Earthlinggb's Blog

HONG KONG: PEOPLE KEEP SWALLOWING BULLSHIT!

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on August 14, 2019

The Hong Kongese are even resorting to singing “The Star Spangled Banner”! OMFG!!

Oh HOW do you get through to people that they need to research????

TO HONG KONGERS: READ MY BLOGS ON CAPITALIZING CHINA! YOU WILL NOT BE SINGING THIS ANTHEM FOR TOO MUCH LONGER!!!!!!!!

Tagged with: , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

MH370: PM Najib Razak – “Yesterday and today”.

The Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak, is being steered by US and British interests.

While Malaysians and Chinese are throwing their venom at the Malaysian government, they are throwing it all in the wrong direction. Sure the Malaysian government are going along with it but why? Do you think that, politically, the Malaysian government have a strong hand as compared to the British and US governments? Or the Chinese government for that matter?

Here is Najib just a couple of weeks ago:

Here he is on CNN just a day or so ago:

In the first video he’s telling you that he’s relying on Inmarsat and the AAIB in the UK. He’s got no choice. He didn’t have to accept it did he? But then IF he hadn’t informed at the “earliest opportunity” and the media came out and stated that Malaysia had been provided with such analysis but hadn’t accepted it, then he would have to deal with people assuming he and his government were hiding this also. So the man is between a rock and a hard place. He gives a press conference stating the analysis’ results and, to give such results he can hardly then state “But I don’t believe them” can he? So what the hell do you expect him to do? He’s being TOLD to believe them

In the second video, however, while then “couching” his initial disbelief, he is sowing seeds of that disbelief. At the same time it makes no sense whatsoever that we are now told that primary radar picked up an aircraft turning back but they don’t know if it was MH370. If it wasn’t MH370 then they must know which aircraft it was because, if they did not know what type of aircraft and where it was originally heading (therefore have an understanding of the, as yet, unidentified plane’s flight path) then how would they know it had “turned back”? Yes they could say they saw a plane on radar making a 180 degree turn BUT, if they didn’t know the purpose or the destination of that plane, how could they conclude a “turn back”? They also state it wasn’t a threat. How could they know this without first identifying what type of plane it was (civil or military) and how would they not consider something wrong whichever type of civil aircraft it may have been? So they MUST have known what plane it was. If it wasn’t MH370 then which airline was it? And what’s the story behind THAT “turn back”? All of this is ignored.

None of this holds water. So PM Najib is holding back something here but WHY is he? I doubt it’s because he and Malaysia wish to.

However, additionally, in the second video (the most recent with CNN) he will not state outright the plane has been lost (and yet we’re talking about death certificates?) because, as he says, he is considering the families feelings in this. No, he’s not. IF he knew 100% the plane was lost and it was where Inmarsat said it was (forgetting it cannot be found for the moment) then he would be bringing closure to the families (as he already tried to do based on his statement a month ago) then it would be that (and the proof) that would be considerate of the families’ feelings. He’s not stating it’s lost because can’t. The “authorities” have not done a good enough job yet to achieve that level of confirmation needed.

“We are as sure as we can possibly be” says Inmarsat and the “experts” from UK and the US. So that’s a “NO” then. It’s not a yes and when faced with such a direct question “Are you sure?” It’s a yes or no answer. Anything else automatically defaults to “NO”.

There are people who know exactly where that plane is and what happened to it. The rest is a wild goose chase as I’ve said from the beginning. IS it Diego Garcia? Who knows? I don’t. I have only said I have strong suspicions of it being so and why the globalists would carry out such a ‘project’. The ONLY reason why that scenario is deemed “crazy” and not investigated by any “authority” is because the “authority” IS globalist! Why do you think Najib is now submitting his document to the United Nations before releasing it to the people? Why does the United Nations ICAO have to give its “blessing” to the Malaysian government for such a release of information?

Who owns the United Nations? And please don’t say it’s a few countries on the Security Council. Please don’t give me that naivety when it is, with a little research, obvious to anyone who runs that show.

Here’s another thing from Sky News. Notice anything?

MH370 death certificates

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1247069/mh370-relatives-in-death-certificate-fury

It goes on to say:

“A public opinion poll published last week found that more than half of Malaysians believe their scandal-prone government – which has controlled the country for 57 years – is hiding the full truth about the plane’s disappearance.”

A subtle little addition to suggest that the Malaysian government is a “regime” of sorts. Well they all are aren’t they? I’m not making excuses for ANY government. They ALL have their drive for power (and corruption) and the biggest of them are Her Majesty’s government followed closely by the American government (which is just the brawn of Her Majesty and the City of London anyhow).

I have said from the beginning that, at least in part, this whole episode is to destabilise the Malaysian state. I stick to that 100%.

Glad to see, however, that the relatives are not accepting the death certificates. It’s quite obvious that Najib understands why. He IS in between a rock and a hard place and every last word he comes out with while pressured, is going to be twisted by one faction or the other. He can’t win.

Another one:

Search widens Sky

http://news.sky.com/story/1249182/missing-malaysia-flight-mh370-search-to-widen

And it goes on to state:

“The Malaysian government, which has primary responsibility for the investigation, has been accused of mismanaging the search, concealing information about the tragedy and of being too slow to update families of the missing on developments.”

Every shot is being fired at the Malaysian government but very few at Inmarsat, AAIB, UK and American governments. Yes questions may be being asked of how accurate the analysis has been but NO-ONE is suggesting that the information provided could be being provided for nefarious reasons. And yet, not an ounce of evidence or debris to back it all up. 95% of the search area has now been completed and nothing. And yet, it was based upon Inmarsat’s analysis and Australia talking about one ping after another (having the first “ping” seemingly detected by China). Narrowing down and narrowing down the search zone based on so called “pings” yet, in this narrow searched zone, nothing found. Now some are saying (again unidentified US defence personnel) that the search could take years. If that is the case then these pings were not pings from a black box, so what were they? We will never get the answer to that because answers are NOT what they are looking for.

This is a study in trying to cover up a real story and trying to stitch together an “official story” while wearing down the families and interested parties to a point where the official story is accepted (once more) and years later, when it has all died down, a headline or a 7th page news item or news item at the end of the 6 o’clock news, states that debris and black boxes have eventually been found. The actual black box recordings will never be released but perhaps transcripts will – written by officials of course – and the entire event will, like so many others, continue to be discussed here and there as if the official story was real, correct and anyone questioning it, a nutter.

Wear them down. Just keep wearing them down. Add a great deal of confusion and unidentified, anonymous statements and opinions by “experts” to deflect from fundamentals which the majority view as reality because officialdom says so but which, from day one, were highly questionable.

And once more we have people murdered for an agenda and the perpetrators walk away scot free because they are officialdom. The perpetrators construct the story after all.

As they say “History is written by the winners”.

Rothschild’s Iran-Iraq War

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, The illegal wars by earthling on April 9, 2014

Iran-Iraq War

HC Deb 11 July 1995 vol 263 c527W 527W
§Mr. Llew Smith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. [32888]
§Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. [29465]
§Mr. Freeman [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.

Nice eh? To make sure they didn’t have any problems with British export licencing and to keep their name out of the Iran -Iraq war issue as far as possible, the Rothschilds sent arms (Chemical WMDs? Although it doesn’t matter what they were) to Iran/Iraq (probably both) from their globalists little outpost in China. And you think, when thinking about world geopolitics and wars, that it’s all to do with the west versus the east, the US or UK versus China or Russia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Chinese_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Listen and listen good! It’s a globalist V the rest of us issue. The globalists get the job they want done from anywhere on planet earth! That’s why they’re CALLED “GLOBALISTS” and that’s why Rockefeller speaks about “conspiring with others (internationalists as he calls himself and them) around the world”.

Meanwhile, here’s another Rothschild thing from Parliament archives:

Note how Tam Dalyell (and this goes for all other parliamentarians) shits himself at the idea of stating what he has stated outside of parliamentary privilege because he knows Rothschild would come after him in litigation. And you wonder why these guys keep their mouths shut most of the time? If Rothschild doesn’t know they shag babies then the Rothschilds will destroy them in court. NOT by necessarily winning but by the sheer knowledge they have the money to keep the case going on and on and bankrupting the other party.

 

 

Official Secrets Act (Prosecution Policy)

HC Deb 06 February 1987 vol 109 cc1291-8 1291
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter LLoyd.]

2.41 pm
§Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent 22 minutes of the previous debate on human rights deploying the same arguments as I anticipate he is likely to deploy in the Adjournment debate. Is it possible, in those circumstances, that those of us who were not able to make a speech on the Human Rights Bill because of the hon. Member for Linlithgow’s actions should be able to take part in the Adjournment debate and deploy some of the important arguments that we were seeking to deploy on the Human Rights Bill?
§Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I cannot rule or make a judgment on a hypothesis.
2.42 pm
§Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will be disappointed, because there is another, different aspect to the issue.
Charmingly, the Solicitor-General began his speech this morning with what he said was a platitude. I should like to start with a non-platitude. While not being his easiest parliamentary colleague, and, trying though he may find me from time to time, being over-inquisitive, I have had every courtesy from an approachable and forthcoming Attorney-General. It is no platitude to wish him a speedy return to full health.

I heard the Solicitor-General this morning and I thank him for attending the Adjournment debate. In my opinion, in the 1950s he was the most eloquent Oxford president ever to come to the Cambridge Union. He was extremely eloquent this morning.

May I say at the outset that I gave the Attorney-General a copy of my speech in relation to the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild and Mr. Bernard Sheldon on Monday, since it raises issues of byzantine difficulty and daunting delicacy, which should not be sprung out of the blue on any Minister. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I am sure that he will respond to this in the same spirit of considered seriousness.

The purpose of the first part of my speech is to give the Law Officers an opportunity to tell Parliament—these issues are ultra-party— what on earth they propose to do to clear up the Augean stables of inconsistency in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. The Law Officers will understand that my deep interest in these matters was born during the 11 days that I spent in the Old Bailey, in Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan’s court, during the trial of Clive Ponting.

Why prosecute Clive Ponting and dither, understandably—I do not use that word in a pejorative sense—over prosecuting Victor Rothschild? Why send Sarah Tisdall to prison for months and do nothing about Bernard Sheldon, albeit he is approaching retirement, in relation to Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West? Why fail to prosecute Bernard Ingham for the selective leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter? It looks as if there is one prosecution policy for the influential, the famous and the distinguished and another prosecution policy for the more junior, hitherto less famous, civil servants.

1292 Compared with what Victor Rothschild set in train, with Peter Wright and Harry Chapman Pincher, anything that Clive Ponting put in my way melts into insignificance, in terms of national security, if not political embarrassment. There is an apparent inconsistency of policy, and it would be helpful to the House to know on what principles those discriminating practices are justified and on what basis discrimination is authorised by Ministers.

It is to the position of Lord Rothschild that I wish to refer. If, for the first time, I shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, it is because Lord Rothschild can be a litigious man and, secondly, I do not think that what I am saying is to his discredit. I refer to 26 November—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait and hear what I shall say. I refer to 26 November, when I asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to proceeding against …. Mr. Arthur Franks, formerly head of MI6, and …. Lord Rothschild for breach of confidence in relation to information on matters of state security given to authors. The Attorney-General replied: I am considering with the Director of Public Prosecutions the allegations made in respect of the two named individuals.”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol 106, c. 268.]

I returned to the subject on 1 December 1986, and the Attorney-General said: The matter remains under consideration.” — [Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]

On 18 December 1986, I asked the Prime Minister whether she will now release Lord Rothschild from his obligations of confidentiality as a former member of the security services; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister replied: All present and former members of the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. They may not make unauthorised disclosures of information acquired in their work. Any requests for authorised disclosure would be considered in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 613.]

Let me offer necessarily truncated points. First, in the 1930s, international Jewry, of which the Rothschilds were one of the leading families, were aghast at the anti-semitism that was then rampant in Germany. Secondly, Victor Rothschild may, as the author Douglas Sutherland suggests, have recruited Guy Burgess for a minor role in one of the Jewish intelligence services. Thirdly, as an understandably passionate anti-Fascist, Victor Rothschild may have had relations with Comintern agents. Talk of spying is jejune nonsense. Anyhow, a good agent is one who gets from foreign powers more than he gives.

Fourthly, the events of long ago fade into the past. Sleeping dogs from the 1930s and 1940s were rightly, in my view, allowed to lie. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But in 1979, Britain gets a new species of Prime Minister. On 15 November 1979, the new Prime Minister makes a statement on Blunt, against advice, with the aplomb of a cow in a china shop. Sir Charles Cunningham tells me that Sir Anthony Blunt’s activities as an agent of both sides many years previously were fully known to successive permanent secretaries at the Home Office.

Fifthly, I believe that Lord Rothschild was extremely angry about the Prime Minister’s reaction on Sir Anthony Blunt. Some of us believe that Sir Anthony Blunt’s memoir, given to his brother, and now lodged in an institution in London, will reveal a complex story, part of which is that Sir Anthony Blunt was asked by a former member of the security forces whose name I have given to 1293 the Attorney-General, and by Guy Liddell, to help get Burgess and Maclean, by that time embarrassments both, out of the country.

Sixthly, in the summer of 1980, Lord Rothschild had the Prime Minister to his flat in Saint James’s. He is subsequently quoted in the press as saying: She does not understand intelligence matters.

Seventhly, Lord Rothschild then came to believe that his own reputation was at stake, especially after the Prime Minister’s statement on Sir Roger Hollis on 23 March 1981, which appears in the Official Report at column 1079. At his own expense, Lord Rothschild brought Peter Wright from Australia. He discussed with Wright certain material which appeared to constitute a contravention of section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Section 7 states: Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour or a summary offence according as the offence in question is a felony, a misdemeanour or a summary offence, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offence. If the Attorney-General would decide to prosecute Lord Rothschild in open court, it would be possible to ask questions which are causing much public concern and which Lord Rothschild would then have to answer on oath. These are some of the questions that might be asked. First, how does Lord Rothschild explain his involvement with Sidgwick and Jackson over the Pincher-Wright book? While it is possible that Sidgwick and Jackson would consult Sir Arthur Franks about possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, that would not explain Lord Rothschild’s involvement.

Secondly, why should Lord Rothschild expose himself by suggesting an unlawful enterprise to Mr. Wright, namely that he should breach the Official Secrets Act and then procure a writer, Mr. Pincher, to act as a channel for royalties?

Thirdly, why should Lord Rothschild fly Wright to London if, as has been suggested, all he needed was a testimonial to protect himself against suggestions that he had been a Soviet agent?

Fourthly, why pay Wright? Why introduce him to Harry Chapman Pincher? Why should Mr. Pincher pay him half the royalties?

Only by proceeding in open court on oath can obscurities be made less obscure. Only by proceedings in open court can there be an end to doubt and to the suspicion of discrimination.

I ask the Law Officers why they will or why they will not prosecute Victor Rothschild. If they decline to prosecute, apologies should be winging their way to Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting.

Even more clearly, the Law Officers owe Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting an explanation as to why they take no action against Mr. Bernard Sheldon for briefing Mr. Rupert Allason — alias Nigel West — who incidentally, and I do not intend to make much of this, is Conservative candidate for Torquay, for his books. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to enter the argument about Mr. Allason being Conservative candidate for Torquay.

If I am asked in general terms after my comments this morning about sources, part of my reply would be that 1294 there is an urgent need for an appeal body to which civil servants, policemen, service men or people in the intelligence services can go without jeopardising their careers if they believe that they have been abused. That is the official policy of the Labour party put down by the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment at the party conference at Bournemouth on the Sunday. I was interested to hear on the radio that Nigel West — alias Rupert Allason—said at 8.15 am on 5 February that he supported the idea of such an appeal body.

Finally, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the Interspace articles with regard to Zircon. The question was whether the knowledge of Zircon or Skynet IV was in the public print at least two years ago. The Leader of the House said that he would draw that matter to the attention of the Solicitor-General.

I will leave the matter there, because the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have a very serious interest in these matters.

2.54 pm
§The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind good wishes for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for his kind remarks about him, which are much appreciated. May I also thank him for his kind reference to me. I am grateful to him for having given the Law Officers advance notice of the contents of his speech, which was a helpful gesture. Even so, he made several allegations to which, as I shall explain, I shall be unable to respond.
The main theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was whether Lord Rothschild should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1986, the police were requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate allegations that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Chapman Pincher had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act. The police investigation is continuing and no decision can be taken until the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the police report, which will then be sent to the Attorney-General, or to me if the Attorney-General has not yet returned to his duties.

In those circumstances, and in accordance with the normal practice of the Law Officers, I cannot comment, except to say that I am satisfied that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the police officers who are carrying out the investigations. As far as I can recollect, most, if not all, of the allegations formed part of the evidence given by Mr. Wright in the proceedings in Sydney and, as allegations, they are common knowledge.

I emphasise once again that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no discriminatory policy in considering cases submitted to him under the Official Secrets Act. Each case is considered openly upon exactly the same criteria, and there is no foundation for a claim that importance or seniority in rank provides a person who is under investigation with any advantage.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question today which is already the subject of a question on the Order Paper for priority written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It relates to the publishers of the Interspace newsletter in respect of an article or 1295 articles that might be considered to refer to the Zircon project. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter raised in the written question and which he has raised today will be the subject of consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, on having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter” — [Official Report, 23 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 451] —that matter being the one raised by the hon. Gentleman a considerable time ago relating to the Westland affair. I mention that in relation to the name which he mentioned today of Mr. Bernard Ingham. I do not recall that, in the copy of the speech which he furnished to the Attorney-General, he said that he would make allegations against Mr. Bernard Ingham to the extent that he has done today. The words that I have just uttered formed the basis of a statement on 23 January 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

In the context of remarks about the book, “A Matter of Trust” written by Mr. Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Bernard Sheldon, who is an official. He asks why the Attorney-General has not prosecuted Mr. Sheldon. The answer is simple and I trust that it is welcome. I am informed that there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Sheldon has committed any offence under the Official Secrets Act. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mr. Sheldon in connection with the recent searches of BBC premises. I am informed that neither that official nor the security service had any involvement at all in any decisions or actions relating to this matter. During the last debate the hon. Gentleman made allegations about my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his Department in connection with the search of BBC premises. Having had no notice of the allegations made in that debate, perhaps I may be permitted to say that in his answer in another place on Wednesday 4 February my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate set out the circumstances in which the search warrants were applied for and granted.

I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation that the Crown Office, alarmed at the enormity of what it was being asked to do, made a direct or indirect approach to the Prime Minister’s office and that the Crown Office was told by the Prime Minister’s office to allow special branch officers to take everything and anything from BBC Scotland. I am informed that at no time was the Crown Office in communication with the Prime Minister’s office. I understand that yesterday the hon. Gentleman told my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would not expect him to be in his place today for this debate. Therefore, I find the allegations made earlier today a little surprising.

§Mr. Dalyell That was simply because as a Scottish Member I know that it is difficult to be here on Friday.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that, and no doubt it is an explanation. When officials enter the public service they know that throughout their service they will be unable to speak in their own defence to answer criticism and that they must rely on their Ministers to do that for them, especially when 1296 criticism is unfounded. The hon. Gentleman thinks it justifiable to allege that named officials should be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I have already repeated the Prime Minister’s words about Mr. Bernard Ingham and I should now like to say something about Mr. Bernard Sheldon.
The hon. Gentleman earlier made a speech about human rights, but has not provided a scrap of evidence to support his allegation about Mr. Sheldon. Either he has evidence, as The Independent reports him as claiming he has, in which case it is disgraceful that he has not provided it, or he has none, in which case it is disgraceful to allege an offence.

§Mr. Dalyell This is part of the problem and the reason why I said in my speech that it is of great urgency to institute some kind of appeal body to which civil servants, service men, intelligence officers or policemen who think that they are being maltreated can go without jeopardy to their careers. That is important and that is why I raised the subject at my party conference and was one of those who made it helpful to be the policy of the party.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew Civil servants must be defended by their Ministers when they have no means, at present at any rate, of speaking in their own defence. However, officials are entitled to rely on more than defence by their Ministers. They are entitled to expect that hon. Members, protected as they take pains to be by privilege, will treat officials fairly. I regret that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Ingham, both of whom have had careers of great dedication and distinction with successive Governments, have been unfairly treated in the Chamber.
§Mr. Dalyell Before the Solicitor-General sits down, may I remind him that I am talking about men of considerable power. I worked closely with the late Dame Evelyn Sharp and know how civil servants should properly be treated. The difficulty arises when civil servants become so powerful that they are not accountable in the normal sense of the word. That is why I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister’s press officer, saying that we were dealing with the most powerful “man” in British politics. Later several of the Solicitor-General’s colleagues vouchsafe to me—that I was quite right arid that he is the most powerful—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention. He cannot speak for a second time.
§ 3.5 pm

§Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Solicitor-General to speak?
§Mr. Dalyell Most certainly.
§The Solicitor-General Yes.
§Mr. Cash I am most grateful for an opportunity to speak. We have just had a debate on human rights in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a speech which stretched the procedures of the House. He has now made a series of apparently groundless allegations against certain people. I was not privy to that speech and I can only form a judgment on the basis of what he said. He said nothing specifically and he substantiated nothing with evidence.
1297 There are times when we have reason to be worried that the hon. Gentleman is as much interested in grabbing headlines as in getting at the truth. I suspect that that is true of what happened earlier this morning.

Campaigns such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an appeal body, which was apparently endorsed at the Labour party conference, raise central questions about the nature of authority and where it resides.

§Mr. Dalyell That is absolutely right.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman says that I am absolutely right, but I suspect that we disagree fundamentally about where the centre of gravity must remain.
Self regulation and the constraints that people impose on themselves to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities and, by contrast, the right to speak, are issues which go to the heart of the matter. We have become increasingly fed up — I am sure that is true for the country as well — with people who believe that their unsubstantiated opinions which appear in the media or here, and which are drawn from a fairly limited range of information, can be used to make assertions and inferences—

§Mr. Dalyell rose—
§Mr. Cash I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later. Such clashes of opinion ought to be resolved in the proper and normal way, which is within the framework of law prescribed by our procedures and Acts of Parliament. We are increasingly fed up with invasions of privilege.
§Mr. Dalyell The hon. Gentleman says that I have made unsubstantiated allegations. That was the type of speech which was made against me for 18 long months before the Old Bailey Clive Ponting trial substantiated everything that I had tried to say.
I named Colette Bow in the House and there was the matter of the Solicitor-General’s letter. Who has since been proved right about that? The Solicitor-General will not comment but, with regard to his letter, I was attacked time and again by Conservative Members, but who now thinks that I have been wrong?

1298
§Mr. Cash I have a straight and simple answer. If the hon. Gentleman was proved right in the courts before, he should make the unsubstantiated allegations that he made today outside the House and prove his point in the courts. That is my direct and simple answer to him. Will he reply to that?
§Mr. Dalyell If I go to a court of law and name names, people’s careers are in jeopardy — not mine, other people’s careers. I have to make a judgment whether what I have been told is the truth or not. From my inquiries in Scotland, I believe that every word that I am saying is true.
§Mr. Cash The record has to stand for itself. The only person’s reputation that will be harmed by what has been going on here this morning is the hon. Gentleman’s. I have offered the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, which he is not prepared to take up. If he thinks that making statements and allegations within the privilege of the House will enable him to be able to justify what he has to say, when what he is doing—because he knows perfectly well that everything he says will be splashed over the newspapers tomorrow — is not damaging people’s reputations when they cannot reply to him, then he is absolutely wrong and we are fed up with it and the way that he carries on.
§Mr. Dalyell If there is going to be anger, I am exceedingly angry about what was done in BBC Scotland, which was a wholly un-British thing to do. What happened in Glasgow was horrific. That was something that has never happened in Britain before. I have been here for nearly a quarter of a century and previous Prime Ministers — the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Mr. Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home—know that I have behaved impeccably towards them. This is a different kind of Government and a new species of Prime Minister. As a Member who has been here for a quarter of a century, I do not like it.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is shielding himself behind the privileges of the House.
§The question having been proposed after half-past Two o’clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

§Adjourned at eleven minutes past Three o’clock.

 

Ever wondered why these sorts of people intermarry? Well, when you combine wealth you protect yourself enormously because those who would wish to attack you don’t dare because they know you can spend them into bankruptcy. Whereas, if you were to marry a pauper, you just have what YOU have and your spouse brings no further protection to the table. If you wish to maintain your class as the ruling class, you continue to marry within it.

Rothschilds 2 Rothschilds

 

Arms Exports

HC Deb 20 June 1995 vol 262 cc231-2W 231W
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; [29463]
(2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. [29474]

§Mr. Freeman In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. [29464]
§Mr. Freeman As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. [29466]
§Mr. Freeman The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. [29467]
§Mr. Freeman It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. [29468]232W
§Mr. Freeman It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. [29469]
§Mr. Freeman The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. [29471]
§Mr. Freeman All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.
In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.

§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; [29472]
(2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. [29473]

§Mr. Freeman The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.

 

Globalism 101

Posted in Finance, Law, Money by earthling on April 2, 2014

Just take these two points and recognise them for what they are telling you. It couldn’t be more succinct:

1. From the Office of the historian US State Department archive. Take particular note of 1980.

Office of the historian US china

US China chronology 1

US China chronolgy 2

 

2. Introduction of the legal person providing for economic reforms in China from 1979 onward…

CH legal 2

CH legal 3

“Concerning private enterprises, promulgate later in the same year………In the early 1980s, the fact that the legal person was a notion of the capitalist law….The economic contract law (1981) was the first law in which “legal person” was formally employed.”

The year the globalists took hold of China. They needed the legal person concept to do it. The two economic/finance and investment systems cannot integrate without the concept of the legal person. It is the law which enables the monetary and economic system and the economic and monetary system which controls the law. It is a symbiotic relationship. It is law which states what money is (and it could be anything as proscribed by law – anything at all can act as a means of exchange but ONLY “money” which is a true reflection of value (assets/labour) is non corruptible) but the money wich is in use at the moment is not considered purely as a means of exchange but as an investment commodity in itself (exchange rates, money markets) just like gold, silver, bitcoin, any other present commodity money. Even gold is corruptible and is used as an investment and would be even if those gold and silver supporters go their way in making it “real money”. It is all owned by the very same people who own the existing FIAT money. FIAT is NOT the problem. FIAT essentially means it is recognised as currency by the people. There is nothing wrong with that AS LONG AS, as a currency, it is ONLY a means of exchange and represents the real economy in terms of the real assets and labour in that economy. The currency can, therefore, be digits on a screen and that is precisely what you would want in such a case.

But back to China. As crystal clear in a short few sentences as it is possible to be. The globalists got China to accept the legal person concept and, from there, Chinese Banks and Chinese corporations are heavily invested in (and therefore controlled) by globalist vehicles – Nominee accounts. Globalist multinationals can also invest capital into China and benefit from the immensely reduced wages. Americans and British (and many countries in the west) lose their jobs and careers, wealth, homes, assets etc and need to accept lower and lower wages until there comes a point where wages achieve a balance across the globe. The intention is NOT to improve living standards to any substantial degree for the east but to depress living standards to a point where the slight increase in the east meets the west.

Meanwhile, the globalists, in having sold you the “dream” of improving everyone’s living standards across the world, actually capitalise from the reducing standards in the west and, by raising the east’s slightly on aggregate, they have a more mature market with a population able to buy “trinkets” and insurance.

It’s bloody brilliantly conceived I’ll give them that.

Capitalizing China (condensed)

Posted in Finance, Law, Money, Politics by earthling on March 31, 2014

Capitalizing China 2n, Secret

The previous blog “Capitalizing China” can be condensed into the following simple facts:

1. From 1979 onwards the west gradually had closer and closer talks with China on their integration with the rest of the world from an economy and market perspective.

2. There was a fundamental problem which existed in China (from a globalist perspective): China did not recognise or use something called “THE LEGAL PERSON”. Such a concept did not exist in China.

3. The non existence of the legal person concept meant that the west and China could not “speak” to one another and the legal rights (invariably termed “human rights”) which were applied to CORPORATE PERSONS in the west DID NOT exist in China!

4. There was a need to integrate two very different legal systems which had two very different fundamental jurisprudences. The west using a concept called the LEGAL PERSON and China not. Someone had to “give”. That someone was China.

5. There are a multitude of what are called “Nominees” Accounts which exist as PRIVATE “subsidiaries” of Public organisations such as the Bank of England and what I have just found in Hong Kong (but US owned): HKSCC which is a PRIVATE subsidiary of the Hong Kong stock exchange.

6. Remember Hong Kong, although given back to China, is NOT fully integrated with China. It still has its own government.

7. These “Nominees” accounts DO NOT divulge who the beneficiaries are of the shareholdings which are bought through them. It is acknowledged formally, however, that those who have used BOEN (Bank of England Nominees) have been Heads of state of any and all countries. That is just the Bank of England Nominees however.

8. The HKSCC is a similar account to the BOEN (as all “Nominees” accounts are). They are entirely private (secret) accounts where the elite heads of state can invest in everything from the world’s banking institutions to the world’s largest energy and resource corporations.

9. Since the Chinese accepted the “legal person” as a fundamental of their jurisprudence, it has allowed our elite (our Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchy etc) to invest in Chinese banks and corporations entirely secretly.

10. Having achieved this change in the Chinese legal system and now having their money investing and controlling shareholdings in Chinese banks and corporations, they can also offshore the jobs of the west’s multinationals thereby reducing labour costs to a minimum.

11. Ok this is obvious as we know. BUT our elite have “sold” to us the idea of globalism as being to create ease in doing business and, therefore, creating jobs for us and allowing an easier flow of people between countries (ala the EU). Certainly the ease of flow of people is obvious and documented BUT has it provided more opportunity and wealth FOR any of these people? Yes for those coming into Britain and America – relative to their home state – but it has not had the effect of increasing prosperity on the aggregate, It has had the opposite effect.

12. The reality is that, yes, the “globalism” has made doing business easier but for whom? The BUSINESS/CORPORATE/MULTINATIONAL OWNERS.

13. It has reduced their costs by offshoring – made capable by introducing the legal person into chinese law.

14. It has, therefore, reduced the numbers of employed in the west. This results in people taking jobs which pay peanuts just to live and make ends meet.

15. Who OWNS the CORPORATIONS? The investors do! Who are the investors in the major chinese banks and corporations? HKSCC – a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON and, of course, the Chinese government and elite.

16. The western leaders “cry” about the rise of China BUT it is THEIR personal investments in it which has created that rise. They then turn to us and say we must be more competitive – which means our salaries go DOWN! So they are then the investors in corporations and businesses at home and achieve reduced costs and higher and higher profits therefore. PLUS, they are invested in China in their banks and corporations and make even bigger profits due to the low wages. They work on this over time and the result is this: The world’s labour costs are evened out across the board and they are at the LOWEST common denominator.

It’s like this:

The investor class (elite) take ownership shareholdings in banks worldwide. It is, of course, these banks which provide the liquidity (including interest) to the corporations of the world which these same investors are invested in. They, therefore, own the capital AND the labour. Why do multinational corporations hardly pay an ounce of tax? Because the banks want all the profit. Who do governments borrow from? The Banks!

The Nominees accounts are secret because what is happening is that our elite are absolutely destroying people’s lives for their own profit. YES we know that but what I’m showing you here is HOW they do it. These nominee accounts have VAST sums invested in all banks and all corporations. To ensure that the corporations make the profits they make, the elite destroy the “mom and pop” businesses, the small and medium businesses, by “choking” their liquidity cashflow. That’s why our high streets are dying and it is the large TESCOS and major multinational hypermarkets which are providing everything from clothes to food. furniture (IKEA) etc etc etc.

THE NOMINEE ACCOUNT SHAREHOLDERS MUST BE SECRET BECAUSE, IF THEY WERE NOT, PEOPLE – THAT IS THE MAN IN THE STREET WHO HAS LOST EVERYTHING AND ALSO THE SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSMAN (PERHAPS WORTH A MILLION OR TWO) WOULD SEE THAT THE VERY PEOPLE SAYING TO THEM “THE PROBLEM IS CHINA” (OR WHATEVER OTHER COUNTRY) ARE THE VERY PEOPLE INVESTED IN CHINA AND CREATING THE MISERY!

THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” FOR THESE NOMINEE ACCOUNTS TO HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND WHY YOU HAVE THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT COVERING PARAGRAPHS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1946.

AND FOR THE COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT PLAY BALL – I.E. DO NOT ALLOW THEIR ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL/LEGAL STRUCTURE TO BECOME FULLY INTEGRATED WITH GLOBALIST/WESTERN (AND EASTERN) INTERESTS – THEY WILL FIND THEY HAVE A PLANE GO MISSING AND THE REST OF THE WORLD CHASTISE THEM – INCLUDING ONE OF THEIR MAJOR ECONOMIC PARTNERS (CHINA) – OR, THEY WILL FIND THEIR “REGIME” DEMONISED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND THE US AND NATO START DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM!

But the bottom line is this: Our own Heads of state and elite (bankers/politicians) are SCREWING US while they smile in our faces.

asia-times-may-2003

Asia Times May 2003 2

ASIA TIMES 2003 THEY ARE ADVISED WHEN IT’S COMING AND WHERE TO INVEST

Capitalizing China!

Posted in Finance, Law, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on March 31, 2014

I rarely say this but I have said it before I admit on one or two occasions (because they have been) but this is one of the most important blogs I have ever written and I hope you read every last damned word of it and take it in….slowly. PLEASE share this widely and get LAZY people to READ IT!

This is how America, the UK and the West is getting slaughtered. NOT by the chinese but by our own. Your enemy lies at home America! Deep in the heart of Texas and Washington. And in the UK, deep in the heart of the City of London.

You don’t need an army to take over a country. You can do it perfectly well with a fictional idea. Two words: “Legal” and “Person” that’s it. Literally. Nothing more is required.

You think this is outrageous and ridiculous don’t you? Well you carry on believing. No skin off my nose.

Ch legal 1

China's new civil law

China's legal framework for foreign investment

The Globalists have commenced their take over control of China in 1979 and, as you will see here – as simply as I can make it – they did it with those two words: LEGAL PERSON. China accepted those two words and hey presto! The entire world and every soul in it is a market and an economic unit to be parasited from.

“I’ll ruin everything you are…

I’ll give you legal person…”

I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
It’s in the white of my eyes

My little China girl
You shouldn’t mess with me
I’ll ruin everything you are
I’ll give you television
I’ll give you eyes of blue
I’ll give you man who wants to rule the world

You are aware of the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES Ltd Private Company I assume? Wholly owned subsidiary of a PUBLIC company (so they tell us the B of E is a Public company that is) but the subsidiary is a PRIVATE offshoot. Why PRIVATE? Well, it does not come under the FOI Act does it? Just like Icke’s “The PEOPLE’S Voice” Private Limited Company funded by you. Anyhow, don’t let me go off on the Icke tangent again.

What has been in our news this last week or so?

The Bank of England has just made history (which means nothing to most people) and signed an agreement with the Chinese Central Bank to have the City of London as a clearing house for the RMB.

George Yuan

The City of London initiative on London as a centre for renminbi (RMB) business was launched on 18 April 2012. The role of the initiative is to consider practical measures to support the development of London as a centre for RMB business. It aims to:

Provide leadership to the wider financial markets on the technical, infrastructure and regulatory issues relevant to the development of the RMB product market in London
Advise HM Treasury on maximising London’s capacity to trade, clear and settle RMB and articulate practical next steps and long term aims for the development of the RMB market in London. Additionally, the group advises HM Treasury and other UK authorities on any financial stability concerns the members may perceive.
Develop and maintain, as appropriate, a private sector dialogue on the international RMB market with regulators in Hong Kong and mainland China to complement that which is already maintained by the UK public sector.

The City of London Representative offices in China.

The overall aim of the offices in Beijing and Shanghai is to strengthen trade and investment links in both directions between China and the UK through the promotion of world-class financial services and products. The offices work to promote ‘the City’ as a brand, covering financial services as a whole (including those under non-UK ownership) throughout the UK. The offices work to promote the services of the City – including the raising of capital, insurance, asset management, legal, accounting and other advisory services; emissions trading; London’s exchanges; and financial education, training and qualifications – to the government and private sector in China and promote awareness of the City as both a unique cluster of capital and expertise and a centre in which to locate operations.

The specific functions of the offices are to:

facilitate the business development of City firms by providing support for their visits to China;
support visits by Chinese decision-makers and senior financial services practitioners to the UK;
gain and disseminate information on market opportunities for City firms;
identify barriers to market access for financial and related business services; [These barriers to market are legal issues]
promote the UK as a physical location for representation and investment by Chinese financial services companies and provide support for inward investors;
organise visits by the City of London’s Policy Chairman and assist in planning and arranging visits by the Lord Mayor;
organise and support financial services related events and seminars.

Members of the City of London initiative:

Current members of the initiative are leading international banks with a strong presence in London and Hong Kong:

Agricultural Bank of China (UK)
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ)
Bank of China (UK)
Bank of Communications (UK)
Barclays
China Construction Bank (UK)
Citi
Deutsche Bank
HSBC
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (UK)
JP Morgan
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Standard Chartered
HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority are observers to the initiative. The City of London provides the secretariat.

Interestingly, this is taken from the 2012 Annual Report of the People’s Bank of China (China’s Central Bank):

中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).indd

“The PBC signed bilateral local currency swap agreements with central banks and monetary authorities in 18 countries and regions including Republic of Korea and Malaysia. Offshore RMB markets in Hong Kong, Taiwan, London and Singapore were in a good shape.”

So, Malaysia got in there before us.

Further, within this annual report, it states the following (there are many references to the “legal person” in fact). The way they refer to it, you can see, quite clearly, it is something new to them and they are struggling with it:

中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).indd

The PBC achieved significant results in statistics, survey and analytical work

中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).indd

“Statistics and monitoring of small rural financial insti中国人民银行年报–排版(英文).inddtutions based on legal person was achieved.

 

Ok. Now, for the moment, let’s just flip back to the Bank of England Nominees….

 

 

 

Investigating the Bank of England Nominees Limited

The following article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the October 2011 issue of Prosperity….

Occasionally we encounter people who refuse to believe the fact that the Bank of England is a fully, publicly-owned national institution, and has been since it was nationalised in 1946(1)

They will point to something called the “Bank of England Nominees Limited” (BOEN) to allege that there is a “secret” company attached to the Bank, into which a flow of hidden profits is presumably being directed for the enrichment of a select few. Their sources are usually unreferenced conspiracy websites.

If our reform is to gain traction, it is important that we are neither distracted by misinformation nor labour under misapprehensions about normality.

The Bank of England is Publicly-Owned

The Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government – meaning its profits go into the public purse at the Treasury. This is a plain fact and people who do not accept this are not being serious about our reform. See the statement on the Bank’s website where it states:

As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly. The principal means of accountability for the Bank is via the House of Commons Treasury Committee.(2)

Let’s look at that statement closely however because the Bank Of England Act 1946 doesn’t quite match up to what this statement by the Bank says:

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998

1 Transfer of Bank stock to the Treasury

  1. (1)  On the appointed day –(a) the whole of the existing capital stock of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank stock”) shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred, free of all trusts, liabilities and incumbrances, to such person as the Treasury may by order nominate,(3) to be held by that person on behalf of the Treasury;(b) the Treasury shall issue, to the person who immediately before the appointed day is registered in the books of the Bank as the holder of any Bank stock, the equivalent amount of stock created by the Treasury for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the “Government stock”).
  2. (2)  The Government stock shall bear interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum; and

the equivalent amount of Government stock shall, in relation to any person, be taken to be such that the sum payable annually by way of interest thereon is equal to the average annual gross dividend declared during the period of twenty years immediately preceding the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, upon the amount of Bank stock of which that person was the registered holder immediately before the appointed day.

So, all the stock in the Bank was transferred to the treasury/government BUT, on that transfer, the treasury contracted to the previous private owners of the stock in the Bank, an EQUIVALENT amount of stock in the British government! So, the Bank is owned by the government BUT the government is owned by the previous stockholders in the bank by an amount equivalent to their stockholding in the bank. FURTHER, in holding this government stock, the previous bank stockholders shall receive interest at the rate of 3% per annum IN PERPETUITY (there is no end date stated). So, in essence, it is a stock swap and nothing, in effect, has changed.

(4) After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October, [a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree.]

 

So, ONLY 50% (assuming they are stating 25% on each date rather than a total of 25%) of net profits – so after ALL costs are accounted for – goes to the Treasury. WHERE does the other 50% go?

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 19984 Treasury directions to the Bank and relations of the Bank with other banks

Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998Sections 4(4) and 4(5) repealed by section 16(4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

Now, if we go to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and follow this through, we get the following:

16(4) The enactments and Order mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act are hereby repealed or revoked to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.

So then we go to schedule 2 and what do we find?

2Defence

(1)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or
(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or
(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to defence or that its disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of subsection (1) above.
(4)In this section “defence” means—
(a)the size, shape, organisation, logistics, order of battle, deployment, operations, state of readiness and training of the armed forces of the Crown;
(b)the weapons, stores or other equipment of those forces and the invention, development, production and operation of such equipment and research relating to it;
(c)defence policy and strategy and military planning and intelligence;
(d)plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services that are or would be needed in time of war.

Read them each in turn carefully and decide which, if any, something within the Bank of England Act 1946 could have anything related to such. Essentially, then, it means that the paragraphs repealed by the Official Secrets Act within the Bank of England Act 1946, relate to matters of defence. That “defence of the realm” can ONLY be related to those documents which give detail as to WHO these bankers are who own this stock. “obstructs the promotion or protection…of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad…” (which citizens precisely?). Couple that with paragraph (c).

 

What is the “Bank of England Nominees Limited”?

 

The Bank of England Nominees is a wholly-owned, non-trading subsidiary of the Bank of England, with 2 ordinary shares valued at £1 each, as the latest Bank of England Annual Report(3) states. (the ordinary share value has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the shareholdings it deals in for third party private persons – corporate or natural persons)

A reply from Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank, to an enquirer Mr E Danielyan, dated 5 March 2010 explains:

BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey.(4) (The Directors and shareholders of such shares have nothing to do with the value of shares the nominees deals in)

Both John Footman(5) and Andrew Bailey(6) are employees of the Bank and their biographies are on the Bank’s website. (so what? Uninterested.)

BOENom

What is the Purpose of BOEN?

As the following written answer from the Commons’ Hansard from 21 April 1977(7) states, it is intended to hold shares on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others. (Now we’re getting somewhere. Could be Her Heinous to his Holiness, to Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, DuPont, Bill and Melinda Gates, President Assad, any and all Heads of state no matter what they are. Dictators or not. And let’s face it, they ALL are).

Shareholdings (Disclosure)

HC Deb 21 April 1977 vol 930 cc151-2W 151W

Mr. Blenkinsop asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England (which means it does not have to disclose the beneficial interest holders of shares). Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover (a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.; (b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company; (haha. That is absolutely fucking hilarious! A shareholder who wants no control and no say) (c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital. 152W

Bank of England Nominees Ltd. has also undertaken to make a report annually to the Secretary of State for Trade of the identity of those for whom it holds securities, and, provided that it holds securities for two or more people, the total value of the securities held. The contents of such reports are to be confidential to the Secretary of State.

BOEN – No Longer Allowed Disclosure Exemptions

It is important to note, however, that BOEN is “no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements”, as the following written answer from the Lords’ Hansard on 26 April 2011(8) makes clear. (But it no longer matters since it is now dormant! They have taken the money and run and they have closed down all their accounts and put their interests elsewhere, while that just so happens to have happened before June 2010 – not long, then after the economic collapse! Nice timing!)

BOEN nominees

This must mean that BOEN is no longer granted an exemption under Sec 796 of the Companies Act 2006 to the notification provisions required by Sec 793 – which it has been previously, according to Ben Norman above.

Bank of England

Questions

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited were last published; when they will next be published; and whether they intend to review whether the company should remain exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[HL8302]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): The most recent accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited are available via the Companies House website and were published on 14 June 2010. It can be seen from these accounts that the company is currently dormant. The company is due to publish its next set of accounts by 30 November this year. The company is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements and currently no other persons are exempt from these requirements.

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited will be published; whether these accounts will take into account an indemnity from HM Treasury; and whether the accounts of the company are exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.[HL8303]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Bank of England will publish accounts for the asset purchase facility (APF) for the year ended February 2011 before the Summer Parliamentary Recess. The amount due to or from HM Treasury under its indemnity to the Bank will be identified. The accounts are not exempt from any company law disclosure requirements. 12

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accounts of the Bank of England, Bank of England Nominees Limited and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited are all audited by the same firm of public accountants.[HL8310]

Lord Sassoon: KPMG are the external auditors for the Bank of England and the Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited. As a dormant company, Bank of England Nominees Limited is not required under the Companies Act 2006 to appoint an external auditor.

 

The BOEN Company Accounts for 2010 can be viewed online.(9) These Accounts state that, “There has been no income or expenditure on the part of the Company since its incorporation and accordingly no profit and loss account is submitted.” (p.2) It has Net Assets of £2. (p.4)

In Summary

As stated in Hansard, above, BOEN is a company set up with the intention of holding shares confidentially on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others.

That is to say, presumably, HM the Queen and her “immediate family” and certain governmental bodies.

Presumably the thinking here is that if those people were to buy them through normal means, then they would be visible to staff at share dealing companies and would regularly be leaked. This could, possibly, raise various security-related matters, and it could also, possibly, raise various rumours about matters related to the economy and the health, or otherwise, of certain companies.

In any case, BOEN is presently dormant, and is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.

Imagining strange goings-on at BOEN is a complete distraction from reality.

The truth, as with most things, is quite prosaic.

Purchase back issues of Alistair McConnachie’s Prosperity money reform journal here

And here is a link to Alistair McConnachie’s Google Profile.

(1) Bank of England Act 1946, http://www.legislation.gov.uk

(2) Bank of England, “The Bank’s Relationship with Parliament”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm

(3) Bank of England, Annual Report 2011, p.69,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2011/2011full.pdf

(4) This letter can be viewed in full and downloaded at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/28738/response/74019/attach/2/D.pdf

(5) Bank of England, “John Footman Executive Director, Central Services and Secretary of the Bank”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/biographies/footman.htm

(6) Bank of England, “Andrew Bailey, Executive Director, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – Deputy CEO designate”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/biographies/bailey.htm

(7) Hansard, 21 April 1977, Written Answers,
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1977/apr/21/shareholdings-disclosure

(8) Hansard, 26 April 2011, Written Answers,

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/bydate/20110426/writtenanswers/

part021.html

(9) http://www.scribd.com/doc/56089866/BANK-OF-ENGLAND-NOMINEES-LIMITED-Company-accounts-from-Level-Business

 

Now, there are quite a number of other “Nominees” companies scattered all over the place. ONE is called “Houblon Nominees” and another is “Bank of Scotland Branch Nominees”. It’s strange for all of them that, although “Live” and still have their Directors listed, each one is “dormant” or “non trading”. Isn’t that just a tad strange? 😉

There is one “Nominees” I am coming to shortly, however, which you will see has MASSIVE investments. But, for now, let’s just take a little peek at our Dear, lovely, fluffy Queen who is “so close to bankruptcy” while she ensures that the monarchy is now fully protected from any investigation via the Freedom of Information Act or any other method/vehicle.

 

From: In and Out of Hollywood: A Biographer’s Memoir (2009)
By Charles Higham

charles-higham-washpost81-thumb-300x245-12636

You may wish to look up Higham himself. His wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Higham_(biographer) Why is it all these people same to share so many of the same perversions and issues? However, this is what he wrote in his own autobiography/memoir:

Hollyqueen 1

Hollyqueen 2

Hollyqueen 3

 

Now let’s turn to Australia for a moment:

Who owns the largest share of Australia’s Top 4 Banks
POSTED BY NESARAAUSTRALIA ⋅ JULY 15, 2012 ⋅
FILED UNDER BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, MEDIA
**Data taken from SYB
Top 4 ANZ Shareholders

Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED 446,984,331 17.46
2 J P MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED 371,451,021 14.51
3 NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED 343,611,753 13.42
4 CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED 98,249,488 3.84
Top 4 Commonwealth BA Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 210,455,886 13.59
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 154,853,734 10.00
3 National Nominees Limited 136,450,456 8.81
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 66,664,831 4.30

Top 4 National Australia B Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees 359,630,439 16.86
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 260,185,567 12.20
3 National Nominees Limited 244,446,877 11.46
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 97,543,050 4.57

Top 4 Westpac BC Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Fully Paid Ordinary Shares % Held
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 444,695,642 14.88
2 JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 379,805,564 12.71
3 National Nominees Limited 312,929,618 10.47
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 143,271,824 4.79
What an EYE OPENER. Still more. Who are these 4 private entities so secretly powerful? Many would think HSBC belongs to the Asians. Yet, have a look at what Wikipedia has to say.

HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited
They own:

17.46% of ANZ 13.59% of CBA 16.86% of NAB 14.88% of WBC
In fact, they’re the number one shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

12.09% of Bendigo & Adelaide Bank and 17.00% of Bank of Queensland.

Wikipedia had this to say about them,

“HSBC Holdings plc is a global financial services company headquartered in Canary Wharf, London, United Kingdom. As of 2010 it is the world’s sixth-largest banking and financial services group and eighth-largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine. It has around 8,000 offices in 91 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America and around 100 million customers. As of 30 June 2010 it had total assets of $2.418 trillion, of which roughly half were in Europe, a quarter in the Americas and a quarter in Asia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc (accessed 21 Feb 2011).

Here is a link to their 2010 Annual Report. Here are a few of the financial Highlights listed in that report:

Pre-tax profit more than doubled to US$19bn on a reported basis.
Underlying pre-tax profit up by almost US$5bn or 36% to US$18.4bn.
Profitable in every customer group and region, including North America
Their 2009 Annual Report wasn’t too shabby either. It says that, on a reported basis, their profit before tax was US$7.1 billion

OKAY, what about the other 3 private entities deemed so secretly powerful? Let’s see.

JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited
They own:

14.51% of ANZ 10.00% of CBA 12.20% of NAB 12.71% of WBC
In fact, they’re also the number two shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

7.92% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 7.77% of Bank of Queensland.

JPMorgan Chase had a $12 billion profit for 2009. We found this out and read all about their success in their Annual Report.

National Nominees Limited
National Nominees Limited is the number three shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Australia Bank Limited – You know the BANK that just staged a HUGE break-up. It must be an awkward break-up indeed with all of those shared assets. We think you should give them a spank purely for staging such a pathetic break-up!

They own:

13.42% of ANZ 8.81% of CBA 11.46% of NAB 10.47% of WBC
We don’t know about you, but we certainly find it a little bit strange that they own less of themselves than they do of ANZ. This certainly deserves a “Please Explain!”

They’re also a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

6.35% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 10.87% of Bank of Queensland.

NAB had a net profit of $4.2 billion for 2009. We read all about their wonderful year in their Financial Year Highlights

And Last but not Least,

Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited is listed as the number four shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group Inc. You might know them better as Citi BANK. Citi Group Inc only has the largest financial network in the world.

They own:

3.84% of ANZ 4.30% of CBA 4.57% of NAB 4.79% of WBC
In fact, they’re a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:

2.13% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 2.57% of Bank of Queensland.

Citigroup Inc. (branded Citi) is a major American financial services company based in New York City. Citigroup was formed from one of the world’s largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group on April 7, 1998. The company holds over 200 million customer accounts in more than 140 countries. It is a primary dealer in US Treasury securities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup accessed 21 Feb 2011

Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 in a massive bailout by the U.S. government. Its largest shareholders include funds from the Middle East and Singapore. In the last two financial years, their core businesses, together known as Citicorp, were profitable with $10.6 billion and $14.8 billion in net income. http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar10c_en.pdf (2010) http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar09c_en.pdf (2009)

Now, many still think the RBA is a quasi governmental body and belongs to the people in Australia, IF these top four pillars have the freedom to create credit from nowhere, which affects the Australian Economy as a whole, who actually DOES the greater power belong to, the PUBLIC OR THE PRIVATE??? THINK ABOUT IT.

So, with that, you can see that Australia (just as much the UK and US and Canada and the west in fact) is wholly owned and controlled by the globalists

 

So, now, let’s turn to CHINA! (we got there eventually):

Here is the HKSCC Nominees. You would think it had its ownership and incorporation in Hong Kong wouldn’t you? But no, it is a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON

HKSCC Nominees

And this is PRECISELY why the West HAD to get China to accept the “LEGAL PERSON”. To allow western interests to take hold of greater and greater holdings of China’s assets. So what happens when the Chinese build their exports to America and the west and, on our TV screens and in our newspapers, we are fed that this is “dangerous” and it is “bad for business” in the west and “We are so in debt to the chinese and it just gets larger and larger. Oh Wo is us!” Well, ever so quietly, our leaders are perfectly happy for western multinationals to go offshore and take our jobs with them because THEY are invested in not just the chinese banks (and a myriad of other banks, central and commercial) but also invested in the largest companies on earth wherever they may be. Oleg Deripaska’s “RUSAL” aluminium company, for example is the largest aluminium company on planet earth. Do you think it’s because of Oleg Deripaska? No, it’s because Peter Mandelson and George Osbourne – both “Ministers of the Crown” – support Deripaska with the advice that Nominee accounts such as HKSCC and BOEN etc, will invest in the company and build it up and make sure that European legislation and any other legislation is taken care of to ensure it becomes as large as it is BECAUSE they all, including the Queen and the City of London Bankers (Nat Rothschild for example) want their dividends at the expense of the public. It is the same for British Gas and British Nuclear fuels and the Oil companies who drill off our coast. That is why they don’t mind that our prices go up. That is why they don’t mind if everything is “offshored” to China and India and the Philippines etc. Because THEY OWN SUBSTANTIAL SHARES IN THE BANKS AND THE CORPORATIONS.

AND WHAT THEY WANT, IS TO TAP INTO APPROX 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE!

Now, flip back to the list of Banks which were mentioned re the City of London RMB China Bank agreement. Here’s one. Look at the second largest shareholder (and the third). Both of them “Foreign-owned legal persons”:

Bank of Comms

Bank of Communications shareholding

 

Now, here is another bank on that list:

ICBC Annual report

Shareholding in Indust China bank

 

 

 

 

Now take a look at this (and I promise there is a heap more), I just wish to keep this as succinct as possible (which, as you can see, it is not simply because, to understand this, it must be laid out as fully as possible):

Capitalizing China 2

Capitalizing China

OUR HEADS OF STATE AND OUR POLITICIANS AND SO CALLED PHILANTHROPISTS AND “TITANS” OF BUSINESS OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN THE BANK OF CHINA AND ITS COMMERCIAL BANKS! BUT IT’S WORSE:

THEY OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN CHINA’S BIGGEST COMPANIES. SOME OF WHICH ARE TOP TEN IN THE WORLD TODAY!

Bank of China HKSCC

Sinopec

Sinopec 1

 

 

This is Petrochina’s annual report:

Petrochina Annual report 2012

 

Then, just for one example. You have one of Her Majesty’s “Sirs” and a “Freeman of the City of London”

Sir. Malcolm Christopher McCarthy, also known as Callum, serves as the Chairman of European Operations at J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. Sir. McCarthy served as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Gas and Electricity Markets. He served senior positions in BZW and Kleinwort Benson, as well Department for Trade and Industry, US. Sir. McCarthy’s early career was in the chemical industry, and in the DTI where he served several posts, including Principal Private Secretary to Roy Hattersley when he served as Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer protection. He served as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, US. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Office for Gas and Electricity Markets. He joined Kent Reliance in 2010. He was Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays de Zoete Wedd, London. He also served as Director of Corporate Finance at Kleinwort Benson from 1985 to 1989. Sir. McCarthy served as the Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays’ investment banking arm BZW. From 1996 to 1998, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Bank, North America and Barclays Bank, Japan from 1993 to 1996. He served as the Director-General, Chief Executive and Chairman at Gas regulator Ofgas. At Ofgem, Sir. McCarthy was responsible for the introduction of greater competition into the gas and electricity markets. He served as senior executive of Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Services Limited. He serves as Chairman of London at Promontory Financial Group, LLC. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Castle Trust. He served as the Co-Chairman at The Financial Conduct Authority (Financial Services Authority) from 2003 to 2008. He joined FSA in September 2003. Sir. McCarthy has been an Independent Director of IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. since October 1, 2009. He has been an Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Indonesia) Co. Ltd. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Macau) Limited. since December 2009. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited since December 2009. He serves as a Trustee of Said Business School. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board at Her Majesty’s Treasury. He serves as a Trustee of International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. He serves as Member of Supervisory Board at Dutch MBS XVI B.V. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board of HM Treasury. He serves as Non-Executive Director at OneSavings Bank Plc. He served as Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank Of China, London Ltd. since December 2009. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Bank N.V. from January 25, 2011 to September 1, 2012. He served as a Director at Financial Services Authority. until September 19, 2008. Sir. McCarthy served as a Director of Bank of England from September 20, 2003 to September 19, 2008. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Holding N.V from January 14, 2011 to September 01, 2012. He is an Honorary Fellow of Merton College, an Honorary Doctorate of the University of Stirling, and a Freeman of the City of London. He has an MA in History at Merton College of Oxford University, PhD in Economics of Stirling University, and MS in Business at Graduate School of Business of Stanford University.

Malcolm Christopher McCarthy

He is the ONLY non Chinese member of the board of the Industrial Commercial Bank of China. Why?

 

Well it’s obvious. Here is precisely what is happening to us:

Our elite want access to China’s 1.5 billion people as a market. China’s elite say “Why do we want to give you that?”. Our elite say “Hey it’s simple Chin Chong! You give us access to your market and we’ll give you access to ours. You’re a bit behind with technology and know how so we’ll invest in your corporations and bring you up to speed. To enable that however, we need you to amend the way you interpret law. We need something called the legal person so that we are both talking the same language so to speak and so that we can “integrate”. Then while you get access to the west as a market, we can benefit from offshoring our jobs to you – you, therefore employing more of your people, increasing your GDP and making a packet. We, on the other hand, benefit from the lower wage costs and make UBER profits and dividends from our multinationals. we’ll ensure there is less competition for your goods and our chinese manufactured goods by destroying our own indigenous small and medium sized businesses and we’ll do that through our taxation system. YOU win, WE win, our people’s don’t win but hey! THAT is “globalism”. You want to maintain your power and so do we. Now, about Malaysia, We’ve both got a problem there because YOU will benefit greatly from being a powerhouse within a Trans-pacific partnership and so will we BUT these little Malaysian bastards are not playing ball! Capice? Now if we rattle them and destabilise their government, we might just get one which sees things our way. Now I know Malaysia has a “look est” policy but you could say we’re helping them to focus on their look east policy in a way because you, as their major trading partner, want the TPPA and better access to the South East Asian markets just as we do. There’s another good half a billion people at least in that area you know? So what if you, China, got very upset with your Asian neighbour over something? Oh, I don’t know, a plane disappearance perhaps with the majority of those onboard being chinese?”

Get the picture?

China’s infiltrators

Posted in "Climate Change", Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on March 28, 2014

One commenter this week – Pete – was asking about the extent of globalist influence over China and commenting whether it wasn’t secure due to issuing its own currency and its control over its own central bank etc.

Well, here’s an insight as to how the globalists work. Martin Lees is Secretary General of THE CLUB OF ROME. I guess I don’t need to say much more about who/what the Club of Rome is?

His bio:

lees_IMG_9953

 

Martin Lees

Martin Lees
Secretary General, Club of Rome
Born in 1941, Martin Lees is a graduate in Mechanical Sciences from Cambridge University with a post-graduate Diploma in European Studies from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium. After some years as a manager in industry, he joined OECD where he managed programmes on Cooperation in Science and Technology and on Innovation in the Procedures and Structures of Government. In 1972, he was responsible for the design and launching of the “InterFutures Project” on the Future of the Advanced Industrial Societies in Harmony with that of the Developing Countries. He then served at the United Nations in several capacities, including Executive Director of the Financing System for Science and Technology for Development. In 1982, he was appointed Assistant Secretary General. During this period he was responsible for the establishment of the InterAction Council of former Heads of State and Government becoming its Executive Director. He has also been responsible, since 1983, for several high level programmes of International Cooperation with China, including an advisory programme for the leadership, “China and the World in the Nineties” from 1988 to 1998 and the establishment of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development of which he was a member for 15 years. He is now a Senior Adviser to the Chinese Government on Climate Change and other issues. From 1991-1996 he developed and implemented programmes of cooperation with the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union as Director General of the International Committee for Economic Reform and Cooperation. Since 1995, he has been Moderator of the International Advisory Board of the Toyota Motor Corporation. From January 2001 to April 2005 he was Rector of the University for Peace of the United Nations in Costa Rica, guiding its revitalization and launching eight Masters programmes on issues of peace, security and sustainable development. He was elected to the post of Secretary General of the Club of Rome in September 2007 with effect from January 2008.

This guy is a heavy globalist piece of merde. In this video talking to China, watch him and listen to him very closely. Try and recognise that this ONE guy (with a group behind him of course) thinks he can steer 1.3billion people and the government which governs them. Listen to his condescending tone talking of China as if it were a little boy in short pants and he’s “helping it grow up into a man”. Who the FUCK do these people think they are? These are the guys who need to be ripped apart limb from limb because these are the guys who, by way of fraud (climate change) just consider (listen to him closely) countries and populaces in terms of money and economics. This guy and his globalist chums see you, me and everyone we love as nothing more than “economic units”. You listen to these people and ALL they consider is growth (ironically, the Club Of Rome’s 1972 publication being called “Limits to growth” because they wish to steer where that growth comes from and steer the money from it into their pockets). He will pay lip service to “human cost” but notice that even that human cost he then relates to economic loss. This man is a fucking dirty, lousy, evil bastard and it is people like him (you know who they all are) who need to be eradicated from this planet. It’s people like him who cause crimes on humanity.

Listen to him as he speaks about population and listen as he talks about creating the right legal framework in China to enable the “right” type of growth for him and his communist/fascist compadres. Listen to him as he talks about how China have to do this and China have to do that because “our experience in the west….”etc. Well Martin, you little shit: That’s just the point isn’t it? YOUR (and the people like you) experience in the west, as you admit, has led us to where we are! So you’re asking China to act in a way which doesn’t repeat all your mistakes? What about getting it right and THEN saying to China “Hey, we got it right, follow our lead”? But no, it’s “We got it all wrong, so don’t do as we did but do as we now ‘advise’ you to” while your advice over the last goddamned how many decades has screwed the world up!

http://english.cri.cn/11234/2014/01/20/2801s808984.htm

God! I wish you would read this you fucking jerk!

And the little chinese host sits there paying homage to an arsehole while the arsehole talks as if the Chinese leadership must listen to him. You tell me to take a left Lees and I’d take a right. But I’m sure the chinese leadership are happy playing ball and playing the chessboard with you. After all they want to remain leaders of 1.3 billion people and if they didn’t play ball they’d soon be gotten rid of. But I just wish to god the 1.3 billion understood your fucking game!

If it was just you and me left on the planet, I’d shoot you to stop your carbon dioxide ruining my atmosphere you prick!

 

 

MH370: Motive and capability

Posted in "Terrorism", 9/11, Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on March 25, 2014

Chinese people and even Malaysians are jeering at the Malaysian authorities for their “incompetence” and/or intended obfuscations but all of these people, for some reason unknown to me, are choosing to ignore two VERY BIG issues:

1. What would Malaysia’s government’s motive be for covering up this event or even instigating it? I cannot think of a good reason can you?

2. The Malaysian government/authorities do not have the capability to compete with the technology (radar jamming for example) which the Americans and Chinese have. Further, they do not have control of the satellite data which is being used to entirely fabricate this story and the location of MH370.

James Corbett (Corbett Report) – whom I have a great deal of respect for in the investigative journalism and detail he puts into his work – all validated; has published this video regarding the possibility (and verified capability) of remote hijacking. He also postulates such to have been used on 9/11 and I am with him all the way here (even though I still have my own deep questions regarding the planes themselves full slicing through the two twin towers and there having been a plane at all at the Pentagon OR Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

This video is very much worth watching. The Chinese people and Malaysian people need to understand two other things:

1. Globalists have a motive to do this (which I have already written about regarding the TPPA – Trans Pacific Partnership – which Malaysia is showing great concern about. Obama wants this trade agreement very much. He wants it for his globalist handlers. He does not wish to be a failure.) Globalists also exist in the UK, Europe, China, Australia and yes, even Malaysia. Think of globalists as “Nation X”. Do not think in terms of this being handled and collaborated on by USA and China V Malaysia or any country V another. This is GLOBALIST V An issue (no matter where that issue lies geographically). and one must remember that our intelligence services are in the hands of people like David Rockefeller and the Bush family. If you do not understand this then please look it up! It is a fact and it is a documented and admitted fact. Just as is the Rockefeller influence on the United Nations.

2. Through globalist connections and pressure, the CIA DO HAVE the ability to remotely take over a Boeing 777. I have already covered this also because it is documented (see below). Boeing patented the technology to allow the CIA to remotely take charge!

Then we have the documented, factual evidence of the Boeing patent:

FG1

FG2

 

I know these blogs are being read by substantial numbers now in Malaysia however, in all of the last 7 days, only 3 views from China? Now why would that be? And WHO would those 3 views be!

So, perhaps that control of the net by China’s government is not allowing the chinese people access to such information? Deep Packet Inspection boys eh? I wonder whose Deep Packet Inspection technology you’re using though. Wouldn’t be labeled “Made in the USA” now would it? 😉

Around the world in 7 days.

What is it now? About 1.5 billion people in China and I get 3 views? When I get views from the rest of the world that make sense?

 

Globe 1

Globe 2

Globe 3

 

Could this be how and why the chinese people are whipped into a frenzy against Malaysia? Because their access to information is censored heavily? Well we know this to be fact. We have motive and capability but 1.5billion people on the planet might just not be quite aware of that.

Who’s a naughty little Chinese (and Rothschild/Rockefeller) globalist then?

 

 

The Chinese legal person: The Ferengi

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on March 11, 2014

The use of the word “farang” in Asia, is normally in relation to a foreign, western man/woman and is, somewhat regarded as a put down.

However, I have written before about how Star Trek mirrors the U.N. principles in many ways through the “United Federation of Planets” so much so that it uses the olive wreath that is also used by the U.N.

United Nations Flag

United Nations Flag

StarTrek_UnitedFederationofPlanets_freedesktopwallpaper_1600Now, I know this is something obvious which people have picked up on. Nothing new. But, I was “wandering” around JSTOR and I found a number of things regarding the “Legal Person” which I will be sharing with you over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope. All quite enlightening and will tend to shut up those who think this legal person issue is just some sort of “conspiracy theory” on the part of people who just don’t wish to pay their way in society (when the reality is, it is quite the opposite).

Farang (Thai: ฝรั่ง [faràŋ]) is a generic Thai word for someone of European ancestry, no matter where they may come from. Edmund Roberts, US envoy in 1833, defined the term as “Frank (or European).” People of African ancestry may be called Thai: ฝรั่งดำ farang dam (‘black farang’) to distinguish them from white people. This began during the Vietnam War, when the United States military maintained bases in Thailand.

It is generally believed that the word farang originated with the Persian word farang (فرنگ) or farangī (فرنگی), meaning “Frank, European”. This in turn comes from the Old French word franc, meaning “Frank“, a West Germanic tribe that became the biggest political power in Western Europe during the early Middle Ages, and from which France derives its name. Because the Frankish Empire ruled Western Europe for centuries, the word “Frank” became deeply associated with Latins who professed the Roman Catholic faith by Eastern Europeans and Middle Easterners.

According to Rashid al-din Fazl Allâh, farang comes from the Arabic word afranj. in Ethiopia faranji means white/European people In either case the original word was pronounced paranki (പറങ്കി) in Malayalamparangiar in Tamil, and entered Khmer as barang and Malay as ferenggi.

The following is taken from the American journal of comparative law. I will publish page 1 for today because there are approximately 37 pages which need to be uploaded as jpegs.

Ch legal 1

So, “faren”, in other words, meant a strange concept to the chinese – that strange concept applying to each and every one of us who lived under that concept in the “west”. However, since 1979, this concept of “legal person” has become normal within the new chinese civil law system. Now why would that be? Why would it be adopted?

China's new civil law

Well, it becomes apparent that there were forces (wealthy people) probably within China and certainly outside of China, who wished to open China up to direct foreign investment but China’s existing legal framework of law did not allow it to happen and, structurally and fundamentally, this was due to the fact that the west based their law upon a concept known as the “Legal Person” whereas China did not. Somehow, the two different systems of law had to “married up” and it looks like it was China who acquiesced to the western system to enable it.

China's legal framework for foreign investment

So, once more, it is readily apparent that the entire global legal system is created and maintained for the purposes of economics and world trade. It has very little, in actual fact, to do with what we know of as “Human Rights” because, as I’m sure you are aware by now, there is no such thing as “Human Rights” but only “Legal rights” – if you can call such “Rights”.

“The Legal Person in China: Essence and Limits” makes for interesting reading and I have every intention of posting the full 37 pages over the coming days.

Meanwhile, to crystalize what was happening in the run up to 1979 re US and China, here’s a little more detail:

Rock China 1

Rock china 2

Rock 3

Office of the historian US china

US China chronology 1

 

 

By the way, do you like what the US and UN did to Taiwan in 1971? “Stuff you Taiwan, you no longer have a seat in the United Nations. We’re handing you over to China from now on. We’ve got bigger fish to fry than you, you minnow!” And that about sums up International law for you! An economy to exploit!

US China chronolgy 2

Kissinger starts the ball rolling and Brzezinski finishes it off. Two sides of the fence working together for the same goal over the course of a decade.

And finally, we come full circle once again to the United Nations:

Taken from Rockefeller Foundation’s own documents –

Rock UN

Please note that the Rockefeller Foundation is a family owned, NGO which pays zero tax and it has funded, by way of a CONDITIONAL “gift”, $8.5Million (in 1946 dollars) to the UN to purchase the site of the UN building.

While the Rockefeller family, to this day, are fully involved in the United Nations – the world’s source, essentially, of International law.

Rothschild… China, White Phosphorous, Iran and Iraq

Posted in Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on February 26, 2011

MP Lazarowicz has been advised time and time again about the Rothschild influence yet has simply refused to accept what is in front of his eyes written in black and white by the UK Parliament.

From: Earthling
To: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: Coming soon… to the UK.
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Dear Mark,

Don’t say I didn’t warn you Mark. Your government of today know it. They’re getting ready for it.
But while all of your colleagues keep your mouths shut to keep in line with the party, this is what you are allowing to build up.
Because you’re allowing yourselves to be bullied. You’re all weak. Just a fact Mark. You’ve lost your individuality. You’re no longer “Mark Lazarowicz” you’re “Mark Lazarowicz Labour MP”. And you and your MP colleagues feel so proud and better and above everyone else – that’s why you feel no need to reply to points which are facts and you cannot argue.
I could be wrong but I sense you picking up on all of this while it’s just too hard and too dangerous for you in your position to speak out. But don’t worry. Your weakness will be more than made up for by those who will. The unfortunate thing is – when they look to you they will ask what your modus operandi was. The answer: “To keep my job”. FAR more important than doing your job isn’t it?
You’re not going to like Britain soon Mark. I don’t like it now but then I “see” it whereas you don’t. You wish to believe it’s all going to blow over.
You’re so very very wrong. Having said that, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve seen this coming for years now. I’ve educated myself immensely to see the how’s and the why’s.

Wisconsin Capitol Building: The Police join the protestors.
breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol

We have Police in the UK Mark who are beginning to listen too. We don’t want a mini civil war now do we? Or would the bankers profit from it? 😉

I’m just trying to get through to you Mark. When the questions are put nicely I get nothing in return or I get the BULLSHIT responses you know I just got from an evasive treasury. When someone is faced by people who show them no respect, then those people tend to be offered no respect. It’s not a preference but straight, blunt talking is needed and it’s going to be needed even more unless you people get your fingers out of your collective posteriors.

As for the attachments. Just to give you a flavour (hardly exhaustive) of the Rot of the Rothschilds which has crept in over the last couple of centuries – and never let up – while they have “advised” (and I use that term advisedly) the government on all the major sell offs of our industry. A to Z. I haven’t even touched on the Motor industry. So while all the developing world is doing great – investment, GDP growth etc BECAUSE they have basic industry – the UK has zero. Oh EXCEPT for perhaps TWO things – TWO guesses what they are Mark? ….. BANKING and???……….. ARMAMENTS/DEFENCE/WHITE PHOSPHOROUS/ DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS to sell to Iran and Iraq and every other dictatorship Rothschild can do business with.

Is it getting clearer Mr Lazarowicz?

I wait in hope Mark to hear from a man not a mouse.

Regards,
Earthling

PS: As for the mousy quiet Darling (another weak willed Scot just doing as he’s told – but the pay is good) who has refused to answer the questions I put to him also. Isn’t this a rather interesting little statement he made a number of years ago in the commons:

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The reason why we ask him to be brief is that we know that he can make his arguments extremely well briefly, which he does time and again——and I say that not only because he happens to be one of my next-door neighbours in an Edinburgh constituency.
The debate has been extremely useful. On few occasions that I have witnessed in the eight years I have been a Member has the House spent so much time discussing directly problems which affect so many of our constituents, and also a problem that is fundamental to the future development of the economy.
There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the principle of venture capital trusts. We all agree that it is desirable, and from time to time necessary, to use fiscal incentives to ensure that investments are made in the sectors where we need it.
The difference between us is threefold. First, we believe that the Government need to consider other sectors, which have been mentioned on both sides of the House. Secondly, we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that, if one gives a tax incentive, one does not end up subsidising undesirable behaviour, such as the behaviour that occurred when the business expansion scheme was set up. In that respect, too, there was common ground on both sides of the House. The difference between the two sides is that those who support the Government do not appear to accept that there is a case for ensuring that there should be safeguards in relation to venture capital trusts.
I suppose that the third difference between us is that we believe that the Government have given fiscal incentives in undesirable ways, such as the business
417
expansion scheme, but the Government will not accept that the taxpayer’s money has thereby been poured down the drain. I shall perhaps discuss that later.
7.15 pm
The Minister appeared reluctant to accept that there is no difference of principle between us, so we should perhaps not spend too much time trying to make differences where none exist. Perhaps British industry as a whole will welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of encouraging investment in what is known as the investment gap, which has been identified by almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
However, I took exception when the Minister said that because no one was focusing on granny farms, as he put it, that was all right. In support of his proposition, he cited the fact that Rothschild’s supported the Government. What a surprise—Rothschild’s supports the Government. I am sure that a bank such as Rothschild’s, which has no fewer than 14 times been the recipient of public largesse, either as an adviser to the Government or as an underwriter of its flotation schemes, should say, “Well done the Government for coming up with that scheme.”
Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, if venture capitalists do take great care in assessing the risks and evaluating the projects before them, it is scarcely surprising that the Chancellor hardly sat down after his Budget statement before our old chums at Rothschild’s announced that they were going to set up a venture capital trust. They could not have known what was in the Budget, could they? How on earth would they know what a surefire bet it was—unless, of course, they had the amazing foresight of the noble Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare?How could Rothschild’s say so confidently that it was going to set up a venture capital trust unless it had made an evaluation of the type of tax breaks available and knew that, no matter what the risk, no matter what venture it backed, it was guaranteed to obtain a suitable return?
I do not think that the Minister can rely on Rothschild’s for support, therefore, and I believe that both he and Conservative Members generally, today of all days, would do well to be very quiet about Rothschild’s and the Conservative party, for reasons that people outside and inside the House will understand.
The main subject to which successive hon. Members drew attention was the funding gap between quoted companies and small businesses, many of which are funded by family money or by bank overdraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said, that is starting to change; nevertheless, there is obviously a funding gap and we welcome the fact that the Government are tackling it.
I want to take up an argument that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made about property. I think that we all accept that if inflation remains low—a big “if’—obviously property will not be the kind of bet that it was in the past 30 or 40 years. However, in my travels around the City of London I have been surprised how many people tell me that they are getting back into property again. We all remember the property collapses of the 1970s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s; yet people are getting back into property because it is regarded as a major asset in a portfolio.

But no, indeed, Alistair has no idea what I’m talking about when I put those questions to him now does he?
Would you care to comment Mark? No, I guess not.

Attachments:










I hope that gives a fairly decent summary to you all regarding Rothschild TOTAL influence on the UK government (along with their “Friends of Israel lobby) which you can consider having watched the following Channel 4 programme “Dispatches” Nov 16 2009:
article23997.htm

While you may then consider the following Rothschild “ADVICE” to the UK government:
article6814923.ece

While you may also consider the following Rothschild/Mandelson/Osbourne threesome:
YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THESE JEWS GIDEON! THEY DESTROY GOVERNMENTS NEVERMIND LITTLE WEEDS LIKE YOU!

George-Osborne-warned-stop-rubbishing-Rothschild-or-youre-finished.html

While you ALSO may consider this. Mandelson and Blair dine with the Rothschilds and Gaddafi:
Lord-Peter-Mandelson-spends-weekend-with-Colonel-Gaddafis-son-Saif.html

And this…. Mandelson is, in fact, very likely a Rothschild…..

Mandelsons-family-history–claim-uncrowned-King-Poland.html

While Hannah Rothschild calls him “The REAL PM”! 😉

From the Independent 24th October 2010:

And finally, you may wish to understand why our dearly departed ex PM Blair gets along so well and becomes so rich while being picked up by J.P. Morgan (another Rothschild front bank):

Blair-invites-billionaires-exclusive-No-10-party.html

Who arranged the entire thing for him? Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild, old Evelyn’s bit of fluff!

IS THE FOG LIFTING? IS IT NOW AS CLEAR AS A PLATE GLASS WINDOW FOR YOU?