Earthling

The “Trial” Of Kenneth Clarke MP

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 2, 2013
A Clarke Evasion

A Clarke Evasion

FIRST OF ALL: LET’S CORRECT SKY NEWS. THIS IGNORANT, STUPID REPORTER IS GIVEN A SCRIPT FROM WHICH TO ASK QUESTIONS. IN IT SHE SAYS THAT BILDERBERG CANNOT CREATE LAWS. WHAT A STUPID WOMAN! AS YOU WILL SEE AHEAD, THE TREASURY PLAINLY STATES EXEMPTIONS ON AN FOI REQUEST BECAUSE IT RELATES TO “THE FORMULATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY” FROM WHERE LAWS ARE CREATED!!

 

The following email was sent to Clarke, by me, in 2009.

Dear Mr. Clarke,

I wonder if you would be kind enough to shed some light on a number of various issues which are troubling me and many of the British electorate. There are just simply so many questions – all questions. And from what I have managed to research, you may just be the man who can answer these questions. They are quite horrifying if truth be known.

You see, there seems to be a strange series of events over the course of decades which seem to be inextricably linked and would have much of the UK electorate wonder if there is something at play from forces whose goal is to attack and deconstruct the sovereignty of our nation (and all nations) thereby, in effect, being at war with our nation. Could this possibly be the case? And could it possibly be that our representatives in government and shadow government are inadvertently enabling such to be achieved?

Please allow me to explain. I am sure that the details of this and the impact it seems to be having on the UK will come as a deep shock to you.

This group called “Bilderberg”.

While you, Mr. Clarke, have attended many Bilderberg conferences in the past, it concerns me greatly that you may have no idea of what the Bilderberg agenda is so I thought I would enlighten you. It may then have the impact of having you reconsider whether you attend any future conferences. Of course, it may just be that you attend on the pretext of working with such a group when, in fact, you are simply engaging in some form of covert checking on those of our government and others who may be supporting the Bilderberg agenda.

I am sure you know of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families. The International bankers and “philanthropists” who have built up such considerable wealth over the centuries that the overall wealth of these families eclipse the likes of Mr. Gates’ billions by an order of magnitude. Their “charities” and foundations are countless in number and, more often than not, they have tax free status. Meanwhile Mr. Rockefeller is one of the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Rockefeller, in fact, within his own memoirs, states the following:

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

I also include here, a link to a very well researched and 100% factual article re David Rockefeller: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section/The_Proud_Internationalist_2006.pdf

That said, I believe I need to bring it to your attention that Mr. Rockefeller was one of the founding members (along with Dennis Healy) of Bilderberg in 1954 and is on the steering committee.
Further to this, Mr. Rockefeller is also a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Americas; These “Think Tanks” having their “cousins” in the UK and Europe with organisations such as the European CFR and the RIIA (Chatham House) plus others.

You see, while Bilderberg state and restate (ad infinitum) that NO policy is made at such conferences, this of course would be the case since many of the attendees are not a party to the overall agenda. Meanwhile, the policy is simply communicated through the great number of “Independent Think Tanks” as mentioned above. One can see many examples of reports and papers from the CFR, for example, finding their way into the UK Parliament and being used as “very well researched and highly thought of” organisations’ reports which should steer government thinking. It really is not at all difficult to work out what is happening here. For those in government and political circles who understand what Bilderberg is (and the interconnectivity between Bilderberg and the “Working Groups”), such reports will be given significant attention and weighting even though they are provided many times by non-UK, national sources.

What is further of interest re Bilderberg is that, under Chatham House rules, it never divulges what is discussed and presented and never attributes anything said to any of the participants. This seems to create a major issue when considering the persons who attend the Bilderberg conferences from the UK as I am sure you can imagine.

Mr. Clarke, just think of how such meetings/discussions could be construed. To apply Chatham House rules to a conference which includes statesmen and women from a vast number of different sovereign nations could be seen in the same light as there having been members of the UK government having clandestine private meetings with Adolf Hitler during the 2nd World War. To have such meetings is simply a breach of our Constitution.

I would therefore appreciate your consideration of such and your comments.

UK Parliament questions re Bilderberg

What is of further concern is the following. For, as I am sure you are aware, although the following were simply allegations based on Mr. Blair and yourself having forgotten all about the expenses which were paid during what you describe as a “political conference” in 1993; the greater impact of our ministers attending such conferences was not picked up on by the investigation:

86. That leads me to my second question which is, at the moment, a serious allegation will be of course investigated but should we put an onus on those making allegations that they should provide a threshold of evidence for those allegations? At the moment, if the allegation is serious enough, an investigation may well follow.

(Mr. Clarke) “I suppose you could apply the test of whether there is any prima facie evidence or any evidence to support this allegation and I imagine that the Committee do throw out cases where you are met with a vehement denial from the Member of Parliament and where there is no indication whatsoever of there being anything to support the allegation. I do not remember one happening quite like that where someone has been accused of something without there apparently being the slightest grounds. The ones I had in mind were where the allegation, so called, is probably true but the answer that most politicians and most sensible Members of Parliament would give is, “So what? What influence can this possibly have had on the conduct of a Member of Parliament if what you say is true?” I hesitate to go on about my own case but that was my reaction to the allegations against me. The only reason that anybody knew that I had not paid my hotel bill was because somebody wrote to me asking what I had paid for. The Bilderberg conference is surrounded by slightly green ink conspiracy theories so people write to you about it and somebody asked me the question and I wrote back saying that I had paid my own air fare and then discovered that some Greek sponsors, whom I could not recall, turned out to have paid the hotel bill for everybody so that, when I came to pay my hotel bill, it had been paid and I left. If you like, that was true. I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained with Tony Blair and Ken Clarke when they found that, fortunately, this conference was sponsored and they did not have to pay for the hotel?” Especially when certainly I had paid my own air fare to get there in the first place. I had attended a political conference and flown home again. I had done nothing else. I did not even know the identity of the company, no doubt, which had paid the hotel bill.”

Now, fully appreciating your point that you, personally, trusting your unimpeachable integrity, would anticipate no political advantage by attending such a conference as per your statement: “..I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained”, may I suggest, with the utmost respect, that such a statement may be somewhat naïve of you in regards to others who may have attended. Since, although flight costs of perhaps a few hundred pounds were incurred – and even if you had incurred accommodation costs – such a small investment from those within your circle of influence, when compared to their income, is extremely small change when that investment could result in a very comfortable position within the hierarchy of the EU for instance. Or, alternatively, as some kind of advisor status, let’s say, within a company such as…. Who could we say?… JP Morgan Chase for example?

And the following:
Examination of Witness (Questions 78 – 99) 


TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2001 

THE RT HON KENNETH CLARKE

I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”.

It’s perhaps, sensible that you did not protest further for it may well have shed greater light on the subject and could have caused greater issues for you, which I am sure would have been unwarranted.
For, you see, it is definitely valid to suggest that, given the goals of the Bilderberg Group and understanding the various connections between the Bilderberg Group and its working groups such as the CFR, to continue an association with such would be akin to treasonous activity would it not? Perhaps I am wrong, but if so, please do me the courtesy of enlightening me.

Now, with respect to other issues which are clear from the UK Parliament Hansard text and other Parliamentary notes:

Mr. Blair’s denial of Bilderberg attendance.

PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group. [93240]
The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally.

PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997. [95308]
The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings.

Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past. When questioned, as will be seen below, the answers provided offer no illumination on the subject (if answered at all).
Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with yourself) while not wishing to divulge such information. A “canny” scot indeed!
Further, while Mr. Blair answers in the negative, it has been strongly reported that Mr. Blair did, in fact, attend the Bilderberg Conference in 1998 also.

Bilderberg 1960s:

Roy Jenkins 

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8th and 9th October to Holland to attend a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Conference; 148W what was the object of the Conference; and what other activities were undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during this visit. 

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the meeting on 9th October in a personal capacity as one of the two British members of the Steering Committee. The other member on this occasion was the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett). The Steering Committee discussed the agenda for the next Bilderberg Conference, which is a forum for discussion of various international questions. No other activities were undertaken during this visit.

An example, dating as far back as the 1960s, of the ever continuing wish of our Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers to steer well away from answering questions relating to Bilderberg in any significant way at all. What could possibly be the issue Mr. Clarke considering it is consistently stated that Bilderberg is just an opportunity for tea and crumpet and a jolly good chat?

1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference:

HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W 
§

Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement. 

§ The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty’s Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.

As previously stated, Adolf Hitler wanted a European state. Let us not debate the detail of how he went about trying to achieve it or we may have to go into the detail of how, also, he was financed wouldn’t we?
The point is, “personal capacity” or not; such a meeting with Hitler by any one of our MPs would have constituted treason given the objective.

Bilderberg mentioned in relation to EEC policy:

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS’ MEETINGS)HC Deb 24 May 1977 vol 932 cc1195-203

§ Mr. Skinner When the Agriculture Ministers meet, will my hon. Friend convey to them the fact that there is a large body of opinion in this country, represented in this House, who would pay scant regard to these Continental laws? Will he tell them that, so far as we are concerned, they can get stuffed with all their regulations about pigmeat and so on? Will he also make some inquiries about the meeting last weekend at Leeds Castle? Since we contribute nearly 20 per cent. of the total income of the Common Market, I want to know what I am getting for my money. I want to know what took place at that meeting. Why did the Commissioners hold their meeting in secret at that castle? What were they talking about? It is all right for the Minister to come here and trot out a few remarks about odd meetings about nothing in the Common Market, but what is happening at Leeds Castle and at Bilderberg Conferences and the like?

§ Mr. Judd I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend’s concern on the last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. On the first point, thanks to the very forceful performance on behalf of British food producers and consumers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I think that the Commission and all our colleagues in Europe are well aware of the concerns of the British people.

My concern here is obviously with the issue that the EEC (and latterly the EU) has been foisted upon the British public commencing with the sedition activity of Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1972, aided by many others including the FCO of all organisations! Again, however, Bilderberg, with its globalist objectives have been linked with the commencement of the EEC and continuing support of the EU which brings us, along with NAFTA/NAU, ever closer to global government, contrary to both the American and British constitutions. While aspects of both constitutions are being repealed (and laws such as the Treason law), they have been repealed AFTER what have essentially been treasonous events and activities. This, then, supports the entirely valid conclusion that such repeals are themselves, treasonous and therefore void.

e) Classified Bilderberg documents under the 30 year rule
Now, let’s take a look at a couple of documents which are held with “Portcullis” within the UK Parliament:

Portcullis: UK Parliament website.

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/214

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1979 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2010 
Location 36

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/228

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1977 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2008 
Location 36

Both documents are under the 30 year rule! Why on earth would this be for a simple discussion forum which creates no policy? Note that the second document should have been opened in 2008. It seems it has been kept closed even after the 30 years are now over!
“Just tea and crumpets and a chance for people to talk openly”; yet, not open to the public or to any media scrutiny whatsoever. Democracy and a free society exists I see. Ironically, we speak of democracy allowing freedom of speech yet the Bilderberg feel they are not free to speak freely? What a bizarre “twist” of reality we have here.

The EU Question:
Now, since the Bilderberg Group and its affiliates have been in existence since pre – EEC and EU, as we have covered, and it is very well established, the EU and the forthcoming NAU are both in keeping with the overall Bilderberg agenda for the destruction of the nation state (not by politicians for the benefit of their electorate but for the benefit of a group of people with no interest in nation states but every interest in profit); It is absolutely clear that the EU has been constructed for that very purpose.
The problem is that we have very clear evidence, from other documentation, which was held under the 30 year rule from public view, that the Conservative government formed under Edward Heath, along with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the BBC and others, committed the crime of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC.
The documentation supporting this allegation is plentiful and extremely precise. It makes incredible reading. Our own government fraternising with “the enemy” and make no mistake, where the British Constitution is under attack and the sovereignty of our nation usurped by our very own government and shadow government officials, this is fraternising with the enemy.
I attach a copy of a letter from Leolin Price CBE QC regarding the veracity and seriousness of Mr Albert Burgess’s investigation of the evidence surrounding the Heath government’s entire procedure regarding the EEC.
I, therefore, feel it is necessary to bring to your attention (and the attention of all your parliamentary colleagues) the danger in collaborating with not only the Bilderberg Group but any and all organisations associated with such. This can extend to organisations such as the EU itself and, on a lower level, a very strange “charity” by the name of Common Purpose.
Meanwhile, the Fabian Society and Demos and many other “Think Tanks” do “excellent work” in communicating the socialist “values” to the electorate.

4. “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
There is a book which is named “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
An online copy of this book may be found here: HYPERLINK “http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy” http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy
The book made enough of a furore in the 1970s to be brought up within Parliament on more than one occasion.

DEFENCEHL Deb 26 June 1979 vol 400 cc1357-476 

Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY 

”Nor is it just for money. How many people know another American book of yesteryear by Garry Allen called None Dare Call it Conspiracy? It has sold over 3½ million copies in the United States. Its contents are one reason why more and more young Americans just are not going to play, if a war comes. This book points out not merely that it was the German bankers, Warburg Brothers, who put up £25 million to put Lenin in power in Russia, and who also assisted Trotsky to go from the United 1450 States to join him, but that they also sold nuclear armaments to Russia, not just to get money but to control the Communists so that, if they gain permanent power, the bankers will control them by the vast sums which they are owed back by Russia. The book is, chapter and verse, about foundations; it is chapter and verse about persons, well-known names; it is chapter and verse about the Council of Foreign Relations; and it is chapter and verse about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought. The address where that book can be obtained in this country is: KRP Publications, 245 Cann Road, London, E.11.”

I repeat: “..about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought” 

The question is: Why have these libel cases never been brought?? 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords…
The MEDIA
Considering the BBC’s involvement in 1972 when the Heath government took the UK into the EEC stating such a move would never threaten UK sovereignty, one may also look at and consider the media involvement within such issues as we see today and wonder, again, at how reports such as the most recent “Summer of Rage” can be disseminated to the general population, suggesting an events (or events) which have yet, and may never, take place. One could almost suggest that the media are being rather careless in reporting such possibility since it could be construed as “planting the seed” of unrest – almost in fact, an act of terrorism according to today’s “thinking”.
One could further consider there to be a purpose (a “Common Purpose”?) to spreading such fear and anxiety.
It is interesting, at this juncture, to note the complete blackout of media journalism when it comes to reporting the Bilderberg Conferences to the point of card carrying journalists being arrested (on some trumped up “charge”) while trying simply to cover the conference in Turnberry for instance; The only media being allowed as “rapporteurs” at the conferences being “Economist” journalists. Other journalists have been invited (hand picked) of course but they are then covered by the Chatham House rules. It may be added that such journalists would not wish to break those rules for various reasons. I have personally contacted one such journalist who simply offered me the same old story that the conference was “utterly harmless”. Of course, this may have been the case for Ms Mary Ann Sieghart, not being one of the “inner circle” of course. “Utterly harmless” yet documents pertaining to Bilderberg are locked up for 30 years!!

Meanwhile, I have spoken with other so called “journalists” on this subject and while they are initially “all ears” and promise to return calls, those calls never come. I contacted the Scotsman for instance who continued to ask more and more questions on the subject of Bilderberg and when I mentioned “Common Purpose”, all communication ceased. It wasn’t until I checked the ownership of the Scotsman and found it was owned by the Pearson Group, did the reason for the cease come into view. Sir David Bell is Chairman of Pearson Inc, Non-Executive Director of The Economist and Chairman of Common Purpose International.
‘The Economist’, in a rare reference to it in 1987, said that the importance of the meetings was overplayed but admitted: “When you have scaled the Bilderberg, you have arrived.”

Please see the attachments which detail the communication (or lack thereof) with Mary Ann Sieghart and also a copy of the report by Nic Outterside at the time of the Bilderberg meeting in Sintra, Portugal. The latter makes for very enlightening reading.
At the end of this document, I bring to your attention a report from May 2003 from the Asia Times. While the entire western media (at least those which are not truly independent) are unwilling to cover anything to do with Bilderberg, Asians have, generally, never been invited to attend Bilderberg. It is no surprise then that such a report was generated from a mainstream publication within Asia!
People, generally, like to keep their jobs and, with that in mind, one could postulate that this may be the reason for the lack of willing to discuss and/or cover Bilderberg in Western media. This, however, then allows the agenda of Bilderberg to continue and for most people to be entirely in the dark as to their overall purpose (which I shall not expand upon in this document) or to even have heard of the group.
However, as will be seen from the attachment entitled “BBC Correspondence”, simple interrogation leads to revelations of remarkable incompetence that, I would suggest, would not occur if such an organisation was entirely independent. And we pay a licence fee for our TV which is purely based on the upkeep of a BBC which is either entirely incompetent or entirely controlled. Take your pick!
Once one can enjoy TV without payment of a fee to support such incompetence, I may decide to let go of my hard-earned salary. Meanwhile I do not wish to conditioned by deceptive news reporting while paying for the “honour”.

Pen ultimately:
Written questions, with evasive answers, tabled by Patricia McKenna MEP [Green Party – Ireland] to the European Commission, 3 Dec ’98, in response to previous answers (see below)

Bilderberg Meetings: (Priority question)
Can the Commission explain more clearly its answer to my question H-0933/98, where it insists that participants attend Bilderberg *in a private capacity*, against all the evidence that these are far from being purely private meetings. If they are such, why does the Commission announce them in its Press Communiqués, published by Reuters – would it announce a Commissioner attending a conference on stamp-collecting, if that were his or her personal hobby?
And why is it that the Commissioners attending tend to be relevant to items on the agenda – Commissioner Van den Broek for Enlargement, Former Yugoslavia and Turkey, Commissioner Bjerregaard for Global Governance (applies to climate), Commissioner Monti for the European economy (Internal Market), or Commissioner Brittan for the EU/US Market Place. And most recently, at Turnberry, Minister George Robertson was ferried by military helicopter, on the clear understanding that he was present in an official capacity, just as happened in the past with Prime Minister Blair and then Minister Kenneth Clarke, now a member of the Steering Committee.
[Is this correct Mr. Clarke? That you were (and possibly still are?) a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg? If so, then that would surely make it improbable that you are not aware of the ultimate goal of these people and how it is in direct conflict with the British Constitution. It would also suggest that it is highly unlikely that you would not know specifically who the sponsors were who covered the hotel bill in 1993. This is simply a suggestion however as it seems implausible that you could be a member of such a steering committee.]
Does the Commission actually expect Members of Parliament to accept that British Ministers are attending these meetings in their official capacities, while Commissioners attend the same meeting in a private capacity?
And, why would the police exclude, and even arrest and charge, card carrying journalists if these were genuinely private meetings, whereas, if that were actually so, it would be the responsibility of the organizers to control access to the meetings by journalists, and the police would merely provide security checks to ensure the safety of the participants.
Since former Commissioners have continuing rights from, and duties to, the European Union, surely it behooves them to answer questions on these meetings, should the Commission so choose to ask them, and will the Commission now undertake to ask all former Commissioners still living whether they attended these and other similar meetings during their time as Commissioners.
P-3880/98EN

Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1999)
The Commission’s reply that Members of the Commission who attended Bilderberg meetings expressed their personal views means that they were not representing the Commission, that they did not speak on behalf of the Commission and that their comments were not binding on the Commission. Naturally they were invited to attend the meetings mainly on account of their functions. The Commission considers that its Members should be free to express their views on subjects relating to the work of the Community, in particular during exchanges of views in international forums, without their participation being in any way binding on the Commission.
And finally:
While we have been led to believe that this present Financial Crisis was never expected (view any interviews you wish with any of the UK cabinet or the US Executive Branch) while Alistair Darling is on record in 2008 saying he did not anticipate this even as late as 2008; I would most appreciate your considered response on the following – reported from the Bilderberg conference way back in 2003, of which you were an attendee:

ASIA TIMES 22ND MAY 2003: “An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.” Full article: HYPERLINK “http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

What an incredibly accurate report from as far back as 2003.
There is simply no way, without accepting some people have a crystal ball; that this could have been reported without inside knowledge by those who participated in the Bilderberg 2003 conference. Note also that it says “..the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West…”.
Not a suggestion that we have a problem that needs resolving but simply telling what is going to happen!
To anyone with some modicum of intelligence, this would suggest an orchestrated planned event/series of events. However, surely that is just not possible Mr. Clarke.

Who are these “minions” that the report speaks of? After all, the Bilderberg conferences are surely only attended by the so called global elite of industry, BANKING and politics. So, this leads to the question that if these so called “elite” are simply “minions” then who is dictating policy?

Meanwhile, if you know the location of this crystal ball I refer to, I would appreciate it if you would advise the coordinates since I would wish to pay it a visit before taking my first ever trip down to Ladbrokes.

From what I understand, this year’s Bilderberg Group Conference will be held in Greece. It may be worth all the copied MPs to consider their decision on whether to attend such a conference (if “lucky” to have been invited) considering all that I have just brought to your, and their, attention.

I look forward to your response. I am only a simple man as I’m sure you can tell; Just one of the “dumb electorate” as some may say. So please pardon my incapacity to recognise all of the above (and so much more) as just coincidence and of no significance whatsoever.

Kind Regards,

Earthling

This is the reply I received:

A Clarke Evasion

And now, with regard to the latest news on Clarke and a possible Lisbon Referendum:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/05/ken-clarke-lisbon-treaty-referendum

UPDATE 5th October 2011. Mr Clarke you are outed by your very own treasury as one lying son of a bitch!

FOI Act: Paragraph 35 (1) a: information relating to the formulation of government policy.

I gotcha Clarke! It took two years but I knew that letter and your reply would sink you. And you were sunk by your very own treasury’s response to an FOI request! How wonderful!

Now, what does all this result in?

Well read the following and you will see the CLEAR indictment of Ken Clarke (and it goes for Ed Balls, George Osbourne, David Cameron, Tony Blair and those who have all gone before them):

This “Code of Conduct” has been broken by all on so many levels it is astonishing –

Code of conduct for MPs Duties of Members Integrity Openness Honesty Financial gain

Ken Clarke attended this 2003 Bilderberg Conference when all participants were advised as follows –

Asia Times May 2003 Asia Times May 2003 2

Ken Clarke then joins Centaurus as an advisor (how does he know what to advise this Hedge Fund group? well, it is abundantly obvious is it not?). It is PRECISELY what Alan Greenspan did shortly before the Mortgage crash also in joining John Paulson’s Hedge Fund. Paulson then went on to make a KILLING in the mortgage default market –

Ken Clarke Centaurus

Remember particularly here, the MP’s Code of Conduct: Financial gain

And, finally, where Ken Clarke LIES to a member of the Public by saying NO POLICY was made at Bilderberg, Her Majesty’s Treasury blatantly contradicts this lying assertion by Clarke by quoting EXEMPTION 35 (1) a

FOI Bilderberg 1 FOI Bilderberg 2

MR CLARKE. YOU ARE A LYING, CORRUPT BASTARD AND I SENTENCE YOU TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR TREASON. YOUR BILDERBERG COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOLLOWING YOU SOON ENOUGH!

BILDERBERG 2013: ALEX JONES AND MICHAEL MEACHER ADVISED OF THIS ISSUE. MEACHER WAS A LITTLE RETICENT BUT HE SUPPORTED MY COMMUNICATING IT ALL TO SPEAKER JOHN BERCOW. THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS THAT JOHN BERCOW IS ON RECORD IN PARLIAMENT, MANY TIMES, QUESTIONING TONY BLAIR ABOUT BILDERBERG. THIS, OF COURSE, BEING BEFORE HE WAS MADE SPEAKER.

MY TAKE ON THIS? “WE’LL GIVE YOU A JUICY ROLE, JUST SHUT UP ABOUT BILDERBERG!”

Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons – Prime Minister Tony Blair’s written answers (20 May 1999) Bilderberg Group


Mr. John Bercow MP: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 7 May 1999, Official Report, columns 476-77, on the Bilderberg Group, what official (i) transport and (ii) funds have been used to facilitate attendance at Bilderberg meetings of members of his Government; which members have attended meetings; what reports they have made on the meetings; and what subsequent communication they have had with others attending on subjects discussed at the meetings. [84213] [John Bercow MP]

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, only one member of this Government–the Defence Secretary–has attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group. He provided a detailed account of his attendance in answers to the hon. Members for Ludlow (Christopher Gill MP) on 23 July 1998, Official Report, column 609, and for Hereford (John Keetch MP) on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 434.

And now, on Monday 10th June 2013, Ken Clarke, once more repeats his lies in Parliament:

It isn’t only Clarke, of course, who is involved in what is, ultimate and in actual fact, treason. It is the entire British parliament and you can include the monarchy also because the monarchy’s job is to keep their oath to the British people and maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom FOR the people. But getting simple stuff like this through most people’s heads is practically impossible.

As for the “communications” with Bercow and Meacher: Read from the bottom up ( I can’t be bothered to copy and paste each in a top down mode):

    • Bilderberg Association’s charitable status!‏

    Earthling
    29/06/2013
    To: nursej@parliament.uk, michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk
    Dear “Mr Speaker”,

    Please reply….

    Please DO NOT suggest you cannot comment due to having to remain “politically impartial” about what is consistently promoted as a “Private gathering”. That is simply ridiculous, evasive and, as a Parliamentarian, you are bound to the Parliamentary oath. I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with it.
    YOU ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES! DON’T YOU DARE FORGET THIS!
    Now, in your own words, I wish to hear your justification of a Private Association which is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP and which has SECRET documents locked up by the 30 year rule being given Charitable status in this “democratic” nation of ours.

    If you refuse to answer this, I wish to know who it is who I can complain to about your evasion and your disrespecting your Parliamentary oath? Thank you.

    A serious complaint has been registered against the Bilderberg Group’s charity, the ‘Bilderberg Association’, with the UK’s Charity Commission.

    The complaint was launched by a member of the public on the basis that the ‘Bilderberg Association’ could bring the Charity Commission into disrepute and damage public trust in charities, by allegedly not complying with UK charity law.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and engages in one sole ‘charitable activity’ – funding the Bilderberg Meetings.

    The Bilderberg Meetings are annual, private conferences attended by 140 of the world’s most powerful people, including bank bosses, CEOs, high-ranking politicians, and royals.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ claims that its objectives are “to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences”.

    In furtherance of its objectives, the Bilderberg Association claims that it “organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means” (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012).

    However, as one of the most prolifically secretive meetings in international politics, the Bilderberg meetings have no known role in “public education”, despite this claim. The Bilderberg Group has also consistently refused to ‘publish reports of such conferences’, despite this being another of their claims to charitable status.

    A Bilderberg meeting is, according to the official website, “a forum for informal, off-the-record discussions about megatrends and the major issues facing the world”, and is of an entirely “private nature”. After the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, attended the recent Bilderberg Meeting 2013 in Watford, UK, Downing Street refused to publish minutes of his discussions within the group.

    Tax-free corporate funding of a private talking shop between politicians and the meeting’s benefactors cannot be identified as an activity for ‘public benefit’ – particularly since the contents of Bilderberg meetings are withheld from the public. Without discernible public benefit, the Bilderberg Association would not meet the statutory requirements for charity status.

    From the ‘Bilderberg Association’ Annual Report and Accounts, 2007

    To claim for charitable status in the UK, and thus benefit from tax-free funding, a charity must demonstrate that their aims are for public benefit – broadly, to “advance education or religion or relieve poverty”.

    Furthermore, the Charity Commission deems that “a political purpose cannot meet the public benefit requirement and so cannot be a charitable purpose”. A ‘political purpose’ means any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party; or securing, or opposing, any change in the law or in the policy or decisions of central government or local authorities, whether in this country or abroad.

    Of significant concern is that the Bilderberg Association’s committee member and trustee, Cabinet minister Kenneth Clarke QC, MP, claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a trustee of the charity when questioned in parliament.

    The Charity Commission must respond to the complaint within 15 days.

    Details of the complaint sent to the Charity Commission are shown below:

    Please provide a summary of the evidence:

    I am concerned that ‘The Bilderberg Association’ is misleading the Charity Commission, and thus the public, as to its stated ‘Specific objectives’ and ‘Activities’. It’s actual objectives and activities would be highly unlikely to qualify for charitable status. Therefore, large amounts of money, it would appear, are possibly being unlawfully exempt from tax.  Full details are set out below.

    Please set out any additional facts and information about the serious issue that you wish to report:

    The Bilderberg Association engages in one single charitable activity, which is ‘Contributions to the running costs of Bilderberg Meetings’, which are the controversial (having come under recent parliamentary scrutiny and allegedly breaking the Ministerial Code) private meetings between politicians (including the Prime Minister) and heads of corporations and banks. However ‘The Bilderberg Association’ claims that its ‘Specific objectives’ are ‘to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences’; and under ‘Activities’ the Association claims that it ‘organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means’ (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012). However, the Bilderberg Meetings, as entirely secret meetings, have no role at all in public education, as the results of meetings are not in fact disseminated, and no reports are published. Bilderberg Meetings are in fact, by their own admission, characterised by ultimate secrecy. Therefore, it would appear that the objectives and activities of The Bilderberg Association (at least in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 for which I have been able to obtain accounts) are identifiably false and misleading. 

    The most recent identification of Bilderberg Association funding comes from their 2008 accounts, whereby the Association claims to have received £50,000 each from Goldman Sachs and BP. However, only £50,000 appears in their yearly income (although 2 x £50,000 = £100,000). I am concerned about the real objectives of the Association since they clearly do not match their falsely stated objectives and activities; and since the Association is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and goes on to fund the private meeting of Goldman Sachs’ and BP’s CEOs with MPs and Cabinet ministers. This bears the hallmarks of illegal lobbying.

    Details of attempts you have made to get the charity to address this issue. Please provide details of when you reported this issue to the charity and the outcome: 

    The Bilderberg Group is uncontactable. I have contacted several Members of Parliament who share my concerns including some of those subsequently mentioned. 

    Michael Meacher MP, Dennis Skinner MP, and Tom Watson MP have questioned Bilderberg Association’s Committee Member and trustee, Kenneth Clarke MP in parliament. It concerned me greatly that the oversight of the charity is desperately lacking – in response to Tom Watson MP’s question, Ken Clarke MP claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a Committee Member and trustee of the Bilderberg Association.

     

     

    Sincerely,

    Earthling

     

    FW: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
29/06/2013
To: michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk

FYI…

And when one is treated like an idiot by our “esteemed” Parliamentarians, please do not expect an ounce of respect in return.

If Mr Meacher enjoys Ken Clarke supercilliously lying to his face in Parliament (because one is removed from the House if one has the audacity to state that the other is actually lying) and abides by parliamentary rules – which ensure you never can say what you mean – then that’s his choice. I’m not in Parliament so, ironically, while you all believe you have “parliamentary privilege”, in this particular case, I have greater privilege. Among all the lying creeps in that building, Ken Clarke far outshines most! Then you have little bootlickers like Bercow……


From: Earthling@hotmail.com
To: nursej@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:22:23 +0000

Dear Joanna,

Having received Mr Bercow’s reply:

A question for you: Do you enjoy being treated like a fool? Is it a fetish developed by the people who work for these idiots who “lord” over us yet are only our representatives?
The reason I ask is because the replies which I receive from the likes of “Mr Speaker” are so incompetent and transparent in their attempts to evade and also to deceive, that I have to scratch my head in wonder that people such as yourself may actually kiss their feet for all I know.
The evasions and deceptions they apply to questions posed by me and so many others, are actually applied to you also (assuming you understood the nature and essence of what is being asked and referred to). In your assumed choice to ignore the utter crap that emanates from these people, I have to assume that you do not understand much of what is being asked?
So, with that, please pass this follow up question to “Mr Speaker” (who doesn’t appear to speak much in his initial reply):
IF, as Ken Clarke suggests in answer to Michael Meacher’s questions, the Bilderberg conference has nothing to do with Parliament and it is purely a private occasion, then how on God’s earth can Mr Bercow respond saying that, due to his position requiring him to be politically impartial, he cannot comment?
Bilderberg has “nothing to do with politics” according to Clarke! How then would Bercow commenting on it be “politically partial”?
We’re not all logical incompetents Ms Nurse!
So, again, please ask “His Speakerness” to reply in a less incompetent manner and answer the original questions I put to him.
Thank you and Kindest Regards,
Earthling

From: nursej@parliament.uk

To: NURSE, Joanna

Hi Joanna,

Thanks for advising. Yes I certainly do wish to receive a full reply to all points referred to both, in my email and within the letter I sent to Mr Clarke originally but which received a stock reply from him. I say stock reply because I am aware of others who received precisely the same letter from the MPs they contacted but, simply, with their MPs signature on the bottom. Evidence the, if such were needed, that the public is given lip service by their representatives and that a general template had been supplied to all attendees (and perhaps others) to reply to constituents’ and the public’s questions. Specific questions, therefore, being entirely ignored and simply a standard answer as reply which doesn’t answer anything at all.
My address is:
xxxxxxx
Thank you and regards,
Earthling

To: Earthling@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:38:38 +0000

Thank you for your email, which was sent to Mr Speaker’s constituency office email address.

 

If you would like to receive a reply, please provide me with your postal address, as that is the Speaker’s preferred method of correspondence.

 

Due to the high volume of emails and letter received by the Speaker, please understand that there is often a delay before a response is sent.

 

From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 June 2013 13:03
To: MEACHER, Michael
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg

 

Mr Meacher,

 

What else would I have expected? The UK Parliament is a corrupt hotbed of criminals. There is not ONE of you which I could point to and say “I 100% trust that man”. If you remember, while at the Bilderberg protest, I mentioned to you that you spoke of the Conservative attendees in your speeches but never once referred to Ed Balls (you saying that Ed Balls was not a government minister – which actually matters not one bit). While you all play your “tennis game”, Mr Meacher, you all swerve the issues when they lie at your door and evade and all of your evasions, whichever side of that phoney left/right fence you are on, maintains the status quo. But then that is what your actual job is. To maintain that status quo.

However, I will offer you something to think about: Whilst you play your games and maintain the paradigm – looking after your own interests as a whole – in the future, whatever family you may have (offspring) are going to inherit what you tried so hard to maintain for yourselves today. If you think your family will be protected from this New World Order Mr Meacher, then you are very naive. The people running this show eat you up and use you and then they spit you out just as quickly. Your offspring means NOTHING to them. By all means ignore my words Mr Meacher but, trust me, you will forever regret doing so.

 

Lastly, the reply from Bercow: Again he plays the game but he makes a big mistake (you all do for those of us to whom you are all transparent). His point that “his position requires him to be politically impartial”, I hope you recognise for what it is. Mr Clarke states in answer to you that this Bilderberg conference is a private gathering and has nothing to do with Parliament therefore. If it is “private” and in no way “political” (embarrassingly transparent as it all is), then Bercow’s comment is senseless. But then what’s new?

 

Parliament: Parler – to speak, Mentir – to lie. A House full of it!

 

So, my point: Let’s see what you’re really made of. If it’s anything like my own MP (Damian Green), then I already know! A man in abject fear of being put on the spot and on the record…..

 

 Bercow letter 2

Earthling

RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
MEACHER, Michael (michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk)
11/06/2013
To: Earthling

Dear Mr Earthling,

Thank you for your email which I will bring to Michael Meacher’s attention.

Regards,

Monica Masson

PA

 

Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP

Oldham West & Royton

House of Commons

020 7219 6461

 

Oldham Office

11 Church Lane

Oldham OL1 3AN

0161 626 5779

 

From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 11 June 2013 12:46
To: BERCOW, John; MEACHER, Michael
Subject: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg

 

Dear John,

 

I spoke with Michael Meacher at the Bilderberg protest on Saturday. He advised me that I can, and should, contact you and that I would receive a reply from you regarding this issue with Government Ministers attending Bilderberg conferences.

I wrote a letter to Ken Clarke in 2009 regarding his attendance and I put quite some detail in it as you will see. I received a “stock reply” from Mr Clarke (others have received exactly the same replies from their MPs who have attended) which evaded ALL of my questions, points and detail.

In 2011, there was a Treasury response to an FOI request which then entirely contradicted Mr Clarke’s assertion that the conferences are attended in one’s “personal capacity” when it stated George Osbourne attended in his official capacity.

 

Now, the blog also mentions you John because, before becoming Speaker, you asked a number of times about Bilderberg to Tony Blair. Why did you ask such questions? What was your concern? Your concern was precisely the same as mine and all the Bilderberg protestors who attended on Saturday and the other days. You know what the problem is John and, whether attended in a personal capacity or not, the attendees are not invited on the basis of their golf handicap. They are invited on the basis of what they can achieve within their Public function!

 

My demand is, therefore, that Ken Clarke (and all other UK Parliament attendees) be brought up on the charges which you know apply due to the subversion of their Code of Conduct oath and Constitutional law. And since when did a private meeting with “no policy objectives” require that documents relating to it be locked up under the 30 year rule of secrecy?

 

John, understand that, if you want and demand respect for your position then so do I and the citizens of this country since, after all, you are the public servant who is meant to be representing us!

 

I would, therefore, ask (but in asking I fully expect) a considered, detailed reply once you have read the blog. I send you the blog to read rather than “reinvent the wheel” and re-write it in this email.

 

Thank you and Regards,

 

Earthling

 

PS: I make NO apologies for the language on the blog or videos.

 

 

The Rothschild-Disraeli Jewish pact.

Posted in Political History, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 10, 2011

Two jews who set the course of corrupt British Government from the mid 1800s until we arrive at David Cameron, Gideon Osbourne and a Rothschild yacht experience with Mandy the Rothschild!

ROTHSCHILD

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (22 November 1808 – 3 June 1879) was a British banker and politician.

The son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Hanna Barent Cohen, he was a member of the prominent Rothschild family.

Baron Lionel de Rothschild and his family had “contributed during the Irish famine of 1847 … a sum far beyond the joint contributions of the Devonshires, and Herefords, Lansdownes, Fitzwilliams and Herberts, who annually drew so many times that amount from their Irish estates.”

In 1847 Lionel de Rothschild was first elected to the British House of Commons as one of four MPs for the City of London constituency. Jews were at that point still barred from sitting in the chamber due to the Christian oath required to be sworn in so Prime Minister Lord John Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to remove the problem with the oath. In 1848, the bill was approved by the House of Commons but was twice rejected by the House of Lords. After being rejected again by the Upper House in 1849, Rothschild resigned his seat and stood again winning in a by-election in order to strengthen his claim.

In 1850, he entered the House of Commons to take his seat but refused to swear on a Christian Bible asking to use only the Old Testament. This was permitted but when omitting the words “upon the true faith of a Christian” from the oath he was required to leave.

In 1851 a new Jewish Disabilities Bill was defeated in the House of Lords. In the 1852 general election Rothschild was again elected but the next year the bill was again defeated in the upper house.

Finally, in 1858, the House of Lords agreed to a proposal to allow each house to decide its own oath. On 26 July 1858 de Rothschild took the oath with covered head, substituting “so help me, [using a Hebrew word for] God” for the ordinary form of oath, and thereupon took his seat as the first Jewish member of Parliament. He was re-elected in general elections in 1859 and 1865, but defeated in 1868; he was returned unopposed in a by-election in 1869 but defeated a second time in the general election in 1874.

Rothschild was proposed as a member of the House of Lords in 1868, but Queen Victoria refused to elevate him to this status. She denied that this was because Rothschild was a Jew. Instead the monarch claimed it was because of Rothschild’s business activities, but few believed her. In 1885 the Queen did raise Rothschild’s son Nathan to the peerage. Nathan Mayer de Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the House of Lords.

In 1836, Lionel de Rothschild married Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild (1819-1884), the daughter of Baron Carl Mayer Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of Naples. They had the following children:

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!

 

Lionel de Rothschild died in 1879 and his body was interred in the Willesden Jewish Cemetery in the North London suburb of Willesden.

 

OATHS OF JEWISH MEMBERS—BARON DE ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

 

HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

§ On the Clerk proceeding to read the Order of the Day for resuming the Ad- 397 journed Debate on Sir R. Inglis’s Motion, with reference to the request of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to be sworn on the Old Testament,

§MR. HENLEY said:  Before the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate is read, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you this question—whether, to give a proper locus standi for the discussion of the important question which is about to be raised by the Amendment put upon the notices by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, it would not be expedient that some further question should be put

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

to Baron de Rothschild, one of the hon. Members for the city of London, in order to get upon the records of the House the fact that to take the oath in the way he has requested—the only answer he has yet made being, that he requests to be sworn upon the Old Testament—is binding upon his conscience, and the reason why he requires so to take it?

oaths-of-jewish-members-baron-de#S3V0113P0_18500729_HOC_30

It is as clear as daylight then, that Rothschild did NOT accept that the Christian and Jewish “God” is one and the same. IF he had argued that religion had no place in politics and that he would not swear on ANY “Holy Book” then that would present a different (and, perhaps, even acceptable) picture. But no, Rothschild demanded (and he eventually got) to swear upon the Old Testament (The “Torah”) and even IF so “binding upon his conscience”, it is clear that one’s conscience must be dealt with differently in the two books. This is unarguable logic. The question is: What IS this difference? Could it POSSIBLY include the following:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

 

 

D’ISRAELI

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure. Starting from comparatively humble origins, he served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although his father had him baptised to Anglicanism at age 12, he was nonetheless Britain’s first and thus far only Prime Minister who was born into a Jewish family—originally from Italy. He played an instrumental role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846.

Disraeli’s biographers believe he was descended from Italian Sephardic Jews. He claimed Portuguese ancestry, possibly referring to an earlier origin of his family heritage in Iberia prior to the expulsion of Jews in 1492. After this event many Jews emigrated, in two waves; some fled to the Muslim lands of the Ottoman Empire, but many also went to Christian Europe, first to northern Italy, then to the Netherlands, and later to England. One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano.

Disraeli turned towards literature after a personal financial disaster, motivated in part by a desperate need for money, and brought out his first novel, “Vivian Grey”, in 1826. Disraeli’s biographers agree that Vivian Grey was a thinly veiled re-telling of the affair of “The Representative” (a plagiarist then), and it proved very popular on its release, although it also caused much offence within the Tory literary world when Disraeli’s authorship was discovered. The book, initially anonymous, was purportedly written by a “man of fashion”, perhaps Ross M. Brown – someone who moved in high society. Disraeli, then just twenty-three, did not move in high society, and the numerous solecisms present in his otherwise brilliant and daring work made this painfully obvious. Reviewers were sharply critical on these grounds of both the author and the book. Furthermore, John Murray believed that Disraeli had caricatured him and abused his confidence–an accusation denied at the time, and by the official biography, although subsequent biographers (notably Blake) have sided with Murray.

Wyndham Lewis (7 October 1780 – 14 March 1838) was a British politician and a close associate of Benjamin Disraeli. Lewis married Mary Anne, daughter of John Evans, in 1816. They had no children. He died in March 1838, in London’s Mayfair, aged 57. His widow married Benjamin Disraeli in 1839 and was created Viscountess Beaconsfield in 1868.

So 1 year after his death, Benjamin Disraeli marries his widow? While Lewis was a close associate of Disraeli?….. Nice!

In 1839 he settled his private life by marrying Mary Anne Lewis, the rich widow of Wyndham Lewis, Disraeli’s erstwhile colleague at Maidstone. Mary Lewis was 12 years his senior, and their union was seen as being based on financial interests, but they came to cherish one another.

In 1847 a small political crisis occurred which removed Bentinck from the leadership and highlighted Disraeli’s differences with his own party. In the preceding general election, Lionel de Rothschild had been returned for the City of London. Ever since Catholic Emancipation, members of parliament were required to swear the oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” Rothschild, an unconverted Jew, could not do so and therefore could not take his seat. Lord John Russell, the Whig leader who had succeeded Peel as Prime Minister and like Rothschild a member for the City of London, introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to amend the oath and permit Jews to enter Parliament.

Disraeli spoke in favour of the measure, arguing that Christianity was “completed Judaism,” and asking of the House of Commons “Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their Judaism?” While Disraeli did not argue that the Jews did the Christians a favour by killing Christ, as he had in Tancred and would in Lord George Bentinck, his speech was badly received by his own party, which along with the Anglican establishment was hostile to the bill. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and a friend of Disraeli’s, spoke strongly against the measure and implied that Russell was paying off the Jews for “helping” elect him. Every member of the future protectionist cabinet then in parliament (except Disraeli) voted against the measure. One member who was not, Lord John Manners, stood against Rothschild when the latter re-submitted himself for election in 1849. Bentinck, then still Conservative leader in the Commons, joined Disraeli in speaking and voting for the bill, although his own speech was a standard one of toleration.

In 1852, the primary responsibility of a mid-Victorian chancellor was to produce a Budget for the coming fiscal year. Disraeli, as Chancellor, proposed to reduce taxes on malt and tea (indirect taxation); additional revenue would come from an increase in the house tax. More controversially, Disraeli also proposed to alter the workings of the income tax (direct taxation) by “differentiating”–i.e., different rates would be levied on different types of income.

The establishment of the income tax on a permanent basis had been the subject of much inter-party discussion since the fall of Peel’s ministry in June of 1846. Since that time, no consensus had been yet been reached, and Disraeli was criticised for mixing up details over the different “schedules” of income. Disraeli’s proposal to extend the tax to Ireland gained him further enemies, and he was also hampered by an unexpected increase in defence expenditure, which was forced on him by Derby and Sir John Pakington (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies) (leading to his celebrated remark to John Bright about the “damned defences”). This, combined with bad timing and perceived inexperience led to the failure of the Budget and consequently the fall of the government on 17 December 1852.

With the fall of the government, Disraeli and the Conservatives returned to the opposition benches.

 

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.

HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that yesterday he took the liberty of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, under the provisions of what was commonly called “the Contractors’ Act,” Baron Rothschild had not vacated his seat for the City of London, by having entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service, and whether, consequently, a new writ ought not to issue for the City of London? His hon. and learned Friend then answered that, if the question were put to the House, not in a speculative, but in a practical form, he would give his 163 opinion upon it. He now rose for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House in a practical form, and he had, therefore, put a Motion to that effect on the paper. He might have moved that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, but that would have been a sneaking and cowardly course, entertaining as he did a strong conviction that, according to the common sense and literal construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron Rothschild had vacated his seat. The House would recollect when the Act in question passed, and the purposes for which it was designed. The Act passed in 1782, and was brought forward with the avowed object of promoting the freedom and independence of Parliament. When the Rockingham Administration came into office they took up that Bill, which had been before Parliament for two or three years, and gave it their warmest support on the principle that the House of Commons was getting day by day more corrupt and the people of this country were becoming more dissatisfied with it. He would not insult the memory of the Rockingham Administration by calling them “Administrative Reformers.” They were something more, for they were Parliamentary Reformers. They struck at the root of the evil, for they said that, if there were corruption in the State, it must be the fault of the House of Commons, and so far as they could remove that blot they would do it by reforming the House itself. That Administration contained among its Members Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Dunning, who had previously moved the well-known Resolution, that the power and influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He should show by the Act itself, and by the debates upon it, that it was the intention of those who framed the Act, and of the Parliament that passed it, that contractors of Government loans should vacate their seats in Parliament, and he contended that the case of Baron Rothschild came clearly within its meaning. The heading of the contract was— ‘The contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty’s Government, on or about the 20th day of April last, for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service.’ Now, the preamble of the Act said— ‘For further securing the freedom and independence of Parliament, be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament 164 assembled, and by the authority Of the same, that, from and after the end of this present session of Parliament, any person who shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement, or commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, or of the Navy or Victualling Office, or with the Master General or Board of Ordnance, or with any one or more of such Commissioners, or with any other person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the public service; or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public, shall be incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold, or enjoy any such contract, agreement, or commission, or any part or share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same.’ The Act also went on to say— ‘And if any person, disabled and declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall, after the end of this present Session of Parliament, presume to sit or vote as a Member of the House of Commons, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 500l. for every day in which he shall sit or vote in the said House to any person or persons who shall sue for, the same in any of His Majesty’s courts at Westminster.’ It was contended by some that Baron Rothschild, not being ineligible by reason of this contract at the time of his election, had not incurred the penalties of the Act, and that, because for other reasons he had not sat or voted in that House, he had not forfeited his seat on that account. But he apprehended that there were very few hon. Members who would maintain that opinion, because, supposing for an instant that fifty or sixty Members held contracts with the Government for twelve months’ duration, would the House say that they had not forfeited their seats because for that period they might abstain from sitting or voting in the House? The case of the Jewish question was a very different one. The hon. Member was incapable of sitting or voting in that House because he could not use the words “on the true faith of a Christian,” and in that case the House was not justified in issuing a writ. But the hon. Member stood in a very different position as a contractor. It was alleged by some that hon. Members might contract for money, although they could not enter into contracts with the Government for ships or provisions. When the Bill was 165 under discussion, it was at first proposed that contracts for loans should be excepted, but if hon. Members referred to the debates they would find that that proposal was scouted by the House. Mr. Fox said, he rejoiced to see that a new sprit of government seemed to be rising, and that a period was approaching when corruption would be banished from the Senate; and those who had the management of public affairs might safely trust to the merits of their measures for support, without having recourse to corruption. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) would be disposed to indorse that opinion. Mr. Fox moved that the exception in the Bill should be withdrawn, and that no contractor whatever should have a seat in Parliament. It was also contended that contracts for money were more dangerous than any other species of contract. The exception was withdrawn upon the understanding that a special Bill should be brought in for the purpose. No Bill, however, was brought in for the purpose, and the only Bill bearing at all upon the subject confirmed the view which he had now stated—the 48 Geo. III., chap. 1, wherein persons were exempted from losing their seats who entered into any contract with the Government for Exchequer Bills on behalf of the Bank of England. If they entered into such contracts on their own behalf, they were not exempted; so it was quite clear that Parliament, with its eyes open, had intended by the 22 Geo. III., chap. 45, that no contractors whatever should sit in Parliament. He could not possibly understand how there could be any doubt upon the subject, and, as Baron Rothschild by other circumstances had been prevented from sitting and voting in the House, he had incurred no penalties, and so far the loss to him would not be, and ought not to be, very great. He particularly wished it to be understood that he made this Motion entirely upon public grounds, and without any reference whatever to the Jewish question. For eight Sessions Baron Rothschild had been nominally a Member of the House of Commons, but the question of Jewish emancipation did not seem to have been much advanced thereby. A short time since he asked Her Majesty’s Government whether it was their intention to introduce a measure in the present Session for the removal of Jewish disabilities, and the answer he received was, that they had no such intention. The noble Lord the 166 Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had since addressed a letter to some of his constituents, in which he told them fairly it was a hopeless case, in consequence of the decisions which had been come to in the House of Lords, and he believed the noble Lord was perfectly right in forming that estimate of the position of the question. He believed the prejudice elsewhere was so great, and the indifference of the public out of doors was also so great, that during the present generation, at least, there was not the remotest chance of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion sitting in that House, so long as the House of Lords had any voice in the matter. Therefore Baron Rothschild had been thus long disabled, and the citizens of London had been deprived of their fourth Member. If three Members were quite enough for the City of London, let the House be told so, and let them give that Member to some other place. But this very disablement of Baron Rothschild had relieved him from any penalties with regard to this contract. What he said was, that from the moment a Member entered into a contract with the Government, not only was he disabled from sitting and voting, but his seat became vacant. He should be extremely glad to hear the opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen upon this subject, but he contended that, according to the honest and fair interpretation of the Act, it was quite clear there was a vacancy in the City of London at the present moment, and would so continue, as far as regarded Baron Rothschild, until the 18th of December next, when the contract ceased. Under these circumstances, therefore, ought not the House to issue a new writ? They did not want any peddling or quibbling opinions. He knew lawyers could make that opaque which was clear to all minds but their own, but he hoped that would not be the case on this occasion, and he appealed to the House to restore to the citizens of London the power of electing a forth representative by agreeing to the Motion he now proposed, that the Speaker be instructed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the City of London.

MR. MILNER GIBSON  Sir, my difficulty is to make up my mind whether the disqualifying clauses are to stop with Baron Rothschild. He has admitted a great number of persons, possibly Members of this House, to have shares of this loan, to enjoy what the Act calls the “profits, benefits, and emoluments arising from the same.” Now, all these Members enjoy the “profits, benefits, and emoluments” arising from the loan, and, if I have taken a correct view of this Act, they are in jeopardy as well as Baron Rothschild, and it would be competent for him or any other hon. Member, if the House at once agrees 174 to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to find out some hon. Member upon this list and take the House by surprise to-morrow evening, and move that a new writ be issued for the borough or county which he represents. We must therefore be cautious in this matter. For myself, I confess I have no particular knowledge of the law. I have read the Act, and I understand from it that any person who enjoys any benefit arising from the loan, either directly by having contracted himself, or indirectly through another, is equally affected.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL  said, he wished the House to observe that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced or applied for a long space of years. It was reasonable to suspect, therefore, some impediment or obstacle in the way of its application. If any Gentleman were bold enough to pledge himself to the opinion that the law had not been affected by any of our legislation subsequent to 1782, he might be competent to pronounce upon this question at once; but he (the Solicitor General) could not be so confident.

So, it becomes abundantly clear by this stage in the proceedings, that while there had been a long standing ACT (Law) regarding any “Contractors” (individuals loaning the government money) then being disallowed to hold a seat in the House as an MP or Lord, a vast number of them had done it with impunity. They broke the law! But it didn’t matter because it’s a BOYS CLUB. But then Rothschild comes along and he loans the government and they don’t like that (some of them at least). While Rothschild had not only, himself, provided the money but he ensured he had many other members involved which would make them speak for him AND it would make it far more difficult for the Parliament to act otherwise they’d be dismissing a great number of people – some very powerful no doubt. Furthermore, that would send a message to the public saying “We’re corrupt as hell”. Just like today!

Now THIS section is quite literally incredible. Benjamin D’Israeli, attempts to provide “cover” for Rothschild. Hard to believe he got away with this:

MR. DISRAELI  said, it appeared to him that a subject of this nature should be considered with great calmness, and that the House should not rashly adopt any course upon it without due deliberation. Now, what he felt was that they wanted that distinct proof which should be in the possession of the House, and which could be easily obtained, before they could come to a decision on a question of such consequenee. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there could be no doubt that Baron Lionel de Rothschild had contracted with Her Majesty’s Government, and then he took up a contract, and pointed to it as containing that proof. But he (Mr. Disraeli) was not satisfied on this point; for if that was the only proof that the hon. Member for the City of London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government, the evidence was very imperfect, as the contract bore not the signature of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, but of N. M. Rothschild and Sons.

So D’Israeli argues that, because the contract did not have the Baron De Rothschild’s personal signature on it, it could not be considered a loan from Rothschild to the government EVEN THOUGH it was “N.M Rothschild & Sons”. In-Fing-credible! So perhaps it had a Rothschild stamp or perhaps it was signed by an officer of the company. The fact is ROTHSCHILD OWNED THE FCUKING COMPANY! It’s like suggesting every loan Goldman Sachs makes is signed by Lloyd Blankfein (and even then, Blankfein is just the CEO!).

This was OUTRAGEOUS “chutzpah” by D’Israeli. You can bet he was in on it.

Remember 16Million was one shitload of money back then! It was the equivalent of £billions today!

Also remember that Rothschild was the Trustee of D’Israeli’s Last will and Testament! So let’s just say they were “good friends”.

Now consider THIS little exchange:

 

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  said, that, as the Motion now stood, it stated that the contract had been entered into by Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, though there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that such was the case.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild did not in his presence sign this contract.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  I think the question just put to me is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this question in its present form. I did not mean to state that it was not Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who had virtually entered into this contract with the Government, but my remark merely applied to the wording of the Motion which states Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild entered into the contract with the Government, of which there was no evidence on the face of the contract.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  But that is no answer to my question. I put a direct and straightforward question, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not in his presence sign the contract in question.

§MR. DISRAELI  said, he objected to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbary, which, if it were sanctioned, would place it in the power of a Minister who wished to turn a Member out of his seat to get up and put a question, having previously agreed upon the answer which would be given by one of his supporters, and they all knew how ardent a supporter of the Government was the hon. Member 182 for Finsbury. The question put by him was most unconstitutional, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in answering.

new-writ-for-london#S3V0139P0_18550626_HOC_52

At this point in time (1855) D’Israeli and the Conservatives were in opposition.

Disraeli was accused by William Ewart Gladstone of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.

William Gladstone

Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament’s consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.

Here are some exchanges in Parliament during that time. Make of them what you wish. I know what I make of them: Utter pish!

 

QUESTION.

HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

§MR. BIGGAR  asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, or not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the proposed payment to Messrs. Rothschild, one of which firm being also a Member of this House, of a commission of 2½ per cent. on the amount of the Suez Canal Purchase, brings the said Member within the provisions of the Act 22 Geo. 3, c. 45; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take on the subject?

§MR. DISRAELI  Sir, it does not appear to me that this Question ought to be addressed to Her Majesty’s Government, and I may say further, that on referring to the statute which the hon. Member has mentioned, I am doubtful whether it ought even to be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. I read in that statute that which indicates that it is a question neither for the Government nor for the Law Officers, but one for Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. It says that any Member of this House offending under the circumstances referred to shall forfeit the sum of £500 for every day on which he sits or votes in this House to any person who shall sue for the same in any of Her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster. In these circumstances, as it appears to be open to any of Her Majesty’s subjects to sue for that penalty, I think it is not for the Government or for the Law Officers of the Crown to give any information 1020 on the subject, but for those who are directly interested in the question.

§SIR NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD  Sir, I hope the House will allow me to make a personal statement on this matter. I feel it my duty to declare that I am not a partner in the house of which my father is the head, either in London or Paris. I have no doubt that the House will accept that statement from me; but, if it is necessary, I am authorized by my father to say that the deed of partnership of the firm of Rothschild, both in London and on the Continent, can be inspected by any one whom this House may choose to appoint.

question#S3V0227P0_18760228_HOC_7

And this concerning the detail (and complete obfuscation) of the payment:

 

RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Question again proposed, ‘That a sum, not exceeding £4,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to enable Her Majesty 563 to pay the Purchase Money of the Shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and the Expenses attendant thereon, which will come in course of payment during-the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876?’’

§MR. LOWE, in resuming the adjourned debate, remarked that the first question to be settled was, oddly enough, the nature of the transaction they were about to discuss. The matter might be thought to be perfectly clear, but there was really an amount of doubt about it which it was desirable to dispel, and which he would endeavour to explain. On the first night of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said— ‘We asked the house of Rothschild to purchase those shares on our engagement to ask the House of Commons to take them off their hands. It was a great risk.’ Now, if that were really the question which the House had to consider there would be a very great probability that the House, having carefully considered the matter, would think that that was a transaction which it was not called upon necessarily to ratify at all; because the house of Rothschild having made the purchase only on the faith that the Government would recommend the House of Commons to take the purchase off their hands, no money would have passed, and it would have been open to the House of Commons to consider the whole question as if no pledge had been given. But that was not the case, he was sorry to say. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his statement, though the real facts of the case were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Properly speaking, the question was not of our taking the shares off Messrs. Rothschild’s hands, but of our having purchased the shares and borrowed money from Messrs. Rothschild to pay for them. That was a simple description of the transaction, and disposed of the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury on the first night of the Session, made no doubt from the erroneous view that no money had passed. So far from no money having passed, the fact was that £4,000,000 had been lent to the English Government on the faith that they would apply to Parliament for repayment, and that was an extremely different question from the question whether we were not bound to 564 take upon ourselves the purchase made by other persons even under the recommendation of the Government. Nor was it therefore true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was a great risk, because when money had been borrowed on behalf of the English Government—when they had had the money and actually spent it—the House of Commons would not be likely to say—” We have had the money and will not repay it.” This point, as the Committee would see, was not an unimportant one. He had now, singularly enough, to charge the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with inaccuracy—a circumstance so unlikely that it would require the strongest proof. In this case, however, he did not think there was any room for doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Vote of £4,080,000, and that Vote was made up in this way—there was £3,976,582, the purchase money of the shares, and there was £99,414 for the commission of 2½ per cent to Messrs. Rothschild. Then there was about £4,000 for small expenses; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid these sums before the House as being the whole cost of the shares. So far, however, from that being the whole cost, the fact was that there had to be added a sum of £37,000; and for this reason, that the Messrs. Rothschild were not only to receive a commission of 2½per cent on the amount of the purchase, but were also to charge interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the £4,000,000 until the date of repayment. There was the difficulty. No doubt there was some misunderstanding here, for there were two accounts of what was to be done—one contained in the Treasury Minute, and the other in a letter written by Messrs. Rothschild themselves. In the Treasury Minute it was distinctly stated that the Messrs. Rothschild were to charge a commission of 21 per cent on the £4,000,000 which they undertook to provide, and also that they were to receive the interest of 5 per cent from the Khedive upon the amount advanced from the date of the advance until the date of repayment of such advance by Her Majesty’s Government. On the other hand, the Messrs. Rothschild, having been asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to state their terms in writing, gave a very different version of the affair. They write— 565‘It is also understood that we are to charge Her Majesty’s Government a commission of 2½ per cent upon the £4,000,000, and 5 per cent interest per annum until the date of repayment.’ So that it appeared from the Treasury Minute that this was to be paid by the Khedive, whereas according to Messrs. Rothschild’a Minute it was to be paid by the Government. Now, if it was worth while to write to Messrs. Rothschild to ask them to put their contract in form, one would have thought that it would have been worth while to ascertain who was right and who was wrong. That, however, did not appear to have been done, and so the matter remained in its present state. There was, however, no doubt about it. Of course Messrs. Rothschild’s letter was what they would be bound by and not the Treasury Minute, and it was the duty of the Government to pay them this 5 per cent, and they ought not to look for it from the Khedive. Of course, if the Khedive did pay it, it would really be we who would pay it all the same, because it would be intercepting money that was to come to us from the Khedive. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government to have made this sum for interest, whatever it happened to be, part of the Vote.

resolution-adjourned-debate#S3V0227P0_18760221_HOC_55

ONLY 135 years ago. That is like yesterday in terms of how this all works:

 

Lies, damned lies and corruption and it exists to this very day in another Conservative “BRITISH CHRISTIAN WITH JEWISH VALUES” Prime Minister and his sidekick, Gideon.

"Having jewish values are great Gideon, just keep well away from yachts would you? The public might just catch on!"

 “I worked for a prominent Jewish business leader for seven-and-a-half years, Michael Green… and in my downstairs loo, you’d see the proud gift I received after speaking at the 350th anniversary dinner, [a print] of Benjamin Disraeli’s house”

david-cameron-my-values-are-yours

So PLEASE, do not suggest, and try to dismiss the facts, that history from 135 years ago has no bearing on the present. The Rothschilds have been at the core of almost every privatisation and major British government policy ever since. Just do the reading to find out!

It is interesting to note that Gladstone once sent a letter to D’Israeli, the latter asking Gladstone to join the new government, where Gladstone states the following:

“I state these points fearlessly and without reserve, for you have yourself well reminded me that there is a Power beyond us that disposes of what we are and do, and I find the limits of choice in public life to be very narrow”.—W. E. Gladstone to Disraeli, 1858

What I find interesting about it is that, while one can consider that Gladstone is speaking of “God” as the “power beyond us”, he then goes on to state that the LIMITS in public life are “very narrow”. I just wonder who/what could possibly be imposing those limits?

Although born of Jewish parents, Disraeli was baptised in the Christian faith at the age of twelve, and remained an observant Anglican for the rest of his life. Adam Kirsch, in his biography of Disraeli, states that his Jewishness was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Much of the criticism of his policies was couched in anti-Semitic terms. He was depicted in some antisemitic political cartoons with a big nose and curly black hair, called “Shylock” and “abominable Jew,” and portrayed in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia. In response to an anti-Semitic comment made by Daniel O’Connell in the British parliament, Disraeli memorably defended his Jewishness with the statement, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon.” One apocryphal story states that Disraeli reconverted to Judaism on his deathbed.

 

Judaism’s Redefiner

By ANTHONY JULIUS   

Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

Benjamin Disraeli was a novelist, a statesman and a professing, practicing Christian, but to understand him one also needs to know that he was born a Jew. It was in the working out of the implications of this bare fact that his literary and political career, as well as his confessional affiliation, are to be understood. Or this, at least, is what Adam Kirsch contends in “Benjamin Disraeli,” his contribution to the “Jewish Encounters” series. “Disraeli’s Jewishness,” Kirsch writes, was “the central fact about him.” It was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Does Kirsch, a contributor to The New Yorker and other publications, make good on his thesis?

For sure, he offers a rounded account of his subject. We learn that the proximate cause of Disraeli’s baptism was a quarrel his father had with his synagogue, that Disraeli himself had an incomplete education, that he was a novelist before he became a politician and was a politician for many years before he became a statesman. Kirsch acknowledges his political skills, his ability to outmaneuver his opponents (with Rothschild backing – it helps!), both by compromise and by an even greater radicalism, even his unattractive habit of identifying himself with the powerful instead of the powerless. Disraeli’s positions on the principal issues of the day are identified — his early opposition to free trade and his championing of the cause of empire, his criticism of Victorian utilitarianism and materialism, his defense of the established Church of England, his willingness to extend the franchise to defeat his liberal enemies and the eccentric grounds of his support for Jewish emancipation. All this can be obtained elsewhere, but Kirsch sets it out succinctly and authoritatively.

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

It was in relation to the first kind of anti-Semitism that Disraeli defined himself. He sought to arrive at a self-definition that made him immune from being regarded as contemptible. He invented a bogus pedigree for himself (out of Spain, from Venice) (similar to Obama’s “Hawaii” story?), and he talked up whenever he could the intellectual and social distinctions of the Jews as a whole. As part of this project, however, he inadvertently contributed to the emergence of the second kind of anti-Semitism.

Disraeli redefined Judaism as a matter of race rather than religion, and in his ­novels “Coningsby” (1844), “Sybil” (1845) and “Tancred” (1847), he celebrated occult Jewish power, always exercised behind the scenes, and always determinative. The mysterious Sidonia (who figures in all three novels), Kirsch correctly observes, “looks like nothing so much as an anti-­Semitic hate figure.” In “Coningsby,” Disraeli has Sidonia confide, “You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.” “Russian diplomacy,” he says, is “organized and principally carried on by Jews”; the “mighty revolution” that will come in Germany is “entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.” “The myth of Jewish superiority,” Kirsch writes, “which Disraeli had advanced to counter the fact of social inferiority, now interacted with the paranoid superstitions of anti-Semites to disastrous effect.”

There IS no “jewish superiority”, there is ONLY “Rothschild superiority” (in terms of financial wealth and that is all he needs).

Disraeli was himself the object of anti-Semitic attack in the late 1870s because he insisted that the British national interest lay in supporting the Ottoman Empire against its Christian minority communities. For this piece of “realist” international politics, he was abused as “a very Hebrew of Hebrews,” the “Jew Earl, Philo-Turkish Jew and Jew Premier,” and the “traitorous Jew,” the “haughty Jew” and the “abominable Jew.” He was a leader of the “Turkophile party,” its “most rabid element.” He was the premier of a “Jew government.” He was a wizard, a conjurer, a magician, an alchemist. He was a “man of the East,” an “Asiatic.” “For the past six years we have had an Asiatic ruler.” He was a “wandering Jew,” “sprung from a race of migratory Jews.” He was raised “amid a people for whose ideas and habits he has no sympathy and little respect.” He was a “sham Christian and a sham Englishman.” He was the “charioteer” of a “Juggernaut car,” dragging “the whole of Christendom” over the rights of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Most cartoons gave him an immense nose and curly black hair; he was represented as “our modern Shylock.” Many of the illustrations related him to the Devil (“the most authentic incarnation of the Evil One”). At least two portrayed him in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia, and in one of these his great adversary, the liberal politician Gladstone, is the distressed mother, arriving perhaps too late to save her child. And there was a note sounded for the first time, but to be repeated many times thereafter: the Jews want war, against the national interest.(and still do)

The anti-Semites of his day insisted that Disraeli was bogus in every respect but his identification with Jews and Judaism. A superficial reading of Kirsch’s book might conclude that its author agrees with this judgment. But that would be mistaken. First, because Kirsch shows that on the specifically political issues, Disraeli was promoting British interests, rather than anything that could be identified as a “Jewish” interest. And second, because Kirsch also demonstrates that Disraeli’s engagement with Jews and Judaism was an almost entirely literary affair. It was in his fiction, not in his political judgments, that he endeavored to counter “the myth of Jewish vulgarity and greed with an empowering myth of Jewish talent and influence.” “Disraeli’s imagination of Jewishness did what he needed it to,” Kirsch concludes. “It gave him the confidence to compete with the best-born men in England.”

Kirsch argues that the alternative career of Jewish leader was ever before Disraeli but that he did not want it. Though what Kirsch describes as “the dream” of Zionism had a “powerful allure” for Disraeli, “neither the conditions of Jewish life in Europe nor his own personality allowed Disraeli to play the role that would eventually fall to Theodor Herzl.” He imagined Judaism in ways that were psycho­logi­cally empowering, but paid little attention to the condition of actually existing Jewry. (As I keep saying, these people do not truly give a rat’s ass about average jews)

Disraeli was not a man who was easily discouraged. His strong desire to impress others led him in the unusual direction of provocativeness rather than ingratiation. He did not want to escape his English milieu, he wanted to triumph within it. He did indeed triumph, achieving everything in his life that he set out to achieve. It was an extraordinary career, one to which Kirsch, in this elegantly written book, does considerable justice.

Julius-t.html?pagewanted=2&ref=books

ALL FACT, ALL PARLIAMENTARY RECORD. BLATANT CORRUPTION, DECEPTION and LIES.

AND DAVID CAMERON CARRIES ON THOSE “VALUES” AS DID HIS PREDECESSORS BECAUSE THEY ALL BOW TO ROTHSCHILD AND HIS JEWISH MONEY!