Jewkraine 4: “Gosh” says Ashton!
Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders – leaked EU’s Ashton phone tape
“Gosh!” says Ashton. Now I don’t know about you but I can hear a sense of no surprise in Ashton’s voice. I can also hear the woman say to Paet “my friend” while she displays total impotence in her role (she literally says nothing of any consequence) and would appear to be rather in a rush to get him off the line.
“We’re talking about how to get money in during the short, medium and long term… and support the IMF” – aka: “Get yourselves into as much debt as possible with us and we’ll love ya!”… “You have to go and lay flowers and show you care…” aka: “Make a show and make the people think you give a shit”.
Note to Paet: She wasn’t happy to hear you say you knew what you knew. And she wasn’t surprised to the point it didn’t even phase her.
Published time: March 05, 2014 12:41
Edited time: March 05, 2014 16:45
The snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were allegedly hired by Maidan leaders, according to a leaked phone conversation between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister, which has emerged online.
“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” Urmas Paet said during the conversation.
“I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,” Ashton answered.
The call took place after Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet visited Kiev on February 25, following the peak of clashes between the pro-EU protesters and security forces in the Ukrainian capital.
Paet also recalled his conversation with a doctor who treated those shot by snipers in Kiev. She said that both protesters and police were shot at by the same people.
“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” the Estonian FM stressed.
Ashton reacted to the information by saying: “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”
“So that she then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened,” Paet said.
Olga Bogomolets was the main doctor for the Maidan mobile clinic when protests turned violent in Kiev. She treated the gravely injured and helped organized their transportation to neighboring countries, who had expressed a willingness to treat those with severe wounds. From the outset, Olga blamed the injuries and deaths on snipers. She turned down the position of Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine for Humanitarian Affairs offered by the coup-appointed regime.
Warning to Olga Bogomolets: Catherine Ashton says today that you should be thinking in terms of being the Health Minister for Ukraine. Tomorrow, however, you shall see that “white woman speaks with fork tongue” in one way or another. Because, just as she refers to Urmas Paet as “my friend” during the call, she will speak to each and every person she ever talks to as “my friend” while, although you and she may know each other and get along on the face of things, she also has Tzipi Livni classed as “a friend”. What you have done, Olga, is you have stated something you know to be true which is that the coalition Maidan leaders have had the snipers kill both sides. What that means is that the jews are doing what they normally do (probably through Mossad) which is cause chaos and fear to make people desperate to just achieve any peace on any terms (or, at least lesser terms) and this will suit the west/zionist aims. Now YOU having the information that you do just might end up in you being a threat. Perhaps not at this moment nor for some time, but somewhere down the road. Watch your back Olga!
Catherine Ashton
You’ve got to admit, that’s one ugly woman!
Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, (born March 20, 1956, Upholland, Lancashire,England), British politician who served as leader of the House of Lords (2007–08) and as European Union(EU) trade commissioner (2008–09). She became high representative for foreign affairs and security policy for the EU in 2009.
Ashton studied economics at Bedford College (now part of Royal Holloway, University of London) and earned a bachelor’s degree in sociology in 1977. Upon graduating, she worked as a secretary for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament before taking a job in management consultancy in 1979. From 1983 to 1989 Ashton was a director of Business in the Community, an organization that encouraged corporate responsibility and facilitated partnerships between the public and private sectors. She spent the 1990s working as a policy adviser, and in 1998 she was tapped to head the Hertfordshire health authority. The following year she was awarded a Labour life peerage by Prime Minister Tony Blair, and she entered the House of Lords as Baroness Ashton of Upholland, of St. Albans in the county of Hertfordshire.
Throughout her parliamentary career, she focused on education and human rights issues. She served as a junior education minister (2001–04), and in 2002 she assumed leadership of the early-childhood-development initiative Sure Start. In 2004 Ashton switched portfolios, becoming a junior minister for constitutional affairs. She was admitted to the Privy Council in May 2006, and later that year she was recognized as politician of the year by the gay and lesbian rights group Stonewall for her efforts to promote equality. In 2007 Ashton served briefly as a junior justice minister before being promoted to leader of the House of Lords by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In that role she was instrumental in easing the passage of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty through the upper house. The following year she was appointed to the European Commission as trade commissioner. Although Ashton lacked the name recognition of her predecessor, Peter Mandelson, she earned the admiration of the commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, for her efficiency.
With the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in November 2009, European leaders were faced with the task of filling the newly created roles of president of the European Council and high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. After support for the presidential candidacy of former prime ministerTony Blair flagged in the face of French and German opposition, Barroso and Brown championed Ashton for the high representative office. Upon taking office in December, she became one of the most powerful women in the world, acting as the voice of the EU in all matters of foreign policy.
Quick factoid: Catherine Ashton is a fan of the popular TV series, “Dr. WHO”, and has a life-size Dalek in her living room. Not quite all there then huh?
Tell me? Does this sound like a “Miss Pennsylvania” contestant to you:
“In order to have peace, we need security; and in order to have security, we need peace,” – Catherine Ashton
It isn’t quite but it’s almost as bad as Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns, unknown unknowns and known knowns”
You must, by now, understand that these people are pathetic, thick as shit and will never make a decision on anything until they have judged a consensus and made sure their asses are covered as much as possible. Meanwhile, people are being murdered and they say “Gosh!”
And what is the absolute garbage this woman comes out with as if to say that the European countries within the EU all have a common culture/heritage? What SHIT can this woman utter? Oh yes, I forgot, she’s a politician. Not only that, however, but she is an incapable one as I hope you can hear from her call with the Estonian Foreign Minister, Paet.
Ashton’s main Mann
Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, is something of a public-relations challenge and last week Le Monde published another unfriendly commentary on her performance.
But at last she has found someone to take on the challenge of being her chief spokesman. It is nearly a year since Lutz Güllner handed in the towel and sought sanctuary in the Commission’s trade department.
Now Ashton is about to recruit Michael Mann, who is spokesman for Maroš Šefcovic, the Commission vice-president responsible for inter-institutional relations and administration, and before that was spokesman for Mariann Fischer Boel, when she was European commissioner for agriculture.
He is an ex-journalist, who worked for the Financial Times, Reuters, Bloomberg and even European Voice, so Ashton is opting for a communications specialist rather than a foreign policy expert.
Mann was spokesman for Neil Kinnock, former commissioner for administrative reform and former leader of the Labour Party, from 2002-04, so he knows about dealing with an unfriendly British press. And his language skills are better than Ashton’s, which might help with the unfriendly French and German press.
And what has Mann got to say about the taped conversation?
” We do not comment on alleged phone conversations” he told Channel 4 news.
Well Michael, a clear telephone conversation between Ashton and Paet is hardly what one can call “alleged”. Further, we then have Paet confirming the call himself. You’re another twat aren’t you?
Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers
Edited time: March 05, 2014 16:34
Estonian foreign ministry has confirmed the recording of his conversation with EU foreign policy chief is authentic. Urmas Paet said that snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders.
Paet told RIA-Novosti news agency that he talked to Catherine Ashton last week right after retiring from Kiev, but refrained from further comments, saying that he has to “listen to the tape first.”
“It’s very disappointing that such surveillance took place altogether. It’s not a coincidence that this conversation was uploaded [to the web] today,” he stressed.
“My conversation with Ashton took place last week right after I returned from Kiev. At that time I was already in Estonia,” Paet added.
But you see, Ashton is a British traitor (you might wish to look up her husband, Peter Kellner and the Think Tank he’s involved with too). On 3 October 2008, Ashton was nominated to replace Peter Mandelson as the UK’s European Commissioner in Brussels. Because European Commissioners may not engage in any other occupation during their term of office, whether gainful or not, she used the procedural device previously adopted in 1984 by Lord Cockfield (himself an EU Commissioner who had never held elective office) and took a leave of absence from the House of Lords on 14 October 2008, retaining her peerage but not her seat.
Understand that a serving Minister of the Crown cannot take, at the same time, a position working for the EU and vice versa. It is against both States’ constitutional laws. Mandelson and Cockfield were and are traitors too. They should all be hung.
So, just one thing for you Ukraine: You’re going to jump into bed with people who you think give a damn about you and your country? Yet those people are traitors to their OWN countries! You have got to be raving mad!
Ashton: Blair and Bibi’s “bitch”
Beneath the radar of the US media, Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded in blocking a statement by European Union member states that would have included sharp criticism of illegal Israeli settlement activity and of the general direction of the peace process. Kerry and Netanyahu depended on Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of Foreign Affairs for the EU and a proxy of Quartet Special Representative Tony Blair, to prevent EU member states from delivering the statement at a June 24 Council gathering in Brussels.
In the past year, several European governments have issued declarations calling for a new diplomatic approach to Israel. In April, the Dutch Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs released a report in April that recommended “calling [Israel] to account for violating the law,” and urged reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.
Meanwhile, Irish Tanaiste (the country’s foreign minister) Eamon Gilmore hasvowed to use Ireland’s position as President of the EU Council to advance a comprehensive boycott of products from Israeli settlements. And in recent weeks, Irish Palestine solidarity activists have gained traction in local district councils with proposals for settlement product bans, sparking a retaliatory campaign of lawfare and intimidation by Irish pro-Israel groups.
At the EU Council meeting last month, the foreign ministries of the United Kingdom and France planned to advance a united EU call for labeling Israeli settlement products and a condemnation of Israeli abuses of Palestinians living in the West Bank’s Area C. Release on the eve of Kerry’s trip to Jerusalem, the statement would have offered a dramatic rebuke of Washington’s business-as-usual attitude. But the EU ministers were stymied by Ashton, who had just met with Netanyahu at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem.
During the meeting, Netanyahu told Ashton that if she did not block the EU statement, she would open the door for “laying the responsibility for failure on Israel’s shoulders” while giving the Palestinians “a blank check.” Despite Netanyahu’s plans to authorize 930 new homes in the East Jerusalem settlement of Har Homa, Ashton acceded to his request.
Days later, in Brussels, she announced (PDF) that she was “completely supporting John Kerry’s efforts” — even though she did not know a single detail about what Kerry planned to do when he arrived in Jerusalem. “He will tell us all about these proposals when he’s ready to do so,” Ashton promised.
During the 1980’s, Ashton served as treasurer for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a left-wing British anti-war group that urged immediate détente with the Soviet Union. In the 90’s, she rode the wave of New Labor, rising through the ranks of the party under the wing of Tony Blair. In 1999, Blair made Ashton a Labor life peer, entitling her to a seat in the House of Lords. Within a decade, Ashton had secured an appointment as Europe’s top diplomat, giving her control of the EU’s foreign service and a generous salary of around $41,500 a month. Before this, she had no experience in international relations and had never been elected to office.
Since entering the job, Ashton has demonstrated her fealty to Blair at almost every turn. According to a source familiar with proceedings inside the European Union External Action Service (EEAS), which advises Ashton, she has repeatedly stopped meetings to wonder aloud, “What would Tony think about this proposal?” Ashton and Blair joined forces last year to stifle the Palestinian Authority’s campaign for statehood at the UN, a futile maneuver that pitted them against almost the entire EU. She has since worked to eliminate the position of the EU special envoy to the peace process, a move seemingly aimed at further marginalizing European influence. Ashton’s suppression of the EU Council conclusions at Brussels in June represented the culmination of her efforts to keep the US and Israel in the driver’s seat, with Blair playing the third wheel.
Having successfully suppressed European dissension that might have disrupted Kerry’s public relations strategy, Ashton was off to Bahrain, where three EU-Bahraini dual nationals languished in prison for their role in peaceful protests that were violently crushed by the autocratic regime. Seated beside the Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid ibn Ahmad Al Khalifa at a press conference, Ashton and her counterpart “underlined the importance of further strengthening EU-GCC ties,” according to Bahrain’s official news agency.
Tony Blair and the Ukrainian Jewish Oligarch who funds him.
Self made man? No, the wife’s daddy just so happens to be the ex President of the Ukraine and Pinchuk makes his fortune subsequent to the marriage. What we have is a whole bunch of ass lickers who, collectively, are parasites on the rest of civilisation.
1. Pinchuk was born in 1960 in Kyiv to Jewish parents.
2. Pinchuk is a member of the Board of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, of the International Advisory Council of Brookings Institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pinchuk
From “Jewkraine 3” Who else is on the board of the Brooking Institute?: Nat Rothschild. What a coincidence eh? Just another one. Two jews, heavily involved with Ukraine and Tony Blair who just so happen to be good buddies from the Brookings Institute.
As for Elton, he sang about a social disease and now he fraternises in one. And who knows? He may even have one! But what better “friends” could the guy have than the jewish/marxist politicians who support his type.
Jewkraine 3: Planned decades ago
Late 2002 Viktor Yushchenko (Our Ukraine), Oleksandr Moroz (Socialist Party of Ukraine), Petro Symonenko (Communist Party of Ukraine) and Yulia Tymoshenko (Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc) issued a joint statement concerning “the beginning of a state revolution in Ukraine”.
GEORGE SOROS IS a Hungarian Jew. Soros was born in Budapest in 1930 as Gyorgy Schwartz. When young Gyorgy Schwartz enrolled in the London School of Economics in 1947 he changed his surname to Soros. In 1956 Soros settled in NYC. George Soros then built his multi-billionaire international hedge fund called the Quantum Fund.Geroge Soros is known for saving George Bush Jr from a 1990 bankruptcy. Soros still works with Bush Sr in the Carlyle Group a powerful financial organization & international weapons dealer controlled by the Rothschilds. Take note of the Carlyle Group.
Russia expelled the Open Society Institute at the end of 2003Recently, George Soros played an important role in the change of governments, especially in central and eastern Europe. He was particularly active in Poland, where he was, at the same time, friend of General Jaruselski and of the main official patron of the Solidarnoc (Solidarity) trade union, the Polish Bronislaw Geremek, who is currently member of the ICG administrative council. He was also very active in Hungary, his native country.It is highly probable that he also engaged in the preparation of the “Velvet Revolution” in the Czech Republic, an action that culminated with Vaclav Havel as President. He repeated the same model in Serbia to defeat Slobodan Milosevic and, recently, in Georgia against Edouard Shevarnardze. Every time he has been served and supported by Otpor-style youth organizations. He has been accused of stirring popular disturbances in Ukraine and Belarus. In order to put an end to his intervention in Russia, authorities have resorted to the pretext that the rent was not paid to expel the Open Society Institute some days after Mijaíl Khodorkovsky was detained under complot suspicions.
THE GRAND CHESSBOARD
Now let’s turn to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” which, I have said for years now, is the “blueprint” for western/zionist moves to destabilise the world for exploitation by the western oligarchy (with help from their Eastern jewish oligarchical pals).
Page 46:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chess- board, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an inde- pendent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predom- inantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitat- ing conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would
also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly inde- pendent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine’s loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe
Page 47:
Almost as much as in the case of Ukraine, the future of Azerbaijan and Cen- tral Asia is also crucial in defining what Russia might or might not become.
Page 52:
To what extent should Russia be helped economically—which inevitably strength- ens Russia politically and militarily—and to what extent should the newly independent states be simultaneously assisted in the de- fense and consolidation of their independence? Can Russia be both powerful and a democracy at the same time? If it becomes powerful again, will it not seek to regain its lost imperial domain, and can it then be both an empire and a democracy?
U.S. policy toward the vital geopolitical pivots of Ukraine and Azerbaijan cannot skirt that issue, and America thus faces a diffi- cult dilemma regarding tactical balance and strategic purpose. In- ternal Russian recovery is essential to Russia’s democratization and eventual Europeanization. But any recovery of its imperial po- tential would be inimical to both of these objectives. Moreover, it is over this issue that differences could develop between America and some European states, especially as the EU and NATO expand. Should Russia be considered a candidate for eventual membership in either structure? And what then about Ukraine? The costs of the exclusion of Russia could be high—creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in the Russian mindset—but the results of dilution of ei- ther the EU or NATO could also be quite destabilizing.
Pages 57/58:
Europe also serves as the springboard for the progressive ex- pansion of democracy deeper into Eurasia. Europe’s expansion eastward would consolidate the democratic victory of the 1990s. It would match on the political and economic plane the essential civ- ilizational scope of Europe—what has been called the Petrine Eu- rope—as denned by Europe’s ancient and common religious heritage, derived from Western-rite Christianity. Such a Europe once existed, long before the age of nationalism and even longer before the recent division of Europe into its American- and Soviet- dominated halves. Such a larger Europe would be able to exercise a magnetic attraction on the states located even farther east, building a network of ties with Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, draw- ing them into increasingly binding cooperation while proselytizing common democratic principles. Eventually, such a Europe could become one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored larger Eurasian structure of security and cooperation.
Page 72:
Neither France nor Germany is sufficiently strong to con- struct Europe on its own or to resolve with Russia the ambiguities inherent in the definition of Europe’s geographic scope. That re- quires energetic, focused, and determined American involvement, particularly with the Germans, in defining Europe’s scope and hence also in coping with such sensitive—especially to Russia—issues as the eventual status within the European system of the Baltic republics andUkraine.
Page 84:
Accordingly, the process of widening Europe and enlarging the transatlantic security system is likely to move forward by deliber- ate stages. Assuming sustained American and Western European commitment, a speculative but cautiously realistic timetable for these stages might be the following:
1. By 1999, the first new Central European members will have been admitted into NATO, though their entry into the EU will probably not happen before 2002 or 2003.
2. Inthemeantime,theEUwillinitiateaccessiontalkswiththe Baltic republics, and NATO will likewise begin to move for- ward on the issue of their membership as well as Roma- nia’s, with their accession likely to be completed by 2005. At some point in this stage, the other Balkan states may likewise become eligible.
3. Accession by the Baltic states might prompt Sweden and Finland also to consider NATO membership.
4. Somewhere between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, especially if in the meantime the country has made significant progress in its domestic reforms and has succeeded in becoming more evidently identified as a Central European country, should become ready for serious negotiations with both the EU and NATO.
Pages 92/93:
Most troubling of all was the loss of Ukraine. The appearance of an independent Ukrainian state not only challenged all Russians to rethink the nature of their own political and ethnic identity, but it represented a vital geopolitical setback for the Russian state. The repudiation of more than three hundred years of Russian imperial history meant the loss of a potentially rich industrial and agricul- tural economy and of 52 million people ethnically and religiously sufficiently close to the Russians to make Russia into a truly large and confident imperial state. Ukraine’s independence also de- prived Russia of its dominant position on the Black Sea, where Odessa had served as Russia’s vital gateway to trade with the Mediterranean and the world beyond.
The loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, for it drastically limited Russia’s geostrategic options. Even without the Baltic states and Poland, a Russia that retained control over Ukraine could still seek to be the leader of an assertive Eurasian empire, in which Moscow could dominate the non-Slavs in the South and Southeast of the former Soviet Union. But without Ukraine and its 52 million fellow Slavs, any attempt by Moscow to rebuild the Eurasian empire was likely to leave Russia entangled alone in pro- tracted conflicts with the nationally and religiously aroused non- Slavs, the war with Chechnya perhaps simply being the first example. Moreover, given Russia’s declining birthrate and the ex- plosive birthrate among the Central Asians, any new Eurasian en- tity based purely on Russian power, without Ukraine, would inevitably become less European and more Asiatic with each pass- ing year.
The loss of Ukraine was not only geopolitically pivotal but also geopoiitically catalytic. It was Ukrainian actions—the Ukrainian declaration of independence in December 1991, its insistence in the critical negotiations in Bela Vezha that the Soviet Union should be replaced by a looser Commonwealth of Independent States, and especially the sudden coup-like imposition of Ukrainian command over the Soviet army units stationed on Ukrainian soil—that pre- vented the CIS from becoming merely a new name for a more con- federal USSR. Ukraine’s political self-determination stunned Moscow and set an example that the other Soviet republics, though initially more timidly, then followed.
Pages 95/96:
This staggering new reality was bound to affect the Russian sense of security in its Far Eastern region as well as Russian inter- ests in Central Asia. Before long, this development might even over- shadow the geopolitical importance of Russia’s loss of Ukraine. Its strategic implications were well expressed by Vladimir Lukin, Russia’s first post-Communist ambassador to the United States and later the chairman of the Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee:
In the past, Russia saw itself as being ahead of Asia, though lag- ging behind Europe. But since then, Asia has developed much faster. . . . we find ourselves to be not so much between “mod- ern Europe” and “backward Asia” but rather occupying some strange middle space between two “Europes.”
Page 104:
In this regard, Ukraine was critical. The growing American incli- nation, especially by 1994, to assign a high priority to American- Ukrainian relations and to help Ukraine sustain its new national freedom was viewed by many in Moscow—even by its “westerniz- ers”—as a policy directed at the vital Russian interest in eventu- ally bringing Ukraine back into the common fold. That Ukraine will eventually somehow be “reintegrated” remains an article of faith among many members of the Russian political elite.5 As a result, Russia’s geopolitical and historical questioning of Ukraine’s sepa- rate status collided head-on with the American view that an imper- ial Russia could not be a democratic Russia.
Page 113:
Ukraine’s determination to preserve its independence was en- couraged by external support. Although initially the West, espe- cially the United States, had been tardy in recognizing the geopolitical importance of a separate Ukrainian state, by the mid- 1990s both America and Germany had become strong backers of Kiev’s separate identity. In July 1996, the U.S. secretary of defense declared, “I cannot overestimate the importance of Ukraine as an independent country to the security and stability of all of Europe,” while in September, the German chancellor—notwithstanding his strong support for President Yeltsin—went even further in declar- ing that “Ukraine’s firm place in Europe can no longer be chal- lenged by anyone … No one will be able any more to dispute Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity.” American policy makers also came to describe the American-Ukrainian relationship
as “a strategic partnership,” deliberately invoking the same phrase used to describe the American-Russian relationship.
Without Ukraine, as already noted, an imperial restoration based either on the CIS or on Eurasianism was not a viable option. An empire without Ukraine would eventually mean a Russia that would become more “Asianized” and more remote from Europe. Moreover, Eurasianism was also not especially appealing to the newly independent Central Asians, few of whom were eager for a new union with Moscow. Uzbekistan became particularly assertive in supporting Ukraine’s objections to any elevation of the CIS into
a supranational entity and in opposing the Russian initiatives de- signed to enhance the CIS.
Page 121:
Most important, however, is Ukraine. As the EU and NATO ex- pand, Ukraine will eventually be in the position to choose whether it wishes to be part of either organization. It is likely that, in order to reinforce its separate status, Ukraine will wish to join both, once they border upon it and once its own internal transformation be- gins to qualify it for membership. Although that will take time, it is not too early for the West—while further enhancing its economic and security ties with Kiev—to begin pointing to the decade 2005-2015 as a reasonable time frame for the initiation of Ukraine’s progressive inclusion, thereby reducing the risk that the Ukrainians may fear that Europe’s expansion will halt on the Polish- Ukrainian border.
Page 122:
The key point to bear in mind is that Russia cannot be in Eu- rope without Ukraine also being in Europe, whereas Ukraine can be in Europe without Russia being in Europe. Assuming that Russia decides to cast its lot with Europe, it follows that ultimately it is in Russia’s own interest that Ukraine be included in the expanding European structures. Indeed, Ukraine’s relationship to Europe could be the turning point for Russia itself. But that also means that the defining moment for Russia’s relationship to Europe is still some time off—”defining” in the sense that Ukraine’s choice in fa- vor of Europe will bring to a head Russia’s decision regarding the next phase of its history: either to be a part of Europe as well or to become a Eurasian outcast, neither truly of Europe nor Asia and mired in its “near abroad” conflicts.
UKRAINE CURRENCY
Now, think about the dates mentioned by Brzezinski. It would all start in the mid 2000s. Well, we had the Orange Revolution in late 2004/early 2005. Perfect timing. While, having had a leadership who had just begun the process of democratisation in 2002, Ukraine then, in 2003, had a whole new set of currency designed and printed. It looks like it was all “approval stamped”.
The highest denomination banknote is the 500 hryvnia note and this is it:
On the “face” side you have this. Quite normal.
On the reverse side however. Take a close look.
Now who is it that designed and issued this currency? It just so happens that DeLaRue were provided the new contract for design and printing.
And it just so happens that N.M.Rothschild are prime advisors to DeLaRue as are J.P.Morgan.
Then Carlyle Group – controlled by Rothschild – buy out a significant chunk of DeLaRue…
You see folks, you don’t get coincidence after coincidence after coincidence like this in the real world. All you get is planning and strategy. Now please, don’t expose yourself as a rather mentally retarded, gullible idiot and try to make up some plausible excuse for a book written in 1997 with a “future history” of the Ukraine and Russia as of today, plus the fact that you have Rothschild influence directly and indirectly crawling all over it AND you have a currency which, never in its history, had the All seeing eye in the pyramid designed into it.
You now belong to the jewish/freemason/Western oligarchy Ukraine and you have been led to believe that you did this all yourselves.
You didn’t!
So just remember all of your friends and family who have died over the course of the last decade or so and remember – it was all for a purpose. Just not yours!
YOU’RE PAWNS AND EXPENDABLE!
BBBB: What does that acronym stand for?
Hail Bitcoin!
Hail the new messiah of money which is going to free us all of the banisters!
Hail the electronic currency of the new age which seems to be getting endorsement from the alternative media gurus like Max Keiser and David Icke!
Well, this is what you wanted world isn’t it? Your new currency which is going to destroy the grip of the Central banks, the IMF and the World Bank. Not to mention the Bank of International settlements, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.
Oh yes, you really know what you’re doing don’t you? You really understand what money is and you’re going to fcuk these banking scum up aren’t you?
ASSHOLES! You are welcoming the cashless society right in your front door and completing the very New World Order you say you oppose! Well you have been warned so many bloody times now. You have been introduced to the REAL solution but no. Who the hell is Earthling and what the hell does he know? https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/the-new-economics-will-be-mathematics-3/
Obviously I just ain’t as smart as you! After all, you keep listening to Max and he really hits the banisters hard doesn’t he?
You don’t want a global currency because that’s the endgame and yet, from the US, to Germany to Australia to the UK, a single, global electronic currency is being adopted and accepted. There is no such thing as a US Bitcoin and a UK Bitcoin. There is no currency exchange markets in bit coin because the value of one bit coin in Australia is the same as the value in the USA. What the hell is WRONG with you people?
ASSHOLES!
So what does BBB stand for? BEN BERNANKE BLESSES BITCOIN!
Here’s Bernanke’s full letter (via Quartz):
Dear Senators:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding virtual currencies. As you noted, virtual currencies have been receiving increased attention from U.S. authorities over the past several months.
Historically, virtual currencies have been viewed as a form of “electronic money” or area of payment system technology that has been evolving over the past 20 years. Over time, these types of innovations have received attention from Congress as well as U.S. regulators. For example, in 1995, the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on “the future of money” at which early versions of virtual currencies and other innovations were discussed. Vice Chairman Alan Blinder’s testimony at that time made the key point that while these types of innovations may pose risks related to law enforcement and supervisory matters, there are also areas in which they may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure and more efficient payment system.
Although the Federal Reserve generally monitors developments in virtual currencies and other payments system innovations, it does not necessarily have authority to directly supervise or regulate these innovations or the entities that provide them to the market. In general, the Federal Reserve would only have authority to regulate a virtual currency product if it is issued by, or cleared or settled through, a banking organization that we supervise. Given the Federal Reserve”s authority and the manner in which virtual currencies have developed, the Federal Reserve has focused primarily on a supervised banking organization’s role in the products’ sale and distribution, as well as the applicable regulations, such as Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) /anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.
Policies, Procedures, Guidance or Advisories
In March 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidance to clarify that an administrator or exchanger of virtual currency is generally considered a money transmitter under definitions and therefore subject to BSA requirements?’ The Federal Reserve’s supervisory expectations and guidance related to compliance for bank transactions using virtual currencies have been incorporated into the Electronic Cash section of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Examination Manual. The overall objective of the guidance and examination procedures provided in this section is to assess the adequacy of a bank’s systems to manage the risks associated with electronic cash and management’s ability to implement effective monitoring and reporting systems. The section further lists applicable risk factors and risk mitigation steps for banks to consider. The Federal Reserve supervision staff has on–going initiatives with the FFIEC member agencies to identify additional areas of concern that require heightened attention by the banking organizations we supervise.
Ongoing Coordination
In May 2013, the US. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) named Liberty Reserve S.A. as a financial institution of primary money laundering concern under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Section 31l).4 ‘According to the announcement, Liberty Reserve, a web–based money transfer system or “virtual currency,” was specifically designed and frequently used to facilitate money laundering in cyber space. This action also marked the first use of Section 311 authorities against a virtual currency provider.
The statutory language of Section 311 requires Treasury to consult with the Federal Reserve Board when these special measures are being developed and proposed. Therefore, Federal Reserve Board staff participated in coordination and consultation efforts leading up to the designation of the virtual currency provider, Liberty Reserve, under Section 311.
Specific Plans or Strategies
As noted above, the Federal Reserve plans to work with other FFIEC member agencies on electronic cash and related issues such as virtual currencies, as needed, for banking organizations. The Federal Reserve will continue to monitor developments as part of its broad interest in the safety and efficiency of the payment system. We also stand ready to cooperate with other agencies in fulfilling their mandates, as appropriate.
I hope you find this information helpful.
Sincerely,
[Ben Bernanke]
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-bernanke-on-bitcoin-2013-11#ixzz2sUeGdEwn
Alex Jones, David Icke, Gold and the MPE challenge
But will they take it?
They never have until now. They will not even touch the subject. When it comes to the monetary system, they all talk about gold, the FED, Bitcoin, Fiat currency. They make it all sound good too making almost the entire alternative movement, including the tea party, the Ron Paul crowd, the Von Mises institute believers et al, believe that Banks “create money out of thin air”. And it is that very phrase which is the con. As long as you all keep believing that, the banks and those who control money have you just where they want you. PositiveMoney the same thing. ALL of them state:
BANKS CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR
While we have this guy ( a guy I actually quite respect for his balanced, calm presentation and consideration of issues), David Knight, laughs at something which, in fact, need not be laughed at in reality – not that the girl presenter who Knight laughs at would know that she was, in fact, on to something.
Icke, Jones, Max Keiser, Bill Still and his “The Money Masters” and the cartoon of the Goldsmiths lending out IOUs then the FED being founded and that they just “print money” – ALL of it giving you 99% fact but ALL of it missing the 1% which truly kills the bankers and their entire infrastructure. Why do Jones and Icke etc etc etc ignore,
MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY
I’ll tell you why. Because MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY DOES THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN JOB THAT NO OTHER VERSION OF A SOLUTION THEY MAY ALL SPEAK OF DOES. The entire list of physical manifestations of money which are proffered as solutions (AND problems in fact) are RED HERRINGS whether the pushers of such solutions understand it or not. It is SO very very important that people grasp this otherwise there is no progress to be made in relation to the theft of the world’s population’s wealth. Even those who promote a “Resource based” economy are in error.
I know how many people there are out there who believe gold is money (“because it’s scarce and because, in the US Constitution it says so”) and, when it comes down to it, it is that scarcity of the metal which gives gold its “premier place” as a commodity which people want to possess. But, what if, for example, astronauts had found an even scarcer metal when on the moon? Just work with me here please? Let’s say it had properties which were even more useful than gold while it shone even more brightly. Would people (and our governments) then wish to have the moon mined so as to bring as much of the stuff down here and then adopt it as “money”? Think about it. Any commodity whatsoever is a commodity which is valued, by some, highly and by others, perhaps, not even valuable at all. If there was a nuclear holocaust and we were left with pockets of humanity trying to survive, would those people be trawling the earth to find gold or would they be looking for simple shelter and food and, perhaps, medical supplies? What would be the value of gold to them? Bricks and wood in good condition would far outstrip the value of gold. What could they DO with gold?
And it’s no use saying “Ah but that is just a fictional, imaginary scenario” because, when assessing all of this, one must consider such possibilities to enable one to recognise the fundamentals. The fundamental here is that gold, or bit coin, or silver, moon rocks, paper and yes, even the digits on a computer are commodities – yes digits on a computer are when they represent currencies because currencies can be and are invested in. It is exactly what George Soros is renowned for – and commodities such as these, with the exception of digits and bit coin, have their own intrinsic value as a physical “thing” which shall have uses in various production just like oil, food, water and all other metals, minerals etc. We could adopt anything as “money” – and when I say “money”, I mean the PHYSICAL representation of it.
So, back to the girl reporter for a moment. She asks “What backs gold”? That question is not, in fact, is NOT as stupid as Knight makes out. The answer lies in history and people’s demand for the commodity. They demand it because it was, and is, “projected” to them that “If you own gold, you are rich” but you are only so because, somewhere down the historical line, people (Kings, Queens, Governments) surrounded themselves by it and proclaimed it to be valuable. They hoarded it and gave it out as they wished as a valuable asset to those who received it. Gold was and is as “fiat” as the paper we now use. The point is that it doesn’t matter what we choose to adopt as our physical representation of money (even if it is, ultimately, not physically represented but simply in the form of digits in a computer which are allocated to a given name. What matters is that we all understand exactly what the manifestation of that “money” represents no matter how it is manifested.
THE BASIC PROBLEM LIES IN THAT WE GET CONFUSED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION OF MONEY AND FROM WHERE ITS VALUE AS MONEY DERIVES ITS VALUE
As long as we keep missing this fundamental point and do not allow ourselves to understand what money truly is and how it derives its value, then the bankers will continue to “rape” this world of its energy and vitality and become the owners of every last commodity and resource on planet earth (and off it). They are, after all, owning the air (CO2), the sun (regulating who and where is allowed to harvest that energy) and the rain. They own the oil, the crops (Monsanto); they decide what medicines we may use. They own it all. It is ownership (through the con of the legal fiction enabled by legislation which they pay/bribe for) which they ultimately want, not a physical manifestation of money. Money is the vehicle by which they acquire the power they want. That power is given to them through legislation which makes them LEGAL owners of everything. The corporations are owned by the bankers because the corporations take on debt and that debt/money is in the bankers’ ownership – no-one else’s. The banks decide which companies live and which die from the smallest to the largest multinational. However, the bankers (not the banks) decide even which banks live and which die. The money these people have is simply a representation of their wealth which, in turn, is a representation of power and control and it is, ultimately, power and control they desire and are getting.
Let’s take two words:
1. Issue
2. Create.
There is a vast difference between the two. In the context of what we are discussing here, “To issue” means to distribute or circulate or publish. This, in fact, is precisely what banks do. Banks actually own nothing. Nothing at all. The money they have on either side of their ledger, does not belong to them. They did not generate the value which backs it. They cannot because a bank is a Corporation. It is a dead “person” (legal person) which only exists on paper and is given powers (to ISSUE money) by legislation. It cannot do work to create money.
“To create” means to cause something to happen out of one’s actions. A bank is dead, it cannot create anything. “To bring something into existence”, “to generate or produce, design, fabricate, build, construct, erect, do”. A bank does not DO anything. It cannot CREATE anything. It cannot CREATE money. It can only be given the legal power to ISSUE money.
You have heard of “a run on the bank”. Why is a bank so scared of this? Because it would be left with not a cent in its vaults. Why? Because every last cent belongs to someone else. A human! Those cents REPRESENT value and the only value which exists is that which WE create.
BANKS ISSUE MONEY BUT WE ARE THE CREATORS OF THE VALUE WHICH BACKS THAT MONEY NO MATTER HOW IT IS REPRESENTED
And this is precisely what MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY explains to you while it also, then, goes on to explain how the banks and the legislators (governments) have worked hand in hand to obfuscate (obscure) the reality of this. Why? Because the bankers want their ultimate goal (power) and they syphon off a small portion of the money, which is pumped through to them, to the legislators so as to ensure the legislators keep legislating in their favour. The legislators (governments) are also in debt to the bankers so they are powerless to stop them and, while the legislators get (relatively to you and I) far richer by bowing to these bankers, they continue with the entire con.
MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY describes how we arrive at what is a true and incorruptible representation of our value. It describes how, by way of ridding ourselves of banks entirely (they are simply a middleman thieving our personal wealth) and eradicating interest, while extinguishing such a thing as “loans” which are simply the banks representations of our own value which we create, we can arrive at a point (very easily then) where money is what it actually is and always should have been: a true representation of our value and our creations while acting as a means of exchange. It is not corrupted by currency markets and charging of interest which creates inflation and deflation. Any one of the physical commodities mentioned, if considered by themselves as money rather than purely representations of value, will be and is corruptible by becoming an investment in itself rather than purely a representation of all our investments and value exchanges and, as such, will be prone to inflationary and deflationary forces.
For a more specific summary of what MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) is, please see this blog: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/the-new-economics-will-be-mathematics-3/
And please do not let the name, Mathematically Perfected Economy, put you off. It is, in its essentials, no more complex than 1+1= 2. The problem for many people seems to be that their difficulty to grasp it is actually in its simplicity and reality. It’s as if they say “There is no way we could have been hoodwinked for so long by something so simple. It MUST be more complex than this.”
It’s not. And it never has been.
If you’re a university student, you probably know all about this:
Then, as a university student, we have to assume (no matter what your subject) you have the intelligence of grasping what Mathematically Perfected Economy is telling you. Not only would you eradicate that interest laden debt which makes you a slave the rest of your life (including the other massive debts you will encounter such as a mortgage and many more), but you would eradicate the debt itself because there would be no need for such a thing as a loan. There are over 2 million university and college students in this country (the UK) alone. Why do you not all take the time to study something in your spare time which would allow you all to drop that debt and learn the subjects and find careers which you truly wish to? The opportunity is being handed on a plate to you and with 2 million of you sharing this information and learning it, your future lives would be transformed (as it would for us all).
We the People
Our email to Sir Bernard Howe, metropolitan police commissioner. 12.40am 4th jan 2014
Dear Sir Bernard
Regarding our lawful rebellion,
Please find below our planned course of actions to be taken in accordance with our civil rights under article 61, magna carta 1215.
The TUC and Union leaders have today, Friday 3rd Jan 2014, been invited to canvass their memberships and subject to vote, join us in coordinated action against our unjust and oppressive Government.
The planned programme of action is as follows
June 10th 2014:
Her majesty Queen Elizabeth II is notified of our lawful rebellion in accordance with Article 61, Magna Carta 1215
June 10th 2014: The first, 2 day general strike begins
June 10th 2014: The first march on Westminster
Should no response be received:
June 24th 2014: The second, 2 day general strike begins
June 24th 2014: The second march on Westminster
Should no response be received:
8th July 2014: The third, 2 day general strike commences
8th July 2014: The third march on Westminster
Should no response be received:
15th July 2014: The fourth 2 day general strike commences
15th July 2014: The fourth march on Westminster
20th July 2014: We the people move to arrest those politicians, Lords, bankers, and corporate executives, past and present deemed to:
1. Have by way of action or, signature to any document or treaty Committed acts of treason.
2. Have sought to cause harm or distress to British people.
3. Have sought to erode the civil liberties of the British people.
4. Have sought to profit while in office.
5. Have sought to enslave British people in order to gain favour or profit
6. Have sought to deny British people of their basic human rights of food, clothing, heat and housing.
7. Have sought to deny the people of Britain of their right to free speech and peaceful protest
As you are no doubt aware police forces around the world are now laying down their riot gear and joining in anti government protests and demonstrations and we would hope that during our own lawful rebellion your own officers will realise they too have been manipulated by an unjust and oppressive Government.
There is a great deal of anger and frustration at the actions of this Government which has become particularly acute due to the revelations today of the lies of the Thatcher Government during the miners strike.
We all hope the transition to true democracy can be peaceful and swift.
Our notices to Her Majesty has already been drafted and will arrive at her palace office, posted from various locations, on or around the 10th June.
Your help and advice to ensure a peaceful transition would be much appreciated.
A copy of this email has been forwarded to the security services for their information.
Kind regards
We, the people
https://www.facebook.com/pages/We-the-people/186596511545259
While I support your intent, I must make some comments on your 7 reasons for this action, from the perspective of trying to embed within them, exact, supportable and proven realities of what not just the existing government and parliaments (and ALL within it so you will be arresting every last MP in parliament) have done and supported for their own benefit and the detriment of all others in this country.
1. Have by way of action or, signature to any document or treaty Committed acts of treason.
The Bill of Rights 1688/89 are still in force today. They alone preclude our parliament and government (and Monarch) from signing any and all treaties of any nature which remove any sovereignty from these British Isles. Stated perfectly clear:
“After the flight of James II, all those who had been members of the Parliaments of Charles II, together with the Court of Aldermen and members of the Common Council of the City of London, assembled on 26 December 1688 in the presence of Prince William. The assembly requested of William that he take charge of the administration of government and that he summon a Convention Parliament1, which met on 21 January 1688 (or 16892), was therefore irregularly convened. The Commons resolved –
“That King James II having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between the King and people and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom; has abdicated the government; and that the throne is thereby vacant.” “
Please note: The KING himself subverted the constitution which is a CONTRACT between the sovereign/monarch and the people who the King (or Queen) simply holds that sovereignty for. The people of the UK have lost sight of this fact that the monarch is NOT and should never be sovereign (and neither should parliament as you will deduce when you read the below link regarding David Cameron’s own words!). The Monarch is ONLY “sovereign” due to the trust of such sovereignty the people give to him/her to hold on behalf of the people!
“Because there is no single document comprising the rules of constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, it is sometimes said that the UK has an “unwritten” constitution. In fact, in the UK the fundamental rules of constitutional practice are enshrined in many individual documents: in various acts of parliament, in the common law, in judicial decisions, in parliamentary law and customs and in constitutional conventions. It is therefore more correct to say that the constitution is “uncodified”, rather than “unwritten”. One implication of the absence of a single codified constitutional document is that there are no unambiguously constitutional “higher” laws. With a written constitution it is generally easier to distinguish constitutional laws from the rest of the law, while in the UK there is no strict distinction. However, there are certain laws which are generally regarded as being “core” constitutional laws that deserve and receive particular respect and special consideration, and the 1689 Bill of Rights falls into this category.”
While it should also be noted that the document above essentially is written for the purpose of saying that, although the Bill of Rights is still in force (and is stated as should having been ‘forever’), elements of it have been repealed. Again the question arises: On whose authority? The Parliament works for us remember! This MUST be remembered otherwise we will continue to have a government and parliament which think they rule us! It is, in fact (again by Cameron’s own words in the blog link below), we the people who literally DO have the sovereignty. David Cameron and all those who have come before him, are treasonous, seditious criminals who answer to a banking system.
“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
NO FOREIGN STATE!
Now, please read and watch the video of David Cameron, in his own words, signing his own death warrant. This speech he gave went completely over the heads of most people in and out of the media. Yet, it destroys his own credibility and also has him admit his own guilt and the guilt of all those before him.
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/cameron-treason-from-his-very-own-lips/
2. Have sought to cause harm or distress to British people.
Harm and distress has come from many sources of government and parliamentary legislation. For example, the Iraq war lies resulted in many British soldiers losing their lives on the basis of not only a false war but also an illegal one (illegal in fact not in theory: Kellogg – Briand Pact).
“The 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, and remains a binding treaty under international law.”
However, you will note that the UK and US governments and parliaments/senate, simply sidestep this issue by simply not declaring war! It is also why the United Nations itself talks about “Peace missions”. They create these laws an break them with impunity by simple words. Changing “war” into “peace mission” or “liberating a people/country”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact
Harm and distress is also being caused by the austerity being imposed upon the British people by this government, in accordance with the wishes of the International banking cartel whose instrument in dictating to the British government lies in the IMF and the City of London. If Stephanie Bottril needed a “bail out” she didn’t get it and neither are millions of others in this country while the banking establishment, who need not worry about their relative wealth and capability to eat, clothe and accommodate themselves, and so much more, are bailed out because they criminally invested, not even their own money but other people’s money, into financial vehicles which they knew to be “toxic”. Meanwhile, those who knew what was panning out, then invested in hedge funds which bet against the very vehicles they were investing in for their customers. This is MASSIVE fraud on a global and unprecedented scale and they have gotten away with it and been PAID by our government to negate “their” losses, with which they have then paid themselves immense bonuses. How the British people (or ANY country’s population) is putting up with this is beyond me.
How do the MPs make out of this? Simple. Take Ken Clarke (I’ve posted this time and time again): He joined Centaurus Hedge Fund as an advisor at the beginning of the crisis (Alan Greenspan did similar in the US joining John Paulson’ Hedge Fund). You know why Centaurus would employ Clarke as an advisor? Simple! He is Mr Bilderberg Steering committee member UK. There is an Asia Times article from 2003 which covers the fact that at that year’s Bilderberg conference (which Clarke attended as he always does), they were all advised where to invest in the coming years since they were told there was going to be a dramatic financial crisis in the mortgage market – YES THEY WERE TOLD 5 YEARS EARLIER!
See here: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/the-trial-of-kenneth-clarke-mp/
THEY PROFIT FROM OUR MISERY! This is not a “throw away” statement, this is a FACT! That is why they do it. That is why they impose the legislation upon us that they do. They are not imposing it so much on themselves because they either give themselves a pass and/or they simply pump up their expense claims PLUS they give themselves 11% pay rises! They have invested so much over years they are already financially secure (then some!).
3. Have sought to erode the civil liberties of the British people.
When you have it written into the Human Rights Act 1998 that you have legal authority to murder people then yes, of course. The civil contingencies bill etc etc all flow from a simple premise that the government have written it into law that they can kill you. Such power is not conferred upon anyone within the United Nations’ Human Rights Act but it is in the UK version. And before anyone states “Well it’s in case of any insurrection or riot”, please think before you speak!
and here: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/chemical-weapons-uk-you-think-i-was-joking/
4. Have sought to profit while in office.
There are so many, never ending, examples of this, of which I covered just one above, that I’d have to write a book. Every single one of these people, either through ridiculous sums for ridiculous – non associated with their employ – expenses or through insider trading (which they have allowed for themselves – it is not, for them, actually against the law) – have profited from their positions. They evade this by simply saying they attend something (like Bilderberg) or action something in their own private capacity. The fact is, if it were not for their “professional capacity” they would not be invited nor would they be privy to the information they have. They are bloody criminals. Every last one of them!
5. Have sought to enslave British people in order to gain favour or profit.
Again, Ken Clarke is a major, high profile member of parliament (and Lord indeed) who has done so. It is he who has been instrumental, for just one example, in privatising the prisons (you cannot get anymore precise “enslavement for profit” than that). But there is one other more fundamental issue regarding “enslavement for profit” and that comes from the very fundamentals of our laws and our monetary system. The reason why we are “tied in” to bailing out banks and legally enforced to do so is through our being “legal persons” which results in our then being bonded as taxpayers (a tax which does nothing but pay off a debt which would never exist if it were not for the banking system being given the legal right to issue our own promissory obligations to one another as if they belonged to the banks. It is the LEGAL PERSON and the OBFUSCATION OF MONEY which are the fundamental enslavers of every last person in this country and on earth.
See here: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/the-human-rights-act-deception-2/
and here: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/the-new-economics-will-be-mathematics-3/
Anyone with any questions or a wish to debate any point in these blogs are quite welcome to do so. However, I do hope you realise there is nothing to debate because they are 100% factual and accurate.
6. Have sought to deny British people of their basic human rights of food, clothing, heat and housing.
Again, all of them. These human rights (which actually do not exist since, if you are not a “legal person”, as explained in the above blog “the human rights act deception”, then you have no “human rights”) have been eradicated by the very system of legality and money that has been maintained in place and the interest (which does not exist in the real economy) which needs to be paid back. All facts, no “opinion”. Every last MP by sheer will or through ignorance (and ignorance of the law is no excuse remember) has promoted and supported this theft of people’s wealth. Theft is the only single wrong which one human being can action upon another. If you murder, for instance, you are stealing a person’s right to life. Everything is theft and these people’s theft has, in fact, led directly to the death of millions of decades.
7. Have sought to deny the people of Britain of their right to free speech and peaceful protest.
Political correctness for one. Need I say more? No, I didn’t think so.
However, with that, I’ll leave you with this thought: You’re advising the security services and Bernard Howe, the metropolitan police commissioner? Notice he has that “Sir” before his name. Who does he work for? Who do the security services work for?
You are pleading with HOUSE NEGROES who are sufficiently well paid and, therefore, sufficiently up “ma’am’s” arse to carry out precisely what the 1998 Human Rights Act allow them to do if they so choose. Just remember that. These people don’t give a damn about your magna carta and your constitutional “rights”. You don’t have “rights” but they have given themselves the “right” to kill you!
The “Trial” Of Kenneth Clarke MP
A Clarke Evasion
FIRST OF ALL: LET’S CORRECT SKY NEWS. THIS IGNORANT, STUPID REPORTER IS GIVEN A SCRIPT FROM WHICH TO ASK QUESTIONS. IN IT SHE SAYS THAT BILDERBERG CANNOT CREATE LAWS. WHAT A STUPID WOMAN! AS YOU WILL SEE AHEAD, THE TREASURY PLAINLY STATES EXEMPTIONS ON AN FOI REQUEST BECAUSE IT RELATES TO “THE FORMULATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY” FROM WHERE LAWS ARE CREATED!!
The following email was sent to Clarke, by me, in 2009.
Dear Mr. Clarke,
I wonder if you would be kind enough to shed some light on a number of various issues which are troubling me and many of the British electorate. There are just simply so many questions – all questions. And from what I have managed to research, you may just be the man who can answer these questions. They are quite horrifying if truth be known.
You see, there seems to be a strange series of events over the course of decades which seem to be inextricably linked and would have much of the UK electorate wonder if there is something at play from forces whose goal is to attack and deconstruct the sovereignty of our nation (and all nations) thereby, in effect, being at war with our nation. Could this possibly be the case? And could it possibly be that our representatives in government and shadow government are inadvertently enabling such to be achieved?
Please allow me to explain. I am sure that the details of this and the impact it seems to be having on the UK will come as a deep shock to you.
This group called “Bilderberg”.
While you, Mr. Clarke, have attended many Bilderberg conferences in the past, it concerns me greatly that you may have no idea of what the Bilderberg agenda is so I thought I would enlighten you. It may then have the impact of having you reconsider whether you attend any future conferences. Of course, it may just be that you attend on the pretext of working with such a group when, in fact, you are simply engaging in some form of covert checking on those of our government and others who may be supporting the Bilderberg agenda.
I am sure you know of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families. The International bankers and “philanthropists” who have built up such considerable wealth over the centuries that the overall wealth of these families eclipse the likes of Mr. Gates’ billions by an order of magnitude. Their “charities” and foundations are countless in number and, more often than not, they have tax free status. Meanwhile Mr. Rockefeller is one of the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mr. Rockefeller, in fact, within his own memoirs, states the following:
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
I also include here, a link to a very well researched and 100% factual article re David Rockefeller: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section/The_Proud_Internationalist_2006.pdf
That said, I believe I need to bring it to your attention that Mr. Rockefeller was one of the founding members (along with Dennis Healy) of Bilderberg in 1954 and is on the steering committee.
Further to this, Mr. Rockefeller is also a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Americas; These “Think Tanks” having their “cousins” in the UK and Europe with organisations such as the European CFR and the RIIA (Chatham House) plus others.
You see, while Bilderberg state and restate (ad infinitum) that NO policy is made at such conferences, this of course would be the case since many of the attendees are not a party to the overall agenda. Meanwhile, the policy is simply communicated through the great number of “Independent Think Tanks” as mentioned above. One can see many examples of reports and papers from the CFR, for example, finding their way into the UK Parliament and being used as “very well researched and highly thought of” organisations’ reports which should steer government thinking. It really is not at all difficult to work out what is happening here. For those in government and political circles who understand what Bilderberg is (and the interconnectivity between Bilderberg and the “Working Groups”), such reports will be given significant attention and weighting even though they are provided many times by non-UK, national sources.
What is further of interest re Bilderberg is that, under Chatham House rules, it never divulges what is discussed and presented and never attributes anything said to any of the participants. This seems to create a major issue when considering the persons who attend the Bilderberg conferences from the UK as I am sure you can imagine.
Mr. Clarke, just think of how such meetings/discussions could be construed. To apply Chatham House rules to a conference which includes statesmen and women from a vast number of different sovereign nations could be seen in the same light as there having been members of the UK government having clandestine private meetings with Adolf Hitler during the 2nd World War. To have such meetings is simply a breach of our Constitution.
I would therefore appreciate your consideration of such and your comments.
UK Parliament questions re Bilderberg
What is of further concern is the following. For, as I am sure you are aware, although the following were simply allegations based on Mr. Blair and yourself having forgotten all about the expenses which were paid during what you describe as a “political conference” in 1993; the greater impact of our ministers attending such conferences was not picked up on by the investigation:
86. That leads me to my second question which is, at the moment, a serious allegation will be of course investigated but should we put an onus on those making allegations that they should provide a threshold of evidence for those allegations? At the moment, if the allegation is serious enough, an investigation may well follow.
(Mr. Clarke) “I suppose you could apply the test of whether there is any prima facie evidence or any evidence to support this allegation and I imagine that the Committee do throw out cases where you are met with a vehement denial from the Member of Parliament and where there is no indication whatsoever of there being anything to support the allegation. I do not remember one happening quite like that where someone has been accused of something without there apparently being the slightest grounds. The ones I had in mind were where the allegation, so called, is probably true but the answer that most politicians and most sensible Members of Parliament would give is, “So what? What influence can this possibly have had on the conduct of a Member of Parliament if what you say is true?” I hesitate to go on about my own case but that was my reaction to the allegations against me. The only reason that anybody knew that I had not paid my hotel bill was because somebody wrote to me asking what I had paid for. The Bilderberg conference is surrounded by slightly green ink conspiracy theories so people write to you about it and somebody asked me the question and I wrote back saying that I had paid my own air fare and then discovered that some Greek sponsors, whom I could not recall, turned out to have paid the hotel bill for everybody so that, when I came to pay my hotel bill, it had been paid and I left. If you like, that was true. I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained with Tony Blair and Ken Clarke when they found that, fortunately, this conference was sponsored and they did not have to pay for the hotel?” Especially when certainly I had paid my own air fare to get there in the first place. I had attended a political conference and flown home again. I had done nothing else. I did not even know the identity of the company, no doubt, which had paid the hotel bill.”
Now, fully appreciating your point that you, personally, trusting your unimpeachable integrity, would anticipate no political advantage by attending such a conference as per your statement: “..I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained”, may I suggest, with the utmost respect, that such a statement may be somewhat naïve of you in regards to others who may have attended. Since, although flight costs of perhaps a few hundred pounds were incurred – and even if you had incurred accommodation costs – such a small investment from those within your circle of influence, when compared to their income, is extremely small change when that investment could result in a very comfortable position within the hierarchy of the EU for instance. Or, alternatively, as some kind of advisor status, let’s say, within a company such as…. Who could we say?… JP Morgan Chase for example?
And the following:
Examination of Witness (Questions 78 – 99)
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2001
THE RT HON KENNETH CLARKE
“I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”.
It’s perhaps, sensible that you did not protest further for it may well have shed greater light on the subject and could have caused greater issues for you, which I am sure would have been unwarranted.
For, you see, it is definitely valid to suggest that, given the goals of the Bilderberg Group and understanding the various connections between the Bilderberg Group and its working groups such as the CFR, to continue an association with such would be akin to treasonous activity would it not? Perhaps I am wrong, but if so, please do me the courtesy of enlightening me.
Now, with respect to other issues which are clear from the UK Parliament Hansard text and other Parliamentary notes:
Mr. Blair’s denial of Bilderberg attendance.
PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group. [93240]
The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally.
PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997. [95308]
The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings.
Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past. When questioned, as will be seen below, the answers provided offer no illumination on the subject (if answered at all).
Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with yourself) while not wishing to divulge such information. A “canny” scot indeed!
Further, while Mr. Blair answers in the negative, it has been strongly reported that Mr. Blair did, in fact, attend the Bilderberg Conference in 1998 also.
Bilderberg 1960s:
Roy Jenkins § Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8th and 9th October to Holland to attend a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Conference; 148W what was the object of the Conference; and what other activities were undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during this visit. § Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the meeting on 9th October in a personal capacity as one of the two British members of the Steering Committee. The other member on this occasion was the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett). The Steering Committee discussed the agenda for the next Bilderberg Conference, which is a forum for discussion of various international questions. No other activities were undertaken during this visit.
An example, dating as far back as the 1960s, of the ever continuing wish of our Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers to steer well away from answering questions relating to Bilderberg in any significant way at all. What could possibly be the issue Mr. Clarke considering it is consistently stated that Bilderberg is just an opportunity for tea and crumpet and a jolly good chat?
1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference:
HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W §
Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement. § The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty’s Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.
As previously stated, Adolf Hitler wanted a European state. Let us not debate the detail of how he went about trying to achieve it or we may have to go into the detail of how, also, he was financed wouldn’t we?
The point is, “personal capacity” or not; such a meeting with Hitler by any one of our MPs would have constituted treason given the objective.
Bilderberg mentioned in relation to EEC policy:
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS’ MEETINGS)HC Deb 24 May 1977 vol 932 cc1195-203
§ Mr. Skinner When the Agriculture Ministers meet, will my hon. Friend convey to them the fact that there is a large body of opinion in this country, represented in this House, who would pay scant regard to these Continental laws? Will he tell them that, so far as we are concerned, they can get stuffed with all their regulations about pigmeat and so on? Will he also make some inquiries about the meeting last weekend at Leeds Castle? Since we contribute nearly 20 per cent. of the total income of the Common Market, I want to know what I am getting for my money. I want to know what took place at that meeting. Why did the Commissioners hold their meeting in secret at that castle? What were they talking about? It is all right for the Minister to come here and trot out a few remarks about odd meetings about nothing in the Common Market, but what is happening at Leeds Castle and at Bilderberg Conferences and the like?
§ Mr. Judd I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend’s concern on the last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. On the first point, thanks to the very forceful performance on behalf of British food producers and consumers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I think that the Commission and all our colleagues in Europe are well aware of the concerns of the British people.
My concern here is obviously with the issue that the EEC (and latterly the EU) has been foisted upon the British public commencing with the sedition activity of Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1972, aided by many others including the FCO of all organisations! Again, however, Bilderberg, with its globalist objectives have been linked with the commencement of the EEC and continuing support of the EU which brings us, along with NAFTA/NAU, ever closer to global government, contrary to both the American and British constitutions. While aspects of both constitutions are being repealed (and laws such as the Treason law), they have been repealed AFTER what have essentially been treasonous events and activities. This, then, supports the entirely valid conclusion that such repeals are themselves, treasonous and therefore void.
e) Classified Bilderberg documents under the 30 year rule
Now, let’s take a look at a couple of documents which are held with “Portcullis” within the UK Parliament:
Portcullis: UK Parliament website.
Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP RefNo S/214
Title Bilderberg Conference Date 1979 Level File AccessStatus Closed ClosedUntil 01/01/2010 Location 36
Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP RefNo S/228
Title Bilderberg Conference Date 1977 Level File AccessStatus Closed ClosedUntil 01/01/2008 Location 36
Both documents are under the 30 year rule! Why on earth would this be for a simple discussion forum which creates no policy? Note that the second document should have been opened in 2008. It seems it has been kept closed even after the 30 years are now over!
“Just tea and crumpets and a chance for people to talk openly”; yet, not open to the public or to any media scrutiny whatsoever. Democracy and a free society exists I see. Ironically, we speak of democracy allowing freedom of speech yet the Bilderberg feel they are not free to speak freely? What a bizarre “twist” of reality we have here.
The EU Question:
Now, since the Bilderberg Group and its affiliates have been in existence since pre – EEC and EU, as we have covered, and it is very well established, the EU and the forthcoming NAU are both in keeping with the overall Bilderberg agenda for the destruction of the nation state (not by politicians for the benefit of their electorate but for the benefit of a group of people with no interest in nation states but every interest in profit); It is absolutely clear that the EU has been constructed for that very purpose.
The problem is that we have very clear evidence, from other documentation, which was held under the 30 year rule from public view, that the Conservative government formed under Edward Heath, along with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the BBC and others, committed the crime of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC.
The documentation supporting this allegation is plentiful and extremely precise. It makes incredible reading. Our own government fraternising with “the enemy” and make no mistake, where the British Constitution is under attack and the sovereignty of our nation usurped by our very own government and shadow government officials, this is fraternising with the enemy.
I attach a copy of a letter from Leolin Price CBE QC regarding the veracity and seriousness of Mr Albert Burgess’s investigation of the evidence surrounding the Heath government’s entire procedure regarding the EEC.
I, therefore, feel it is necessary to bring to your attention (and the attention of all your parliamentary colleagues) the danger in collaborating with not only the Bilderberg Group but any and all organisations associated with such. This can extend to organisations such as the EU itself and, on a lower level, a very strange “charity” by the name of Common Purpose.
Meanwhile, the Fabian Society and Demos and many other “Think Tanks” do “excellent work” in communicating the socialist “values” to the electorate.
4. “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
There is a book which is named “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
An online copy of this book may be found here: HYPERLINK “http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy” http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy
The book made enough of a furore in the 1970s to be brought up within Parliament on more than one occasion.
DEFENCEHL Deb 26 June 1979 vol 400 cc1357-476
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY
”Nor is it just for money. How many people know another American book of yesteryear by Garry Allen called None Dare Call it Conspiracy? It has sold over 3½ million copies in the United States. Its contents are one reason why more and more young Americans just are not going to play, if a war comes. This book points out not merely that it was the German bankers, Warburg Brothers, who put up £25 million to put Lenin in power in Russia, and who also assisted Trotsky to go from the United 1450 States to join him, but that they also sold nuclear armaments to Russia, not just to get money but to control the Communists so that, if they gain permanent power, the bankers will control them by the vast sums which they are owed back by Russia. The book is, chapter and verse, about foundations; it is chapter and verse about persons, well-known names; it is chapter and verse about the Council of Foreign Relations; and it is chapter and verse about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought. The address where that book can be obtained in this country is: KRP Publications, 245 Cann Road, London, E.11.”
I repeat: “..about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought”
The question is: Why have these libel cases never been brought??
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords…
The MEDIA
Considering the BBC’s involvement in 1972 when the Heath government took the UK into the EEC stating such a move would never threaten UK sovereignty, one may also look at and consider the media involvement within such issues as we see today and wonder, again, at how reports such as the most recent “Summer of Rage” can be disseminated to the general population, suggesting an events (or events) which have yet, and may never, take place. One could almost suggest that the media are being rather careless in reporting such possibility since it could be construed as “planting the seed” of unrest – almost in fact, an act of terrorism according to today’s “thinking”.
One could further consider there to be a purpose (a “Common Purpose”?) to spreading such fear and anxiety.
It is interesting, at this juncture, to note the complete blackout of media journalism when it comes to reporting the Bilderberg Conferences to the point of card carrying journalists being arrested (on some trumped up “charge”) while trying simply to cover the conference in Turnberry for instance; The only media being allowed as “rapporteurs” at the conferences being “Economist” journalists. Other journalists have been invited (hand picked) of course but they are then covered by the Chatham House rules. It may be added that such journalists would not wish to break those rules for various reasons. I have personally contacted one such journalist who simply offered me the same old story that the conference was “utterly harmless”. Of course, this may have been the case for Ms Mary Ann Sieghart, not being one of the “inner circle” of course. “Utterly harmless” yet documents pertaining to Bilderberg are locked up for 30 years!!
Meanwhile, I have spoken with other so called “journalists” on this subject and while they are initially “all ears” and promise to return calls, those calls never come. I contacted the Scotsman for instance who continued to ask more and more questions on the subject of Bilderberg and when I mentioned “Common Purpose”, all communication ceased. It wasn’t until I checked the ownership of the Scotsman and found it was owned by the Pearson Group, did the reason for the cease come into view. Sir David Bell is Chairman of Pearson Inc, Non-Executive Director of The Economist and Chairman of Common Purpose International.
‘The Economist’, in a rare reference to it in 1987, said that the importance of the meetings was overplayed but admitted: “When you have scaled the Bilderberg, you have arrived.”
Please see the attachments which detail the communication (or lack thereof) with Mary Ann Sieghart and also a copy of the report by Nic Outterside at the time of the Bilderberg meeting in Sintra, Portugal. The latter makes for very enlightening reading.
At the end of this document, I bring to your attention a report from May 2003 from the Asia Times. While the entire western media (at least those which are not truly independent) are unwilling to cover anything to do with Bilderberg, Asians have, generally, never been invited to attend Bilderberg. It is no surprise then that such a report was generated from a mainstream publication within Asia!
People, generally, like to keep their jobs and, with that in mind, one could postulate that this may be the reason for the lack of willing to discuss and/or cover Bilderberg in Western media. This, however, then allows the agenda of Bilderberg to continue and for most people to be entirely in the dark as to their overall purpose (which I shall not expand upon in this document) or to even have heard of the group.
However, as will be seen from the attachment entitled “BBC Correspondence”, simple interrogation leads to revelations of remarkable incompetence that, I would suggest, would not occur if such an organisation was entirely independent. And we pay a licence fee for our TV which is purely based on the upkeep of a BBC which is either entirely incompetent or entirely controlled. Take your pick!
Once one can enjoy TV without payment of a fee to support such incompetence, I may decide to let go of my hard-earned salary. Meanwhile I do not wish to conditioned by deceptive news reporting while paying for the “honour”.
Pen ultimately:
Written questions, with evasive answers, tabled by Patricia McKenna MEP [Green Party – Ireland] to the European Commission, 3 Dec ’98, in response to previous answers (see below)
Bilderberg Meetings: (Priority question)
Can the Commission explain more clearly its answer to my question H-0933/98, where it insists that participants attend Bilderberg *in a private capacity*, against all the evidence that these are far from being purely private meetings. If they are such, why does the Commission announce them in its Press Communiqués, published by Reuters – would it announce a Commissioner attending a conference on stamp-collecting, if that were his or her personal hobby?
And why is it that the Commissioners attending tend to be relevant to items on the agenda – Commissioner Van den Broek for Enlargement, Former Yugoslavia and Turkey, Commissioner Bjerregaard for Global Governance (applies to climate), Commissioner Monti for the European economy (Internal Market), or Commissioner Brittan for the EU/US Market Place. And most recently, at Turnberry, Minister George Robertson was ferried by military helicopter, on the clear understanding that he was present in an official capacity, just as happened in the past with Prime Minister Blair and then Minister Kenneth Clarke, now a member of the Steering Committee.
[Is this correct Mr. Clarke? That you were (and possibly still are?) a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg? If so, then that would surely make it improbable that you are not aware of the ultimate goal of these people and how it is in direct conflict with the British Constitution. It would also suggest that it is highly unlikely that you would not know specifically who the sponsors were who covered the hotel bill in 1993. This is simply a suggestion however as it seems implausible that you could be a member of such a steering committee.]
Does the Commission actually expect Members of Parliament to accept that British Ministers are attending these meetings in their official capacities, while Commissioners attend the same meeting in a private capacity?
And, why would the police exclude, and even arrest and charge, card carrying journalists if these were genuinely private meetings, whereas, if that were actually so, it would be the responsibility of the organizers to control access to the meetings by journalists, and the police would merely provide security checks to ensure the safety of the participants.
Since former Commissioners have continuing rights from, and duties to, the European Union, surely it behooves them to answer questions on these meetings, should the Commission so choose to ask them, and will the Commission now undertake to ask all former Commissioners still living whether they attended these and other similar meetings during their time as Commissioners.
P-3880/98EN
Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1999)
The Commission’s reply that Members of the Commission who attended Bilderberg meetings expressed their personal views means that they were not representing the Commission, that they did not speak on behalf of the Commission and that their comments were not binding on the Commission. Naturally they were invited to attend the meetings mainly on account of their functions. The Commission considers that its Members should be free to express their views on subjects relating to the work of the Community, in particular during exchanges of views in international forums, without their participation being in any way binding on the Commission.
And finally:
While we have been led to believe that this present Financial Crisis was never expected (view any interviews you wish with any of the UK cabinet or the US Executive Branch) while Alistair Darling is on record in 2008 saying he did not anticipate this even as late as 2008; I would most appreciate your considered response on the following – reported from the Bilderberg conference way back in 2003, of which you were an attendee:
ASIA TIMES 22ND MAY 2003: “An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.” Full article: HYPERLINK “http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html
What an incredibly accurate report from as far back as 2003.
There is simply no way, without accepting some people have a crystal ball; that this could have been reported without inside knowledge by those who participated in the Bilderberg 2003 conference. Note also that it says “..the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West…”.
Not a suggestion that we have a problem that needs resolving but simply telling what is going to happen!
To anyone with some modicum of intelligence, this would suggest an orchestrated planned event/series of events. However, surely that is just not possible Mr. Clarke.
Who are these “minions” that the report speaks of? After all, the Bilderberg conferences are surely only attended by the so called global elite of industry, BANKING and politics. So, this leads to the question that if these so called “elite” are simply “minions” then who is dictating policy?
Meanwhile, if you know the location of this crystal ball I refer to, I would appreciate it if you would advise the coordinates since I would wish to pay it a visit before taking my first ever trip down to Ladbrokes.
From what I understand, this year’s Bilderberg Group Conference will be held in Greece. It may be worth all the copied MPs to consider their decision on whether to attend such a conference (if “lucky” to have been invited) considering all that I have just brought to your, and their, attention.
I look forward to your response. I am only a simple man as I’m sure you can tell; Just one of the “dumb electorate” as some may say. So please pardon my incapacity to recognise all of the above (and so much more) as just coincidence and of no significance whatsoever.
Kind Regards,
Earthling
This is the reply I received:
And now, with regard to the latest news on Clarke and a possible Lisbon Referendum:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/05/ken-clarke-lisbon-treaty-referendum
UPDATE 5th October 2011. Mr Clarke you are outed by your very own treasury as one lying son of a bitch!
FOI Act: Paragraph 35 (1) a: information relating to the formulation of government policy.
I gotcha Clarke! It took two years but I knew that letter and your reply would sink you. And you were sunk by your very own treasury’s response to an FOI request! How wonderful!
Now, what does all this result in?
Well read the following and you will see the CLEAR indictment of Ken Clarke (and it goes for Ed Balls, George Osbourne, David Cameron, Tony Blair and those who have all gone before them):
This “Code of Conduct” has been broken by all on so many levels it is astonishing –
Ken Clarke attended this 2003 Bilderberg Conference when all participants were advised as follows –
Ken Clarke then joins Centaurus as an advisor (how does he know what to advise this Hedge Fund group? well, it is abundantly obvious is it not?). It is PRECISELY what Alan Greenspan did shortly before the Mortgage crash also in joining John Paulson’s Hedge Fund. Paulson then went on to make a KILLING in the mortgage default market –
Remember particularly here, the MP’s Code of Conduct: 
And, finally, where Ken Clarke LIES to a member of the Public by saying NO POLICY was made at Bilderberg, Her Majesty’s Treasury blatantly contradicts this lying assertion by Clarke by quoting EXEMPTION 35 (1) a
MR CLARKE. YOU ARE A LYING, CORRUPT BASTARD AND I SENTENCE YOU TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR TREASON. YOUR BILDERBERG COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOLLOWING YOU SOON ENOUGH!
BILDERBERG 2013: ALEX JONES AND MICHAEL MEACHER ADVISED OF THIS ISSUE. MEACHER WAS A LITTLE RETICENT BUT HE SUPPORTED MY COMMUNICATING IT ALL TO SPEAKER JOHN BERCOW. THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS THAT JOHN BERCOW IS ON RECORD IN PARLIAMENT, MANY TIMES, QUESTIONING TONY BLAIR ABOUT BILDERBERG. THIS, OF COURSE, BEING BEFORE HE WAS MADE SPEAKER.
MY TAKE ON THIS? “WE’LL GIVE YOU A JUICY ROLE, JUST SHUT UP ABOUT BILDERBERG!”
Commons Speaker John Bercow
Commons – Prime Minister Tony Blair’s written answers (20 May 1999) Bilderberg Group
Mr. John Bercow MP: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 7 May 1999, Official Report, columns 476-77, on the Bilderberg Group, what official (i) transport and (ii) funds have been used to facilitate attendance at Bilderberg meetings of members of his Government; which members have attended meetings; what reports they have made on the meetings; and what subsequent communication they have had with others attending on subjects discussed at the meetings. [84213] [John Bercow MP]
The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, only one member of this Government–the Defence Secretary–has attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group. He provided a detailed account of his attendance in answers to the hon. Members for Ludlow (Christopher Gill MP) on 23 July 1998, Official Report, column 609, and for Hereford (John Keetch MP) on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 434.
And now, on Monday 10th June 2013, Ken Clarke, once more repeats his lies in Parliament:
It isn’t only Clarke, of course, who is involved in what is, ultimate and in actual fact, treason. It is the entire British parliament and you can include the monarchy also because the monarchy’s job is to keep their oath to the British people and maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom FOR the people. But getting simple stuff like this through most people’s heads is practically impossible.
As for the “communications” with Bercow and Meacher: Read from the bottom up ( I can’t be bothered to copy and paste each in a top down mode):
-
-
Bilderberg Association’s charitable status!
Dear “Mr Speaker”,Please reply….
Please DO NOT suggest you cannot comment due to having to remain “politically impartial” about what is consistently promoted as a “Private gathering”. That is simply ridiculous, evasive and, as a Parliamentarian, you are bound to the Parliamentary oath. I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with it.YOU ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES! DON’T YOU DARE FORGET THIS!Now, in your own words, I wish to hear your justification of a Private Association which is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP and which has SECRET documents locked up by the 30 year rule being given Charitable status in this “democratic” nation of ours.If you refuse to answer this, I wish to know who it is who I can complain to about your evasion and your disrespecting your Parliamentary oath? Thank you.
A serious complaint has been registered against the Bilderberg Group’s charity, the ‘Bilderberg Association’, with the UK’s Charity Commission.
The complaint was launched by a member of the public on the basis that the ‘Bilderberg Association’ could bring the Charity Commission into disrepute and damage public trust in charities, by allegedly not complying with UK charity law.
The ‘Bilderberg Association’ is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and engages in one sole ‘charitable activity’ – funding the Bilderberg Meetings.
The Bilderberg Meetings are annual, private conferences attended by 140 of the world’s most powerful people, including bank bosses, CEOs, high-ranking politicians, and royals.
The ‘Bilderberg Association’ claims that its objectives are “to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences”.
In furtherance of its objectives, the Bilderberg Association claims that it “organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means” (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012).
However, as one of the most prolifically secretive meetings in international politics, the Bilderberg meetings have no known role in “public education”, despite this claim. The Bilderberg Group has also consistently refused to ‘publish reports of such conferences’, despite this being another of their claims to charitable status.
A Bilderberg meeting is, according to the official website, “a forum for informal, off-the-record discussions about megatrends and the major issues facing the world”, and is of an entirely “private nature”. After the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, attended the recent Bilderberg Meeting 2013 in Watford, UK, Downing Street refused to publish minutes of his discussions within the group.
Tax-free corporate funding of a private talking shop between politicians and the meeting’s benefactors cannot be identified as an activity for ‘public benefit’ – particularly since the contents of Bilderberg meetings are withheld from the public. Without discernible public benefit, the Bilderberg Association would not meet the statutory requirements for charity status.
From the ‘Bilderberg Association’ Annual Report and Accounts, 2007
To claim for charitable status in the UK, and thus benefit from tax-free funding, a charity must demonstrate that their aims are for public benefit – broadly, to “advance education or religion or relieve poverty”.
Furthermore, the Charity Commission deems that “a political purpose cannot meet the public benefit requirement and so cannot be a charitable purpose”. A ‘political purpose’ means any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party; or securing, or opposing, any change in the law or in the policy or decisions of central government or local authorities, whether in this country or abroad.
Of significant concern is that the Bilderberg Association’s committee member and trustee, Cabinet minister Kenneth Clarke QC, MP, claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a trustee of the charity when questioned in parliament.
The Charity Commission must respond to the complaint within 15 days.
Details of the complaint sent to the Charity Commission are shown below:
—
Please provide a summary of the evidence:
I am concerned that ‘The Bilderberg Association’ is misleading the Charity Commission, and thus the public, as to its stated ‘Specific objectives’ and ‘Activities’. It’s actual objectives and activities would be highly unlikely to qualify for charitable status. Therefore, large amounts of money, it would appear, are possibly being unlawfully exempt from tax. Full details are set out below.
Please set out any additional facts and information about the serious issue that you wish to report:
The Bilderberg Association engages in one single charitable activity, which is ‘Contributions to the running costs of Bilderberg Meetings’, which are the controversial (having come under recent parliamentary scrutiny and allegedly breaking the Ministerial Code) private meetings between politicians (including the Prime Minister) and heads of corporations and banks. However ‘The Bilderberg Association’ claims that its ‘Specific objectives’ are ‘to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences’; and under ‘Activities’ the Association claims that it ‘organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means’ (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012). However, the Bilderberg Meetings, as entirely secret meetings, have no role at all in public education, as the results of meetings are not in fact disseminated, and no reports are published. Bilderberg Meetings are in fact, by their own admission, characterised by ultimate secrecy. Therefore, it would appear that the objectives and activities of The Bilderberg Association (at least in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 for which I have been able to obtain accounts) are identifiably false and misleading.
The most recent identification of Bilderberg Association funding comes from their 2008 accounts, whereby the Association claims to have received £50,000 each from Goldman Sachs and BP. However, only £50,000 appears in their yearly income (although 2 x £50,000 = £100,000). I am concerned about the real objectives of the Association since they clearly do not match their falsely stated objectives and activities; and since the Association is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and goes on to fund the private meeting of Goldman Sachs’ and BP’s CEOs with MPs and Cabinet ministers. This bears the hallmarks of illegal lobbying.
Details of attempts you have made to get the charity to address this issue. Please provide details of when you reported this issue to the charity and the outcome:
The Bilderberg Group is uncontactable. I have contacted several Members of Parliament who share my concerns including some of those subsequently mentioned.
Michael Meacher MP, Dennis Skinner MP, and Tom Watson MP have questioned Bilderberg Association’s Committee Member and trustee, Kenneth Clarke MP in parliament. It concerned me greatly that the oversight of the charity is desperately lacking – in response to Tom Watson MP’s question, Ken Clarke MP claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a Committee Member and trustee of the Bilderberg Association.
Sincerely,
Earthling
FW: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
-
FYI…
If Mr Meacher enjoys Ken Clarke supercilliously lying to his face in Parliament (because one is removed from the House if one has the audacity to state that the other is actually lying) and abides by parliamentary rules – which ensure you never can say what you mean – then that’s his choice. I’m not in Parliament so, ironically, while you all believe you have “parliamentary privilege”, in this particular case, I have greater privilege. Among all the lying creeps in that building, Ken Clarke far outshines most! Then you have little bootlickers like Bercow……
From: Earthling@hotmail.com
To: nursej@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:22:23 +0000
Dear Joanna,
Having received Mr Bercow’s reply:
From: nursej@parliament.uk
Hi Joanna,
To: Earthling@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:38:38 +0000
Thank you for your email, which was sent to Mr Speaker’s constituency office email address.
If you would like to receive a reply, please provide me with your postal address, as that is the Speaker’s preferred method of correspondence.
Due to the high volume of emails and letter received by the Speaker, please understand that there is often a delay before a response is sent.
From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 June 2013 13:03
To: MEACHER, Michael
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Mr Meacher,
What else would I have expected? The UK Parliament is a corrupt hotbed of criminals. There is not ONE of you which I could point to and say “I 100% trust that man”. If you remember, while at the Bilderberg protest, I mentioned to you that you spoke of the Conservative attendees in your speeches but never once referred to Ed Balls (you saying that Ed Balls was not a government minister – which actually matters not one bit). While you all play your “tennis game”, Mr Meacher, you all swerve the issues when they lie at your door and evade and all of your evasions, whichever side of that phoney left/right fence you are on, maintains the status quo. But then that is what your actual job is. To maintain that status quo.
However, I will offer you something to think about: Whilst you play your games and maintain the paradigm – looking after your own interests as a whole – in the future, whatever family you may have (offspring) are going to inherit what you tried so hard to maintain for yourselves today. If you think your family will be protected from this New World Order Mr Meacher, then you are very naive. The people running this show eat you up and use you and then they spit you out just as quickly. Your offspring means NOTHING to them. By all means ignore my words Mr Meacher but, trust me, you will forever regret doing so.
Lastly, the reply from Bercow: Again he plays the game but he makes a big mistake (you all do for those of us to whom you are all transparent). His point that “his position requires him to be politically impartial”, I hope you recognise for what it is. Mr Clarke states in answer to you that this Bilderberg conference is a private gathering and has nothing to do with Parliament therefore. If it is “private” and in no way “political” (embarrassingly transparent as it all is), then Bercow’s comment is senseless. But then what’s new?
Parliament: Parler – to speak, Mentir – to lie. A House full of it!
So, my point: Let’s see what you’re really made of. If it’s anything like my own MP (Damian Green), then I already know! A man in abject fear of being put on the spot and on the record…..
Earthling
RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Dear Mr Earthling,
Thank you for your email which I will bring to Michael Meacher’s attention.
Regards,
Monica Masson
PA
Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP
Oldham West & Royton
House of Commons
020 7219 6461
Oldham Office
11 Church Lane
Oldham OL1 3AN
0161 626 5779
From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 11 June 2013 12:46
To: BERCOW, John; MEACHER, Michael
Subject: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Dear John,
I spoke with Michael Meacher at the Bilderberg protest on Saturday. He advised me that I can, and should, contact you and that I would receive a reply from you regarding this issue with Government Ministers attending Bilderberg conferences.
I wrote a letter to Ken Clarke in 2009 regarding his attendance and I put quite some detail in it as you will see. I received a “stock reply” from Mr Clarke (others have received exactly the same replies from their MPs who have attended) which evaded ALL of my questions, points and detail.
In 2011, there was a Treasury response to an FOI request which then entirely contradicted Mr Clarke’s assertion that the conferences are attended in one’s “personal capacity” when it stated George Osbourne attended in his official capacity.
Now, the blog also mentions you John because, before becoming Speaker, you asked a number of times about Bilderberg to Tony Blair. Why did you ask such questions? What was your concern? Your concern was precisely the same as mine and all the Bilderberg protestors who attended on Saturday and the other days. You know what the problem is John and, whether attended in a personal capacity or not, the attendees are not invited on the basis of their golf handicap. They are invited on the basis of what they can achieve within their Public function!
My demand is, therefore, that Ken Clarke (and all other UK Parliament attendees) be brought up on the charges which you know apply due to the subversion of their Code of Conduct oath and Constitutional law. And since when did a private meeting with “no policy objectives” require that documents relating to it be locked up under the 30 year rule of secrecy?
John, understand that, if you want and demand respect for your position then so do I and the citizens of this country since, after all, you are the public servant who is meant to be representing us!
I would, therefore, ask (but in asking I fully expect) a considered, detailed reply once you have read the blog. I send you the blog to read rather than “reinvent the wheel” and re-write it in this email.
Thank you and Regards,
Earthling
PS: I make NO apologies for the language on the blog or videos.
SANTANDER: A Banking giant, out of the blue?
While I condemn violence and crime of any nature, there is a time when one must step back and ask the simple question: WHO are the real criminals? WHO is it that brings people to the point of violence? Could it be people who regard themselves and are regarded by others a “Pillars of Society”? Similarly, the question is raised in regard to Palestinians and the conditions which they live under and why they feel so helpless against a “machine” such as the Israeli regime and military, to wish to “punch back” in any way they can – sometimes suicidally.
One simply must look closer at these people who, while they believe they are better – and some even state “We do God’s work” – cause sheer desperation to many due to their CORRUPT TO THE CORE activities. Can I be too condemning of this protestor then? No. I can’t. It is a 21st Century version of Jesus casting the money changers from the temple. I’m no religious person but I can say he was right 100%. But Jesus had power, this one man doesn’t. Educate the rest of the population on how it all works and, together, they would have power and need not use it violently.
I’ve been wondering how Santander is suddenly THE bank and how it suddenly came from a second division Spanish Bank background to a World force in such a short time. So I had a wee delve and came up with a few things to think about….
PLEASE ALSO BEAR IN MIND WHILE READING THE FOLLOWING THAT SANTANDER IS PART OF THE ROTHSCHILD INTER-ALPHA BANKING GROUP!
From the Guardian: madoff-santander-shares
New Black Pope:
“So? What’s your point now? One minute you’re up against the “jews” and the next it is the Roman Catholic church?? ”
Well the point is this:
The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2009) has led me to another remarkable element in the development of Jesuit casuistry. That is the early and important role of IBERIAN (Spanish) conversos (as Christians of JEWISH ancestry were called) in the development of the Society of Jesus, and its methodology. The evolution of sixteenth century Iberian societies contributed notably to the size and importance of the converso presence in the Jesuit order. At a time when Iberian conversos were increasingly excluded from a growing number of guilds, religious confraternities, colleges, religious and military orders, as well as residence in certain towns, the Jesuit leadership in the first three decades of the order’s history (1540-1572) opened their doors wide to candidates of Jewish descent.
Now, I’ll throw another little fish….
Santander. Where the hell did they appear from all of a sudden? Well consider this:
Emilio Botín (born 1 October 1934) is a Spanish banker. He is the Executive Chairman of Spain’s Grupo Santander. In 1993 his bank absorbed Banco Español de Crédito (Banesto), and in 1999 it merged with Banco Central Hispano creating Banco Santander Central Hispano (BSCH), which became Spain’s largest bank, of which he was co-president with Central Hispano’s José María Amusategui, until Amusategui retired in 2002. In 2004, BSCH acquired the British bank Abbey National, making BSCH the second largest bank in Europe by market capitalisation.
Keep reading…..
After attending as a boarding student the JESUIT SCHOOL of Colegio de la Inmaculada, in Gijón, he studied Law at the University of Valladolid in Valladolid and Economics at the University of Deusto in Bilbao.
A JESUIT school of all things!!
Botín was no newcomer to the banking world. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were all bankers.
On 25 April 2008, two people died in a plane crash south of Madrid at a property belonging to Emilio Botin. Neither was a member of the banking family. The light aircraft, which was attempting to land at an airstrip on the Botin property known as El Castano, was transporting 441 pounds of hashish.
Nice huh? 🙂 But continue……
1999: Botin faced trial on criminal charges of “misappropriation of funds” and “irresponsible management.” However, in April, 2005 he was cleared of all charges.
2005: the anti-corruption division of the Spanish public prosecutor’s office cleared Botin of all charges in a separate case in which he was accused of insider trading.
January 2006: a Santander, Spain court dismissed a lawsuit stemming from the cancellation of agreements reached by the SCH board in 2004.
November, 2006: Botin was brought to trial along with four other company directors for allegedly falsifying official documents and helping clients evade taxes. Spanish press sources reported that although Botin was accused of crimes against the state, the public prosecutor resisted bringing the case to trial. Private prosecution was brought by a prominent shareholder rights group, the Association for the Defense of the Investor and Clients (ADIC), which claimed that the charges against him constituted the “biggest fraud ever committed in Spain.” Botin evaded serving a jail sentence after the case was dismissed, and an appellate court rejected an appeal brought by ADIC.
Most recently Botin’s name has been in the news because of allegations that in 1999, at the time of the BCH merger, he bribed Spain’s economy minister, Rodrigo Rato, in order to seek favor with government officials. Botin and Rato, alongside a group of former associates have been accused of engineering a deal in which Banesto, a Santander subsidiary currently controlled by Botin’s daughter Ana Patricia Botin, purchased a €6M stake in a bankrupt water utility owned by the Rato family. Rato, Botin, and Alfredo Saenz, who was then serving as Banesto’s CEO, are accused of misappropriating funds, breach of fiduciary duty, falsifying documents, and bribery. The case is ongoing.
Now, Rodrigo Rato:
He was appointed to become the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 4 May 2004, and took up his duties on 7 June 2004. He has left his post at the IMF on 31 October 2007, following the World Bank-IMF Annual Meetings.
De Rato attended a JESUIT school before studying law in the Complutense University. So BOTIN and RATO BOTH Jesuits!!
Mr. Rodrigo Rato was the Spanish President’s Minister of Economy, who is responsible for the dismantling of the Spanish welfare state.
Mr. Rato is of the ultra-right . While in Aznar’s cabinet, he supported such policies as making religion a compulsory subject in secondary schools, requiring more hours of schooling in religion than in mathematics, undoing the progressivity in the internal revenue code, funding the Foundation dedicated to the promotion of francoism (i.e., Spanish fascism), never condemning the fascist dictatorship, and so on. In the economic arena, he dramatically reduced public social expenditures as a way of eliminating the public deficit of the Spanish government, and was the person responsible for developing the most austere social budget of all the governments of the European Community.
Gordon Brown, became Rato’s main advocate for the IMF position. Nowhere mentioned is the enormous costs this “success” has had on the quality of life of average folks in Spain. And these are the same policies that Mr. Rato is going to follow in the IMF, policies that have caused enormous pain and harm to the Spanish people, and will now be implemented world-wide. Nowhere, however, have the mainstream media reported on such important dimensions of Mr. Rato’s tenure as Minister of Economy of Spain. Quite remarkable!
Read more of what Rato did to Spain:
navarro06162004.html
Rato has since joined the Santander Advisory Board as requested by Botin.
But then we also have this:
The MADOFF PONZI SCHEME!
Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) — Banco Santander SA, Spain’s largest bank, said clients had positions valued at 2.33 billion euros ($3.1 billion) invested with Bernard Madoff.
$3.1 BILLION!!
The largest of ALL banks’ exposure to Madoff. BUT…..
Santander had only 17 million euros of its own funds invested through another fund. The $3.1BILLION was CLIENT exposure!
“Mr. Picard’s own investigation concluded that Optimal had no knowledge of fraud by Mr. Madoff, according to documents filed Tuesday in U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan.”
“Optimal’s (Santander’s Geneva based Hedge fund) relationship with Mr. Madoff dated back more than a decade, Tuesday’s court papers say. Some 70% of its affected clients are in Latin America, according to people familiar with the situation. Many of the clients also control firms with which Santander has a relationship.”
“Much smaller enterprises feeding to Mr. Madoff include those run by two relatives of Santander Chairman Emilio Botín — his son Javier Botín-Sanz and son-in-law Guillermo Morenés.”
Spain’s anticorruption prosecutor will be looking closely at the relationship between Santander, the investment fund Fairfield Greenwich Group, and the Madoff funds, the prosecutor’s office said.
Investigators said they want to know why Mr. Botín sent one of his chief lieutenants to see Mr. Madoff in New York just weeks before the scheme collapsed. Rodrigo Echenique, who has been close to Mr. Botín for many years, visited Mr. Madoff in his New York office at the end of November. Investigators say they want to know whether Santander was aware of any problems at Mr. Madoff’s firm then. Santander declined to comment on the trip or make Mr. Botín available for comment.
Mr. Echenique also declined to comment on the trip.
Investigators say they also are focusing on the role of Fairfield partner Andres Piedrahita, a Colombian who lives in Madrid. He funneled client money into the Madoff funds, and according to marketing materials he also managed at least one other fund on Santander’s behalf that had losses from Mr. Madoff’s alleged fraud.
Mr. Piedrahita and Fairfield declined to comment.”
WSJ%20-%20Giant%20Bank%20in%20Probe%20Over%20Ties%20to%20Madoff.pdf
And where did the $billions actually go? No-one knows to this day it seems….
almost_since_the_news_broke.php
Using the connections of secretive Opus Dei, begun under Franco’s regime, Emilio Botin of Banco Santander co-ordinates with the President of the Vatican bank (Angelo Caloia), an alleged member of Opus Dei, which is not accountable to the Holy See of the College of Cardinals, though it is on Vatican City soil. In Puerto Rico, Botin’s Banco Santander Overseas Bank launders money for the foreign corporation Internal Revenue Service, headed by Opus Dei member Manuel Diaz Saldana, who is also Comptroller of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (ELA). Secretive Governor-Elect Luis Fortuno, and Ex-Governor Rafael Hernandez Colon, are also members of Opus Dei. Richard Carrion, head of Popular Holdings, is also on the board of David Rockefeller’s JP Morgan Chase controlled Verizon, and also launders IRS collections and illegal drug profits through offshore accounts. Botin’s Banco Santander has swallowed the assets of many UK banks for pennies on the dollar, leaving the billions in liabilities to UK taxpayers.
Now, the Vatican Bank is said to be a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US$10 billion in foreign companies. In 1968 Vatican authorities hired Michele Sindona as a financial advisor, despite Sindona’s questionable past. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family’s heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation “Mabusi”. This laundering was accomplished with the help of another banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge. (Henry Kissinger is alleged to be P2)
When Pope John Paul I became Pope in 1978 he was informed about the allegations of wrongdoing at the Vatican Bank, and instructed Jean-Marie Villot, Cardinal Secretary of State and head of the papal Curia, to investigate the matter thoroughly. Pope John Paul I died after only 33 days in office, leading to claims that he had been murdered as a result of discovering a scandal. Pope John Paul I is generally accepted to have died from natural causes, although some medical experts believe that he may have died from a pulmonary embolism or an adverse reaction to the medication that he was taking rather than from a heart attack as was stated in original press reports of his death.
More on the Vatican Bank…
showdoc.php?org_id=843&doc_id=1821
But would you believe…..?
The Vatican Bank is under investigation for alleged involvement in a money-laundering scheme using accounts at one of Italy’s largest banks, according to a weekly investigative magazine.
Strangely, the money laundering is in the same timescale as Madoff’s Ponzi scheme run by Santander.
And lastly, just for good measure:
Bilderberg Group –
Ana Patricia Botin, Executive Chairman, Banesto; Vice Chairman, Urbis; Member of the Management Committee, Santander Group, Madrid
Emilio’s daughter.
Now, forgive me if I’m just stretching here but something smells here. Sure Madoff was a criminal – they all are. BUT, as we know, the criminals never get touched. They get off. MADOFF seems to be a scapegoat in my view.
Look at how many times Botin just walks away from any charges. Then look at how he’s had Rato (Spanish Government and IMF) in his pocket. They’re BOTH Jesuits. There is a strong connection to Angelo Caloia previously of the Vatican Bank (run by the Jesuits). The Spanish Jews have become Jesuits. Botin’s entire family were involved in this Madoff stuff and the Group as a whole had the largest exposure to it of ANY Bank/Fund while only 17M Euros of their own but $3.1Billion of clients’ money.
Yes Santander “made good” on some of the losses by their clients but not a lot at the end of the day. And what did they do? They offered Santander shares rather than the cash.
The bank booked a charge of 350 million euros against 2008 earnings for costs associated with the compensation program. The offer includes stock paying an annual yield of 2 percent and an agreement by clients to forgo any legal action and to keep Santander as their “preferred” bank as long as the shares stay in circulation.
So let’s just imagine for a moment that it actually was Santander and Botin/his family, who cashed in on the loss of their own clients to the tune of $3Billion or so. That cash rich injection could just allow for the buying up of a number of other banks now couldn’t it?
June 1st 2010 UPDATE:
VATICAN BANK UNDER INVESTIGATION
Santander Involvement –
THE “HUMAN RIGHTS ACT” DECEPTION
[ADDENDUM: I’ve been waiting a LONG time for ANYONE within the legal fraternity to challenge the logic of anything I’ve stated in this blog. While it’s been sent to Mr Ustych and others and i have challenged them to comment on it. Not a word! You might think “Why would they bother themselves with you?” I would say “Because there are sites which are legal and human rights sites which are trying to suggest the “freeman” stuff is all “quasi legal mumbo jumbo”. Of COURSE they would say this because, in legal language and legal form, this cannot possibly be acknowledged and it IS outwith “legalities” simply because it is EXPOSING the fiction and illogic and deception of the legal world. When these people say “This is not legal and, therefore, the argument would not hold up in court”, I say “Well of COURSE it wouldn’t! How can you argue logic and reality in a court which is entirely based upon fictions?”
This is why the legal fraternity – “the Brotherhood of the Inns” – cannot possibly refute or debate what is written here. They know it is FACT and not FICTION]
Good evening to you all!
ARE YOU HUMAN?
YES?
ARE YOU 100% SURE OF THAT?
YES?
WELL I HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL YOU, SHOW YOU AND PROVE TO YOU THAT REFUTES YOUR ASSUMPTION!
ACCORDING TO THE JUDICIARY. COURTS AND GOVERNMENT – AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ITSELF – YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY HUMAN AT ALL!
CRAZY SUGGESTION?
WELL LET’S JUST DETERMINE IF YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION SHALL WE?
But before we do, let me introduce you to a BARRISTER. A BARRISTER by the name of ALEX USTYCH. As you will see, Alex graduated from Law school at Durham University with a FIRST in Law! CLEVER LITTLE ALEX! As you will also notice, he is rather involved in Human Rights Law. One must, therefore, take it that Alex knows his stuff and you can’t pull the wool over on Alex.
So, it must be acknowledged by Alex that either:
1. He is fully aware of what I am about to tell you (and, therefore, our Alex plays the game of obscuring this fact from his clients and everyone else in this country of ours) or;
2, He really DOESN’T know his stuff and the wool HAS been pulled over his eyes all this time! Now, that would show just a tiny little fragment of incompetence don’t you think?
So, who’s going to go for number 1 as Alex’s answer and who would opt for number 2?
A bit of a conundrum for the poor guy don’t you think?
But, for the purposes of this blog, I am going to assume that Alex is not aware of what he props up in the name of “law” because I actually like the guy. I am sure he is really, at heart, a decent sort. EvEN THOUGH he doesn’t seem to have the cajonas to speak up for what he knows is right regarding a particular case.
So let’s begin shall we?
The Human Rights Act 1998. What a wonderful piece of legislation isn’t it? “Flawed” you say?….. You have no idea how “flawed” this piece of utter nonsense is!
It looks so authoritative doesn’t it? So professional! So governmental. It’s all about protecting your “RIGHTS” as a citizen isn’t it? – meanwhile part of the deception is in that very last sentence!
So Alex, are you saying that such a thing as “Human Rights” exists?
I’ll answer what I think Alex would reply:
“Yes indeed. What a strange and very objectionable thing to ask!”
Is that so Mr Ustych? Then let us move on shall we? Mr Ustych, have you heard of a young lady by the name of Jade Jacobs Brooks?
“No, I do not believe that I have”
[Meanwhile the judge, in this assumed court, asks the relevance of this line of questioning of our esteemed Barrister to which I reply: “It has every relevance your Honour. Please allow me to continue”]
Mr Ustych, Ms Brooks was born in Alicante, Spain to British parents while on holiday. Her story was reported in the press last year (2012) by various newspapers and also, the BBC. Jade and her parents arrived home in Britain and Jade was brought up in the UK with British parents YET, at the age of 16, she found that she could not obtain a passport or ID; neither could she get a job and, in fact, NO benefits of any kind could be conferred upon her. Benefits which are accorded to any and all “Human Beings” one would imagine, if one takes the “Human Rights Act” as being just that – HUMAN rights!
Can you offer the court any GOOD reason why she would find herself in such a predicament Mr Ustych? Considering your FIRST degree in law and your capability, I’m sure, within the field of Human Rights.
“Well….. um… no, I cannot make any suggestion without first understanding the full particulars of the case”
WHAT “CASE” Mr Ustych? It is clear cut. The girl had no “Human Rights”. I am asking you for suggestions of how and why this could be so? (meanwhile, as you will see, there could not possibly be a “case” which related to a non existent legal entity)
What if I were to add to the information just provided to you that Jade’s birth certificate, issued in Spain, was not recognised as valid within the UK? Would that help?
“Ah yes! If a person cannot be identified correctly, then it would not be possible to process the benefits which you say were not conferred upon her because, without registration, the person in question could not be given the specific benefits which would relate to her specific personhood”.
Ahh! I see! Thank you for that suggestion and explanation Mr Ustych. May I just take note of the fact that, nowhere in your answer did you use the words “Human” or “Human Being” but you have used the word “person” three times.
“Yes, using the word ‘person’ as is interchangeable with the word ‘human'”
Is that so Mr Ustych? Are the two words entirely interchangeable? Both having precisely the same meaning? Both perfect synonyms?
“Well, it is dependent upon the context within which one uses them and, in this context, I see no issue with using them interchangeably”
Ah! But I do Mr Ustych. You see, I would suggest to you that you have used the word ‘person’ rather than ‘human’ because, as you have clearly described, before one can be conferred benefits (purported to be “Human Rights”) one must be identified and registered. The United Nations documents in exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are clear on this:
EXHIBIT 1
http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR32/20-22.pdf://
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
So it is clear and unambiguous is it not, that a LEGAL identity ( a LEGAL PERSONALITY) must first be “conferred” upon the human being before that human being is considered to even exist! Please take note of exhibit 4:
EXHIBIT 4
LEGALLY, she did not exist! As a Human Being, she obviously did. But you will, obviously, point out (correctly I may add) that how is one’s rights (and we will refer to them as “rights” for the moment) to be protected if one cannot be identified. A good and valid point Mr Ustych – no doubt and no argument. However, it does, for the moment, have oneself considering why any “rights” should be different from one human being to another doesn’t it? Let’s consider that for just a moment using the words from your very own mouth Alex!
But a discussion of that detail would take up an immense amount of the court’s time so let’s just stick with the principles of all of this.
Tell me Mr Ustych: If I reported my Volvo as having been set alight by an extraterrestrial who appeared on the scene on a skateboard, would our law enforcement and/or a court accept this story when I applied for an insurance payout and the insurer would not payout?
“Of course not! This is now moving into the realms of fantasy!…. Your honour?”
JUDGE: “Mr Earthling, your line of questioning is becoming rather absurd. Please make your point or move on!”
Yes your honour, I am about to make my point. Please, Mr Ustych, humour me for one moment. In a single sentence, please explain why a court would not accept this story?
“Oh for goodness sakes! Because ALIENS do not exist Sir!”
So, if they do not exist Mr Ustych, then would it be fair to say they would also have no legal personality?
“Of course”.
And, as we have seen, one must have a legal personality – initially produced by one’s birth registration document – for the court (any court) to recognise the existence of such an entity. Am I correct?
“Yes”
So, legally, if one does not exist – an entity which is not recognised as existing within the legal system – then it is impossible to confer benefits upon such an entity, whether that entity is literally standing in court before a judge or not because the legal system (and judge) cannot “see” them. Am I correct?
“Yes! They do not exist in law!”
Then it MUST follow, Mr Ustych, that IF, for example, Miss Jade Jacob Brooks one day decided to stand in court before a judge, point a gun and fire a bullet right between his eyes, she could NOT be prosecuted for such an action.
“That is outrageous! Of course she would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!”
But Mr Ustych, you have just said that, without registration and, therefore, without a legal personality or identity, that Miss Jacobs Brooks would not exist! Just as is the fact shown by her story above.
“Of course she exists! She would prove her existence by her actions… this is ridiculous!”
She would prove her existence by her actions? Yet she would STILL not have a legal personality Mr Ustych. She proves her existence by her very actions everyday. Her act of BREATHING Mr Ustych. YET, the court and government will not recognise her as existing and they make the excuse of her not having a valid birth certificate and, thereby, not being a LEGAL PERSON!
So, my point to you Mr Ustych, is that, while Jade is demonstrably, a human being, that does NOT entitle her to the “Human Rights” within the Human Rights Act! It is not until she becomes recognised as a PERSON (a LEGAL PERSON) that ANY state will confer upon her such “rights”. It is then CLEAR that the term “HUMAN Rights” is a misnomer and a VERY deceptive one for very deceptive purposes as we shall see. What we have, in fact, is not Human Rights at all but LEGAL PERSON’S PRIVILEGES!
“So what’s the issue”? I hear many of you ask.
Well, for one thing, I sincerely hope it is clear that, from the above: IF THE LAW CANNOT “SEE” A HUMAN BEING SUCH AS JADE STANDING RIGHT BEFORE IT WITHOUT HAVING A PIECE OF PAPER TO PROVE SHE ACTUALLY EXISTS AND, THEREFORE, THE LAW CANNOT CONFER BENEFITS UPON A LEGALLY NON EXISTENT HUMAN BEING, THEN THE LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY TURN ROUND AND SAY IT THEN “SEES” HER IF SHE COMMITS A CRIME! IT IS RIDICULOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS TO SUGGEST THAT A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING CANNOT BE SEEN TO EXIST ON ONE HAND WHILE, ON THE OTHER, STATE SHE DOES EXIST! IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY!
But it is one which the legal profession will say and do absolutely anything to maintain!
So the girl can breathe, sing, dance (all actions of a living breathing human) and the law cannot “see” her! But if she picks up a gun, the law can “see” this?
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SINGLE CONTRADICTION DRIVES A STAKE THROUGH THE HEART OF WHAT IS PURPORTED TO BE “HUMAN RIGHTS”.
But there is so much more to this.
1. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have statehood. Why? For if there was no statehood then we would be absolutely free human beings with TRUE rights to travel and live ANYWHERE in the world that we choose WITHOUT the need for passports and a nationality (which the legal world and the UN state is a “human right”). I challenge ANY ONE OF YOU to state to any one of your governments that you do not WISH to be subject to such a limitation on your freedom to travel. Such “rights” are not “rights” at all. They are not even privileges. They are LIMITATIONS ON YOUR FREEDOM!
2. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we NEED to have an ID/Birth certificate/NI (UK) or SSN (USA) number to find and gain employment (purely for the purposes of taxation I may add). Again, a limitation on your freedom to contract. Seemingly, freedom to contract, then, is NOT a “human right”.
3. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy, ensures that we are taxed! That tax IS NOT for the purposes of paying down our debts and paying for infrastructure etc. It is purely for SERVICING (not paying off) a NATIONAL DEBT which need not, need never have but does, exist!
How/why? Read the following: The New Economy.
4. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us “contracted in” to abide by government policy which demands, by this “law”, that we shoulder the bail outs of corrupt Banking institutions globally. Such legislation, then, on behalf of the banking world, ensures that those who DO legislate for them are financially taken care of by a portion of that bailout/tax revenue which is paid to them in salaries, expenses, jobs with the boys etc.
5. The global structure of law, based upon this fallacy then has us pay ever increasing revenues for the supply of our water, gas, electricity, petrol, food, clothes – you name it – while we are also finding ourselves paying increasing taxes which, by the way, the tax laws are renewed every single year because they were first introduced on the basis that they were just to pay for a war and then would be dropped but the “Remembrancer” and the successive Chancellors of the Exchequer saw the benefit of such taxes. While the law has not been changed wrt the tax law having to be renewed every year, the bankers (Global central banks/IMF/BIS owners and controllers) WANT those taxes because they have our governments tied into the monetary system as it now exists. The present monetary system, however, is a con on such an enormous scale that every last politician, judge and banker who has promulgated the con, have perpetrated crimes on humanity of the most heinous sort.
But lastly, and oh so much more importantly, A CONTRACT (AND THE FREEDOM TO ENTER, OR NOT, INTO CONTRACT) IS BETWEEN TWO, OR MORE, “PERSONS” – under “Human Rights”, of course, this word “PERSONS” should be re-termed “HUMAN BEINGS” – AND EACH AND EVERY “PERSON”, WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM, IS FREE TO CONTRACT OR NOT TO CONTRACT.
EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE: THE FREEDOM TO CONTRACT WITH THE STATE! THERE, THEY DRAW THE LINE. IT IS THERE WHERE YOUR “HUMAN RIGHTS” AND THE WHOLE IDEA OF “HUMAN RIGHTS” COMPLETELY DISINTEGRATES INTO THE SHEER DECEPTION THAT IT IS.
THAT CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IS, IN FACT, YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHERE YOU REGISTER YOURSELF TO THE STATE. JUST AS YOU REGISTER YOUR CAR AND REGISTER MANY OTHER THINGS, YOU (OR YOUR PARENTS) HAVE REGISTERED YOU!
THIS IS WHY THE STATE OWNS YOU AND YOUR OFFSPRING. THIS IS WHY THE STATE CAN SEND IN THE POLICE AND THE DHSS TO REMOVE YOUR CHILDREN (sometimes this is a good thing for the child but there are many instances that it is not and may be done simply because you do not live, as a parent, the way the state demands you do).
Now, what would happen if you decided you wished to relinquish your statehood? And that you brought it to the state’s attention that the contract between you and they was void?
[For those of you reading this who suggest it is not a contract, please attempt to explain why? You see, there is one other issue: The state itself – please do part of the job to understand this by confirming what I am telling you here – is a “PERSON”. It is a LEGAL PERSON. If you wish to remain in willful ignorance of this and what it means, be my guest, however, what it means is this: The State as a “person” and you as a “person”, has us remember the basic premise of law. ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW!
Now IF that premise is to remain true, then you, as a free human being being free to contract, (I would hope the UN would agree but, of course, in this case they will not) or not to contract, with any and all other legal persons, have a god given right to accept or dismiss such a contract with the state OTHERWISE you are being coerced to contract with it.]
Now, the fact is we have all, inadvertently, contracted with the state. We did not understand or recognise the full implications of this contract. That being the case, we can categorically state that we were not given full disclosure of the terms of the contract.
IF A CONTRACT IS ENFORCED OR COERCED UPON YOU AND/OR IF THERE IS NO FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS OF ANY GIVEN CONTRACT, THE LAW STATES THAT SUCH A CONTRACT IS NULL AND VOID!
The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.
Now, some will argue that there is a legal premise which speaks of the “Supremacy” structure of the law where the law of nations is of more validity and power than the law which applies to citizens of that nation/any nation. I will simply ask you this: Did you, once more, agree in full knowledge, to abide by such? Also, who/what is it that has introduced such a premise? It wouldn’t be the very political class who are in government and agree these treaties and premises of law would it? Are all of these people not simply legal persons like you and I?
“Ah but there is something called ‘democracy’ where we vote these people into office (“power” as they call it) and that undermines the argument against this supremacy of the law of nations”. Well let’s attack this point for a moment:
The EU (an illegal institution under the Constitutional law of the United Kingdom I may add) now has, of all things, “legal personality” which means that it can CONTRACT as a single legal entity (on behalf of more than 500 million people while it is not even democratic in structure). The “contracts”, in this case, are called “TREATIES”. Now, the FACT is that, for the EU to have been given the powers it has by the nations within the EU, those powers had to be relinquished by each nation freely. If the signing of the treaties leading up to and including the Lisbon Treaty, were signed and agreed under any form of duress, then those treaties would be null and void!
Now, consider that in the context of us having given the power of entering such treaties to our government when, in fact, the UK’s population DID NOT WANT AN EU AND WERE NEVER MADE AWARE that, from 1972, all treaties signed were leading to the destruction of our own national sovereignty!
Further, and of great importance: For the state to have ANY control and influence on your life, you must contract with it and, just like the UK freely giving power and control upwards to the EU, that contract and that relinquishment of power and sovereignty by you MUST have been given freely and in full disclosure of the terms of the contract.
NEITHER OF THOSE TWO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT CRITERIA WERE FULFILLED IN THE CASE WHERE YOU AND I HAVE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE BY WAY OF REGISTERING OUR BIRTH!
If you wish to consider the above further, wrt to legal personhood of states, read the following blog: Destroying the mindgame
YOU ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE POLICED BY CONSENT?
However Dom, there is ONE important catch in this which undermines what you believe (and no the police you spoke to will not understand it like they understand very little as you know): The contract of the birth certificate has us all contracted to the state and the state gives us “free elections” to choose our government and, therefore, makes the argument (and shall enforce it!) that it is the “public” which, as a whole, gives the state and its police force our COMMUNAL consent. Thereby, you and I and anyone else simply standing up and saying “I do not consent” will not, in the state’s view, hold ANY water! I’m sorry Dom but that is how it is. The ONLY way of stripping them of these powers is for the nation, as a whole, to say “Just hold on one bloody second here!”.
One last point to focus on from the Human Rights Act 1998:
“YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE UNLESS WE WISH TO TAKE IT!”
2 c) in action lawfully taken (it’s THEIR law remember) for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Question: WHO decides whether or not something is classed as an insurrection?
Well let’s look at what “insurrection” means:
in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSHən/
|
Noun
|
|
|
Synonyms
|
So, let us assume that this country’s population (or a significant portion thereof) have finally had enough of these corrupt criminals which we know they are. We also know that each political party (even the BNP and UKIP) are in on the game because, although they are “tarnished” by the “Crown Tripod” as I call them (Libdem/Toy/Labour), both of these parties are allowed to exist. The Head of State and the Law as it exists, would never allow these parties to exist unless they played the game within the State rules. All of the parties exist to “guide” your wrath and gain support for various variations (yes that was on purpose) of the overall existing power base. They are all controlled opposition however because they will not (not one of them) discuss, debate or point you in the direction of the legal person and monetary system issues – which are the entire basis of your misery and control.
If people then set out of the controlled arena of political parties – sold to you as democratic and, if you have issues with how the country is run, “join or form a political party” – and rebel and have their say, en masse, out on the streets, then the state can call in the troops to “quell” what they shall term an “insurrection”. In “quelling” such, they have (through their Human Rights Act) given themselves the right to kill you!
There is one further interesting little point however. Note how the UK Human Rights Act Article 2 is based upon (but expands upon) the UN article 3 which simply states:
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Big difference huh? The UK State obviously seen a few little problems with not allowing it reason to kill you.
And notice the term “Security of PERSON”.
Then look at Article 6 in the UN declaration:
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Hahaha. They’re quite “brilliant” aren’t they? It does not state: “Everyone has the right to recognition before the law”. It states “Everyone has the right to recognition AS A PERSON before the law”.
Thank you your honour. I rest my case!
There is a saying: “You cannot fight fire with fire”. It applies to so many of life’s challenges while it also applies to this. You see, you cannot fight the law (or the legal establishment) with the law because it is they who say what the law is and is not. HOWEVER, you CAN totally destroy their PATHETIC presumptions by the use of LOGIC. Doing that, the entire house of cards comes crashing to the floor!
SO, WITH THAT, I HOPE THE POINT IS NOW FULLY PROVEN TO YOU THAT “HUMAN RIGHTS” IS NOTHING BUT HUMAN DECEPTION!
However, their own fundamental flaw to be attacked (HARD) is this:
“Everyone has the right to recognition AS A PERSON before the law”.
IF IT IS A “RIGHT” THEN EVERYONE (BAR NONE) HAS THE “RIGHT” TO WAIVE THAT “RIGHT”. Think about it. It’s plain as day. They could NOT argue against it (logically).
You hit a Judge with that and there is NOTHING he has in his armoury (except deception and brute force) to argue against it. If he did not offer you the right to waive your “right” then it is NOT a Right and he and the entire basis of law is exposed and compromised. The Judge and court has then, effectively, breached your Human Rights. But then, through the categorisation (please note the Barrister’s reference to my category of person once more in the video) of each individual human being as a specific category of “person”, the “law” is breaching your human rights every single day.
The conditioning of ETON’S little shits!
-
The British Government’s Hate speech
THE BOYS FROM ETON – THE ESTABLISHMENT’S NEW LITTLE LACKEYS. JUSTIFY MURDER, BOYS!
Damian Green MP
Mr Green,
I assume you have NOTHING to say regarding my (and many others) treatment under the “law” of the United Kingdom relating to the Breach of Contract by a legal personality known as a “Corporation”. I am in no way surprised at your lack of response.
However, I wish to bring something to your attention regarding the deceiving hypocrisy of who are MEANT to be MY Government Representatives as MY Parliamentary representative.
A few days ago, it would seem that a certain Lee Rigby was murdered on the streets of Woolwich, London. Since then, there has been an outcry by Members of Parliament for the introduction of what is colloquially known as “The Snooper’s charter”.
What the internet has to do with two men with issues making the decision to murder someone has to do with the internet is beyond me! Was there no hate? No wars? No murders? No politically motivated violence before the internet? Were, for example, the Irgun and friends influenced into terrorism, and blowing up the King David Hotel in the late 1940s, by the internet Mr Green? “We’re” quick to forget such when it suits us aren’t “we”?
Consider the over 100 people murdered in the streets of London every year. When was the last time I heard the government shout “It’s the internet” about those killings? When did the government suggest that the people who carried out the killings were influenced by the internet, the television, violent video games or some other influence? Where was the media outcry about any one of these other murders to the extent of that of Lee Rigby?
I’ll tell you where: NOWHERE!
Now why would that be do you think? Don’t try to pull the wool over MY eyes Mr Green! The reason is that there was political collateral to be made out of this and just ONE example of that “collateral” is the Government attempting to suggest that the internet should be more closely controlled. Now I wonder why they would feel so strongly about achieving that? Perhaps it has something to do with what Zbigniew Brzezinski (you have heard of him I assume?) stated recently: That people are becoming more politically active and it represents a threat to the existing status quo of who controls and who rules. If you’re not aware of this, I suggest you look up Mr Brzezinski (and possibly his writings such as “The Grand Chessboard” and “Strategic vision”). In the latter, Mr Brzezinski says the following:
Indeed, the changing distribution of global power and the new phenomenon of massive political awakening intensify, each in its own way, the volatility of contemporary international relations.
Now, unless one is incompetently minded – which I don’t assume for one moment that you are – one can see, quite clearly, why the British government would wish to have MUCH better control over the internet. After all, it is hard for them to maintain their power and control over the population while that population, everyday, sees the sheer never-ending corruption, nepotism and deception which those in government (on all sides of the political fence) involve themselves in.
However, to the crucial point of this communication Mr Green:
While our esteemed Parliament cry out for such control over that which the population can be exposed to (from the mistaken idea that people commit such atrocities, do so simply due to exposure of the “hate speech” and extremist ideologies which can be found on the medium) because they feel that “impressionable minds” can be influenced by such; I would state this –
WHAT THE HELL DO OUR GOVERNMENT CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING IS DOING?
The year is 2040. There have been riots in the streets of London after Britain has run out of petrol because of an oil crisis in the Middle East. Protesters have attacked public buildings. Several policemen have died. Consequently, the Government has deployed the Army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have been stopped but twenty-five protesters have been killed by the Army. You are the Prime Minister. Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral.
That question was set in an exam to boys of 13 years old in Eton Boy’s school!
Are you going to even consider suggesting that instilling such ideas into boys of 13 years of age (who, it is my guess, the present “establishment” consider as those most likely to move into political circles – after all they do don’t they? All the family connections, wealth and power. What else would most of the jacked up little shits do? I mean let’s be straight here shall we? We have a “Chancellor of the Exchequer who has a poor degree in Modern History. Not a single monetary or economics certificate to his name! While we have a “Prime Minister” who has as much flair, panache and gravitas as – well, frankly, as any other MP, Barrister, Judge or little morsel who came crawling out of private school to enter the world of politics and law. ZERO!) is NOT influential on their “impressionable minds”? This conditioning of boys with a question (and I’m sure there are many more such “moral” questions within their curriculum) which should never even be considered, is creating the impression in their minds that such murder of people who are anti-establishment (with bloody good reason) is quite acceptable. After all, our “Human Rights Act” allows for such murder by the state when the state decides (to protect itself) that, whatever activity it does not like, is a “riot” or an “insurrection”. “Lawfully taken” of course. It just so happens that it is the very state which decides what an “insurrection” is and what is “lawful”. Strange idea that is isn’t it? “We can murder you because we say it’s lawful”.
Indeed Mr Green, the United Kingdom is a free, democratic society! Get me a drink will you? It might calm my hilarity!
How about the POSSIBILITY (read probability) that it was not the INTERNET that influenced these two killers but MI5 who had been involved with them to one extent or the other for a period of 8 years?
Listen Mr Green, people are recognising the agenda in greater and greater numbers.
So, my expectation of you Mr Green – as MY representative in Parliament – is that you bring up this question IN parliament, making it clear that this abject hypocrisy and the conditioning, by way of “education” is unacceptable to the people of this country. I am one of those people and I am sure, if the population understood this sheer hypocrisy of its establishment, it would be less than happy! Do you think the people of the United Kingdom would not be outraged at the thought that their freedom of expression is being eradicated? As long as they keep subscribing to the bullshit that their vote for any one of 3 or 4 acceptable political parties is “democracy at work in a free society”, they won’t experience an “issue” with the British Government!
The British establishment: “”You see that box over there? That’s your democracy. Stay within that and you’ll be ok. Step out of it of course and you’re dead!” I wonder just how deep the British establishment’s hatred of its own people goes Mr Green?
The question is: Do you even consider yourself MY representative or have you been conditioned into believing you are, somehow, elevated to some position of “power” as our governments like to keep telling us that they are in!
Your CONSTITUENT,
Earthlinggb
UPDATE 28/5/2013:
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? MY BLOODY MP DIDN’T EVEN BOTHER TO READ PAST THE FIRST SENTENCE!!
They REPRESENT us? They LISTEN?? They are a fucking JOKE! Incompetent and impotent fools!
From: damian.green.mp@parliament.uk
To: earthlinggb
Subject: RE: The British Government’s Hate speech
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:57:10 +0000
Dear Earthlinggb,
Thank you for your latest email. As far as I can see from your previous emails you are now disputing the legal advice given to you by the barrister who looked at your case. You are of course free to do this but I have not responded because I am not legally qualified and therefore I cannot sensibly take sides in this dispute.
Yours sincerely,
Damian Green
SO MY REPLY:
Mr. Green,
What’s Genetically Modified? Our Parliament and Lords by the sound of things!
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)When I spoke to a colleague about this debate and my opposition to GM, she simply shrugged and said, “But it’s progress, and you can’t stop progress.” I do not accept that the commercialisation of GM crops is progress. I believe that it is a reckless experiment with our natural environment and human health—an experiment conducted by a handful of companies that have consistently made false claims for their products, evaded public scrutiny and resisted every attempt to regulate their behaviour.
GM technology was not introduced to deal with problems in this country or the developing world. It was developed by companies seeking to control agricultural practices that would boost their profits—
§Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)And their pesticides.
§Joan RuddockAnd their pesticides, as my hon. Friend notes from a sedentary position.
The apparently simple genetic modifications made to GM crops to ensure tolerance to their brand chemicals or the expression of insect toxins are quite unlike conventional breeding, contrary to what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said in his opening remarks. The constructs that create genetically modified organisms are designed to cross species barriers. They introduce foreign DNA, parts of bacteria and viruses, and often carry antibiotic resistance markers. They are inherently unstable, and are expressed in every part of the plant without the control mechanisms that affect the plant’s natural genome.
Yet, despite the obvious differences, the biotech industry has based its safety case on the concept of substantial equivalence—that is, that the GM product is substantially equivalent to the non-GM product. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment spoke about the peer review process, but there is no question of peer review in the substantial equivalence dossiers, as they are produced by the companies involved in GM.
I shall give an example. Last week, the Government voted in the EU Agriculture Council for a marketing consent to be given to GM sweetcorn Btll on the basis of substantial equivalence. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), last month told European Standing Committee C that the sweetcorn had undergone rigorous safety tests. However, Government scientists had not seen the complete1436scientific dossier—supplied, of course, by the biotech company—and there is no public access to the data provided.
Crucially, the testing of the Bt toxin was based on the natural bacteria and not the GM plant itself, even though unconnected insect trials have shown no adverse affects from Bt bacteria, but serious damage from Bt plant toxin. Furthermore, no details could be provided on allergenicity, despite increasing evidence of allergic reactions to GM products.
For example, in the US, a Bt maize called Starlink, which was designed for animal feed, got into the human food chain. Fifty people reported allergies, some of which were serious, and the company lost $1 billion in recalled food. In Germany, a pro-GM farmer fed his cattle Bt maize. Some of the cattle fell sick, and 12 died. Again, the company paid compensation, but denied liability.
Do the Government propose to continue to support the marketing of new GM foods in the face of such evidence, on the basis of substantial equivalence? My hon. Friend the Minister said that there is ongoing independent research into food safety. If so, why are approvals being given before we see the results of those ongoing experiments? I shall table a parliamentary question asking him to prepare a list of all the experiments that he says—and I believe him—are taking place.
Has there been any follow-up to the one study—at Newcastle university—in which human volunteers ate GM, and in which the GM material entered the gut bacteria of at least three people after only one meal? It is vital that we know what the follow-up experiments were. Frankly, I want to know what the Food Standards Agency is up to, because I am not convinced that it has carried out its public duty to protect public health in that respect. If it is carrying out further independent research, why did it say that the dossier provided under the novel food regulation for sweetcorn Bt 11 was satisfactory?
I turn to the environmental issues that are the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister. I give him credit for responding to the many concerns that we have raised with him and I give his Department credit for initiating the field-scale evaluations. Of course the trials have value in themselves, but the Environmental Audit Committee pointed out that
the scope of the trials was very narrow and the results cannot be regarded as adequate grounds for a decision to be taken in favour of commercialisation”.I could not agree more.The experience of commercial growing of GM crops in north America and Argentina reinforces that statement. Argentina’s experiment with GM is proving a disaster. That was highlighted when a toxic cloud, caused by farmers using a cocktail of powerful chemicals in a desperate bid to control the weeds in their GM soya, enveloped a rural village. It is worth repeating what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said—that throughout Argentina GM farmers are now using twice the level of chemicals that conventional soya farmers are using. GM farmers are also resorting to the pernicious pesticides paraquat and atrazine to control herbicide-resistant weeds.
1437A similar pattern of increasing chemical usage has emerged in Canada with GM canola—or oilseed rape, as we know it. Contamination of non-GM crops has wiped out the organic canola industry and 95 per cent. of conventional canola seed is now contaminated by GM.
The lessons for the UK are clear. Experience to date indicates that GM crops do not fulfil the promises of less chemical use or consistently higher yields, and contamination of non-GM and organic crops and seeds is the norm. The Minister mentioned cotton and the reduced chemical use, but that has been the pattern of all other GM crops—an initial reduction in chemicals used, then year-on-year increases. There have also been spectacular failures of GM cotton crops in some developing countries. GM cotton does not have a clean bill of health.
The challenge for the Government, in the face of their willingness to permit the growing of even one GM crop in this country, is how to guarantee consumer choice. Can the Minister guarantee that Britain’s growing organic industry will not only be protected, but expanded? Can he guarantee the purity of seed stocks? The key issues are liability and co-existence. Rules must be enshrined in statute, as the Agriculture and Environment and Biotechnology Commission has made clear, because voluntary agreements will not work.
Most importantly, who will be liable when non-GM or organic products are contaminated with GM? The biotech companies have said that they will not pay, and the insurance companies have said that they will not insure. How will the Government’s commitment to sustainable farming and the organic action plan survive if GM crops are planted commercially? The Minister said that maize will be safe because it does not cross-pollinate and its seeds do not survive the winter. But we know that contamination occurs through farm machinery, in transport and in other ways. Nothing is safe unless we have adequate separation distances and a proper liability regime.
Are the Government deaf to the wishes of consumers, 86 per cent. of whom have said that they are not happy with the idea of eating GM food? How can we ensure choice? GM can be detected at the level of 0.1 per cent. and that is the current benchmark used by supermarkets for their GM-free products. To guarantee future production to that level, seed purity must be maintained. Do the Government intend to support the EU proposal for 0.3–0.5 per cent. seed purity, which would jeopardise all future attempts to meet the standard 0.1 per cent. that is now accepted for the end product?
In only a few minutes, it is impossible to do justice either to this subject or to the comprehensive briefing materials that have been supplied by Friends of the Earth, Five Year Freeze, the Soil Association, Gene Watch UK and the Consumers Association. The Government have had the benefit of a huge amount of advice from their many experts, but none of it is conclusive. The science remains uncertain, the economics unproven and the public hostile, and the myth that GM will save the starving is well on the way to being exploded, yet Ministers constantly vote in European Councils for marketing consents for new GM foods to be sold in this country and were rescued from 1438their desperate decision on the commercialisation of GM maize only by the company’s decision to pull out of the UK.
I appeal to my colleagues to think again, to use the time that is now available for truly independent research on GM, to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and to establish a statutory framework for co-existence and liability that will guarantee consumer choice and a future for sustainable farming and safe food.
§Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD)It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). She has taken a consistent approach and always asks responsible questions on this subject. Debates on GM in the Chamber are always richer for her contribution.
As the Minister rightly said in his opening remarks, the GM debate has been characterised by extremes, although they are not represented in the Chamber; neither the scientific cavaliers nor the blinkered Luddites have appeared in any GM debate in which I have been involved in this place, although there may be different perspectives on how sound the science should be before decisions should be taken. That is very much the nub of the issue that we are debating. Some people may be less cautious about progress on the issue, but no Member who has taken part in the debate has taken either a blinkered or a cavalier approach, which is encouraging.
Beyond A-levels, I make no great claim to have significant scientific qualifications that would enable me to pontificate on the subject, so I speak as a nonscientist. In the context of the decisions that have to be made, the scientific focus seems to be on the environmental consequences rather than those for human health, although questions have been put about the human health aspects.
We might consider the US population as a pilot study for the impact of GM on human health. There are many Cornish émigrés in the USA and I have many family connections there. I love the place and the people tremendously, although I do not share their life style or their political view of the world. We must assume that their current political viewpoints are not the result of eating GM food, so we need other evidence to prove the risks to human health.
We already know about the possible environmental risks due to the release of GM, so it is appropriate that there should be robust scientific evidence to prove that a GM product would not have an adverse affect on biodiversity or the wider environment. The Government have largely accepted that approach.
The Minister knows that I remain extremely unhappy with the way in which the Government have handled such debates in this, the pre-eminent debating and scrutiny Chamber in the United Kingdom. I have put my views on record on many occasions, and the cross-party motion that I sponsored—motion 25 on today’s Order Paper—certainly emphasises the point that hon. Members in all parties wish the Government to be a little more transparent and open in engaging with such debates in the Chamber.
1439We suggest that the Government table a substantive motion, with a vote, for debate on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members can take part and express their views about the Government’s approach not just to GM crops and GM foods, but to the whole GM issue, as it affects this country and the decisions that the Government—or at least Government agencies, such as the Food Standards Agency—have to make on our behalf. Such a debate would allow us to give the Minister evidence of the Government’s inconsistent approach to GM.
I have raised the issue at business questions, but on 29 January the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford received the following answer from the Leader of the House:
as soon as we are in a position to do so we are committed to having a debate. I am sure that there will be no question of proceeding with any decision until the debate has occurred.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 398.]That clearly indicates that we were due to have the debate before the decision was made, not after the statement to the House on 9 March, and I protested about that to the Secretary of State.Although I am sure that the Minister is tired of hearing me say this, I must emphasise that, on that issue and that of the statement on single farm payments, it is simply not good enough for DEFRA Ministers to come to the House to treat the Chamber as a notice board, rather than a debating chamber. Some of us largely support the approach that the Government are taking in both respects, and they would find the debate far better and more consensual if they were able to bring such issues to the House, engage with it and allow open scrutiny, rather than treating the House as a notice board for an hour during a statement.
Despite what the Minister told me earlier, the statement is the only time that the Government have given to the issue. All the Adjournment debates, all the scrutiny in the Select Committees and all the European Standing Committee debates on the issue have resulted from other Committees and Back Benchers bringing these matters to the Government’s attention. I am sorry to labour that point, but I hope that I am driving it home, so that the Minister and Department take it on board and do not make the same mistake again.
A number of issues were raised in the statement, and the Minister has dealt with some of them to an extent. The Government have decided to accept that Chardon LL maize can be grown in the United Kingdom. They expected that it would be grown from the spring of next year, but the Secretary of State said in her statement of 9 March that Bayer would need to submit fresh evidence if it wanted to renew the licence from October 2006. At the time, I asked—I do not think that the Minister has answered this—why it would be acceptable to grow that maize in the spring of 2005, but not in 2007. There was a further question about the weight of evidence. Given that new evidence will be required for Chardon LL GM maize to be grown in the UK from October 2006, will new evidence be required for other types of GM maize and, if so, what evidence? I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but do the Government believe that, although the industry has made it clear that 1440it is not prepared to fund a liability scheme, one should nevertheless be put in place? The Government are not prepared to fund such a scheme, and I doubt whether the farming industry is prepared to do so across the board, so there is a logjam. If the issue remains unresolved, does that mean that there can be no commercialisation of GM in this country?
§Mr. MorleyI am happy to clarify the position as far as I can at this stage in the process. The Government have made it clear that there should be a liability scheme, just as there should be a co-existence scheme, and I have outlined to the House the steps being taken to put them in place. If, after consultation, a liability scheme is put in place and if it is determined that it should be based on an industry contribution, it is up to the biotech industry to decide whether it wants to operate under those conditions—that is the choice that it must make.
§Andrew GeorgeI am grateful to the Minister, but clearly some farmers and growers will suffer unintended consequences as a result of the decision on the commercial growing of GM and may be put out of business. It is therefore important to reassure people who want to retain their edge in the marketplace as non-GM organic growers that they will not be undermined, and that there is a liability scheme to which they can appeal if they are affected. I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance, and I look forward to the Government’s publication of the consultation documents on the liability and co-existence schemes, both of which are fundamental to the future of the industry.
The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned beekeepers. The Minister raises his eyebrows, but perhaps he will clarify the position.
§Mr. MorleyI am grateful for an opportunity to do so. Under the thresholds agreed by the EU, food is deemed to be GM only if its GM content is over 0.9 per cent. Honey could not exceed that level, so it could not be labelled as GM.
§Andrew GeorgeI am sure that the beekeepers of the UK will be reassured by that explanation. They would not want the GM content of any of their products to exceed 0.1 per cent.—the organic standard that some people believe should be the absolute threshold—so I am sure that the Minister will receive further correspondence from them.
For regions and localities that wish to maintain their market edge the establishment of GM-free zones mentioned by the Secretary of State in her statement on 9 March will be extremely important. There are many places, including my own area of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where the majority of growers want to take full advantage of being able to promote their product as GM free. What statutory support will be available for them? The Secretary of State suggested that the matter would be kept under review and that she would consult EU colleagues about the introduction of more robust measures. That is extremely important.
1441If the Government intend to introduce measures to protect farmers, or at least to ensure that growers and farmers have the option of trying to dissuade other growers who may be considering growing GM in their vicinity, it would be interesting to hear what mechanisms might be put in place to allow that to happen. Because a few farmers and growers want to remain GM-free, we should not take the view that no GM should be grown in the UK, but when all the assurances have been given and the Government have made a proper decision based on sound science, there should still be the opportunity for local measures to be taken to protect growers and to enable them to maintain clear market advantage.
§Mr. DrewAs the hon. Gentleman knows, I tabled an early-day motion on the possibility of introducing buffer zones for pesticide use. I know he had some difficulties with aspects of that early-day motion. I spoke to the National Farmers Union, which thought it would be impractical to operate buffer zones for pesticides in this country because land space is so tight. If it is impossible for pesticides, how does the hon. Gentleman think such a measure would operate for GM?
§Andrew GeorgeI sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I am not a spokesman for the NFU or any agricultural body. Establishing buffer zones for pesticides should be a great deal easier, given that they would not be wind blown, one hopes, whereas pollen seeds could he carried very long distances. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put his question to others.
§Ms WalleyIn the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments about commercial growers and the ways in which organic commercial growers could maintain their integrity, what does he have to say about people who grow organically for the sheer joy of it? There are hundreds of thousands of farmers who grow commercially, but just as many people who grow in their own gardens. What about people who belong to organic associations and want to carry on growing organic produce in their gardens?
§Andrew GeorgeThat is a good point. I am not saying that commercial growers are the only people who should have a say. All those who are engaged in growing and have an interest of one type or another—not merely a commercial interest—should have a say in the way in which policy is developed in the locality. I hope the Government will take that on board when they introduce measures to support the establishment of GM-free zones.
On 9 March the Secretary of State said that Chardon LL maize could be grown only if it is
managed as in the trials, or under such conditions as will not result in adverse effects on the environment.”—[0fficial Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1382.]Although that has been put off as a result of the decision of a commercial company, so we are told, what conditions other than those in the trials would be deemed not to result in adverse effects on the environment, and who will take that decision?The Government will find themselves under a great deal of pressure following last week’s announcement from the US Administration challenging the 1442moratorium in the EU and threatening to impose a £1 billion fine on the EU for the moratorium. On 28 April 2004, an article in the Daily Mail—not my regular read—stated:
America opposes full labelling because it is concerned that once consumers know a product contains GM ingredients they will boycott it, so harming U.S. exports.The UK Government have an opportunity to show leadership both in Europe and in the US, and the criticisms that they have behaved like a poodle with regard to the US are possibly unfair. GM offers an admirable opportunity for the UK to use its strong and special relationship with the US to show not only that the UK is proceeding on the grounds of sound science and an appropriate moratorium, but that proper choice for consumers in purchasing or consuming any food product is of fundamental importance, and I hope that the Government argue strongly on that front.We cannot take future decisions at a speed that precludes a responsible and cautious approach. Decisions must clearly be based on sound science, and consumers must be presented with an informed choice. The Government must be congratulated on consulting the public and undertaking field-scale trials and scientific and commercial reviews.
§Gregory BarkerWhy must the Government be congratulated on consulting the public when they patently ignore what the public says? What is the point of such a consultation?
§Andrew GeorgeI am doing my very best to sugar the pill that I am offering the Minister on this issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have criticised the Government for mistiming the public consultation, which was concluded before the publication of essential science on which there should have been a public debate. I take his point that it is absurd to consult the public before the farm-scale trial evaluations report and before the commercial and scientific reports are produced. However, the Government have gone further than many of us expected, given that elements within the Government are more pro-science than the Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
§Gregory BarkerPro-science?
§Andrew GeorgeI am sorry. I meant pro-GM.
The Government must take it on board that in future they must gather the evidence and then consult not only the public but this House.
§Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royton) (Lab)I begin by declaring an interest in an organic retail firm. I also pay tribute to the Environmental Audit Committee report, which was thoughtful—not being a speed reader, I thought that it deserved more than one day’s contemplation and that it should have been taken into account before decisions were made.
Having listened to the debate, the central question is why the Government are so anxious to support GM in the face of all the pressures to the contrary. First, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the public do not want GM. If the Government want to restore trust, it does not 1443help to have a nationwide consultation, find out that 85 per cent. of people do not want GM crops in this country and then proceed in the other direction. Secondly, the supermarkets will not stock it because there is no market in it.
Thirdly, even the biotech companies are pulling out. I am referring not only to the withdrawal of Bayer CropScience from the Chardon LL application, but to other biotech companies pulling out even from research trials, which have slumped from 140 two years ago to 42 last year and just one this year.
Fourthly, even farmers’ initial enthusiasm has begun to wane. The claim that yields would increase and pesticide use would decrease has turned to dust—literally so in the case of the Argentine pampas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred. That area, which contains a quarter of global GM production, now faces ecological catastrophe as a result of soil erosion. Charles Benbrook, the former head of the agricultural division of the US National Academy of Sciences—I would regard that as a very reliable authority—has found that over the past eight years pesticide use has increased by 50 million lb in the US, where two thirds of the world’s GM crops are grown. I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is despite what has happened in relation to herbicide-tolerant maize, and it is caused by volunteers, super-weeds and increasing resistance from new strains of weeds.
Fifthly, even the Government’s wider policies are incompatible with GM. In my view, their central agricultural policy, apart from getting rid of the common agricultural policy, is to generate sustainable agriculture in this country—they are absolutely right to do so—and to implement the excellent Curry report. That is not consistent with promoting GM, not least because of the high and increasing use of chemical pesticides. Moreover, the Government—including, notably, the Prime Minister—have repeatedly made it clear that they support a major extension of organic crops and have pledged themselves to more than double by 2010 the percentage of organic food that is consumed and has been cultivated in this country. That, too, is incompatible with GM, because cross-contamination by GM crops will wipe out the organic sector. There is no doubt that within the small confines of farming in this country that will happen, as it has on the Canadian prairies.
Given all that, why are the Government still so hellbent on GM, apart from the well known fact that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are so keen on it? The only answer appears to be—
§Mr. DrewMy right hon. Friend did valuable work on this when he was Environment Minister. Does he agree that the most worrying aspect is that the companies are in a win-win situation, because as they supply the pesticides, they have a monopoly not only on the seeds but on the support that goes with them?
§Mr. MeacherI am entirely aware of why the companies are in favour of GM. If one can monopolise the supply of seeds every year, as well as the pesticides that the seed is genetically engineered to resist, one has made it and the potential for an unprecedented bonanza opens up. However, I am talking about a completely different matter, namely the Government.
1444The only answer to my question appears to be this: Ministers say that under EU law they cannot reject a crop unless it can be shown that it constitutes a risk to the environment or to human health, and the line is that that has not been demonstrated. In my view, that is the heart of the current contention over GM policy. Relatively little evidence is available to promote the conclusions because it has deliberately not been sought. However, even the little that exists is damning.
The farm-scale evaluations, even with their narrow remit, for which I do not apologise, show that GM oilseed rape and beet are worse for the environment. I submit that the same would probably be true of maize if a less toxic herbicide than atrazine had been used on conventional maize. That will have to happen in future because of the EU ban. Of course, we now have the time—because GM crops will not be planted in this country for several years—to find out by replicating the trials.
It is known from the chief scientific adviser’s review panel report that, after GM crops have been sown, soil pollution can persist for up to 16 years before it is safe to plant conventional or organic crops. It is known that super-weeds and gene stacking generate huge and potentially long-term insuperable problems in north America. It is known that if farmers sought to maximise commercial yields, which they do in the real world by spraying more often or using stronger mixes, it would be bound to create substantial harm to the environment. Let us be frank: it is known that co-existence is impossible because no one can state a separation distance that guarantees the protection of conventional or organic crops from cross-contamination.
If the Government were genuinely so minded, there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that the reasons that I have outlined are sufficient and consistent with EU and international law to reject GM crops because of their proven adverse impact on the environment. Those arguments could also be used in the case of the World Trade Organisation.
The evidence for the impact on human health is slowly accumulating. In my view, there is already more than sufficient to argue the case on the precautionary principle, which is written into EU food law, that GM food should not be allowed to enter the human food chain until significant further research is done. My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said that there was no evidence of adverse effects on human health from eating GM foods. The reason for that is that no one has looked for them. I repeat the well known phrase that the absence of evidence does not represent evidence of absence. It is incredible but true that no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies exist on the human health effects of GM food.
However, we know that DNA recombination technology is inherently unstable and leads to substantial scrambling of foreign and host DNA at the sites of integration, with attendant unpredictable risks. We know that the much used cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV 35S promoter was widely incorporated into GM crops before its unsafe properties became known. It not only possesses a recombination hot spot, but it is 1445promiscuously active in making genes over-express in species throughout the living world, including human cells.
It is clear that the doctrine of substantial equivalence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford eloquently referred and which was based on a highly prejudicial decision by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1994 and used thereafter as a device to circumvent direct trials of the effects of GM foods on human health, is—I do not mince my words—a scam. It should be dropped if any public trust in the process is to be secured.
We also know that in the very few cases involving human or animal tests in which the results were seriously disturbing, the research was closed down and no further action was taken. My hon. Friend referred to some of those cases. In the Newcastle study, in which a sample was fed a single meal of GM soya, the GM DNA survived almost intact and transferred to the gut bacteria, which could compromise antibiotic resistance. The Pusztai study found that GM potatoes with snowdrop lectin damaged every organ system of rats, resulting especially in a thickening of the stomach lining, which could be—I say only “could be”—a precursor of cancer. My hon. Friend also referred to the case in which a dozen dairy cows died on a farm in Hesse in north Germany after eating Syngenta’s Bt 176 maize. Syngenta paid the farmer compensation, which might be taken as admitting liability.
The most worrying thing is that, in all those cases, the results were simply rubbished by the scientific establishment as flawed, and none was ever followed up—as normally happens in the scientific world—with further tests to confirm or refute the original findings. In other words, there was a preference for personality vilification rather than genuine scientific inquiry, and I greatly deplore that. All that that succeeds in doing is giving the impression that there is something to hide. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government have given that impression through their handling of the Chardon LL maize research at Reading university.
What we do know is that GM maize from the FSE trials was removed secretly at night two years ago, to be used as cattle feed and to test the effects on the cows. We were told at the time that the results would be published, peer reviewed and presented to the regulatory authorities. Two years on, none of that has happened. Why? The strong suspicion is that the results were so unpalatable to the GM industry that they were suppressed. When are the Government going to give us the results of those tests and get them peer reviewed—
Bank worker Stephanie Bon and the £4000/hr Jesuit
What’s higher in the corrupt religiously-controlled banking
establishment than a Jew/Zionist?
The JESUIT Club!
Bank-worker-Stephanie-Bon-fired-Facebook-post-Lloyds-boss-4k-hour-salary.html
Who was REALLY behind the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme?
SANTANDER!
Please read: santander-a-banking-giant-out-of-the-blue
Who’s this guy António Horta-Osório?
Ex Santander.
AND, ANOTHER Jesuit! AND ex Goldman Sachs: It’s a very small and tightly knit community we have here as you can see.
Horta-Osório started his career at CitiBank Portugal where he was head of Capital Markets, while simultaneously working as an assistant professor at Universidade Católica Portuguesa. He then worked for Goldman Sachs in New York and London, focusing on corporate finance in Portugal. In 1993, he joined Santander as chief executive of Banco Santander de Negocios Portugal.
He graduated in Management and Business Administration from the Universidade Católica Portuguesa, and has an MBA from French business school INSEAD – where he was awarded the Henry Ford II prize – and an AMP (Advanced Management Programme) from Harvard Business School. He is married with two daughters and one son.
The connections between INSEAD and the Jesuit Order (or “Society of Jesus”) are many. I’ll leave you to do your own research there however because to put every item of research onto these blogs would be immensely time consuming. Think of them as “pointers” from which you can choose whether to follow the path or not.
Further, the UCP was established by Jesuits:
The Catholic University of Portugal (better known in Portugal as UCP- Universidade Católica Portuguesa or just “a Católica”) was established in 1967 by decree of the Holy See (Lusitanorum Nobilissima Gens), at the request of the Portuguese Bishops’ conference and under Concordat Law.
Its first constituent Faculty was the Jesuit-owned and run Faculty of Philosophy of Braga (Northern Portugal). However, the University was soon extended to Lisbon where it opened, in 1968, the Faculty of Theology and, in 1971, the Faculty of Human Sciences.
Now, there’s an interesting little nugget of info about these Jesuit Private Universities which I found and it is this:
The oldest non-state-run university, the Universidade Católica Portuguesa – UCP (Catholic University of Portugal), a catholic private university (concordatory status) with branches in the cities of Lisbon, Porto, Braga, Viseu, and Caldas da Rainha, was founded before the others, in 1967, and officially recognized in 1971. UCP offers some well-recognized degrees and is reputed for economics, law and business management degrees it awards at its Lisbon branch. Other degrees awarded by UCP, like biotechnology and dental medicine, amassed increasing success and popularity since the 2000s. After the Carnation Revolution of 1974, in the 1980s and 1990s, a boom of educational private institutions was experienced in Portugal and many private universities started to open. Most private universities had a poor reputation and were known for making it easy for students to enter and also to get high grades. In 2007, several of those private universities or their heirs, were investigated and faced compulsory closing (for example, the infamous Independente University and Internacional University closings, and the Moderna University scandal) or official criticism with recommendations that the state-managed investigation proposed for improving their quality and avoid termination.
You see, it’s like the Etons and the Oxfords and Cambridge and London School of Economics, Yale, Harvard etc. Think about it: Do you believe George W Bush was an intellectual giant? Or even Bill Clinton the RHODES SCHOLAR? Or Tony Blair or Brown? Do you see high intelligence in David Cameron for goodness sakes?
No. They just so happen to have come from the right fallopian tubes in terms of lineage. Such people are put in the right schools. They leave and their lineage, family connections and the fact they even ATTENDED these schools is all they need.
Similarly Horto here. While, like Saif Ghaddafi at the LSE practically has his PhD written for him, these Universities make it easy for the right students. They have no greater gift or talent they simply have the connections. As the old adage goes: “It’s not what you know…”.
“I spent four years at CitiBank but I always wanted to deepen my academic background and learn more about business so I applied to INSEAD to do an MBA. For me, INSEAD was the only place to do an MBA for two reasons – its reputation and the quality of the students it attracts.”
Ain’t that the truth Antonio! All about “reputation” and “quality” of students NAMES!
Meanwhile, for the guy who’s getting paid over £13M a year to make Lloyds a “real winner” WHILE IT IS STATE BACKED BY THE WAY, here we have him selling off his shares he has just literally been given by the bank! So you tell me? Where’s his faith in himself?
The new chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY.L –news) has sold a batch of shares in the state-backed lender less than a month after taking the job.
António Horta-Osório, who took over as Lloyds chief executive at the start of March, on Thursday sold 175,166 shares in the bank, raising £102,910.
The shares represented just under half of those recently granted to him on joining the bank from Spanish bank Santander (Madrid:SAN.MC – news) , where he had run its UK operations until late last year.
Mr Horta-Osório’s share sale came a day after details of his £13.3m pay package were revealed in the latest Lloyds annual report.
Lloyds-boss-António-Horta-tele-3356945586.html?x=0
So let’s get this right:
“Hey Antonio! You da man! You’re going to take this firm to its height and so we’re going to compensate you with a nice stockholding in the company! By the time you’ve finished, that stock is going to be worth a fortune! We have entire faith in you that you’re going to triple the sharevalue – after all, that’s what we’re paying you £4k an hour for!”
And Antonio trots down to his broker and sells the shares within moments of receiving them! You couldn’t make this shit up!
Taking the Santander gang along with him:
Antonio Horta-Osorio raids Santander again
Horta-Osorio joins a bank that’s been shrinking following a taxpayer-funded rescue. Lloyds has sold assets, among them its Bank of Scotland Integrated Finance investment unit and cut more than 22,000 jobs since its rescue. The bank still has to sell 600 branches by 2013 to comply with European Union state aid rules. In all, Lloyds plans to shrink its balance sheet by 200 billion pounds by 2014.
Government Inquiry
At Lloyds, Horta-Osorio will also face a government inquiry into competition among British lenders. The panel, led by John Vickers, may decide to recommend breaking up some of Britain’s banks. Lloyds has a 28 percent share of the mortgage lending market following its takeover of HBOS.
He will also have to cut the lender’s dependence on about 120 billion pounds of central bank funding and oversee the reduction of the government’s 41 percent stake in the lender, analysts said.
“We have appointed a very well-qualified person to this job,” Prime Minister David Cameron’s spokesman Steve Field told reporters in London. “It is in the taxpayer’s interest that the bank is run well,” he said.
lloyds-names-santander-s-antonio-horta-osorio-as-ceo.html
“We will be able to turn around this bank into the next phase of its development and this will be good news for the taxpayers, the employees and ultimately the U.K. economy,” Horta-Osorio told reporters today.
Earth calling Lazarowicz! LSE STRIKES AGAIN!
From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
CC: darlinga@parliament.uk
Subject: LSE “strikes” again!
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:30:25 +0000
Dear Mark,
CAN YOU PUT 2+2 TOGETHER?
Please read this article in the Daily Mail:
Gaddafi-supported-Blairs-cronies-ex-MI6-chiefs-LSE-millions.html
Then please scroll down to something I said to you earlier re the LSE – It’s highlighted in BOLD.
Then PLEASE open your EYES!
I mean seriously, you have got to be slightly questionable in your powers of logic and deduction if you are not now putting together a very obvious picture. Or is it ALL just “coincidence” Mark? haha
Earthling
From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Reply please.
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 17:05:48 +0000
Dear Mark,
For your information, others have been asking precisely the same questions based upon my questions to you. The following are replies (not answers) which have been received to date. There are others awaited.
Charlotte Lesley (Tory)
“Thank you for your email about the role of certain Ministers in the years before the financial crisis. You raise some interesting questions.
I have forwarded a copy of your email to the Treasury as i feel that they would be better able than i to answer the in depth nature of your questions. I will contact you again when I receive a response.
Yours sincerely..”
Dear Mrs X
Firstly I would like to apologise for the lateness of my response to your email of 16th October 2010. It has taken some time for my office to try and get any form of reasoned response from those you indicated in your email.
Even now, Im afraid that I have not been able to get to the bottom of your allegations. Mssrs, Darling, Blair, Brown etc. are not going to give me, a conservative member of parliament, anything by the way of an explanation as to their actions or motives for something they may or may not have done up to 12 years ago!
All I can suggest is that you present your views directly to those you named in the email for them to answer to you, a member of the UK electorate.
As a general rule though, between 1997 and 2010 Labour seriously mishandled the economy.
When labour came to power the deficit was much lower than it is today. It was 3.4 per cent of GDP IN 1996-97 and 0.7 per cent in 1997-98. When they left it was the largest on record, 11.1 per cent in 2010-11
In Nay 1997 net debt was £351 billion.In April 2010 net debt was £893.4 billion.This is an increase of 155 per cent.
On 7th May 1999, Gordon Brown announced that he was planning to sell off 400 tonnes of gold at a 20-year low in the market- now nicknamed the ‘Brown Bottom’ by gold traders. Brown sold off Britain’s gold for between $256 and $296 an ounce, raising $3.496 billion ((£2.343 billion at the then exchange rate). Following that the gold price more than quadrupled to $1,234 an ounce.
Brown also consistently undermined our pensions system. Ros Altman, a former pensions adviser to Tony Blair, said Gordon Brown “knowingly destroyed what was once one of the greatest pension systems in the world and he did it deliberately.”
They also broke a series of promises. The government said that there were no plans to raise taxes, and yet Brown doubled the tax rate for the poorest by scrapping the 10p starting rate in the 2007 Budget.
Brown also consistently promised ” no return to boom and bust” but the UK had the longest and deepest recession on record, declining for six consecutive quaters with a total fall in GDP OF 6.2 per cent.
Clearly all of us can feel betrayed by this mishandling of our economy and the destruction of our pensions by the last administration. I cannot say that it was as delberate as some would seek to imply, but something was truly amiss in the way that the officials and politicians reacted to the easy credit conditions that were unleashed after 2001. Unfortunately, it is the current government that is having to take the harsh decisions to try and correct these mistakes and put the UK back on to a healthy fiscal and economic track.
Thanks again for finding the time to write to me on this matter
Best wishes
Adam
Aadam Holloway
Member of Parliament for Gravesham
As you can see, Mr Holloway likes to keep it firmly within the left/right, tory/labour paradigm. He hasn’t a clue how to reply so he sticks to the same well oiled party political ways. But this transcends party politics Mark and we will be ensuring that Mr Holloway and others like him begin to understand this while he will be asked, politely, to get his finger out, stop talking nonsense and get some answers. Meanwhile, you are way ahead of anyone else on this because you’ve lodged these questions before anyone else. We’re now at a 1/4 of a year mark and still no answers however.
Darling wished to be “on the level” with people. I hate to say this but as you know, I speak quite bluntly now: “on the level my ass” if he will refuse to answer these questions. That goes for any of our MPs and Government Ministers who refuse to answer or evade the questions.
I look forward to the well constructed, detailed reply giving full and frank answers Mark.
Regards,
Earthling
> From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 08:06:14 +0000
> Subject: Reply please.
>
> Dear Earthling
>
> Thank you for your email. I am still awaiting a reply from the Chancellor on your query. I have already followed this up with his office. Once I have that, I intend to respond in detail to the points you have raised.
>
> However, I take this opportunity to advise you a further Early Day Motion on Depleted Uranium has now been submitted in the current parliamentary session, and I have given it my support. The text of the motion and the signatories is given below.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Lazarowicz MP
>
>
>
>
>
>
> EDM 825
>
>
>
> UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON DEPLETED URANIUM
>
> 13.10.2010
>
>
>
List of signatories removed for the sake of brevity.
>
>
>
>
> That this House notes that the British Army maintains depleted uranium (DU) munitions within its arsenal and that 1.9 tonnes of DU rounds were fired by UK forces during Operation Telic in Iraq; recognises the continuing news stories emerging of higher rates of childhood leukaemia and birth defects in Iraqi cities since the conflict began; acknowledges that the Ministry of Defence has released to the United Nations Environment Programme the coordinates where UK forces fired DU; is aware that US armed forces expended at least 404 tonnes of DU ammunitionin the 1991 and 2003 Iraq conflicts but have yet to release the firing coordinates to the UN; appreciates that without full transparency it will remain impossible properly to monitor and decontaminate which in turn will lead to avoidable civilian exposures; and calls on the Government to support the resolution to be put before the UN General Assembly this autumn calling on states to provide quantitative and geographical data on DU munitions use to the relevant authorities of the affected states.
>
>
>
>
> From: Earthling
> Sent: 27 October 2010 04:35
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Subject: Reply please.
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> I am still waiting on a reply to my questions. Can you please follow up on this urgently and insist I receive the answers please?
>
> Thank you,
> Earthling
>
>
>
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; darlinga@parliament.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
> Subject: Why exactly are we paying Green Taxes? It isn’t based on the “science”!
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:41:37 +0000
> Dear Mark,
>
> And so many of us understand that it was NEVER based on science!
>
> So, if you remember a few months back when you sent me the response from your Climate Change Minister who quoted the IPCC (no credibility after Climategate), NOAA and NASA (have come out since, contradicting their original stance) and now this. Your Royal Society – crushed.
>
> 7902-royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error
>
>
> How much of this can you stand and take Mark? As a government, I really wish to know? Your entire “policy” is being ripped apart by science – REAL science.
> As an intelligent human being, how can you support your government’s disinfo, corruption and outright lies? Because, you see, you may work for them but the joke is on you too as an individual. Don’t you understand this? You might personally gain significantly in the short term but you’re storing up real pain for yourself (or your offspring) in the long term. There is no WISDOM in that Mark. At best there is only short term selfishness. You’re creating nothing for society – you’re helping to destroy it. Therefore, you’re destroying the society your children will live in. They will not thrive in it.
>
> Do you understand Fabianism Mark? Do you belong to the Fabian society? So far, I haven’t checked, however, being Labour, I’m sure you probably do. It’s not just a Labour issue though Mark. Ollie Letwin is a Fabian too – although he suggests otherwise – and there are many Tory fabians. A lot of good London School of Economics students.
>
> The LSE too; The London School of Economics which immerses itself heavily in not just economics but social science. Geopolitical socio-politics and even the world of terrorism research. Probably the most exclusive school on the face of the earth and guess who manages to get himself a place there?
> Omar Saeed Sheikh!
>
> You’re aware of Omar I assume Mark? If the name escapes you, check him out. But wy would such a smart individual such as Omar wish to become a terrorist? With a future career such as he would have had? How, even, did the school admit him? You’d think they’d do some checking wouldn’t you? After all, such alumnis as David Rockefeller and George Soros they don’t just let any old terrorist in the door. You have to be a terrorist on the level of Soros for example. They particularly like financial terrorists!
>
> A rhetorical question Mark; but don’t you have children? Or members of your family have children? Do you think they will be protected by the state because they were the offspring of Mark Lazarowicz MP?
> Do you remember childhood Mark? Do you remember how free we were as children compared to today where there is no freedom whatsoever?
>
> I’m serious Mark. Are you blind to what is happening? By your “collective” ideology and not having the integrity to stand and even question the collective, you are creating something that will allow the complete control of your children or your children’s children.
> As I write these mails, I can assure you, I am quite literally in awe of the closed mindset which I have come to recognise permeates our political “class”. You really are quite amazing.
>
>
> You cannot POSSIBLY read all that I have put in front of you and dismiss it. All I can suppose is that you either do not read it at all or, you do but you cannot accept facts put down in front of you. You, perhaps, would rather remain willfully ignorant?
>
> You NEVER, genuinely, respond with your own thoughts to anything I lay in front of you Mark. Your responses, if any, are that of the “collective”, your party, your government. You are like a hive mind – a “Borg”.
>
> I’m not attempting flippancy or sarcasm Mark. I am being bluntly honest. It is quite incredible.
>
>
> I still await the response from the Minister(s) re the Bilderberg and Alistair Darling questions but, meanwhile, your own thoughts on it would have been interesting. However, for any MP to have their own thoughts on such – the answers staring them in the face – is dangerous and not in keeping with the collective.
>
> Remember I mentioned “Control” Mark? Collectivism IS control. You are not allowed your own thoughts to be expressed otherwise……
>
> I also hope to hear from you on the document which is overdue release.
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
>
> PS: The same points refer to the others sent this communication so I can assure you, you are not alone.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; darlinga@parliament.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
> Subject: Feedback
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:36:46 +0000
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Still no feedback on the questions re Bilderberg and Darling? Makes you wonder what’s so difficult doesn’t it?
>
> Can you let me know about the closed document when you have a moment please? I would wish to read it.
>
> You may also have interest in the following damning indictment of the pseudoscience which our government is creating legislation (or what they call “law”) around:
>
> us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life
>
> A couple of other things you just may be interested in reading and listening to Mark:
>
> Part 3 of an audio file explaining to you that your EU that you support was propagandized to you through funding by the CIA in the early 70s.
>
>
>
> You may then wish to read the scanned photos of the documentation (a tiny portion of it) which explains the government’s fraud. Nice bedtime reading I think. The FCO writing letters to MPs pretending to be constituents in support of the EEC. Nice straightforward fraud Mark. I don’t recognise ANY government who have either instigated nor continued such. Now, be honest would you? Unless of course you worked for them! 😉
>
> Now, pardon my sometimes considered “irate” communications by your staff but if your staff don’t understand the enormity of what I present to you then I’m afraid I cannot help their ignorance.
>
> But that all said, what’s your thoughts Mark? Incredible criminality and fraud don’t you think? All funded by your local friendly neighbourhood CIA!
>
> And the UK population don’t have a clue!
>
> No wonder Ken Clarke wishes to keep the 30 year rule huh? [cid:image001.jpg@01CB7685.DF513440]
>
> Lord Chief Justice indeed. Anti bribery and corruption indeed!
>
> What a book that would make eh?
>
> But you don’t think the UK electorate should know about all of this do you?
>
> I’d really like to read what your thoughts are on all of this. It would tell me so much about who I am communicating with. After all, you can readily grasp where I’m coming from and communication is the key to democracy isn’t it?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
> ________________________________
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
> Subject: Closed document.
> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:52:02 +0000
>
> Mark,
>
> The expiry term for this document has now passed. Please ensure it is now released to the public.
>
>
> dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Show.tcl&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqSearch=%28%28text%29%3D%27Bilderberg%27%29&dsqPos=1
>
> Thank you
>
> Earthling
>
>
AMERIKA!
All parts on youtube.
The movie ‘Amerika’ and its implication
John D. Christian
New Zealand, January 2008
This paper is written in the global, public interest and is not Copyright ©
Feel free to use it as you wish.
The movie ‘Amerika’
In the middle of February 1987, over twenty years ago, the most controversial British propaganda film ever broadcast throughout the United States was a $40 million, ABC-TV, 14½ hour mini-series called Amerika, which was beamed over seven nights, 9-11pm, between 15 February – 22 February to the naïve, gullible American public.
This incredible film, although largely forgotten about now, enacted in great detail, the long-held British Fabian Society’s Anglo/Soviet communist plot to ruthlessly destroy the United States of America and convert it into a “leper colony” of the City of London Corporation, headed by the British Sovereign. The film forecast that this would happen during a national, and probably a global, state of emergency and period of financial and political chaos in which the US dollar specifically would not only be targeted by British bankers to become almost totally valueless – Americans would actually be seen burning their worthless currency in the streets in protest – while the nation as a whole would be turned into a war zone, the stock market and financial system would be deliberately crashed, the country would be severely plagued by dire food shortages and fuel rationing, riots, lawlessness, mass unemployment and everything else that goes with it.
In the film, under the imposition of strict martial law, led by a specialist UN appointed Russian general and colonel, under directions from a Central Committee in Moscow, (who want to nuke the Americans to teach them a lesson) – leading American political traitors secretly prostitute themselves to these foreign, Russian socialist powers (who are really secret British agents) and assist them in destroying the country and setting up the new administration.
The Russians brutally remove the president from power and replace him with a British “governor general” (Peter Bradford played by Robert Urich) [alias Bill Clinton?] and a woman deputy governor general (Marion Milford/Andrews played by Wendy Hughes) [alias Hillary Clinton?] – then divide the United States up into twelve soviet-styled “administrative areas” under a “North American Union.” A map in the film shows what these administrative areas are going to be. As the symbolic gesture of the destruction of America, most of the members of Congress are brutally murdered in the House of Representatives during a terrorist attack led by the Russians after they refuse to disband their legislative body before the U.S. Capitol building is burnt.
Rhodes Scholars and Fulbright Scholars: Secret British Fabian Society agents
Two of the leading characters in the film are Colonel Andrei Denisov (played by New Zealand actor, Sam Neill) and Devin Milford (played by Kris Kristofferson) – both these actors are former Rhodes Scholars.
All Rhodes Scholars are indoctrinated under the British Rhodes Trust secret society program at Oxford University to bring in a New World Order government with London and the British aristocracy at the head.
All Rhodes Scholars are in fact secret British agents. The American sub-branch of the Rhodes Scholarship program at Oxford is the Fulbright Scholarship program, founded in 1946 by J. William Fulbright, himself a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 1928-31. The Rhodes Trust was established in the early 1900’s following the death of Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) with money from his estate. Rhodes was taught at Oxford University by a Christian Socialist professor called John Ruskin (1819-1900), a Freemason and fascist. Nazi swastikas may still today be seen carved into his gravestone at Coniston in England. Currently, for example, two of the present Trustees of the Rhodes Trust are: Lord Ashburton (Sir John Baring) who heads the giant Baring Bros. Bank and who is also a member of the Order of the Garter. Another is Lord Armstrong (Baron, Sir Robert Temple Armstrong) who has served as Private Secretary to the British PM. Many of the British Freemasons that were intimately involved in setting up the Fabian Society in 1884 were also involved in setting up the Rhodes Trust, principally the British Rothschilds. In his 1888 revised will, Rhodes said, “… In considering question suggested take Constitution of the Jesuits if obtainable, and insert English Empire for Roman Catholic Religion…” (ref. The World’s Banker by Niall Fergusson p.881-890). And that is what Nathaniel (Natty) de Rothschild (1814-1915) did in setting up the Rhodes Trust with Milner. Before he became British Prime Minister in 1997, Tony Blair was chairman of the Fabian Society. He is now also a secret leading member of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) – more about this following. Apostate Protestantism is a thousand times more subtle and insidious than Roman Catholicism!
Members of the Fabian Society created, (and still do control) the world’s Labor Parties, Soviet Communism, German, Italian and American fascism. Rhodes and Fulbright scholars now dominate virtually all of the world’s largest business corporations, governments, the UN and the control and running of the Roman Catholic Church including the Jesuits. Rhodes and Fulbright scholarships now provide the most prestigious awards and honors of all the leading Jesuit universities around the world, the United States being no exception. Bill Clinton was awarded his Rhodes Scholarship at America’s leading JesuitUniversity, Georgetown.
People like Leo J. Donovon – a leading Jesuit and President of Georgetown University 1989-2001, Kul Chandra Gautam – UN Assistant Secretary-General and Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, Boutros Boutros Ghali – UN Secretary General 1992-96, Han Seung-Soo – President UN General Assembly 2001-2002, Ingvar G. Carlsson – Prime Minister of Sweden 1986-91, 1994-96, Lamberto Dini – Prime Minister of Italy 1995-96, Bay Fang – National Correspondent US News and World Report, Nina Gershon – US Federal Judge, Valery Giscard d’Estaing – Prime Minister of France 1974-81 and who, incidentally, as part of London’s control of the European Union, co-drafted the EU Constitution with Sir John Kerr (Baron Kerr of Kinlochard) assisted by British Labour MP and member of the Fabian Society Gisela Stuart – Kerr was also Secretary General of the European Convention until July 2003, Deputy Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell since 2005, Director of Rio Tinto, and he just happens to also be a Trustee of the Rhodes Trust, Fulbright Commission and Carnegie Trust as well, Thomas R. Pickering – Senior Vice President, The Boeing Company, Ambassador US to UN 1989-92, Ambassador to Russia, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, and Jordan, Lawrence R. Riccardi – Senior VP & General Counsel, IBM (1995-present), Margaret Snyder – Founding Executive Director of the UN Fund for Women, Javier Solano – Secretary General of NATO 1995-99, Garrick Utly – Chief Foreign Correspondent NBC News, – to quote just a few examples – are all former Fulbright Scholars! This level of conspiracy or subtle infiltration of major global organizations has never ever been achieved on such a massive scale before – not even by the Vatican.
The Fabian Society Connection:
Donald Wrye, Jessica Mitford, Gordon Brown, J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter
Donald Wrye, the executive producer, director, and sole writer of Amerika is also, like Tony Blair, a Fabian Socialist and Marxist. He filmed most of Amerika in Toronto, Ontario, and at Tecumseh in Nebraska. One of the co-founders of the Fabian Society in 1884 was Sydney Webb. His wife was Beatrice Potter, whose father, Richard Potter, wrote a number of occult children’s books which were later resurrected by the Tavistock Institute (Britain’s global mind-control center) and given to J. K. Rowling to write their Fabian socialist propaganda books called Harry Potter. Sidney and Beatrice Webb wrote a book entitled, Soviet Communism – A New Civilization. Col. I. M. Bogolepov, a former Red Army officer attached to the Soviet Foreign Office 1930-36, appeared before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 7th April 1952 and stated that the entire text had been written by himself in the Soviet Foreign Office. J. K. Rowling is not the person the media would have us believe.
Rowling is a long-time close personal friend of Fabian British PM Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah with whom she collaborated on a book of children’s stories to aid the charity One Parent Families. In July 2006, at the time of the birth of Gordon and Sarah Brown’s son John, J. K. Rowling was one of the first people to visit the couple at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. Indeed, Rowling named her first son born on 23 March 2003 (from her current marriage), David Gordon Rowling-Murray – after Gordon Brown.
J. K. Rowling has quite openly and publicly stated that since age 14 her greatest heroine and most influential writer has been the Communist, British-born American writer, Jessica Mitford. Rowling says that she has read everything Mitford ever wrote. She has even named her daughter Jessica Rowling-Arantes after her. Several of Rowling’s characters in the Harry Potter series are named after characters in Mitford’s book, A Fine Old Conflict. The Fabian socialist influence of Mitford on Rowling’s writings is immense. Dobby the House-Elf, the one who insists on negotiating fair compensation for his labour is named after the woman who introduced Mitford to the Communist Party USA and gave her a copy of Howard Fast’s Citizen Tom Paine for a wedding present when Mitford married civil rights lawyer Bob Treuhaft. Mitford and Treuhaft became active members of the Communist Party during the ‘Red Scare’ and, in 1953, they were both summoned to testify in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Mitford also wrote a book published in 1963 called, The American Way of Death. Mitford’s sisters, Unity and Diana, were well-known British
supporters of Hitler and her father was described as being “one of nature’s fascists.” The character, Harry Potter, in Rowling’s books is a young socialist, Hitler/Stalin type hero figure. J. K. Rowling is a rabid socialist and her writings, like Mitford’s, are designed to destroy the Christian faith and family structure, bring about the death of America, and seduce all of the children of the world to worship this soon-coming British “National Socialist” leader. Beatrice and Sidney Webb’s ashes were ceremoniously interred in Westminster Abbey on December 12, 1947, so the present Queen Elizabeth II clearly knows all about it.
The RIIA and Chatham House Rule
Another co-founder of the Fabian Society was George Bernard Shaw. He created the coat of arms of the society – a wolf in sheep’s clothing! The major Fabian Socialist training school in the world is the London School of Economics(LSE). Its major policy think-tank unit is the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), founded in 1920, now called Chatham House, of which all of the world’s ‘institutes of international affairs’ are secretly sub-branches and a part, including the US Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission. Apart from a few public meetings, almost all of their important meetings now are held under what they call the Chatham House Rule, which binds all of the participants under oath of strict secrecy, based on British Freemasonry’s United Grand Lodge of England motto, ‘avi vide tace,’ which translated means, ‘hear see be silent.’
Moscow State Institute Of International Relations (MGIMO)
Chatham House’s Russian sub-branch is called the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), founded on October 14, 1944. Sergy Krylov, one of the communist founding fathers of the MGIMO was also one of the leading authors of the UN Charter.
In the movie Amerika, do you know that Colonel Andrei Denisov (played by Sam Neill) the Soviet administrator for the American Central Administrative Area – is a real person! In the movie Andrei’s immediate superior and mentor is General Petya Samanov (played by Armin Muelller-Stahl), the soviet military leader in charge of the occupation – is also another real person! His real name is Vladimir Samanov, a Russian general!
Do you know that Donald Wrye’s utter contempt of the American public’s apathy, ignorance and gullibility was so great when he created the movie, he even (like Hitler wrote down his devilish plans in Mein Kampf long before the event) had the sheer audacity to write real, living, Communist, Russian characters into the plot of his movie to precondition the brainless American public to accept what is soon-coming? Do you know that Andrey I. Denisov is not only a real, living person? He actually graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 1974, (the Russian sub-branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London), and in December 2001 – July 2004 he was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Russian Ambassador to the United Nations 2004-2006.
Do you know that more recently Mr Denisov has actually been chairing the UN’s “Counter-Terrorism Committee” based in New York City – and he is now working closely with the Organization of American States (OAS) that is soon to be used to destroy the United States of America by merging Canada, USA, and Mexico into a federation of states, (similar to the Russian Federation or the European Union), called the North American Union.
Ultimately, all of the South American countries will join as well to form one global region, all to be governed as “administrative areas” or regions in a world government United Soviet Socialist Republic – just exactly as Donald Wrye had Colonel Andrei Denisov (played by Sam Neill) doing in his movie Amerika played in 1987.
The soon-coming British burning of a sleeping America
Do you know that according to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SamNeil – the New Zealand actor Sam Neill’s great-great grandfather actually aided in burning down the White House in the War of 1812?
In spite of the film’s blatant, anti-patriotic American plot, and the fact 19% of all TV households throughout the United States viewed the program in 1987, ABC research indicated 96% of the entire US population over 18 years of age did not object to the brazen, controversial content! Talk about blatant, impending national judgment coming upon this once great Christian nation, America, that is now almost sound asleep, having turned away from God!
Bill and Hillary Clinton already chosen to destroy the Presidency of America
If the central characters in the plot of Amerika and other key British propaganda movies like Gladiator or Harry Potter are reenacted in the real-life individuals they represent, then it seems that President George Bush Junior will be the last full-term serving United States president, who will soon lead America, and indeed the entire world, into a period of widespread chaos triggered by a major war in the Middle East, be assassinated, and be succeeded by Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, and his wife Hillary, who have already been chosen – secretly – not to lead the nation under any new presidency – but to treacherously destroy it, and make the nation “a leper colony” of the British Sovereign – while temporarily, during the reforms, give it a new Russian name Amerika – led by a Governor General or Deputy Governor General-type transitional administrator – who, in case you don’t know, in Commonwealth countries – is literally the Queen’s personal representative!
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)
Now if you don’t believe America is very soon to become effectively a new “leper colony” of Great Britain, or more correctly, the City of London Corporation, as the apostate Protestant British Sovereign cunningly takes over the world, or you don’t believe that Hillary and Bill have not “already been chosen” to lead Amerika into a New World Order dictatorial Fabian Socialist, fascist police state of tyranny and terror, then why not take a small peek at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), List of 2007 Members? – Membership is by invitation only and until relatively recently the membership list was kept largely secret and confidential – but not now!
http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Document.Doc?id=108
Here you will see the incredible power behind Bill and Hillary Clinton on this extensive 49 page list . For example, on the list are many of the world’s most powerful media representatives, bankers, the Rothschilds etc. There are well over a thousand leading individuals on the list that are secretly funding and supporting the Clintons. On the list are people like Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, former recent chairman of N.M. Rothschild & Sons in London, and his American-born wife, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who are secretly funding Bill and Hillary Clinton, including Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President. Sir Evelyn and his wife spent their honeymoon in the White House with Bill and Hillary when Clinton was President. One of Forester’s two sons from her previous marriage to Andrew Stein, Ben Stein, actually secretly works for Hillary Clinton, and the other, Jake Stein, for Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg, who is also, naturally, a member of the CGI. Also on the list, for example, is perhaps a much less well-known personality, Jane Nelson. Who is she? – not only is she another former Rhodes Scholar, she is CEO of The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum (now called the Business Leaders Forum) through which Prince Charles indirectly controls almost every major corporation in the world.
Media Moguls Behind the Clinton’s CGI
Gail Asper, president of the Asper Foundation, is another on the CGI list. Who is she? Her father, the late Izzy (Israel) Asper, a Canadian Jew, founded the giant Canadian media company, CanWest Global Communications Corp. The multi-billion dollar company owns a big proportion of newspapers and television stations in Canada, and until mid-2007, two of the four major public TV stations and all of the 142 radio stations in New Zealand apart from two. It owns media assets in Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Turkey, and the UK. When you’ve got all of the world’s media controlled by despots like Asper who are at the same time members of the Clinton Global Initiative, and Hillary Clinton running for president, there is not much point in voting at all in any election. On October 20, 2007, New Star Books published a book written by Marc Edge entitled, Asper Nation: Canada’s Most Dangerous Media Company. The book exposes how the Aspers wickedly manipulate, censor and control through their media empire important information against the public interest, against democracy, and push their British globalist, socialist political agenda.
After Gail Asper’s father’s death in 2003, she and her two brothers, David and Leonard, took over the company. Her brother David is a former trustee of the Fraser Institute in Canada. One of the leading publications of the Fraser Institute is a book called, The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union (1999). This is one of the key commonwealth agencies responsible for the Fabian plan to abolish the United States of America and create the North American Union, abolish the US dollar and replace it with a new regional currency called the Amero. Like her father previously, she was awarded the Order of Manitoba by the Queen in 2007. In the Canadian province of Manitoba, when a Lieutenant Governor (the Queen’s representative) is sworn in, by virtue of his office, he automatically becomes a member of the Order and Chancellor of the Order. The pervasive power of the Queen is insidious.
Other powerful global media controllers who are secretly members of CGI are: Larry Brilliant – Executive Director Google, Larry Page – Co-Founder & President Google, Gabrielle Fitzgerald – Program Officer Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Tom Brokaw – Special Correspondent NBC News, Diane Cardwell – City Hall Bureau Chief The New York Times, Steve Chen – CTO & Co-Founder YouTube, Peter Chernin – President News Corporation, Anderson Cooper – Anchor CNN, Stephen Howe – President The Americas Financial Times, Chad Hurley – Co-Founder & CEO YouTube, Larry King – Host CNN, Dick Parsons – Chairman & CEO Time Warner, Richard Sambrook – Director BBC Global News, Marva Smalls – Executive Vice President MTV Networks, George Stephanopoulos – (Rhodes Scholar) Chief Washington Correspondent ABC News, Martha Stewart – Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Ted Turner – Chairman Turner Enterprises, Greta Van Susteren – Anchor/Host Fox News Channel, Dr Fareed Zakaria – Editor Newsweek International. Fascism has often been described as “the merger of Socialism with Corporatism.” Unlike Hitler’s devilish cohorts, these people do not parade around with Nazi swastikas openly emblazoned on their clothing, but the truth is they are no less fascist. With a hidden CGI membership supporting the Clintons like this, who do you think the manipulative media are planning to become the next leader of Amer-ika?
Other Secret British Fascist Supporters of the Clintons you may have missed
Now there are a full 49 pages of names of key people around the world like these who are members of the Clinton Global Initiative who are, in reality, secret British agents working for the Queen and British Monarchy behind the scenes, funding and supporting Bill and Hillary Clinton. Here are a few more examples that might be of interest: Rev Jim Ball – President and CEO Evangelical Environmental Network, Tammy Aupperle – Director Heinz Company Foundation, Maria Blair – Associate Vice President & Managing Director The Rockefeller Philanthropy Foundation, Tony Blair – Former British PM, Carol Browner – Principal The Albright Group, Edgar M. Bronfman – Bronfman Associates, Wesley Clark – Senior Fellow UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations (Wesley, a Rhodes Scholar, led the military op on the Branch Davidians at Wacco), Abbey Joseph Cohen – Managing Director Goldman Sachs, William Daley – Vice Chairman J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, Leslie Dach – EVP, Corporate Affairs & Government Relations Wal-Mart Stores, Baroness Ariane de Rothschild – Edmund & Benjamin de Rothschild Foundations, David de Rothschild, John DeGioia – President Georgetown University, Jim Donald – President & CEO Starbucks Coffee Company, Alex Ehrlich – Managing Director UBS AG (Europe’s biggest Bank), Dr Mahomed El-Ashry – Senior Fellow United Nations Foundation, Deborah Grossman – Vice President Public Policy Monsanto Company, Gary Hattem – President Deutsche Bank Americas, Rev Bill Hybels – Senior Pastor Willow Creek Community Church, Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza – The Secretary General Organization of American States (remember? – the agency that is to be used to soon destroy and break up the United States), Lew Kaden – Vice Chairman Citigroup, Paul Martin – Former PM of Canada, Andrew Mitchell – Senior Advisor The Prince of Wales Rainsforests Project, Secretary General Amre Moussa – Secretary General The League of Arab States, Secretary General Markku Niskala – Secretary General International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Society, Jonathan Oppenheimer – Head of Chairman’s Office De Beers Family of Companies, Ariel Pablos-Mendez – Managing Director The Rockefeller Foundation, Carter Roberts –President World Wildlife Fund, Klaus Schwab – Founder & Executive Chairman World Economic Forum USA, George Soros – Chairman Soros Fund Management, Rick Warren – Pastor Saddleback Church, James Lee Witt- Chief Executive Officer James Lee Witt Associates, Jim Wilkinson – Chief of Staff for Treasury Secretary US Department of the Treasury, Robert B. Zoellick – President The World Bank Group, and on and on and on. All this may sound like a ridiculous absurdity – but the truth is, it is nothing less than global fascism!
Take a look at the full list, and if it hasn’t already, it soon will become plain that the coming next US presidential election is nothing less than a Hollywood farce and a charade, orchestrated only for the ignorant public masses – with actors as candidates playing out their pre-ordained roles in a modern colonial plot of subterfuge and deceit to transfer the United States of America back to the control of an apostate Protestant British Sovereign who is not now only intent on reclaiming the US as her possession – but on owning the entire world.
Plato’s Republic
The ancient pagan Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 BC) has long been recognized by scholars as the father of the religion of modern socialism, including Fabian Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Fascism, and Nazism, which are all the same thing, only with different labels. Three principal pagan deities worshipped by Plato, and subsequently also in socialism are, firstly, the Sun, as the father, (in Greece personified as father Zeus and in Rome as Jupiter). Secondly, the Earth, as mother-earth, (in ancient Greece personified as Athena or Demeter and in Rome as Ceres) In Rome, Ceres’ feast was called the Cerialia and her sacrifice was called the Holocaust, held on April 19th every year – Hitler’s Holocaust of the Jews was the result of German National Socialists [Nazis] worshipping the goddess Ceres. Hence, this is why Hitler changed the traditional birthday of National Socialism in Germany from May 1st to April 19th. That is why he commenced to burn the Jews in Warsaw on April 19th, 1943. There is a price to pay for turning away from God. The UN Food & Agriculture Organization’s patron now is the Roman goddess Ceres, and a statue of Zeus resides in the main lobby of the UN Headquarters in New York. Thirdly, socialism is a religion about the worship of “Man as a god” – or hero worship. The socialist dictators, Hitler in Nazi Germany, Mao in Communist China, Stalin and Lenin in Communist Russia, were all worshipped by their followers as heroes, fathers and gods. Lenin’s Tomb (mausoleum) in Red Square, Moscow, was made as a perfect replica of the Pergamon Altar, now residing in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin, that was originally the Altar of Zeus in the Temple of Zeus in Pergamos, Turkey. Between them, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao literally murdered hundreds of millions. They were all great students of Plato. This is the fruit of socialism: Madness.
Plato wrote in his book, The Republic, about a dream World Republican State – a type of godless ‘paradise on earth’ or ‘kingdom of god on earth’ in which he believed one day it would be ruled not by a president, nor even by a hereditary constitutional monarch, but by a royal “philosopher king” or “philosopher prince” in an ‘honorary role’ who was a philosopher like himself, and who would be elected to rule by the will of the people – not by hereditary right. That is why Prince Charles will never be king of England. He has a much greater role and destiny.
Because the British monarchy and aristocracy have now completely turned away from the early faith of their forefathers in the God of the Protestant King James Bible published in 1611, (interestingly, the 400th anniversary of this event will be held in 2011) they outwardly still appear to be Christian, but in reality they are totally pagan and are now entirely following the teachings of Plato. If you listen carefully enough to Prince Charles, it will be clearly observed that he often uses phrases in his speeches taken directly from the writings of Plato. Hitler also extensively used Platonic phrases in his speeches. Oxford University is not only the home of the Rhodes Trust, it has long been the global center of the study of Plato, and indeed, with London, the epicenter of modern global socialism. That’s why Karl Marx is buried not in Russia as one might normally expect, but in Highgate Cemetery in London.
Over the last two thousand years or so, there really have been only two great “Christian” nations, Britain and America, founded on four or five unique documents, the Bible, Magna Carta, US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights that have given the democratic nations their unparalleled prosperity, freedoms and liberties from tyrant kings, political despots and socialists. The reason why the apostate Protestant British Queen in her lust for world power in collusion with leading members of the socialist Fabian Society, paradoxically, is so determined to abolish these five unique documents, abolish even her own country, Britain, and divide it up into separate regions of the European Union, abolish her own British hereditary constitutional monarchy in its present form with its Christian-based Westminster parliamentary system of government, abolish the American Republic and divide it up into the North American Union – is that she is now become a Communist Sovereign!
In short, what is happening is that the “British king” is reverting back to his dictatorial reign of tyranny and terror that persisted in his kingdom before the Magna Carta was first signed in England in 1215AD, and in respect of America, in more modern times, his reign of tyranny which existed in America before the Declaration of Independence (from him) was signed in 1776AD by the American fathers. That is why, to the mystification of many, both Britain and the United States as nations must quickly soon be abolished, divided up and merged into the European and North American Unions respectively, before the Monarchy transfers their role to become ‘honorary patrons’ of a new, final world socialist empire and fascist dictatorship, ultimately headed by their leading representative, HRH The Prince of Wales.
And just for the record. Do you know? – that in the movie Amerika, the role of Devin Milford (played by Rhodes Scholar, Kris Kristofferson), the maverick politician, hero and socialist philosopher, who was exiled in a prison camp for daring to speak the truth about the Soviet occupation in the transition while America was destroyed (the office of the President abolished and replaced with that of a “Governor General and Deputy Governor General”) – who was later freed, and finally arose to save his people from Soviet domination and the tyranny of fascist wealthy corporations and individuals, and who was then heroically worshipped as a god, then sacrificed for his people for what he believed in and stood for, like Jesus Christ – actually, in the finest detail, represented the god-like role of this soon-coming world “philosopher prince” – that the Greek heathen philosopher Plato over 2400 years wrote about in his classic book The Republic.
America’s imminent judgment is about to commence: “God Bless America” is gone and the nation is soon to become a laughing stock, her Congress a derision, her elections a mockery. The chaotic plot is complete. The Royal fanfare of trumpeters are ready. The stage is now set. The cheering crowds are in the Colosseum. Let the first act begin – arise now and applaud Her Majesty’s coming new President of Amerika – three cheers for Governor General and Deputy Governor General – Bill and Hillary Clinton!
There’s too many holes in my pocket
There’s too many joys around
Bottomless pits lie snarling all around
I don’t care if you’re a man or a woman
We all know where the power lies, it’s in the
Bottomless pits of thunder behind blue skies
They sing it from New York to Paris from Peking to Rome
Hold me I’m out on my own
They sing it together they sing it alone
America, America, people of America
People of America, America, America
(I say give the people what they want…. I say urghh!)
The news says we shouldn’t be loving
There’s too many babies in town
Bottomless pits lie sentence to the crowds
I may seem like I got it together
But I know that I’m destined to die a prisoner of the
Bottomless pits that smile at me with blue eyes
They sing it from New York to Paris from Peking to Rome
Hold me I’m out on my own
They sing it together they sing it alone
America, America, people of America
People of America, America, America
People always shout at the government man
It’s the same wherever I go
But the feeling is on that nothing is wrong
With the people of America
America, America, people of America
People of America, America, America
Rothschild: King of the “Jews” (and Israel to this day)
I discovered that but for the backing of Baron Edmond Rothschild the settlements of Russian Zionists established at
Rison, Zikron and Rosh Pina would have failed and there would have been virtually no Jewish presence in Palestine. This was a
key part of Rothschild strategy to make it appear that Jews were already living in Palestine — a subterfuge that worked.
Rothschild also assisted with establishing two new colonies, Ekron and Medull. Altogether twenty-one Agricultural
settlements existed by the end of the century, but Rothschild did not trust the abilities of the colonists and insisted in keeping direct supervision and control of the settlements.
Hubert Herring in his book And So To War sums up the price the U.S. had to pay to so that the Zionists might have
Palestine:
We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of 126,000 dead, of 234,300 mutilated and wounded. We paid with
the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peaceful
world. We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashings of war hysteria. We
paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war reached
the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned.
And what was the quid pro-quo from the Zionists side?
As far as I could ascertain it amounted to absolutely nothing. An interesting aside was the failure of Herzl to obtain the blessing of
Pope Pius X for Jewish immigration to Palestine: We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going
to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it.
According to A History of Zionism, pages 129-130, the exchange took place at a meeting with the Pope in 1903, meaning
that Lord Arthur Balfour knew that there was strong opposition from the Catholic Church against Zionist immigration to
Palestine, long before he signed on to the declaration, but about which he informed no one. So the pattern of double-dealing was
already apparent in 1903.
Catholic opposition to Israel may have contributed to the Rothschilds violent hatred of Russia with its large Christian
population.
Herzl, the father of Zionism died when he was 44 years old. According to A History of Zionism, he never got on
very well with the Rothschilds or with Orthodox Jewry whose leading rabbis did not like his autocratic style. Herzl always
wanted to have the final say on everything.
There was, as Herzl’s critics pointed out, very little specifically Jewish in Herzl. This emerges perhaps more
clearly in his vision of the Jewish state…
Herzl envisaged a modern, technologically advanced and enlightened state, enlightened by the Jews, but not
specifically a Jewish state. (A History of Zionism, pages 132-133)
It can hardly be argued that Herzl was interested in Palestine as a religious “homeland” for the Jews, particularly in
light of the fact, that the bulk of the new settlers came from Russia and had no previous connection to Palestine and there was no
history of Russian Jews ever having lived there, nor were they particularly religious.
Lacquer makes this abundantly plain. Lord Chamberlain came forward with an offer to provide a “homeland” for the Jews
in Uganda, even though Uganda was not the British Government’s land to give. Chamberlain told Herzl that he had been on a tour of
Uganda and thought: Here is a land for Dr. Herzl, but of course he only wants Palestine or its neighborhood. He was right. Herzl
brushed aside the idea. His fixation was with Palestine and nothing else would do. On May 30, 1903 he wrote Rothschild:
I am not discouraged. I already have a very powerful man to help me. (A History of Zionism, Walter Laqueur, pages 122,123)
This was the true autocratic style of Herzl in action.
Although I was not able to uncover any direct links between the Rothschilds and Sir Halford Mackinder, such as correspondence
that passed between intermediaries hinting that the two did consult on a number of matters, especially in writing the blue print
for the coming One World Government-
New World Order which had been assigned to Mackinder to complete. A protege of the London School of Economics which
was a hotbed for Communist ideals, Mackinder nevertheless put up a good conservative front and is believed to have influenced
President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference as to what steps were to be implemented to usher in a New World Order through
a League of Nations mandate. It is certain that the Rothschilds provided a great deal of input for the World Socialist dream. One
month after Wilson arrived at the Paris Peace Conference, Mackinder’s new book Democratic Ideals and Reality was published.
The timing of the release of the book was no accident.
In his book Mackinder called for a New World Order (NWO) to be established in a One World Government, ostensibly The
League of Nations. If this goal could not be achieved by peaceful, voluntary means, then force was to be resorted to.
Mackinder admitted that while the New World Order would be ideally a democratic institution, it could never be
expected that at times it would not be a dictatorship. The Zionists claimed that The League of Nations was their concept and this is
referred to by Maria O’Grady in her book where she stated:
President Wilson was surrounded by Jewish financial fraternity pushed hither and yon by the sinister Colonel House and
counseled by the Zionist Brandeis. (Page 342)
The Zionists greatly favored the concept of a League of Nations and claimed it as their creation: The League is a Jewish
idea, said Nahum Sokolow at the Carlsbad Conference. We created it after a fight of 25 years.
Ultimate World Government dominated by Socialists is the long-held goal of Socialism, and it is well known that the
concept was favored by the Rothschilds. As one of their own family, Jacob Schiff worked hard to establish a League of
Nations. It received a donation of 3,000 pounds from N.M. Rothschild of the London branch of the family. As we shall see
there may have been an ulterior motive to this, as the League was to play a decisive role in granting a mandate for Palestine to the
British Government, a decisive step along the road to granting “a Homeland” for the Jews in Palestine. With that in mind I return to
Lord Balfour and his so-called “Balfour Declaration,” based on double-dealing, deception and secret deals behind the backs of
Colonel Lawrence and the Arabs.
Balfour made haste to explain that a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine did not mean the imposition of a Jewish state upon
the inhabitants of Palestine, but in the light of subsequent events, this emerged as the goal of the Zionists. As Balfour put it:
. . . but the further development of the existing Jewish community, in order that they may become a center in which the Jewish people, as a whole, might take, on grounds of religion and race, interest and pride.
What Balfour left out was that nothing the British did or said could obscure the fact that Palestine was not theirs to give,
nor did the British Government have the slightest right to secure a mandate for Palestine. But Balfour, backed by Lord Nathan
Rothschild, pressed ahead anyway, as if the two men had an inherent right to act in the arbitrary manner which they saw fit.
The right of the Arab and other population groups, including Christians that extended back for more than 7,000 years was
totally disregarded by Lord Balfour. No less an authority than Walter Laqueur, one of the foremost experts on Zionism
confirmed that the bulk of the Jews who were to inhabit Palestine under the Balfour Declaration came from Russia. They had no
previous connection to Palestine. Laqueur also pointed out that Russian Jews were not overly happy about being uprooted from Russia and sent to Palestine:
Russian Jewry was divided in its attitude toward Zionism and a Jewish national home (a religious homeland) and
would not have in any case have been able to keep Russia in the war. The Allies on the other hand, to put it
somewhat crudely, would have won the war even if no promise to the Zionists had been made.
What Laqueur was explaining, if somewhat obliquely, was the “deal” the Zionists had struck with Balfour, namely, that
if the Zionists could bring the United States into the war on the side of the allies, the British would establish a Jewish Homeland
in Palestine in return.
At a private meeting soon after the passage of the Balfour Declaration, when asked whether it had been his intention
to make a bid for Jewish support in the war, Balfour snapped ‘certainly not’ and went on to explain that he felt
that he was instrumental in righting a wrong of world historical dimensions. In 1922 Balfour made a speech in
which he said that the whole culture of Europe had been guilty of great crimes against the Jews, and Britain had taken the initiative in giving them the opportunity of developing in peace, the great gifts which they had, in the
past been able to apply in countries of the Diaspora. (A History of Zionism, page 203)
Balfour did not explain why it was considered legal to give Palestine to the Jews when it belonged to a people who had
been there for 7,000 years, especially as a big tract of land in Madagascar, as well as land in Uganda, had been offered and
rejected without discussion. Nor did Balfour explain that his magnanimous gesture in favor of the Jews
would be at the expense of the Arab and other non-Jewish populations of Palestine. He never explained what connections
the bulk of the new settlers, coming as they did from Russia had with Palestine.
According to Dr. Jacob de Haas, Balfour’s altruistic protestations must be very much doubted because the real motive
behind the Declaration was to get the United States to enter the war on the side of the Allies.
Confirmation of the true motives behind the Balfour Declaration came from another well-founded source, Congressional Record, April 25, 1939, pages 6597-6604, which reflects a speech made in the U.S. Senate by Senator Nye:
There has been published in a series of works under the title “The Next War.” One of the volumes in this series is
entitled “Propaganda in the Next War.” This particular volume was written by one Sydney Rogerson.
I have been unable to obtain any trace of his background; but the editor in chief of all of these works, including the
one entitled “Propaganda in the Next War” is by a man whose name is recognized the world over as a authority
in Great Britain. He is none other than Captain Liddell Hart, associated with the London Times, a writer and military authority in Europe.
I understand that this particular volume “Propaganda in the Next War,” published last fall and placed in circulation, instead of having the circulation enlarged, now is suffering at the hands of those who desire to retire it from circulation. A few days ago I came on the floor of
the Senate with the volume itself. I am sorry that I do not have it with me today. I am told that it is the only copy of “Propaganda in
the Next War” available in the United States. It can be had, I can borrow it against if there is any occasion for me to need it in the Senate, but it is no longer easy to obtain. I wish I had the entire work and that it could be read by every member of the Senate.
The following are quotations from Propaganda in the
Next War:
From time to time the issue of which side the United States would take hung in the balance and the final result
was a credit to our profaned machine. There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world’s population
of 15,000,000 no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the United States; 25 percent of the population of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge Jewish public by the promise of a National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorf to be a masterstroke of
propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to the Jews in America, but to the Jews in Germany as well.
George Armstrong in his work The Rothschild Money Trust explains how this came about:
There can be no doubt about the fact that prior to President Wilson’s second election in 1916 he kept us out of the war. There can likewise be no doubt about the fact that he was elected on that slogan. Why did he change his mind soon after the election ? Why did he make an
arrangement with the British Government to help the Allies? That has been until now, an unexplained mystery.
Balfour’s Declaration (and ASS LICKING) of Rothschild (remember still not even 100 years ago):
The%20Balfour%20Declaration
But prior to this, we also had the story of the Suez canal. But that’s another long story. For now just appreciate what this is telling you. And if you think “That’s just a fictional representation” I’d ask you to consider again because, if this was not fact, it would be libelous. In being libelous, the Rothschild family would sue. But then again, would they? Because to create a fuss about it all would bring it all to the attention of the public – the very LAST thing that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of this world wish for:
Question: “What is your security?”
Answer: “The British Government”
MORE from Lazarowicz!
Though let me assure you, “more” isn’t a lot. For you see, it is simply not possible that the man talks. For if he debates he’s “dead”…..
From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
CC: cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; tellnigel@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:40:28 +0000
Mark,
And you may mock the idea of the government being controlled by a Conspiracy if you so wish. What will be noticed by anyone who cares to read these communications however, is that you debate nothing. You don’t enter into a discussion of the matter. You’re provided with multiple points covering the topic and reply to NONE of them. That leads to one of two conclusions: Either you are entirely ignorant and incapable of debating something you know nothing about – you have not researched it to even allow you a footing to debate it – OR, more likely, you are so very well aware of it and recognise it as fact that to enter a debate which you cannot possibly win and cannot deny the issues, would expose something somewhere along the line.
The Bilderberg Group ARE the Rockefellers. As for jewish bankers, who cares? They are what they are but they are NOT jewish! But you wouldn’t even understand that comment would you?
I’ve got news for you Mark: I didn’t stumble across what I have out of a wish to become “Conspiratorial”. I happened across all of this for entirely different reasons. In the past 2 years I have researched it in depth applying total logic and searching only for facts (which I’ve found in abundance) and evidences which prove within reasonable doubt that the UK and American Governments are run (or let’s put it another way – bribed, corrupted and influenced by) these people – globalists. THAT, my friend, is absolute fact.
And why is it then that Van Rumpoy pitched his ideas as Head of the EU to the Bilderberg committee? FACT.
Why is it then that Ken Clarke is a Steering Committee member of Bilderberg?
Why is it that Tony Blair attended Bilderberg?
Why is it that George Osbourne attended Bilderberg?
And the list goes on…
Why is it that Lord Pearson feels he has to assure me that he has no affiliation with Bilderberg and that his position would be an issue for them? Why would that be so if they have no interest in the politics of this country? As follows:
From: Pearsoncampaign@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:12:21 -0500
Subject: Re: ***Web Site Question***
To: Earthling
CC: lordpearsonofrannoch@googlemail.com
Dear Earthling,
Apologies for delayed response. I had a computor problem and I am only just catching up!
No Lord Pearson has no connection with the organisations you name. Indeed you may take it that he will be very unpopular with them, for the stand he takes on numerous issues.
There is much work to be done but for a start we must govern ourselves again.
Malcolm Wood
Lord Pearson Leadership Campaign.
On behalf of Lord Pearson
Question: Lord Pearson,
I simply have two questions to ask of you now that you are Leader of UKIP:
Are you or have you at anytime been a member of or attended a Bilderberg meeting?
Under the same question umbrella; I would ask you if you have any association with the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, RIIA, International Institute of Strategic Studies, Common Purpose, DEMOS, Tavistock Institute?
Have you had any association whatsoever with the Rothschild family?
If not, I shall support you and the party 100%. If so, then I am afraid, as a Peer, while you may be anti EU, you are potentially another collaborator – with no interest in the people of this country – with what is the establishment and true government.
For, as I do not even have to tell you I am sure, the three main parties’ Executive Branches are entirely in the pockets of the International Banking cartel as this country has been for centuries.
If UKIP are not going to then deal with the issues of the Banking, IMF and debt and are simply going to withdraw us from the EU and sit back and think they have done their job, then again, as you know, they will not be doing the full job and, as such, will be simply carrying out another agenda.
I like to speak straight Lord Pearson – there is no other way.
Regards.
Earthling
Why is it that Lord Stoddart of Swindon makes it clear that Bilderberg are secretive and that he is sure that they are working toward a World Government? (see attached).
Now HOW can a “non-political” group (when they obviously are and have every top minister from government an opposition attend and collaborate with them OR ELSE!) who are headed by David Rockefeller and others (and you can rest assured Rothschild has his greasy little fingers in the pie also) who has stated openly and candidly his goal is to achieve a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, and who are non British nationals, have influence over our government and the sovereignty of this country?
Why are parliamentary documents re Bilderberg locked up for 30 years Mark?
So very very simply young Mark: When you control the mechanics of the U.N. and therefore also the IMF, while your influence reaches deep into the core of the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England and you hold the government of the UK to ransom, you can do anything. When you then dictate monetary policy wherein the government cannot make £billions available to the economy in general for such non-profitable areas such as the NHS and Education but then, magically, come up with £billions to bail out the banks, send money to the IMF and World Bank for OTHER NATIONS (thereby the IMF/World Bank loans THEM money and gains control over their economies in doing so – oh and if they don’t accept the terms they are demonised as rogue nations) then what you effectively have (as it seems we have even at the local government/council level in Edinburgh) is a mafia. “We don’t debate or negotiate – we just ignore you and tell you to cough up”.
So Mark, get real mate. Stop your “I don’t think there’s anything else I can say on the subject” stuff because, as can be seen, you’ve said literally nothing on it. Well if we ignore the usual throw away comment of “I don’t believe”. Well do you believe in Islam Mark? Over a billion people do you know. So I tell you what. Why don’t you try to achieve political prominence in one of their countries? Hope you get my point? However, since you probably don’t, the point is that it is not a question of what you “believe” but a question of what is fact. Something you will have no wish to debate though for you may find yourself eating your words.
What DO you believe in Mark? Fabianism? Would you like to debate Fabianism Mark?
Here’s an interesting quote by George Bernard Shaw (major Fabian):
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say, ‘Sir (or madam), now, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?’ If you cannot justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, (unintelligible)…if you are not producing as much as you consume, then clearly, we cannot use the big organization of our societies for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us, and you can’t be of much use to yourself”
In October 1930, Baron (Walter) Rothschild hosted a fund raising event for eastern european jews, Einstein was a main speaker and George Bernard Shaw also made a speech, he was the toastmaster.
This surprised me very much as I knew that George Bernard Shaw was a member of the Fabian Society and that he is ON FILM (it’s on youtube) stating his beliefs about eugenics and the need to GAS ‘useless’ people (humanely of course).
A bit of a coincidence that millions of jews were supposedly gassed a few years later.
However, as the narrator says, Hitler got it all wrong!
Or what about the following Mark? Wish to comment since it is so close to your heart surely as a FABIAN!
“Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism.”
The Fabian Society (founded January 4, 1884), began as a socialist movement in Great Britain. Its purpose is to accomplish a social democracy to transform societies and governments not through revolution but gradually. It is the foundation of the British Labour Party and subsequently it forced the decolonization of the British Empire. The Fabians favour gradual incremental change. The name was taken from the Roman Republic General Fabius Maximus or Quintus Fabius Maximus the “Cunctator.” The meaning of which is “The Delayer.” His, as indeed is the Fabian winning strategy … harassment and war of attrition rather than head on battles against his enemy, Carthage, whose defender was Hannibal Barca.
With me so far? Ok let’s move on……
The Fabians favored nationalism of land, believing that rents collected by landowners were unearned. The founders of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (founders of the London School of Economics). The meat of their message was a minimum wage, creation of socialized medicine, and the abolition of hereditary peers. They favoured a British Empire imperialist foreign policy as a conduit for Liberal Internationalism and reform and a welfare state modeled on the Otto von Bismarck Social Legislation. Bismarck took steps to silence or restrain political opposition, as evidenced by laws restricting the freedom of the press, the Kulturkampf, and the anti-socialist laws.
Do you recognise all the pieces of a strategy so far?
Now, take in the following and recognise the EXACT same issue as is being imposed on the USA over a significant period of time, has now found its way to the UK over particularly the period of this Labour government. HOWEVER, WE in the UK have been far more greatly conditioned over a far longer period of time than in the USA. THAT is why what is happening in the USA and what EVENTUALLY happens to “the Land of the Free” is SO IMPORTANT to the freedom of the world and if/how/when this NWO achieves its ultimate goals (it is achieving its goals every single day however as we sleep). The USA was not “handcuffed” until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The UK was “handcuffed” centuries before this and it is the SAME people who have control over OUR government through the money supply, that then achieved control of the USA on the passing of the Fed Reserve Act 1913.
It is more than apparent that the model of United States public education was taken out of the Fabian textbooks and from the designer of U.S. public education, Fabian Socialist John Dewey’s MATRIX for public education (now isn’t it interesting that Common Purpose – this little “charity” in the UK, has a course named “MATRIX”). It’s the same as the British counterpart, the Bismarck model, where children are really property of the state and trained to serve the state, but never to be provided an education meant for men of letters, their betters. The result of this socialist mantra is educational failure, dumbing down students to the levels of uselessness within a modern society. The Bush Administration, knowingly or not knowing, greatly assisted the Fabians through the underfunded “No Child Left Behind” directive centered on the concept of minimalism based on tests set to meet universal standards and nothing more. Numerous tests are administered to determine improvement of the child, but in reality the children are taught to pass the tests and not necessarily understand the concepts behind the questions.
The dropout rate of high school students averages 50%. The United States and the UK has become the dumping ground for illegal alien families who speak only a foreign language, are mainly hard working peasants who fill jobs as laborers and displace legal Americans because they work for less, ask no questions, have no benefits and are afraid to report abuse by their employers. A large number of these children attend the public schools destined to be failures within the system. Blacks also are reflected in great numbers because of environmental, cultural and financial reasons. Past history of segregation centered them in closely tied poorer neighborhoods that had high crime rates and as a consequence resulted in pathetic, neighborhood schools. The MS-13 gang, the Crips and the Bloods are spreading nationwide. They recruit the dropouts, thus a whole new army of criminals are being nurtured on welfare, theft, murder and as distributors of illegal drugs.
Marx believed that without socialism, capitalism could not exist. ONE FEEDS ON THE OTHER. Fabian socialists are the link to communism and strange as it may seem it’s the international bankers, the elite puppeteers represented within the Bilderberg Group, the enormously wealthy Windsors, George Soros, David Rockefeller, the Rothschild/Warburg/ Schiff interests, the old royal money interests, Queens of Sweden and Denmark and those key, entrenched members of parliaments, congresses, former presidents and agents for current office holding presidents and country leaders – all oligarchs.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs is a major part of the conspiracy whose rear echelons – are its Councils on Foreign Relations who infiltrate and guide the leadership or are part of the leadership in Canada, Australia, and the United States and Great Britain. These interests foresaw the need to cut the U.S. juggernaut down to a controllable size and if it took chaos (Ordo ad Chao – “Order out of Chaos”) as a result of Fabian Socialists and their attack on all things sacred: religion, the Constitution, the education system, an invasion of illegal aliens, subverting congress/parliament and national mores and the morals of society – if that is what it takes, they say go for it.
Now, look at the above list of attacks and think: Is that what we see today? YES IT IS.
Come on Mark, there’s got to be SOMETHING in all I have said to you these past weeks that you have SOME kind of considered and detailed response to?
Anything? Anything at all? An MA in History (what the educational system teaches you to know I’m sure) and an LLB in Law? Impressive credentials but far less than impressive actual results it would seem.
Regards,
Earthling
From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
CC: cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; tellnigel@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:35:45 +0000
Mark,
I’ll decide on that. You think I give a damn about expense? That’s not what this is about!
As for your acceptance of anything. I’m way beyond giving a damn! You’re so in your box you’re blind!
Earthling
> From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:38:46 +0000
> Subject: RE: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
>
> As I have said before. I do not accept your view that the world or the UK government is controlled by a conspiracy, be it the Bilderberg group, the Rockefellers, Jewish bankers or anyone else. I don’t think there is anything else I can say on the subject.
>
> However, I note your copy email from which it appears you are withholding your council tax. That is obviously an issue between you and the Council, but I strongly suggest you reconsider this action which will surely only result in you incurring extra expense without in any way helping your political cause.
>
> Mark Lazarowicz MP
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Earthling
> Sent: 14 February 2010 13:13
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Cc: DARLING, Alistair; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; GILLAN, Angela; DAVIES, Kate; tellnigel@hotmail.com; GRIFFITH, Nia; BARRETT, John
> Subject: RE: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
>
>
> Mark, IT IS BECOMING FARCICAL MATE!
>
> Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
>
> 6 MONTHS AGO YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN HOLDING THIS GUY UP (AND A FEW LIKE HIM) AS YOUR SCIENTIFIC BODY WHO PROVED YOUR POLITICAL NEED TO TAX. THIS MAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AS THE “GENIUSES” WHO COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED. YET NOW, STEP BY STEP, LITTLE BY LITTLE, YOUR “GENIUSES” ARE JUMPING SHIP.
> YOUR GOVERNMENT’S TOTALITARIAN, AUTHORITATIVE STANCE ON ALL OF THIS IS BECOMING A JOKE.
>
> SO ARE YOU NOW GOING TO ADMIT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM AND THE SCIENCE ISN’T SETTLED BECAUSE IT’S ALL AN UTTER SCAM? NO, YOU’RE NOT ARE YOU? AND IT’S THAT BLOODY MINDEDNESS OF THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT WHICH LEADS TO THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT:
>
> THAT, IN ADDITION TO ALL YOUR OTHER LIES, SCANDALS, COVER-UPS, CORRUPTION AND TREASON WILL ONE DAY “HANG” YOU ALL MARK. MARK MY WORDS. THE PUBLIC DESPISES YOUR GOVERNMENT. DESPISES THE PEOPLE WITHIN IT. THEIR ARROGANCE. THE GOVERNMENT, IF IT WISHES TO KEEP THIS ATTITUDE OF THEIRS UP (AND IF IT, GOD HELP US, HAPPENS TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION) WILL HAVE A PUBLIC WHICH WILL TURN AGAINST IT LIKE A PUBLIC HAS NEVER TURNED AGAINST ANOTHER GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY.
>
> THIS IS NO THREAT MARK. THIS IS A WARNING SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF WHAT I CAN SEE AND PERCEIVE. I ADMIT THAT IF I COULD I WOULD “KICK YOUR ASSES” OUT OF WESTMINSTER MYSELF AND THROW THE LOT OF YOU IN PRISON (PLUS THE TORIES) BUT I’M JUST A SINGLE GUY WITH NO POWER TO DO SO AND THAT IS WHAT KEEPS YOU IN PLACE. BUT GIVE IT TIME MARK. MAKE NO MISTAKE THE PEOPLE WANT BLAIR’S “BLOOD” AND THEY WILL GET AROUND, VERY SOON, TO WANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S. YOU’VE TAKEN STEPS TOO FAR. YOU’RE SETTING UP THE UK FOR A BLOODY WAR JUST AS OBAMA IS DOING ACROSS THE POND. BUT, AS USUAL, YOU WON’T SEE THAT MARK. YOU’RE AS BLIND AS A BAT.
>
> Earthling
>
>
>
>
> > From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> > To: Earthling
> > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:21:52 +0000
> > Subject: RE: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
> >
> > Thank you for your email. I have no reason to believe you are an idiot – as you point out, we have never met – and you are of course welcome to come to my regular Friday surgeries if you want to.
> >
> > However, I disagree with you – not just, it would appear, on climate change, but on most other issues as well.
> >
> > I do not believe the world is controlled by bankers or the Bilderberg group.
> >
> > I also support active participation by the UK in the EU.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mark Lazarowicz MP
> >
> > Sent from my HTC Touch Pro
> >
> > —–Original Message—–
> > From: Earthling
> > Sent: 03 February 2010 19:13
> > To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark <LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk>
> > Cc: DARLING, Alistair <DarlingA@parliament.uk>; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk <cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk>; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk <allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk>; GILLAN, Angela <GillanA@parliament.uk>; DAVIES, Kate <DAVIESK@parliament.uk>; tellnigel@hotmail.com <tellnigel@hotmail.com>; GRIFFITH, Nia <GRIFFITHN@parliament.uk>; BARRETT, John <BARRETTJ@parliament.uk>
> > Subject: FW: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I’d appreciate an answer/reply to the previous mail copied below. One, perhaps, which is a considered response from you (or perhaps even from Alistair?) rather than a desperate pass on to some “unknown” within the machinery of government who responds with a standard letter which I have just shot holes through left, right and centre.
> >
> > Now, I’d appreciate your response on the two most influential “scientists” in the IPCC who have been caught red handed. I would then appreciate your response to the fact that NOAA/NASA have directly contradicted the entire CO2 idea – the absolute crux of the government’s entire argument for carbon taxing. Meanwhile, keeping in mind that, with all of this shooting your belief down in flames (which is not a belief and you know it – it’s a governmental policy supporting a Corporate/Banking scam of the highest order and,as such, is criminal) – how you intend to justify your, and Ms Ruddock’s, points that such information is “highly respected” and considered by our government as “Authoritative evidence”. By the way, if you SERIOUSLY consider such evidence from such a source as NOAA/NASA, then how do you explain that you are ignoring now the fact they are telling you that CO2 has very little to do with it?
> >
> > So then what? Well the next question is this: What the HELL is Gordon Brown and your other idiot colleagues sending funding from a UK which is grovelling – because it has no bloody industry left and can hardly keep itself above poverty level (except in the BANKING community that is) – to overseas places like India to “help them cut carbon emissions”???????
> >
> > It’s a con. Yet why would the UK and USA deplete the wealth of their own nations to shore up others especially in the state we’re in? Because that money is being dictated to our government for spending outside the UK NOT by UK nationals but by “Supercapitalist” Bankers who want us in the EU and have no interest in this country or its people. Just as they now own and control Libya through the IMF Articles in 2003 (when we’re told to believe Libya are now accepted in the fold because they dumped the idea of nuke development in 2003 – good cloak – demonise your “enemy” until they accept the IMF terms) they have owned the UK for centuries and the USA since 1913.
> >
> > As an aside, do you know the answer to the question: What comes first? CO2 or Water vapour?
> >
> > Come on Mark. You’re the guy telling me you are convinced. So you tell me what you’re convinced of when your “highly respected” input is shown as fraudulent and now contradictory. Because, if you can’t support your statement and your stance/conviction, then why should I or anyone else accept it?
> >
> > Or might the answer to that question just be “We are Government – so YOU listen!” Would it? Is that the reality Mark? Sounds very like it from where I’m sitting mate!
> >
> > Get smart Mark. Because while you’re thinking of just you and your career, you’re missing the big picture mate. You’re forgetting about the people around you and the kids you have and the kids they’ll have having to live with this crap. And what are you going to say to them Mark? Daddy helped them achieve it because it helped him or because he was ignorant?
> >
> >
> >
> > Earthling
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Earthling
> > To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
> > CC: darlinga@parliament.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; gillana@parliament.uk; daviesk@parliament.uk; tellnigel@hotmail.com; griffithn@parliament.uk; barrettj@parliament.uk
> > Subject: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:17:59 +0000
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > You’ve never met me so I can’t say whether, according to you, I look like an idiot! While you seem to wish to continue to treat me like one!!
> >
> > I’m seriously becoming tired of your lip-service and your continuous lack of any debate on any topic I put to you. I don’t think I’m the idiot here though.
> >
> > 1. The response from the Energy and Climate Change Minister, Joan Ruddock MP, is a standard letter, obvious by the fact that it it refers to an un-named constituent with a space left for YOU (probably) to write in the name of your constituent which, even then, you omitted! It’s of great interest then, that there exists such a “standard” response for it clearly demonstrates that the Department feel it is necessary and suggests you/they are receiving a hell of a lot of communication from people stating the same issue – that Climate Change is COMPLETELY BOGUS!!
> >
> > 2. Even MORE to the point, do you think for one moment, considering the number of “scientists”, MPs (as in the case of Ms Ruddock), delusional activists etc who have a stake in this propaganda that someone like Ms Ruddock who works within something known as “THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE” is going to turn around and say or do anything to suggest that her whole raison d’etre is without justification?
> >
> > Do You? Seriously? And do you expect me or anyone else to accept this?
> >
> > Neither Ms Ruddock nor yourself know a thing about Climate Science! Ms Ruddock is as conditioned into believing the claptrap as you are AND she makes a living out of it so why question it right? I can see the headlines now:
> >
> > “Joan Ruddock, British Climate Change Minister, admits Climate Change is a fraud and is wholly based upon the need for the government to create further tax on the population, in part due to the enormous debt burden the government has built up by unnecessarily having UK currency supplied by a cartel of International Bankers rather than issuing it’s own true British currency. This debt, meanwhile, is proving itself unable to be serviced by a country which now has no significant industry to speak of and, therefore, who’s GDP is not only not growing but is unlikely to see any real growth at all for years to come. The Banks are bailed out to the tune of £billions, aid is sent all over the world to the tune of £billions, yet the UK government cannot (will not) invest in its own people’s education, healthcare, industry and business BECAUSE the Banks (who are NOT controlled by the government but who control the government in essence through the government’s acceptance of the terms of the IMF) will not lend to the taxpayer who bailed them out!”
> >
> > Now, as for the detail of this piece of absolute rubbish contained in the letter:
> >
> > The CRU “is just one of a large number of highly respected (my emphasis) scientific research groups…”
> >
> > Groups, such as your own Labour Party and “Government” (if that is what you wish to be referred to as) are comprised of people. So let us take a look at some of these people who comprise these “highly respected” groups. Then you may wish to consider who you collaborate with and treat as “friends” or “acquaintances” or as “highly respected”:
> >
> > Phil Jones – climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges#comments
> >
> > So there is one major “component” of the “authoritative evidence base” which “inform(s) our policy development”.
> >
> > Note, the author of the above piece is actually a rather intelligent friend of mine by the name of John O’Sullivan. Like you, Mark, he’s a Lawyer but he practices his trade!
> >
> > Michael Mann – climategate-scientist-received-over-half-a-million-from-obama-stimulus-package.html
> >
> > As for your statement regarding “Peer review”; It is a well established fact that there are over 30,000 scientists whose views are suppressed by the IPCC and “Peer review” BECAUSE they disagree entirely with the idea of AGW or their research does not support the findings! As the above article shows (and is fully understood), the vast amounts of money being injected into the IPCC and it’s main protagonists to “research” AGW and come up with the “right” results is rather significant and a Mann or a Jones and their “Peers” are certainly not going to allow any research which is going to question their findings and lose them all that investment now are they? After all, they are the “God’s” of Climate Change “science”.
> > So, as an example, here is a little piece on your “peer reviewed” ideas. Just one of a great many:
> >
> > more-integrity-from-the-robust-peer-reviewed-ipcc-not
> >
> > And Mark, as for NASA and NOAA, you don’t have a clue do you? You don’t even ATTEMPT to keep up to date do you? And neither, it seems does Ms Ruddock!! I can only guess that her standard letter was written some time ago:
> >
> > Read it Mark: steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx
> >
> > I’m suggesting you read all of this because Mark, I’m telling you, whether by apathy or by ignorance or by an invested interest in one form or another, you, by your constant rhetoric of “I’m convinced and that’s all that matters” when presented with this information which presents you with facts which kill your arguments, are, perhaps inadvertently, colluding with a fraud.
> >
> > NOAA/NASA now admit they have NOT found the “same trends”!! They are clinging tenuously to “warming” even though the earth has NOT warmed in the last DECADE, while they NOW say absolutely emphatically, that CO2 is not the issue! The ENTIRE Climate Change fable has been based on increasing CO2. YOUR GOVERNMENT have introduced CO2 taxes based on this! But YOUR government don’t have the BALLS to admit your input was false and fraudulent!
> >
> > The “economic analysis” showing “investing in a low carbon society” to protect us is based on absolute GARBAGE as your own “authoritative evidence based” sources are now coming out and stating!! The “economic” and “investing” crew is what this whole SCAM is about!
> >
> > As for “irresponsible” – It is people like YOU and Ms Ruddock, in your ignorance and apathy who are entirely irresponsible!
> >
> >
> > This, as so many other elements impinging upon the UK (and globally) today, is all due to the fact our government is entirely owned and controlled by the Banking cabal. The control is simple and it is total. YOU, Mark, are nothing but a cog in a wheel of a car. Ms Ruddock is but another one. The IPCC scientists are others. The entire UK political system and establishment is corrupted and you people collaborate within that corruption, generally in ignorance of it because you work within your own little box.
> >
> > You deal with me as a constituent. No other MP will communicate with me because I am not their constituent. This happens up and down the country. It is one form of control of information and who can communicate with who. Your responses to me have absolutely no interest in what I am saying to you because the questions and facts I put to you are too difficult and will cause YOU issues. You do not answer to me or your constituents (although you should). You simply toe your party line otherwise you don’t have a job! The same goes for Ms Ruddock! You ensure your own survival – Period!
> > So that is how YOU are controlled. The control mechanisms are there all the way to the top.
> >
> > If there are any significant Parliamentary motions to be voted on across parties (such as the EU referendum), the government’s wish is granted due then to a party whip system AND a collusion between parties! There is NO difference between Ken Clarke and Peter Mandelson as Business Secretaries! They both bow to the same masters! Bilderberg! Even George Osbourne is being groomed by the Rothschild/Bilderberg lot. Cameron too! You’re ALL owned by the Bilderberg/Banking crew who use the IMF to dictate to the UK, as to other countries, how the government spends its money. Its money which is created by debt, the debt owned by the Banks. How difficult is this for you to comprehend? Brown and Cameron etc are puppets! It’s pathetic!
> >
> > The Labour/Tory game at the end of the day is a struggle to see which one can pitch the best “solution” for the bankers. Decades ago there was some semblance of a divide between the two parties but today there is none. The TV/Media portrayal is all contrived whereas the two parties (forget the Limp Dems for now but they play their part too) are so close in policy because they HAVE to be to stay within the confines the Globalists want!
> >
> > So, yes, you’re a cog in a wheel. The car is built up of wheels plus engine and transmission etc and the passengers are the population while the engine is the government, the NGO’s the transmission etc. But, at the end of the day, the guy in charge of the steering wheel guiding the car are the banks/International Bankers/IMF. That car is being steered directly toward the edge of a cliff but the guy in the driver’s seat will bail out just before the edge – just as the Banks got bailed out. Meanwhile, the passengers can’t bail out because of the child locks.
> >
> > But you’re a cog in the wheel Mark and you’re as dispensable as the rest of us. You’ll never accept that however because then you’d have to do something about it. The fear you have of not being “MARK LAZAROWICZ MP” any longer ensures you’ll never act however. It’s so much easier to ignore people like me.
> >
> > Now, I wonder why, thus far, 130 MPs are standing down? Any chance it’s because they recognise there is no real job left for a politician these days? Any chance they recognise that they are cogs in those wheels? Possibly they no longer wish to deal with the trash we are going to be saddled with from an unelected government in the EU which Mandelson and Clarke, as Bilderbergers (plus others such as our “esteemed” ex PM Blair and the incumbent) worked so hard to achieve while the rest of you look on scratching your heads trying to work out what’s going on then, as the penny dropped, just wished to hold on to whatever you could in your career within the corrupt “industry” you’re in.
> >
> >
> >
> > Quick question: Is Nigel Griffiths an odd job man? A jack of all trades?
> >
> > Potholes, street cleaning, loose paving slabs, broken streetlights, blocked drains, abandoned cars, unfinished road works which appear to have been abandoned…..
> >
> > If you have major issue Tell Nigel and he will do what he can to help.
> >
> > Contact Nigel Today…….
> >
> > 690be220-929b-0cf4-dd26-07921acbd5eb
> >Just don’t bother him with anything REALLY serious right?
> > Lastly, I STILL have no response on that pathetic, arrogant reply from Mandelson re the Privy Council Oath. He admits to the oath being law and of the utmost seriousness (of course, he’d have to) BUT, he breaks it? “no foreign state”.
> >You people really are something else!
> > I just can’t wait for the IMF/SDR reply! That will be a hoot!
> >
> >Earthling
Earthling 
21 comments