Earthlinggb's Blog

Brian Harvey: “I’ll make sure you never work again”

Posted in Media, Money, Music artists, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on April 29, 2019

Why am I doing this?

Because I know a decent bloke when I see/hear one!

I was never an East 17 fan (though looking over what I’ve been having to research, I appreciate them more now) but what has drawn me to Brian’s story is the obvious. He was seriously screwed over. Also, I know when a guy is being 100% real.

I’d also add this: Brian does not have any mental issue whatsoever EXCEPT the strain (and depression which came with it) caused by a multitude of people who “made” off him and being thrown to the kerb by, essentially, not just the media and Tom Watkins but a UK Parliament (at least a small section of it) which needed a scapegoat and an entire country that just, like sheep, listen to what they’re told to believe and never question it.

My heart goes out to the guy. I picked up on the story no more than approx 6 months ago. It’s only the last few days that I have been doing a little “detective work” on it.

Yes, there’s Mazher Mahmood, Kemal Zorba (quite obviously a sting operation to set Brian up further – Zorba didn’t even turn up to court to testify and it’s obvious why – the phone transcripts were fiction and there were no recordings to back them up), Robert Kellaway (Sarah Arnold?… Interesting!), Conrad Brown, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw etc. Then there’s the amateur twats like Puddick and Maloney. However, all of them and the hacking can be traced back to January 1997 when John Major made his statement in the House of Commons. WHY did he do that? Well, I think I’ve found a part of the answer.

However, this video is just an introduction to it. The follow up will put more “skin on the bones”.

Did Tom Watkins act out a personal vendetta on Brian? My opinion: Yes.

Why? My opinion: He resented Brian. Also, if Brian and John Hendy DID witness what is suggested, then the big, gay, fat bastard would definitely want Harvey destroyed. But then he’d have to ensure Brian remained destroyed.

How could Watkins get Brian’s name to be mud in Parliament? What did Parliament gain from it? Or WHO in Parliament had something to gain?

Is there a “Gay mafia”?

The BIG lie

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on July 13, 2017

What is a constant irritation to me within the so called “truth movement” is the so many references to Hitler’s statement “The bigger the lie….” and those people who then promulgate the idea that, because Hitler made such a statement, he was the liar. It is a perfect example of a quote taken completely out of context. Now, don’t get me wrong. Just as I don’t believe Gaddafi or Hussein or any world leader (that includes May and Trump and includes non leaders also such as Nigel Farage) were/are angels – they’re all ruthless and playing the game; “The Grand chessboard” and being influenced by others far more powerful than them) neither do I think Hitler was. While I may write about him and, many times, agree with him, I do not “idolise” him as I do not idolise anyone (I’m far too long in the tooth for that). What I shall always do, however, is try to put records straight when they go awry. The quote by Hitler is one of those examples.

Mein Kampf

In chapter 10 of Mein Kampf: “Causes of the collapse” (of the Reich, prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor), Hitler writes the following:

It required the whole bottomless falsehood of the jews and their Marxist fighting organisation to lay the blame for the collapse on that very man who alone, with superhuman energy and will power, tried to prevent the catastrophe he foresaw and save the nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. By branding Ludendorff as guilty for the loss of the World War, they took the weapon of the moral right from the one dangerous accuser who could have risen against the traitors to the fatherland. In this, they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very shake humanity to the foundations, the other slowly and bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposefully evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of those causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick – a fact which all the great lie virtuosi and lying clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.

The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the rise of falsehood and slander have always been the Jews; for after all, their whole existence is based on one single great lie, to wit, that they are a religious community while actually they are a race – and what a race! One of the greatest minds of humanity has nailed them forever as such in an eternally correct phrase of fundamental truth: he called them ‘the great masters of the lie’. And anyone who does not recognise this or does not want to believe it will never in this world be able to help the truth to victory.

The ever present irony of so many of our taught understanding of Hitler and the allegations made toward him, is that such allegations are brought about by the very people he was talking about! This “people” however, forever count on the goyim’s stupidity, ignorance and lack of knowledge through a lack of reading and real education. Yes, many at higher echelons of society know these truths but, let’s face reality here: If they were ever to speak of it in more than a whisper, they would be dealt with either personally or professionally or both. This maintains the silence while another irony is present: The very treatment by those who make the allegations toward Hitler, toward the Palestinians. It never ceases to amaze me how they simply have to say “if you criticise us, you are anti semitic and we will hound you” and they get a “pass” and everyone shuts up. It’s a special kind of “magic” these people weave don’t you think?

As an aside – another total misrepresentation which these people make (in their press/media and through their voice boxes we all have in our western governments) is that the muslim believes us all to be “infidels” and worthy of death. It is a blatant lie (once more) and one which I would wish the muslim community, across the world, would speak up about. In the quran, it is clearly and unambiguously stated that christians and jews who believe, truthfully, in God (and remember, all three religions share the God of Abraham – let’s ignore the jewish version who didn’t have a son called Jesus) are NOT considered “infidels”. It is only atheists and deceptive (lying) “religionists” who are considered so. This is something western leaders use (your ignorance) – such as George W Bush did for example – to have you believe that muslims believe anyone who is not muslim IS an “infidel”. In Islam, ALL believers are equal – NOT true in the judaic teachings. In jewish belief, if you are not jewish, you are goyim and goyim will, ultimately, be slaves to the jew. Further, the jew does not deem as acceptable, usury BUT this is only the case between jews. With all other “goyim”, usury is perfectly acceptable. Now get this straight in your mind: IF usury is NOT acceptable between jews, it is because they KNOW the practice is evil. Christianity once knew this too. In Islam, usury is termed “Riba” and the muslims still hold that riba is evil. We christians have been completely dumbed down and it is our ignorance which kills us. It is also that we do not have a culture which, like the jews (and, to an extent, many other cultures), protect and choose one another over a non christian. Christianity and “Jesus” have been bred out of us by constant ridicule while the jews (and, to an extent, the muslims – and this is why jews want islam attacked. This is why the jews and their western, christian and atheist counterparts talk of “muslim extremists” and “moderate muslims”. A moderate muslim is then like a moderate christian – hardly muslim at all) feverishly maintain their “clan” and their jewish identity. If you wish to talk about “identity politics”, you can’t get any more extreme than the jews. They are playing christians and muslims off against one another while we wander about on this earth like lemmings wondering what’s going on in this world. It’s as clear as day what’s going on when you take the time to LOOK!

For instance – The Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 30s, before Hitler took power. Here is a Daily Mail article which tells you, quite clearly (if you have the brainpower to recognise it) what all this “LGBTQ” stuff is about and the growing (slowly and quietly) acceptance of paedophilia as a sexual preference. The SAME people behind it in Weimar Germany are the SAME people behind it now!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2847643/Berlin-liberal-hotbed-homosexuality-mecca-cross-dressers-transsexuals-male-female-surgery-performed-Nazis-came-power-new-book-reveals.html

Now, by all means, if you want homosexuality, trans-sexuality etc and you’re a freak or pervert, go ahead and support it. When it comes to the point (and it’s getting closer and closer) where the world is so sick and decadent that you can’t take anymore, you’re going to call out for a guy like Hitler whether you believe that or not. But, when society eventually does turn against your decadence and deviance, I will not shed a tear for you. In fact, when the boot comes down on all you paedos out there, I’d be happy for it to be MY boot. Particularly if you amble around in Westminster.

Now, while on the subject of Hitler and jews, I want to bring your attention to the Swastika. This is an article I am sure many of you will not have seen before – perhaps some of you have but I guess it will be few.

This article is not from a christian periodical or a Nazi one; It is from “The Canadian Jewish Chronicle” 1940.

Surprise?

Read the article very carefully because you can easily gloss over some things. Note, it states that, in Galilee, many jewish temples and synagogues were found with swastikas on them. However, it goes on to say that it is believed that those synagogues were built during the initial centuries of the CHRISTIAN era. Note also that the swastika was used all over the world from very early days. The article is trying to suggest it was, originally, a jewish symbol however, it is far more likely the jews adopted it as did many others. Why? Perhaps because it has immense spiritual/religious meaning inherent within it. Hitler would certainly NOT adopt a jewish symbol for his reich. It is far more likely that, because he did adopt the swastika, we have been “re-eductaed” to believe it is a symbol of hate rather than what its true, original symbology means.

Perhaps it DOES represent the Sun. Once more, however, you can rest assured that the race which calls itself “jewish” have corrupted it as they do everything else which is truth.

Honey, I shrunk my clit!

Posted in Paedophilia, Uncategorized by earthling on July 10, 2017

“Well thank god for that because I was convinced it was a penis!”

Unfortunately, it appears, more and more, there is a strong likelihood it is a penis!

“I thought this was a serious conspiracy blog Earthling?”

Well, it is folks but I’ve done years of posts – very long, in depth, serious posts – and what has it done? Diddly squat! They’re read, yes but, if you stop posting for any length of time, your audience disappears because it’s like a “hit” for them; a drug; they consistently need new stuff and it was never my intention to just be a poster of up to date “news” about what was happening around the world, in the news today and, like those that do (and create continuous youtubes like your “flat earthers” – and I have a lot to say about that too but no time to say it the way I’d like to) ask for “donations”. Never had, never will.

But, back to the point: You’ve just got to laugh at all that’s happening and it is only those with poorly performing synapses who cannot see it. So here is my point today and yes, I am a total “homophobe” so kiss my ass (knowing you, you’d probably like it). Oh and I guess because I am a homophobe, I’m “in the closet”.

So, I saw this today and my ire was raised because I could see quite plainly, not only the lying, deceptive POS who’s getting interviewed, but the interviewers who, you can see, are thinking “Who the F is this guy? What a bullshitting poof if ever I’ve heard one”.

Ariana Grande’s brother. OMFG what a CREEP! And where would he be without being the brother? It’s like Kardashians Part 2. Are these people being bedded, fertilized and grown in quiet greenhouses in the likes of California or are they being developed in pods ala “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”?

Now PULLEEEZ tell me you can recognise the pure fakery of this poof?

“Oh my goodness! I’m getting so emotional…umm…” he then stutters like mad, closes his eyes, looks down; can’t look at the camera as he tries to think how he answers this one.” As clear as Day is day and night is night – the poof is lying his gay little freakish head off.

“…Something that we’ll always do… yeah” then closing his eyes again and shaking his head while he internalises his completely shit reaction and answer to that one.

I get to be with you guys and get to.. hug you and be with everyone who comes to the show” smiling like the little freakish poof he is wanting the audience to say “aww what a nice little poof though eh? How could you not want to hug him. He’s like a fluffy tampon!” USING his obvious homo-ness to come across as cute while he wants to hug the world because he’s such a loving little poof.

“I fell in love with you and the UK and fell in love with all of you and seeing your resilience as a people was just incredible” – WHAT resilience you freak? Saying “We don’t care how many you kill, we’ll just keep brewing tea and posting little memes? ALL of that crap was stated to “endear” himself to his audience. These freaks KNOW how to “play” incompetent minded fools.

“Well it’s not in my mind… cos I believe that we can overcome all obstacles” (forget the deaths – not that I believe there were any: “The security guards wouldn’t let us use the exit.. they then shouted “Run!” and then the bomb went off”) – only a “starstruck” moron could not see the utter insincerity in this creep’s entire interview. “We’re gonna be alright, to quote Ariana Grande…” He quotes his sister as if she’s some philosophical giant! But, at the same time, he quotes her to LINK himself to her so that her fans will also “love” him! The mind manipulation in all of this is just fantastic (unless, that is, you can see right through it).

Then you have the big, over-exaggerated pointing “That’s it Susana, that’s it!” as he recognises he’s got away with another inane statement.

Susana then says “it hit your family hard…” and behind that freakish visage of his he’s saying “yeah yeah, get on with it. Let’s just promote my tour shall we?”

“You guys are SO strong.. thank you for being strong.. thank you!” WTF? HOW are “we” ‘so strong’? And why, exactly do you need to “thank” us for it? WTF ARE YOU ON ABOUT YOU LITTLE CREEP?

And then you have all the “Thank you’s” from Susana and him and HOW MANY TIMES does he take deep breaths and exhale exaggeratedly throughout this interview? He tries to make out (and so many will interpret it as such) that it’s his “emotional” attachment to the goings on in Manchester (which, as I say, was bullshit from start to finish), but the reality is, it is his real feeling behind it (i.e. nothing) that is pumping his adrenalin to get through this interview.

Finally, do you notice the absolute relief on his face when he realises it’s the end of the Manchester questions (and Susana’s ‘prodded’ points regarding how hard it must be for his family to have endured this – did he or Ariana die? No. However, what they got was massive media coverage and promotion out of it. No wonder he’s smiling). He can now smile and blow kisses and invite to the show and ask for all of his little poofy hugs.

Now, back to my point re the utter bullshit Manchester was.

Here are multiple screenshots of just ONE article covering the event. The utter tripe which is written within it, coming from, mainly, so called “eyewitnesses” just blows my little mind.

What a great quote eh? “People’s skin and blood were everywhere…. I’m still finding bits of God knows what in my hair”. After how long honey? Don’t shampoo often? Like an autograph you don’t wish to wash off your skin, I suppose you wanted a memento of the night huh? Just to say “Look! There’s a bit of dead flesh from last week!” – Absolute crap! Oh and “faeces” is yet to come!

 

Now we have the homeless geezer….

Perfect drama eh? “Tearfully described”; “cradled in his arms”; He even “pulled nails out of children’s faces” – Now, you give THAT a few moments thought. “Does not mean I haven’t got a heart and I’m not human still”. Oh dear god, I am dissolving in a pool of tears as I write this!

He’d like to think someone would help him if he needed it and lo and behold! After this what did he get? Oh the “Samaritanian drama” is intense isn’t it? Written to perfection to elicit the right response from the masses of gullible peasants. Why do we “spell” words? Because words are “spells”.

Now re-read that (and remember it as you read further down in this blog): “…centimetres in front of me”. CENTIMETRES! Does Mrs Mullen think that means a few hundred metres or something (“centi” meaning hundreds rather than hundredths” – it wouldn’t surprise me if so. There are a lot of not too bright individuals in this world after all).

“People’s skin, blood and FAECES were everywhere…”. I can just imagine her inspecting and sniffing. And how did faeces end up flying around exactly? Nails in people; Cuts from flying nails and bolts; but did people fly through the air and suddenly poop like pigeons? Is she saying that some people were torn apart in flight and that the contents of their bowels dropped on her head as they soared over her? How close were THESE people to the bomb? NANOMETERS? While she stayed entirely intact at centimetres? Must have been the weirdest bomb known to man that one! I have never read such trash in my life and what seriously annoys me further (as if these people’s “testimonies” were not enough) is that SO MANY swallow this shit (pardon the inadvertent pun).

“Steve” the homeless samaritan saw a little girl who had her legs entirely blown off but could tell him, quite matter of factly, that her dad was at work and her mum “up there”. Incredible really isn’t it? Ever had your legs blown off? Do you think you’d be conscious nevermind have your faculties fully in order? Amazing she never said “Can you pick up my legs for me? One’s over there and the other is hanging from that lighting fixture just above us”.

Remember 22 people dead, 119 injured. REMEMBER that!

Jane here was in the arena right? The bomb went off in the foyer AT ENTIRELY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARENA AND NOT EVEN IN THE ARENA! But she saw a man (in the arena) carrying children (plural) in his arms. “Children were running for their lives. It was blood curdling” – but the blast was in the foyer!! “It seems the explosion happened at the front” – NO Jane! It didn’t even happen in the arena! Not only that, it happened at the BACK of the arena not the front! You didn’t get the memo did you? You just like the idea of being an eyewitness but have no bloody clue.

Where the explosion happened:

Gary and his wife were just 3 metres from the blast! REMEMBER THIS TOO!

A “49 year old mother” who asks not to be named (LOL) was ALSO just 3 metres from the blast! She “immediately knew it was a bomb” (well, well, you don’t say? I guess you’d have to know being 3 metres from it. In fact, kinda redundant to say you immediately knew because, if you were just 3 metres from it – YOU’D KNOW! But you wouldn’t have the presence of mind to say “Oh my! I think I’ve just been hit by a bomb blast!”). Now, 3 metres away (again) BUT “people closer to the explosion blocked the impact of the blast” and neither her nor her daughter had any issue with nails or bolts. Hmmm. REMEMBER – 3 metres!

“It was about 40ft behind us NEAR one of the exits” Not “through one of the exits. So David is saying the bomb was in the arena. Once more – total rubbish and ANOTHER “eyewitness” falls for talking shit.

“..there was an explosion behind us at the back of the arena…. we saw young girls with blood on them”. As an aside, she could clearly see through “lots of smoke” to determine this drivel. However, how/why would young girls be covered in blood IN the arena which she could see? The explosion happened OUTSIDE the arena in the bloody foyer! Further, according to people “centimetres” and 3 metres” away, they weren’t even injured by it! For god’s sakes world, wake the hell up would you? Can’t you recognise shit when you see it? Or only when you find it in your hair?

And lastly, the “piece de resistance”:

“Those men saved our lives” (I’m screaming with laughter here). Those men shouted “Run” BEFORE the explosion happened, you say. Have you never given it ONE moment’s thought “How did they know?” Have you never given it another moment’s thought as to why those men (who “saved” your lives) were blocking the exit? Remember, no-one is meant to have known that this explosion was going to happen so these security men were not blocking the door to stop you getting injured. Furthermore, however, if they were blocking the door, why did they allow people in JUST before the explosion (those who got injured and died from it allegedly)? Any and ALL those in the foyer (blocked by these security men) were placed there. These are your “crisis actors”.

Full bullshit story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4532374/Witnesses-tell-horror-Manchester-terrorist-attack.html

But here’s another thing (from the Telegraph): Our “Steve” the homeless geezer says the following –

Mr Parker, who has slept rough in the city for about a year, said he also tended to a woman aged in her 60s who was badly hurt from the bombing with serious leg and head injuries. He said: “She passed away in my arms. She was in her 60s and said she had been with her family.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/homeless-man-speaks-cradled-dying-woman-arms-manchester-attack/

However, not a single one of the 22 people reported dead were in their 60’s or anywhere near it and that woman has never been named as any of the other “dead”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/victims-manchester-terror-attack/

Now, you remember me saying “REMEMBER” during all of that above? The centimetres and the 3 metres? Ok, then here’s the point:

The circular area of a 3m radius is just over 28 square metres. In considering this explosion, keep in mind these graphics of crowd densities ( http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd-density/100sm/Density1.html ). Now, to be just “centimetres” or, let’s seriously consider 3 metres, away from the blast (which, of course, would be a 360 degree blast – ah, perhaps it’s from the “suicide bomber” himself that the faeces came from I suppose 🙂 ); To not be injured or touched by this blast “due to other people in the way”, there must have been a high (very high) density of people between you and the blast (remember nails and bolts as well). THEN, if YOU weren’t hit at 3m away, then HOW were 22 killed AND well over 100 people injured but you weren’t? That suggests that there was something like 150 people packed like lemmings in that 28 square meters around the bomber. People do NOT pack themselves like this particularly when moving! THINK about this – it does NOT add up! It suggests that there were literally hundreds of people in the foyer (hundreds, not just 1 or 2 hundred) at the time and that about 150 of them were packed like sardines, standing inside the 3m “event horizon”. It’s simply trash. All those injured and dead were within that “event horizon” and blocked you from being hit? Now, if the people were far more spread out and less dense than that, then it is highly unlikely that you would NOT have been hit since there would have been enough room/gaps for the 360 degree explosion of nails and bolts to have hit you.

I could go on about this for a long time but you get the picture (I hope).

So back to poofs, freaks and trannies:

Here’s why this is called “Honey I shrunk my clit!”:

It’s becoming more and more prevalent. Mentally sick people who actually require professional, psychological help, are being promoted and pushed in our face left, right and centre (and no, it is not just “the left” who are pushing and supporting this agenda). It’s even getting to the point where there is an attempt to “bully” (propagandise) straight men into accepting the potential to have a tranny male (shemale) “girlfriend” with a cock, a beard and accept it as the norm! If we don’t, we’re “homophobes” and “trannyphobes” etc and need to be re-educated (I’ll come on to re-education in a different way soon in another article). We – straight, heterosexual males – need to “overcome” our bias it seems and be tolerant and appreciate a tranny male freak’s sexuality as one we will consider (obviously based on other things like what their personality is like! lol A mentally insane guy with balls – or cut off and tucked in – but a “lovely sane personality”?). He might have a degree too! A “bright tranny” then. But it will be in “Sexual psychology” and his PhD thesis entitled “Trannies r us” got him his PhD as some marxist exam board and Professor thought it was excellent research. Then the professor goes home; puts on his wife’s bra and knickers and masturbates to photos of Caitlyn Jenner which none of us have ever seen, while singing “It’s raining men”.

Yet, while heterosexual men are demonised for not appreciating a bit of cock and hairy balls with lipstick and a “Toni and Guy” trimmed beard for a girlfriend, your homosexual neighbour isn’t castigated when he’s asked “What would you say to a bit of pussy eh?” and he replies “Yuck!” Isn’t that heterophobic or doesn’t he possess “anti vaginal” hate? No no no, Of course not!

If you can listen to this shite for more than a minute then you’re a better “thing?” than me! I say thing, after all, because I have no idea if you might be a “woman with a cock” or a “man with a vagina” PLUS, the woman with a cock might self identify as a lesbian woman with a cock and the man with the vagina might self identify as a gay, cockless, dick loving lesbian with straight tendencies”. Then again, you might be into hedgehogs rather than cocks, I dunno.

Timeout: We’re really meant to take all of this shit seriously! We are you know – MEANT to that is. The thing is, the enormous amount of effort “they” are putting into this “education” is focused at the young – the VERY young. Why? Because it is only then you can form the opinions of the new generation and ensure that, in a few decades to come, your new “norms” are entirely accepted. What “they” then do, along with the brainwashing of the young, is instil the idea (and this has gone on for decades generally) that parents and the older generations are biased and “not cool or hip” or whatever the preferred designation is now. We’ve seen this in the demonisation recently of the “old, white straight people” who voted for Brexit for example. “We” don’t have anything of any worth to pass down to our younger generations but, strangely, people like Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn – plus their friends in the establishment – do! How odd! The last time I looked at these people they were old, straight, white males and females. Who can tell what Jeremy gets up to at night though eh? Probably meets his Professor chum at the karaoke singing Gloria Gaynor songs while shagging the skeleton of Lord Greville Janner as David Cameron sits in the corner with a pig’s head begging for a bacon sandwich and a blow job!

As a quick aside: I used to live abroad and one night in a club, I got speaking to two girls (yes two!) and before I knew it, their little buddy wandered into the conversation. He was a little bum boy but a harmless little guy. At this time in my life I was ambivalent toward gaydom. However, I had to quickly put him straight (which would have been impossible in the strict sense of the word) and tell him I wasn’t interested (in him). The little bugger (or buggerer? No, he was the buggered I guess) wouldn’t let it go however. He did eventually though.

He happened to be new in town having just been sent over to work for a finance company and he was looking for a place to stay. Idiot here (me) decided to offer him one of the rooms in my newly acquired apartment and we agreed from the start that he would never bring one of his hairy ass loving chums along and that, if he wished to meet them, he’d do it at their place or elsewhere. This was my home and my rules after all right? He “totally understood” and so, for about 2 months I put up with the little bugger. During that time, he’d keep trying to “playfully” hit on me while he also kept asking if he could use my laptop. I let him and set up a new ID and he put in a password. He “wanted it to keep in touch with his family” until the company gave him one. Cut a long story short, I just happened to already have a program installed that could check keystrokes and hold all details of everything done on that laptop. I didn’t think of using it to pry on him until I sensed he wasn’t using it for family contact at all. It turned out he was going on something called “Gaydar” and contacting anybody that would give him that bit of popper powered cock he craved. However, not only that, but I also found out (through reading some of the stuff) that he was bad mouthing me saying “I can’t wait to get out of here. This guy I’m living with won’t let me ‘breathe’ so I’m leaving next friday”. The not letting him ‘breathe’ was nothing more than the agreement we had. He had every other freedom in the world in the apartment (and he bloody well used it). He had even started to go back on our agreement and he would have a guy (or guys) in his room occasionally. Now, added to this, he was also always overdue on his rent saying he wasn’t getting the pay he expected from his company but that he would make it up next month – that sort of thing. So, when I read he was leaving within a few days (oh, also I had asked him to give me two months notice if he was leaving, which he replied was no issue), I gathered up his entire belongings (holding a couple of things back which he would definitely want) and put them out on the stairway then called him up to tell him to pick them up asap. He turns up at the door with one of his “friends” and wonders what it’s all about. He has no clue I could read his mails etc. I didn’t tell him. I just said I knew he was leaving on the friday and he hadn’t told me. He probably still wonders to this day how I knew! I asked for the keys back and he wouldn’t give them so I showed him a couple of items he may yet want. He stated that they were his property and he had the right to the keys and would make a “big noise” about all of this if I didn’t give him his stuff and let him stay until he wished to leave. So then I showed him his poppers. The Police where we were wouldn’t be too keen to see them!

And that was the end of that. However the point of telling this story is that the VAST amount of outright lies – constructed stories – this little bum boy came out with while staying with me and the “drama” in which they were told (paralleling what we just saw from “Frankie” – Ariana Grande’s brother) was sickening. It was vomit inducing shit! And I could see right through it just as I can Frankie here. What I do NOT understand is the vast number of people who CAN’T see this for what it is.

These homos and trannies etc – while they all work so hard to be accepted and make friends – are among the biggest, lying bullshitters on the planet. Why? Because they have got so used to having to lie internally to themselves that they are ok with what they are (and remember a large percentage end up as suicides BECAUSE they can’t handle what they are or what they THINK they are) that they can lie, without an ounce of care or remorse, consistently to anyone and everyone. In that sense, they are very similar to a lot of women (yes a significant amount of women – perhaps not all) who cannot take responsibility for their lives and actions and are prone to immense “untruths” while expecting to be “white knighted”.

Your kids are being educated to accept all of this and they are being educated at very young ages. Furthermore, all of this is leading to (if you haven’t already seen it then you’re blind) having paedophilia being as accepted a sexual preference as homosexuality. The time is coming very soon that YOUR child just may be abused by a “woman” with a cock and beard and, at the trial (IF there IS one), “it” is going to be let off because of something fraudulently referred to as “human rights”.

Check out “Queer Kid Stuff” on youtube – for kids as young as 3 years old! THINK about it as you read the titles of the vids or watch them (god forbid). This one is all about teaching your 3 year old to understand “consent”. When you watch and listen, it all seems to make sense doesn’t it? It’s not suggesting anything sexual exactly, is it? But then that is what the whole channel is about: Sex and sexuality. And, as “she” says, subtly, “It’s good to share”. NOW, imagine if you have a 3 year old child who does not have the slightest clue what a penis or a vagina actually is nor does he/she have any conception of it being wrong for an adult to touch theirs. That child is with an adult it knows and/or trusts (he/she has no reason not to after all) and the adult says “Would you like to play a game?” – Of course you know where this is going don’t you? “It’s nice to share (and say yes to friends)”. And by that, you’re giving consent. Furthermore, if the “play” is not too “insertional” or painful, it might actually be “fun” – how would a child know otherwise?

“When you’re playing with someone you should share your toys because it is a nice thing to do”. I see? Do you? Aunty Sharon or Uncle Jimmy asks little Johnny if he’d like to play with their “toys”. “You have one too Johnny! Will you share it with me?” “Well… yes ok” says Johnny, knowing it is a “nice thing to do”.

I am getting SICK of these SICK BASTARDS!

This is NOT a “left/right issue. None of our issues actually are.

 

We live in dangerous times folks and your children’s future is at stake.

But you don’t really care that much do you?

 

Addendum:

But notice that, while content creators on youtube who speak out about stuff like this and various other political/social issues (such as myself) will get strikes and barred from the likes of youtube and Facebook, Twitter etc, Youtube is STILL allowing THIS channel to be seen by all. But then, of course, we just had youtube (and the British Parliament) have an LGBTQ day/week where youtube had videos and their logo full of the “rainbow” and Westminster had Parliament lit up with the “rainbow”.

But what do you expect from a parliament chock full of paedos?

And, before you think this is just a few “odd bods” around the world, no, it’s not. It is present in VERY significant numbers within the highest echelons of this god forsaken society of our around the planet (Sorry flat earthers, I’m still not in your camp). It is in NASA (not just a handful, we’re talking hundreds here); it’s in every national establishment you know of – monarchy, government, corporate, social, police, judiciary, you name it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184951/NASA-employees-caught-buying-child-porn-site-showed-three-year-olds-abused-escape-prosecution-names-kept-secret.html

If you don’t understand that MI5 knew about Jimmy Saville (among many others) during all the years he was friendly and tight with the monarchy and government and you don’t understand that MI5 report to the Queen, then you’re a PEASANT!

 

 

Nick Clegg’s 12 yr old remains celibate but…..

Posted in Law, Paedophilia by earthling on February 15, 2015

Nick Clegg and Nicky Morgan believe it is entirely normal for 12/13 year olds to participate in a bit of “hide the sausage”.

12 yr old sex

It has come to the attention of the Daily Mail that Nick’s eldest son, Antonio, now 12 – one of three sons – has made his father and mother extremely proud (why?) having stated that he aims to remain celibate until he is 17. Mr and Mrs Clegg were overjoyed by Antonio’s proclamation – why when they consider 12 year old sex normal, the Daily Mail reporter could not fathom – but they were somewhat distraught after asking the pre-teen why he had made his decision.

It appears that Antonio replied saying that he was waiting until Educational Secretary’s, Nicky Morgan, 7 year old son had hit the age of 12 in 5 years time because he really fancies the pants off him and wants to drill his butt badly! Antonio felt that his love for the 7 year old would enable him to hold off that long. It was the first time Mr and Mrs Clegg had heard their son suggest he had homosexual tendencies but they weren’t too phased about it all. After all, homosexuality and 12 year old sex is all quite normal in the 21st century and the Clegg’s support it all 100%.

1193030-nick-clegg-vice-premier-ministre-du-950x0-2

The Educational Secretary was unavailable for comment but we have learned that she has taken out a restraining order against the Cleggs. When asked why, considering she also considered 12 year old sex as perfectly natural, Mrs Morgan replied that it wasn’t so much Antonio she was concerned about being near her boy as Mr Clegg himself!

"I believe in a child's rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they're 13 years old, well that's damned fine by me!"

“I believe in a child’s rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they’re 13 years old, well that’s damned fine by me!”

 

The “Alternative” Paedophile

Posted in Media, Paedophilia, Politics by earthling on July 6, 2014

Paedophiles in government. Paedophiles in the monarchy. Paedophiles in the media and now, Paedophiles in the ALTERNATIVE media!

I wonder who those could be? I wonder if Davey and Sean (the big mouths of TPV, the guys who keep their spending of the money they raised from you close to their chests, the guys who sell you bullshit while they literally talk a globalist talk, have the hetero haters on the shows and the ex women MPs who have something to hide too) know who the alternative media paedos are? What do you think? After all, Davey knows it all doesn’t he? He knew about Saville (but didn’t say a word before it became public knowledge and then pretended he had said something. Even his ex colleague ran a story – yes Ms Poulton – saying Davey knew about Saville before it came out in mainstream when, in fact, he had never mentioned it at all beforehand but he likes you to think he did).

There is diseased shit under every rock folks so be careful who you consider to be on “your side”.

I have so much more to say about this paedophile eruption. Not exposing any, just commentary. But, right now, I just don’t have the “bandwidth”. I’ll get around to it though.

For now, here’s Bill Maloney – a brave guy I only met fleetingly once but his head was elsewhere I guess at the time. By the way Bill, if you stumble over this: The Bradbury Pound is the entirely wrong answer (sorry to those who believe otherwise).

One of the best things people could do (but won’t) is for them to drop their belief system in “heroes” – either those in uniform or those on the TV and in positions of (seeming) power.

But they won’t and you know why? This is why:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01zxmrv/the-men-who-made-us-spend-episode-1 (How long this will be on BBC iPlayer I don’t know but it’s the mentality – the “zombies”, those who are so easily led – which maintains the “heroes”. However, as you will see, we’re making “heroes” out of boxes too. The majority of humanity is dumb to the bone and so easy for the elite to manipulate that it’s not the elite – as perverted, sociopathic and psychopathic as they are – who are the problem, it’s the “zombies”. They are who scare the pants off me.)

And if you decide to watch the above and find it at all interesting, you may find the deeper probe into planned obsolescence even more interesting:

We’ll “buy” anything that’s “sold” to us as “Just what you need to be sexy!”

Meanwhile, back to paedophilia. There were once “perverts” and “poofs” – guys who liked to give other guys guy fluid up their ass or to swallow (let’s just call a spade a spade shall we? Or is the reality of it meant to be politically ‘correctified’ and brushed under the carpet like the time they themselves were “in the closet”? But they were given a name: “homosexuals”. Homosexuality was the mane of their “thing” rather than heterosexuality. But you see, having been given a name, the next step (over time) was to ‘normalise’ it and so those who considered it abnormal were then given a name: Homophobes and political correctness (arbitrary policy decided upon by the government(s) which you all know are corrupt – except, as in this case, when you THINK they’re doing the “right thing” under pressure from society (when in fact the elite steer what they want you to accept, you idiot)) put the negative focus on those who disagreed with the normalisation of it.

And it’s all done by ‘grassroots’ pressure groups and academics.

What we now have is the next step in human “enlightenment” which is slowly, delicately (and it will take years/decades just as it did for the homos BUT it will come and all you ‘liberal’ parents out there will have nothing to say and no comeback when your sons and daughters are being fucked (yes let’s call a spade a spade again) by old men and women whose paedophilia has been “normalised”.

Well done Mr and Mrs “Liberal” for being so liberal! 😉 But then perhaps it’s you who want to fuck kids right? But soon any criticism of you will be considered “paedophobic” or “hebephobe”.

 

Paedo natural

 

Why just males? Women are into it too! But that doesn’t fit the media narrative. It’s another attack on men.

All I’ll say to this piece is: BULLSHIT! You have to be one sick mother****** to want to have intercourse with a child!

But no, the academics and the media are working their “magic” again to slowly creep towards the acceptance and normalisation of the paedophile. Lock up your sons and daughters Mr and Mrs conservative because the liberals and the perverts are coming for them. But don’t speak out too loudly because you’ll be labeled and termed a “phobe” and, even worse, an “extremist”. Do you have christian values in this JUDEO-christian country of ours? Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You’re on a list! The tables have flipped and the once oppressed (although they brought it upon themselves for the sake of a sliver of land in the middle east) are now the oppressors and you, Mr and Mrs Christian will soon wear the yellow badge! It won’t be a star however, it will be a cross!

Noah and a question for our dear Rabbis!

Posted in New World Order Religion by earthling on April 17, 2014

“And the animals went in two by two”

The story of Noah and his ark is carried on by all three major religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Essentially, they all stick to the same story. However, knowing the “jews” as we do, I’m sure Noah was a jew (everybody was after all weren’t they? Well according to our old Torah friends they were), So, once having read the basics of the story once more AND considering our lovely “chosen ones'” demands that their traditions and beliefs are upheld and respected, I only have a couple of questions for our dear old Rabbis and people of that sect.

However, first, we have a stupid fucking question from Irene Munroe of “Hollywood Progressive” – loaded, as usual, with a political motive:

Noah

I got a reply for you Irene – directly from Russell himself:

Russell Crowe's Noah

 

What did you want Aronofsky to do Irene? Write in a subplot about all the gays who were around at that time being left to drown by Noah because, as he said as the ark set off: “What fucking good are you to procreation you bunch of queers?” while God looked on saying “You tell ’em mate. Bunch of depraved bastards!”

Judaism

 

Talmudic tractates Sanhedrin, Avodah Zarah and Zevahim relate that, while Noah was building the ark, he attempted to warn his neighbors of the coming deluge, but was ignored or mocked. In order to protect Noah and his family, God placed lions and other ferocious animals to guard them from the wicked who tried to stop them from entering the ark. According to one Midrash, it was God, or the angels, who gathered the animals to the ark, together with their food. As there had been no need to distinguish between clean and unclean animals before this time, the clean animals made themselves known by kneeling before Noah as they entered the ark. A differing opinion said that the ark itself distinguished clean animals from unclean, admitting seven pairs each of the former and one pair each of the latter.

 

According to Sanhedrin 108B, Noah was engaged both day and night in feeding and caring for the animals, and did not sleep for the entire year aboard the ark.[26] The animals were the best of their species, and so behaved with utmost goodness. They abstained from procreation, so that the number of creatures that disembarked was exactly equal to the number that embarked. The raven created problems, refusing to leave the ark when Noah sent it forth and accusing the patriarch of wishing to destroy its race, but as the commentators pointed out, God wished to save the raven, for its descendants were destined to feed the prophet Elijah.

According to one tradition, refuse was stored on the lowest of the ark’s three decks, humans and clean beasts on the second, and the unclean animals and birds on the top; a differing interpretation described the refuse as being stored on the utmost deck, from where it was shoveled into the sea through a trapdoor. Precious stones, said to be as bright as the noon sun, provided light, and God ensured that food remained fresh.[27][28][29] Some more unorthodox interpretations of the ark narrative also surfaced: the 12th-century Jewish commentator Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted the ark as being a vessel that remained underwater for 40 days, after which it floated to the surface.[30]

Christianity
Interpretations of the ark narrative played an important role in early Christian doctrine. St. Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) sought to demonstrate that “the Ark was a symbol of the Christ who was expected”, stating that the vessel had its door on the east side – the direction from which Christ would appear at the Second Coming – and that the bones of Adam were brought aboard, together with gold, frankincense, and myrrh (the symbols of the Nativity of Christ). Hippolytus furthermore stated that the ark floated to and fro in the four directions on the waters, making the sign of the cross, before eventually landing on Mount Kardu “in the east, in the land of the sons of Raban, and the Orientals call it Mount Godash; the Armenians call it Ararat”.[31] On a more practical plane, Hippolytus explained that the lowest of the three decks was for wild beasts, the middle for birds and domestic animals, and the top level for humans. He says that male animals were separated from the females by sharp stakes so that there would be no breeding on board.[31]

The early Church Father and theologian Origen (c. 182–251) produced a learned argument about cubits, in response to a critic who doubted that the ark could contain all the animals in the world. Origen held that Moses, the traditional author of the book of Genesis, had been brought up in Egypt and would therefore have used the larger Egyptian cubit. He also fixed the shape of the ark as a truncated pyramid, square at its base, and tapering to a square peak one cubit on a side; it was not until the 12th century that it came to be thought of as a rectangular box with a sloping roof.[32]

Early Christian artists depicted Noah standing in a small box on the waves, symbolizing God saving the Christian Church in its turbulent early years. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430), in his work City of God, demonstrated that the dimensions of the ark corresponded to the dimensions of the human body, which according to Christian doctrine is the body of Christ and in turn the body of the Church.[33] St. Jerome (c. 347–420) identified the raven, which was sent forth and did not return, as the “foul bird of wickedness” expelled by baptism;[34] more enduringly, the dove and olive branch came to symbolize the Holy Spirit and the hope of salvation and eventually, peace.[32] The olive branch remains a secular and religious symbol of peace today.

Ussher’s chronology, one of the most prominent attempts to date events according to the Bible, calculated that Noah would have lived from 2948 until 1998 BCE, with the deluge occurring in 2349 BCE. Calculations based on figures in the Hebrew Bible place the flood in 1656 AM (Anno Mundi); those based on the Greek LXX Bible in 2262 AM; and those based on the Samaritan Pentateuch, in 1308 AM. The Book of Jubilees, by a different calculation, also yields the date 1308 AM for the flood.

Islam
Miniature from Hafiz-i Abru’s Majma al-tawarikh. “Noah’s Ark” Iran (Afghanistan), Herat; Timur’s son Shah Rukh (1405-1447) ordered the historian Hafiz-i Abru to write a continuation of Rashid al-Din’s famous history of the world, Jami al-tawarikh. Like the Il-Khanids, the Timurids were concerned with legitimizing their right to rule, and Hafiz-i Abru’s “A Collection of Histories” covers a period that included the time of Shah Rukh himself.
Noah’s ark and the deluge from Zubdat-al Tawarikh
In contrast to the Jewish tradition, which uses a term which can be translated as a “box” or “chest” to describe the Ark, surah 29:15 of the Quran refers to it as a safina, an ordinary ship, and surah 54:13 describes the ark as “a thing of boards and nails”. `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas, a contemporary of Muhammad, wrote that Noah was in doubt as to what shape to make the ark, and that Allah revealed to him that it was to be shaped like a bird’s belly and fashioned of teak wood.[35]

Abdallah ibn ‘Umar al-Baidawi, writing in the 13th century, explains that in the first of its three levels wild and domesticated animals were lodged, in the second the human beings, and in the third the birds. On every plank was the name of a prophet. Three missing planks, symbolizing three prophets, were brought from Egypt by Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants permitted to survive the Flood. The body of Adam was carried in the middle to divide the men from the women. Surah 11:41 says: “And he said, ‘Ride ye in it; in the Name of Allah it moves and stays!'”; this was taken to mean that Noah said, “In the Name of Allah!” when he wished the ark to move, and the same when he wished it to stand still.

Noah spent five or six months aboard the ark, at the end of which he sent out a raven. But the raven stopped to feast on carrion, and so Noah cursed it and sent out the dove, which has been known ever since as the friend of humanity. The medieval scholar Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn Masudi (d. 956) wrote that Allah commanded the Earth to absorb the water, and certain portions which were slow in obeying received salt water in punishment and so became dry and arid. The water which was not absorbed formed the seas, so that the waters of the flood still exist. Masudi says that the ark began its voyage at Kufa in central Iraq and sailed to Mecca, circling the Kaaba before finally traveling to Mount Judi, which surah 11:44 states was its final resting place. This mountain is identified by tradition with a hill near the town of Jazirat ibn Umar on the east bank of the Tigris in the province of Mosul in northern Iraq, and Masudi says that the spot could be seen in his time.[27] [28]

 

If there was another flood and another Moses and his ark today, would he have to admit pairs of homosexuals too?

If he did, would he have to split them up like all the other animals to ensure they didn’t “procreate”? I guess not. But then wouldn’t that be discriminatory against all the other pairs since the homosexuals, while not procreating, they’d obviously fcuk each other senseless right?

Also, what level would they be on? Human and clean animals or the the unclean animals deck?

Interesting questions don’t you think? 🙂

Any Rabbi out there with an answer?

Did Noah get it wrong or were there a few homos we don’t know about on the ark?

 

Don’t tell me! There were a couple of gay Giraffe’s!

 

Oh and another thing Rabbi: What’s worse? A jew screwing a non jew? Or a bloke screwing a bloke? If the blokes are both jews does that make it kosher? Would the Lord approve? What about a gay jew with a gay gentile? What about a muslim gay with a straight jewish female?

Basically, what are the “rules” made up these days Rabbi?

Or has your entire shit just flown out the window proving it was all a heap of shit from day one!

Ah! I have the answer: It’s whatever the government says it is isn’t it?

And it always was!

 

Oh and last and final thing: What the hell is a “Queer” now?

First it was Lesbian and gays. Then along came the bisexuals pretty quickly. So then we had the LGB community. THEN the trannies started making a noise so now it’s LGBT… but no, it’s actually LGBT and Q now? Does Queer now just cover anything you  haven’t thought up yet? Like vacuum cleaner shaggers? Or bestiality lovers? You’ve already got a B after all. When will you introduce “P” for paedophile? A year from now? 5 years?

It’ll soon be the ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ community!

noahsarccd300

The disease within.

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on February 25, 2014

From the annals (or was it anals?) of Lord Fingerboy of Fuckinghamshire……

voice_clarke

1965

My Lords, we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against homosexuality and my noble Lord Boothby is, himself a homosexual. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for homosexuality so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

LORD BOOTHBYAs I see it, the main object of this Bill is to avoid blackmail. We know that there are more cases of blackmail in connection with homosexuality than anything else in this country. I suggest to your Lordships that if this Amendment is passed, the main object of the Bill will be destroyed. We are out to avoid blackmail. I have consulted a number of eminent solicitors in the course of the last three months, some of the most eminent solicitors of all. They have said this to me and I think it is a point, “If anyone who occupies a position of public responsibility, or is in a position of public notoriety, came to us and said he was being blackmailed, rightly or wrongly, with reason or with no reason, for homosexuality, we should very much hesitate to advise him to fight the case. On balance, we should advise him to pay. But if it were Mr. John, or Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jenkins, of Wolverhampton, or Leicester, or perhaps even Edinburgh, someone who was of no importance at all, he would pay his fine of £.10, and that would be the end of the matter, and there would be no headlines in the newspapers at all”.

I sincerely believe that this is absolutely wrong. Any young man in this country is in a position to blackmail a man who is in a position of responsibility, or who is a well-known figure in this country. I have been advised—I assure the noble Earl, and I am sure he would agree with me; I cannot mention names but they are the very best solicitors—that in these cases the probability is that they would say, “Pay, and finish with it, because we can give no guarantee whatever of any safety or security”. That is what I want to avoid in this Bill above anything else.

§LORD CHORLEYIt seems to me that the two noble and learned Lords who are supporting this Amendment so strongly are so emotionally involved in this problem that they have lost the sense of proportion that lawyers ought to bring to bear on matters of this kind. The idea that something ceases to become consent because there is a gift attached to it is completely new in the whole domain of English law. It is a most astonishing proposition. They go on to say that men of over 21 years of 396age are no longer to be free agents. They are to be curbed in this sort of way by the law. When they look back on this debate in a few weeks’ time I think they will be puzzled to know how they could be led to such an emotional situation. It has never been suggested in the whole of history that men over 21 should not be free agents in respect of what they decide to do and that they should be curbed in this way. On the face of it, it is a proposition that I should have thought would not hold water for a minute.

§LORD CONESFORDI have heard more astonishing law from the last two speakers than I have heard during the rest of my legal life. It would seem that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is under the impression that bribery is no offence.

§LORD CHORLEYIs the noble Lord suggesting that this is a case of bribery? It is not within a mile of bribery.

§LORD BOOTHBYBlackmail.

§LORD CONESFORDThe noble Lord, Lord Boothby, flits from pillar to post with such rapidity, reversing what he said in his last speech with every new speech he makes, that it is difficult to keep up with him. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that an eminent solicitor, wisely nameless—

§LORD BOOTHBYMore than one.

§LORD CONESFORDMore than one solicitor advised a person who was being blackmailed to pay up. I can only say that the most eminent practitioner in the law at the time I first began to practise told me that from time to time he had been consulted by people who were being blackmailed. He had always given the same advice—pay nothing and tell them to be damned. He said, “I know that my advice was right, but it was seldom taken”.

I am in complete sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, so far as I understand him, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in loathing blackmail. What astonishes me in this whole controversy is the quite extraordinary view that, if we pass this Bill or something like it, the blackmailing of homosexuals will cease. Why on earth should it? The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, quite rightly, that to a 397public man a reputation of being homosexual could be very harmful. Therefore, the revelation that he is a homosexual—

§LORD BOOTHBYI really must protest against that. I never said that I was a homosexual—”The revelation that I was a homosexual”.

§LORD CONESFORDI said nothing of the kind. The noble Lord is not always the person concerned if he is concerned at all. I shall perhaps be saying something of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did earlier in this debate, about which I had intended letting him off.

§LORD BOOTHBYBe careful.

§LORD CONESFORDI will be careful. If it is damaging to a public man to be known to be a homosexual, whether it is a criminal offence or not, the blackmailer can make a threat of revealing the fact, and that threat may be so severe that it may be worth buying off with money. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the mere passing of a Bill of this kind will end the risk of blackmail in connection with homosexual offences.

I share what I am sure is the hope of the Lord Chancellor, that if there is a reform of the law, blackmail will diminish; but I do not put it higher than that. Can we not get some of the advantages of a reform of the law without opening the door to something that everybody in the House, whatever his views on this problem, would think horrible—namely, a rich man using his wealth, not to buy affection, but to buy the commission of what has hitherto been a serious criminal act? That, as it seems to me, is a real risk. It is against that that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has devised this Amendment. It may he imperfect; there may be objections to it; but I am sure it deserves more respect than it has hitherto received.

Since I promised that I would deal with the noble Lord who has so consistently interrupted everybody who has been making a speech on this subject throughout this afternoon, let me come to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, on the very first Amendment to-day, the noble and learned Lord—

§LORD BOOTHBYI am not learned.

398

§LORD CONESFORDNo; but Lord Dilhorne is. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said that in earlier proceedings Lord Boothby had misrepresented to the House the nature of this Bill and the nature of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee. This was indignantly denied by Lord Boothby.

§LORD BOOTHBYHear, hear!

§LORD CONESFORDVery well. Then I would recommend Lord Boothby to acquire a copy of the Hansard of May 12 of this year, and to turn to column 131. He will there find that he interrupted my noble friend Lord Rowallan with these words: All we are talking about is the Labouchere Amendment, and that is all that the Wolfenden Committee wants to be removed.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 73).] Lord Rowallan said: I am afraid that I cannot accept such a statement. Then Lord Jessel said this: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had been here a little earlier, he would have heard from my noble friend Lord Dundee a very full description of what happened. Then I intervened for, until this evening, the only time I have intervened on this topic, as follows: My Lords, I am not taking any side in this intervention, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is entirely wrong in saying that all we are discussing is the Labouchere Amendment, or that that was the sole subject of the Wolfenden Report.

§“LORD BOOTHBYOf course it was.

§“LORD CONESFORDOf course it was not.”

At that point the noble Earl the Leader of the House very properly intervened with the suggestion that Lord Rowallan might get on with his speech. I hope that the quotation I have made from the previous intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will show how utterly wrong he was in suggesting that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne had misrepresented him in any way in the speech that he made, and I hope that possibly what I am saying now may induce him to—

§LORD BOOTHBYKeep his trap shut.

§LORD CONESFORD—to remain in a sedentary position until he has something worth while to say.

2014

My Lords, I am now 49 years older as I stand here before you once again, but we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against paedophilia and a few of my noble Lords, Ladies and among those in the other place, we know as we did in the 1960s regarding the homos, are pedophiles.. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for paedophilia so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions once more! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

However, as was done in the sixties and seventies, we must lay the groundwork for the population to come to terms with such activity. We must use every weapon at our disposal – from media to human rights pressure groups – to impress the legality, morality and normality of such acts. We must ensure that the public recognises such as simply another sexual orientation.

2050

Holy shit! The Prime Minister has just fcuked a donkey! My Lords, I am now 110 and I sit here before you with my colostomy bag but I still believe in our greater good. We must protect the good name of this Parliament even though just an inconsequential satellite of the World Zionist government on Temple Mount. At present we have a law against bestiality and a few of my noble Lords……… actually, you know what? I’m done with you fcuking perverts!

But our good old boy, Icke, can see totalitarian tiptoe’s and connections everywhere but he can’t see it in this? I guess it doesn’t fit his agenda! 😉

“Hush it up, get rid of it, protect the Crown, the Parliament and our entire way of life from the public otherwise they may want to lynch the whole lot of us!”

You’re damned right we do!

Mirror paedo judge

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Paedophilia by earthling on February 16, 2014

Yes you read that right. From ZETA – a group of what I guess we have to call humans who like to fuck animals.

So, by the same token, the mere concept of morality regarding sexually abusing a child or even murder have no business being law. If this is the way you want your world to go and this is the world you want your children and grandchildren to live in, then just keep liberally accepting the “progressive” laissez faire and “live and let live” and “Do what thou wilt” culture of depravity that just keep creeping along while our governments don’t listen to the moral concerns of most people but give way to the well funded minority groups who lobby. When did you ever hear of a group of lobbyists for “normality”? Never.

First homosexuality

then bisexuality

then omnisexuality (anything goes)

paedophilia

One thing though: When did you ever hear of a donkey speaking a language and, therefore, giving consent? Or do the zoophiliacs suggest that “Eee haw” is chinese for “Yes please”? ‘Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,’ said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok. Just state it is a “lifestyle choice” and demand your “human rights” to make such a choice and hey presto! You get a licence to shag a sheep! But people like Dharmabro (an ex commenter on here) can’t really say anything against it (thereby supporting it) because, as he says “homosexuality is natural and exists in the natural world”. Yes Dharmabro it does. Just as cross species sexual activity does, therefore, that MUST be ok too. You can’t argue with that otherwise your entire reasoning for homosexuality being “natural” is damned – which, by the way, it is. So what we have here is the homosexual community, simply by their own reasoning, support bestiality. It might not be their preference BUT, if they speak out against it, they are hypocrites and, not only that, they are zoo-o-phobes! Now you don’t want to be labeled a “‘phobe” of any type now do you homos? So what’s your way out? I can’t HEAR you! Bestiality http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html What I find strange with this comment re “his once friendly flock of sheep were beginning to shy away from human contact” is that do the new batch of sheep never see the older batch being taken away by humans and slaughtered? Doesn’t it even occur to them? Stupid sheep! But then who are we humans to talk? We ignore the shearing of ourselves by the governmental and banking shepherds. BAAAHH!

“Mere concepts of morality have no business being law”

And there lies the entire problem because, in fact, as has been stated by the lawmakers themselves on many occasions, morality does not enter into it. In fact, lawyers I have personally been up against stated such in their reply saying they believed my argument to be a moral rather than legal one. It was both but, nevertheless, they had the audacity to state it.