by what is called a CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure). A simple database of all obligations and the recording of all individuals and corporations accounts. Legally, we would also implement ACR “Absolute Consensual Representation” (see below). 5. There would be no such thing as a bank or a central bank. There would be no such thing as “money” from the perspective of today’s understanding of what money is (which is wrong anyhow). There would be NO INTEREST applied to ANY principal within the economy. 1: Remaining circulation in the economy 1: Equal to the remaining value of represented property (i.e. there exists NO Goldman Sachs & JP Morgans etc “betting” on Credit Default Swaps etc) 1: Remaining obligation to pay for remaining value of represented property. It is very simple: It is basic mathematics and it is pure balance as such. BALANCE IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF NATURE. THIS IS ALSO WHY THE “LAW” (although corrupted) TALKS ABOUT EQUITY. THE LAW OF EQUITY IS THE LAW OF BALANCE: HARMONY.

WHY MPE+ACR? When perpetual political betrayal sustains terminal monetary injustice across an entire world, every truly self-determined country immediately eradicates both treasons. There is no justifiable neutrality against terminal monetary impropriety; and there is no division amidst deserving people, because a singular pattern sustains the monetary arrangements of a just society. Nearly 50 years ago, our present financial quandary was projected by proof of a singular mathematically perfected economy — a singularity which holds that what we call “banking systems” are themselves terminal — that it is altogether rationally, ethically, and legally impossible to borrow money into existence from purported banking systems, firstly because, 1) legitimate debts can never precipitate to anyone who never grants the subject property from their legitimate prior possession; secondly then, because, 2) it is impossible in the pretended creation of money by purported banking systems, that banks could have established prior possession of money as a representation of entitlement, by giving up property for money which did not even exist before; and thirdly then, because likewise, 3) neither in the whole life cycle of banking’s treasonous obfuscation of our currency, does banking give up prior commensurable consideration to these mal-presumed debts — which banking only falsifies to itself by pretending it loans money into existence from its prior legitimate possession. On the contrary then, we are the only actual issuers of money, because if money is necessarily to guarantee redeemability, therefore money can only exist as enforceable promissory obligations, because only so does money comprise necessarily immutable representations of entitlement. Thus the falsified debts of purported banking are instead our own obligations to each other. The intentional falsifications of purported banking systems are therefore rational, ethical, and legal violations of our every principle of trade and contractual law; for in the whole of banking’s intentional obfuscation of money, no debt of the principal can legitimately precipitate to purported banking systems which therefore no more than publish further representations of our promissory obligations to each other. Yet the fate of the present and future world hinges upon our immediate understanding of this fact we do not and cannot borrow money into existence, for the laundering of such monumental sums of principal into the unwarrantable possession of banking systems is only the first and remarkably least of the ancient money changer’s principal crimes against us. The present global monetary calamity is the inevitable culmination of a perpetual and irreversible escalation of dispossession and debilitation, by perpetual multiplication of this falsified indebtedness to the obfuscators and faux creditors we ineptly call “banking systems”; and the agent of this irreversible escalation is the unwarranted imposition of interest: The lie “we borrow money into existence” paves the way for the further lie that interest is justified by ostensible risk of possession, whereas in fact the purported banking system has only published further representations of our promissory obligations to each other. On the contrary, it is impossible for any such risk to exist, because never in the whole life cycle of banking’s intentional obfuscation of our currency does banking give up commensurable consideration to debts it therefore only falsifies to itself. Yet thus we are forced involuntarily to sustain a vital circulation of falsified debt subjected iniquitously to interest, by perpetually borrowing principal and interest back into our general possession, with re-borrowed principal sustaining every prior sum of falsified debt; and with unwarranted interest perpetually increasing every prior sum of falsified debt by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of falsified debt; and with this dedicating ever more of any given circulation to servicing the escalating sum of falsified debt, until even at an inherently escalating rate, we suffer the present, terminal debilitation under falsified conditions which only escalate the terminal condition all the further. The arguments and fact of a singular monetary justice or mathematically perfected economy™ therefore establish, 4) that it is impossible that banking systems are legitimate creditors then, because across the whole life cycle of their obfuscations of our currency, the resultant systems of exploitation give up no commensurable property to ostensibly “provide credit”; 5) that the only real creditors (who do give up property for representations of our promissory obligations) are paid in full from the outset of every such arrangement; 6) that a resultant obligation to sustain the value and redeemability of money therefore exists to the actual creditor; 7) that under “banking,” it is mathematically impossible to sustain the combined circulatory volume and disposition of money which would accomplish this purpose, because banking’s obfuscation of our promissory obligations dedicates ever more of a circulation to servicing its irreversible and inevitably terminal escalation of falsified debt; 8) that the inherent disposition and life cycle of our promissory obligations to each other is instead to retire principal upon payment, because the prior representation of entitlement stems from the obligation to pay the principal, which obligation is fulfilled upon payment; 9) that as no actual, commensurable risk of the principle to the banking system exists, neither can a fact of lending or risk of the principal exist, as ostensibly justifies interest; and thus, 10) that not only are the people the only actual issuers of money, promissory obligations, or redeemable representations of entitlement; but 11) that no legitimate means whatever exists to launder either the principal or interest into the unwarranted possession of purported banking systems or faux creditors who merely publish further representations of our issuance of promissory obligations; and thus 12) that the lie of banking is not only wholly unjustifiable, but inherently terminal; as 13) banking’s unwarranted imposition of interest forces us to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing interest and principal, to return the both to the general possession of surviving industry and commerce as a perpetually escalating and inevitably terminal sum of falsified debt. Thus a multitude of improprieties comprises a fatal and purposed breach of trust, perpetrated and intentionally sustained not only by purported banking, but by the vast political corruption which banking unduly makes itself both capable and compelled to purchase. Given every such potential for betrayal then, the only resolution of all such political corruption is the inherent means and objects of an absolute consensual representation, in which, by indispensable authorities of self-determination, competent societies may immediately raise every conducive means to ensure universal justice and integrity, that WE The People may finally eradicate every subversion of our vital political purposes. In proving a singular solution for the volumetric and dispositional improprieties of today’s pretended economies therefore, this proposition of mathematically perfected economy and absolute consensual representation is the only reasonable impetus for an ascendant humanity to secure inevitable justice; and of necessity then, we hold it is the duty of every apprehending citizen to ratify these authorities; that mathematically perfected economy and absolute consensual representation™ are inherent rights of every just person; that by our signatures, we and we alone rightly ratify these indispensable rights; that our ratification rightly prevails immediately over the every affair of every signatory; that to eradicate political betrayal, we must deny every seated or future government any authority whatever but to comply; and that necessarily therefore, our signatures immediately establish omnipotent personal authorities not only to fully protect ourselves from every transgression of these facts, but to prosecute every deviate for every related crime against us — each and every which deviate government, entity, and person therefore, from the moment of our signature forth, is guilty of the gravest treasons against us.

To understand the solution, we must first understand the deception. How do you otherwise find a solution for a problem you do not see or understand as existing? You can’t. It’s like punching an enemy you cannot see. So, I will attempt to explain this as clearly as I can. 1. The banks have no money. 2.The banks DO NOT “create money” they ISSUE it! 3. These issuances of currency/money are simply representations of your and my own promissory notes. 4. The underlying value of ALL money in existence is NOT gold and silver etc and never was and never shall be. Gold and silver, NO MATTER that they have been around as “money” for millennia, are nothing more than any other commodity – precious metals yes. Have an inherent value of sorts yes (but so does platinum, copper, seeds, in fact any commodity whatsoever) but they STILL represent the value you create within the existing monetary system as demonstrated by the fact they are exchanged for your promissory notes/banknotes (remember banknotes ARE promissory notes – see page 474 once more) – and, as such, they have the inherent fault of being inflationary and deflationary. [Note: Bitcoin also has this flaw and is, in no way, a solution to the world’s monetary system. Bitcoin is no more valuable than any other investment such as shares. They act in precisely the same way and, as has been shown, do nothing to prevent wild swings and do nothing, therefore, to prevent inflation and deflation] 5. Inasmuch as the banks are simply representing OUR value, all they are doing is RE-PUBLISHING our promissory notes to one another. 6. You see a house you wish to buy at £100K. You sign a promissory note (“loan”) which is a guarantee to pay – with your labour and/or assets – but, instead of being free to issue that promissory note direct to the house owner/asset holder you wish to purchase from, you are forced to issue it to the banking system. 7. What does the banking system do? It “transmutates” that promissory note having inherent value (YOURS) into it’s own printed promissory notes/banknotes. It then passes those banknotes (electronically credits the house owner’s bank balance) to the owner of the asset/house. Insodoing, the bank then turns to you “the borrower” (who has created that otherwise non existent money for the bank by way of your signature of the original promissory note) and demands you pay them the £100K PLUS interest. 8. That £100K becomes a deposit and a cash asset within the bank and adds to all the millions of other people’s promissory note creations of money to the bank’s “assets” (not their assets at all as we have seen). 9. The banks then use the fractional reserve system to multiply those deposits even further and lends out more of this “money” they say they have. All the while charging interest to each and every “borrower”. 10. This system has been in operation for centuries while we now have approximately 7 billion people on the planet. These 7 billion people (and all those generations before) have, as a whole, never had the interest money issued into the economy to pay the interest so the very most we could ever do is pay what IS issued into the world’s economy and that is PRINCIPAL ONLY. The REAL ECONOMY cannot pay back money which never physically existed because the principal issued is the ONLY amount which reflects the entire value of our labour. DO YOU SEE IT NOW? DO YOU SEE WHY THE GLOBAL DEBT (that means everyone on planet earth bar none) is what it is? So if it includes everyone then why would they do it? Because they (the world’s financial oligarchy) will always be able to pay their interest/debt off because they control the system (not that they actually do pay but that’s another story). IT IS LIKE A CASINO. THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS. The interest is sucked out and up to the global banking elite who then use that wealth to have our governments further legislate to pay off the debt by privatising infrastructure and land/resources. In the end, the elite do not want money. Money is simply the vehicle with which they indebt the rest of us (including governments) to the point where we have to hand over control of all resources, land and infrastructure to them. Once they have achieved that, then the legal system has them in full ownership and, if you own everything, you don’t NEED money! 11. The banks OBFUSCATE the issuance of money. They fraudulently take ownership of YOUR promissory obligation and, as we have seen, this IS “money”. When you sign that obligation (“loan”) they then add it to their assets. What they then can do (and do do) is SELL that note – because it is REAL value – and the market will pay for it. An example of them selling these notes are the Credit Default Swaps and CDO’s which we heard so much of during the mortgage crisis (which still exists). They package the debts (promissory obligations) up and sell them! How can they sell them if they are not REAL MONEY? What gives them their value particularly when, as you understand it, you still have not paid off the “loan”? So here’s ANOTHER issue: If they sell these notes for money (which they do) THEN SOMEONE HAS PAID THEM THE VALUE OF YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT. THIS MEANS YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT HAS BEEN PAID OFF! BUT THE BANK STILL DEMANDS YOU PAY THE DEBT SO THEY ARE BEING PAID TWICE! THEY HAVE BEEN PAID AND YET THEY WANT PAID TWICE AND STILL DEMAND YOU PAY INTEREST ON AN ALREADY PAID OFF DEBT! Additionally, according to “law” a debt paid off is a debt no more. If the market buys your debt they have paid it off! Does the buyer come after you to pay off the debt? No. Yet they are the owner of it now. So why does the bank demand you pay an extinguished debt? 12. The obfuscation of the banks then is this: You create the money. They RE-PUBLISH that money as theirs and issue it to the owner. That is ALL the banks do! They then charge you interest on your own created money. In any other circumstance, it would be YOU who charged THEM interest for lending them money! They make HUGE profits out of your signature creating that money for them. They multiply it and lend it out again and again!

THE CASE OF SCOTLAND

Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments falls into exactly the same category as the previous one, in that if there was one matter over which the Scottish Parliament would be expected to take control, it would be an issue of such symbolic importance as the Scottish bank note. I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is not correct about the issue of the euro, as Scottish bank notes are not themselves legal tender; they are merely promissory notes issued under the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845 and the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928. They are backed by reserves in the banks concerned, but they are not themselves legal tender. For that reason, they could remain in circulation as promissory notes if they were reissued as euro notes in the event that we joined the single currency. Of course, the European central bank and the other member states would not recognise them as legal tender, but, as they do not have such recognition in England or, indeed, in Scotland, that would not be a problem. However, it would be interesting to hear on the record whether that is also the Government’s view. The issue has symbolic importance. As the United Kingdom Parliament allowed Scottish notes to continue in issue long after the currency union between England and Scotland, it is extraordinary that they should not become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Of course, the Government must reserve legal tender as United Kingdom issue over anything to do directly with currency, but, as Scottish bank notes are technically not currency, I fail to understand, and ask the Minister to explain, why promissory notes could not become a matter for the Scottish Parliament, rather than the United Kingdom Government, to supervise.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980330/debtext/80330-22.htm

So Scotland already is ACKNOWLEDGED as working on the basis of PROMISSORY NOTES. Do you see ANY difference between YOUR lives north of the border in terms of how you use “money” to that south of the border or anywhere else? No, you don’t! And there’s a reason for that. The reason being is that just as you accept and consider these acknowledged promissory notes (obligations) as your currency, the rest of the world does precisely the same because, as explained in my blog “The new economics will be mathematics”, ALL currency throughout the world are simply no more and no less than PROMISSORY NOTES which represent each and every one of our promissory obligations to one another. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH USING THE BANKS’ RE-PRESENTATIONS OF OUR OWN PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS IS THAT WE NEED TO PAY INTEREST TO THESE BANKS FOR THE SIMPLE USE OF THEIR REPRESENTATION (i.e. BANK NOTES) OF OUR OWN MONEY! THAT IS ALL WE PAY INTEREST FOR YET, IF WE SIMPLY RECORDED EACH AND EVERY PROMISSORY TRANSACTION ON THE MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) then we pay no interest for goods and assets we buy and, therefore, there is NO ever spiralling upward NATIONAL DEBT because the REAL economy would be perfectly reflected by the amount of promissory obligations in circulation. THE BANKS STEAL OUR OWN PROMISSORY NOTES AND REPRESENT THEM AS THEIRS. DOING SO, THEY THEN CHARGE INTEREST AND THAT INTEREST DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL ECONOMY THEREFORE IT CAN NEVER EVER BE PAID OFF!

Implement MPE and ACR and cashless is NOT a problem. Without it, you have absolute tyranny.

Do we need a national or federal debt? Just ask Ben Bernanke:

 

But Gresham, and the Professor here, will never talk about this. The City of London and all the “Worshipful” would crucify them if they did.

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!

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”.

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!

 

Infowars, Trump and Paul Joseph Watson Part 2

Posted in Media, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 8, 2017

The following video is all you need to know about Trump – Infowars’ messiah for America.

Again, however, don’t ever expect Infowars to acknowledge this and don’t expect any American Christian Zionist to either. It’s hilarious really. So bloody transparent and the cognitive dissonance required by PJW and his chumps in Infowars, to totally ignore this crap.

Republicans want change. Democrats want change. Even Libertarians want change; Liberals, Conservatives, Labour and Conservative supporters; UKIP supporters and I could go on – ALL of them want change and they’ve wanted it for decades (if not centuries). They are NEVER going to get it. Why? Because they simply refuse to accept this. Their screams of “anti semite” at people like me and many others, ironically keeps them from finding and acquiring the change they want. Ah well. What pisses me off is that I have to live with it too because these numbskulls maintain the status quo in their wilful ignorance.

Now, once more, if you believe Trump is your saviour in any way, repeat after me:

“I AM A GULLIBLE ASSHOLE!”

Who was Allen Klein?

Posted in Money, Music artists, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on July 12, 2017

Well, of course, Beatles fans will know WHO he was but I wonder how many even think about WHAT he was?

I’ve never really done a LOT of research into the Beatles because I’ve never really been a huge fan of theirs. However, it’s interesting when you do look at some of the characters who were involved with their business aspects. For example, you had, early on of course, their Manager, Brian Epstein: In 1997, Paul McCartney said, “If anyone was the Fifth Beatle, it was Brian.” Epstein, of course, was a jew.

The Beatles’ unquestioning loyalty to Epstein later proved detrimental, as the band rarely read contracts before signing them. Shortly after the song “Please Please Me” rose to the top of the charts in 1963, Epstein advised the creation of Northern Songs, a publishing company that would control the copyrights of all Lennon–McCartney compositions recorded between 1963 and 1973. Music publisher Dick James and his partner Charles Silver owned 51-percent of the company, Lennon and McCartney each owned 20%, and Epstein owned 9%. Epstein would know fine well what he was doing of course. Unsurprisingly, Epstein was also gay.

Brian Epstein (far left) with the Beatles

In 1964 Allen Klein approached the Beatles’ manager, Brian Epstein, with an offer for the Beatles to sign with RCA for $2 million but Epstein wasn’t interested, saying that he was loyal to EMI. After Epstein died in August 1967, in January 1968 the group formed Apple Corps, which they announced in May 1968. They hoped it would provide the means for correcting Epstein’s unfortunate business decisions, which had both limited their incomes and ensured high tax burdens. Although “Hey Jude”, the Beatles’ first Apple release, was an enormous success, the label itself was a money pit, with little accountability for how money was being spent.

Klein contacted John Lennon after reading his press comment that the Beatles would be “broke in six months” if things continued as they were. On January 26, 1969 he met with Lennon, who retained Klein as his financial representative, and the next day met with the other Beatles. Paul McCartney preferred to be represented by Lee and John Eastman, the father and brother respectively of McCartney’s girlfriend Linda, whom he married on March 12. Given a choice between Klein and the Eastmans, George Harrison and Ringo Starr preferred Klein. Following rancorous London meetings with both Eastmans, in April Klein was appointed as the Beatles’ manager on an interim basis, with the Eastmans being appointed as their attorneys. Continued conflict between Klein and the Eastmans made this arrangement unworkable. The Eastmans were dismissed as the Beatles’ attorneys, and on May 8 Klein was given a three-year contract as the business manager of the Beatles. McCartney refused to sign the contract but was out-voted by the other Beatles.

Despite their initial enthusiasm to have him appointed to handle the Beatles’ affairs, both Harrison and John Lennon subsequently became disenchanted with Klein. Harrison’s “Beware of Darkness” from his All Things Must Pass album contained the lyric “beware of ABKCO” in an early demo version; while Lennon’s “Steel and Glass” from the 1974 Walls And Bridges album is also a thinly veiled dig at Klein. In early 1973 the former Beatles served notice that they would not be renewing Klein’s management contract when it expired in March. Klein sued the Beatles and Apple in New York, and they sued him in London.

Suffice to say there is more to the story however, the point is Klein was born in Newark, New Jersey, the fourth child and only son of Jewish immigrants. That says it all. Never trust a Pharisee! No matter what they promise you!

Klein with John & Yoko.

 

John admitting McCartney was right….