The fictional character in the dystopian novel is you!

Posted in Agenda 21, Law, Political History, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on September 11, 2020



Daddy, who’s the government?

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on June 29, 2020


You don’t even have to watch the video. Just look at the pic/thumbnail and imagine the conversation:

“Dad, why do you have to take me to school if you’re concerned about my safety?”
“Coz it’s not up to me son. It’s the government who dictate what I must do with you.”
“Do the government own me dad? I thought you and mum had me, not the government.”
“We did son but we need to do what the government tell us.”
“Who and what is this government dad? I kinda feel scared of them if they have this much power over you. I thought you had all the power?”
“No son. But no need to be scared. Just do as they tell you like I do and there’s no need to worry.’
“But you’re worried dad, that I might get Covid 19?”
“No, you won’t son… it’s ok”
“But just last week we were on lockdown and still people are dying and they say they’re worried about people getting together in groups and, at school, we need to keep our distance so I am worried dad!”
“Yeah I know but don’t be.”
“Yes son?”
“How do they have such power over us?”
“Because we’re citizens and subjects son.”
“What does that mean dad? How did that happen? What gives them the right?”
“I signed a contract with them.”
“You what? Why? What’s the contract?”
“The contract is your birth certificate on registration of you son and everyone has to do it under coercion that, if we don’t, the government can fine us and, potentially put us in jail”.
“But dad, isn’t coercion a crime?”
“Yes son but not when the government do it”.
“So is the government above the law dad?”
“Effectively, yes”.
“All the people in it Dad? Don’t they have to register too?”
“Yes they do son.”
“So then, if they have to register and follow the rules, they’re coercing themselves?”
“No son. The government is”
“But you just said they ARE the government dad!”
“Well they work for the government son”
“Ok, now I’m confused. So WHO is ‘the government’ dad?”
“It’s a legal person recognised on a piece of paper son”
“What?!? How can a piece of paper dictate to people dad? And what’s a ‘legal person’?”
“Son…. it’s complex.”
“Ok dad. Is the world psychopathic dad?”
“Yes son!”
“Ok, NOW I’m scared!”


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

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

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

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

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

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


The two blogs will be found here:

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

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


Is Caitlyn Jenner a murderer?

Posted in Law, Media, Science by earthling on June 6, 2015



Did this “woman” murder this man?

In the fictional realm of “law” (which we all live under), indeed she did!

The case of Caitlyn Jenner is a perfect example of the basic jurisprudence of law – the “legal person” – displaying itself as a joke but a very dangerous “joke” upon the men and women of this planet earth. But, of course, the cultural marxists, the “libertarians” (now that will be a surprise to those of you who are) and the simple, emotional, “feel gooders” of the world will not see, or wish to see, the reality of this. Nevertheless, it needs to be brought to your attention because it is through the fundamental con of the “legal person” (a fiction at law), that all of us are entirely controlled due to the fact very few of you understand it.

Bruce Jenner was a sportsman who won olympic medals. Bruce Jenner no longer exists in law. It is existence in law which gives us the “benefit” of “human rights”. You do not have “human rights” if you do not exist. I have explained this before in a previous few blogs.

In the airy fairy world of LGBT rights, we are told to accept that a person can simply become another person altogether and we should be accepting of this. Ok, let’s say we are.

So, again, Bruce Jenner no longer exists! What does this mean?

Well, let’s consider a wealthy person with a ton of insurance and their spouse murders them for that insurance. It does happen you know!

Would that spouse be liable and be imprisoned for the murder? Of course they would!

So what has “Caitlyn” Jenner done to Bruce Jenner? In the legal world, she has caused him to cease to exist. This is murder. Was it pre-meditated? Yes, of course it was. So it is 1st degree murder.

Is it possible there was a motive? After all, Caitlyn could hardly then ask for the insurance which was in Bruce Jenner’s name could she? But, perhaps, Kris Jenner could if we followed law properly. A legal person who existed is now, effectively, deceased!

But back to Caitlyn: What does she gain out of the murder of Bruce if not insurance? So it wasn’t an insurance job!

Well, what about this:


Insurance fraud

Now, if any of you out there want to make some serious money before you die, just get to the point where you are a 3rd rate celebrity – do anything to get there; go on a reality TV show and make a huge arse of yourself, anything at all to get that public attention – and then MILK IT!

Once you’ve done that, adopt a seriously “out there” message – like becoming a tranny – which is highly acceptable to the cultural marxist, political agenda and they’ll create the environment and the media attention you need plus support you to spread your message worldwide through talks giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars and TV appearances etc – a little like the £000’s Tony Blair gets for talks supporting the globalist agenda which, of course, Caitlyn is now a poster “girl” for!

But back to the legal issue:

There’s a petition started to demand that Bruce Jenner’s medals be given back. Is this fair? Well, of course it is! Bruce is dead and a “woman” by the name of Caitlyn has the medals in her property which do not belong to her. She is NOT Bruce Jenner and does not wish to be. She killed Bruce Jenner!

Further, it has to be asked why Kris Jenner – Bruce’s wife – is not being handed her husband’s estate?

The stupid woman should have waited! He’s no longer “Bruce Jenner” but Caitlyn Jenner so then she wouldn’t have had to file for a divorce from a non existent person! She should have just stated her husband was dead and his estate would have gone to her lock stock and barrel!
Ask yourself Kris: “Am I married to a woman called Caitlyn?” You bloody idiot!

Why did Kris Jenner apply for divorce from Bruce Jenner before he died? She should have simply hung on until he died and she would have inherited his property anyhow! What a silly woman! She could then pursue Caitlyn Jenner for all the money she is about to make by capitalising on the death of her husband. But, in reality, Caitlyn Jenner should not be able to make any money in such a fashion because it is argued she should be in jail for first degree murder!

Kris Jenner

Let’s assume “Caitlyn” Jenner now is recognised as a legal person (I don’t know if he/she has applied for such but I imagine he/she will). Then Bruce Jenner does not exist (in law).
Therefore, all of the property of Bruce Jenner (did he make a will?) is in testate”.
Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies owning property whose value is greater than the sum of their enforceable debts and funeral expenses without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the “intestate estate”.
Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law (statutory and case law) that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.
Under English law (given the probable conditions, Bruce Jenner died under):
The husband, wife or civil partner keeps all the assets (including property), up to £250,000, and all the personal possessions, whatever their value.
The remainder of the estate will be shared as follows:
the husband, wife or civil partner gets an absolute interest in half of the remainder
the other half is then divided equally between the surviving children
If a son or daughter (or other child where the deceased had a parental role) has already died, their children will inherit in their place.
So, in accordance with law, the death of Bruce Jenner means that his wife and children get all of his possessions and property. That would include the medals.
In law, your dad’s dead kids!

But there’s one further aspect: Should the legal person known as “Caitlyn Jenner” be charged with the murder of the legal person Bruce Jenner?

In law, the answer would be a resounding YES if the law wasn’t such an ass and used and abused by the lawmakers in whichever way they so choose!

But of course, now he’s a “woman” I guess you would expect him to become a money grabber! 😉

Women just remember this: You aren’t one unless the law says you are! You don’t even exist unless the law says you do!

Womanhood is nothing special ladies and you even support that idea yourselves. Any man can be a woman and don’t you dare think you’re anything special!

It’s ironic that women are, by their own will and ignorance, destroying womanhood!

Knock yourselves out girls! 😉

Now just remember when your little boy says “Mummy, I want to be a girl”, don’t be a bigot! Dress him up in little knickers, a dress and when he hits about 12, tell him he needs to wear tampons just in case!


Caitlyn: She didn't marry for money, she murdered for it!

Caitlyn: She didn’t marry for money, she murdered for it!

Goddamnit! It’s your children!!

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 28, 2014

I read and I watch as thousands of children per year are taken from the families and put into care and foster homes.

I read and watch as many of those same children are then physically, mentally and sexually abused.

And then I sit here and think “While I’d love to help those who have lost their kids and try to stop it, these families – yes, I understand desperate and confused – don’t listen or don’t take it seriously when I and many others tell you you have registered your child as a legal person (as we all have) and it is this which gives the state the power to remove them and gives the state the power over every other aspect of our lives!”

You’d rather go to people like John Hemmings MP who you believe has a “caring ear” for your trouble. Yet John Hemmings is not an idiot! But he won’t even go NEAR the “legal person” issue with you and explain what it is. NO MP, nor judge nor barrister nor lawyer or police officer will! Their entire livelihood and existence in their roles depends upon that legal person existing!


Now LISTEN to me! I am NOT advocating that there should be no such thing as a “legal person” (which may sound, on the face of it, contradictory) but what I AM advocating is that everyone – you, me and all you people who have had your kids stolen (plus many more people, young and old alike, who have been victim to the DISCRIMINATION and the FALSE POWERS which are wielded using the “legal person” as their source of power) – actually bring this entire issue to the attention of all those who actually do KNOW what it is all about (and that includes the lawyers, judges and, not so much MPs perhaps, but those in government) and create a “People against Persons” movement.

You want your children to remain your children? Or not? Because, as it stands, they are NOT your children even if you have them living with you when they’re 30+ years old!

The “legal person” issue is NOT “rocket science”. It is VERY simple. It is that simplicity and the size of the deception which makes it extraordinary evil and difficult to believe, that is all so, for god’s sakes, let the penny drop!

If you haven’t already, read the following three blogs at the very least:




The Girl who could not commit a crime:  GCCC





Barry Obampot: Just doing his thang in support of depopulation

Posted in "Climate Change", New World Order Religion, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on June 30, 2014

Hobby Lobby Corporate person

The “Legal Person” strikes again! And STILL noone listens! The fundamental tool of control and you DON’T LISTEN!


Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend.” Occupy Wall Street protestors decried the idea, late night comedians mocked it, and reform groups proposed amending the Constitution to eliminate it. Today, however, the Supreme Court endorsed corporate personhood — holding that business firms have rights to religious freedom under federal law. Not only do corporations have rights, their rights are stronger than yours.

The question came to the Supreme Court in a challenge to regulations implementing President Obama’s landmark health care law. Those regulations require employers with 50 or more employees to provide those employees with comprehensive health insurance, which must include certain forms of contraception. The contraception requirement was designed to protect the rights of women. Studies show that access to contraception has positive benefits for women’s education, income, mental health, and family stability.

Protecting women’s rights, according to the Court, isn’t a good enough reason for the government to force a business corporation, at least a privately held one like chain craft store Hobby Lobby, to include birth control in its insurance contrary to the business owner’s wishes. At least that’s what the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held in Hobby Lobby. Federal statutes guaranteeing religious freedom to “persons” apply equally to closely held business corporations, and those corporations’ religious liberty is “substantially burdened” by having to provide their employees with contraception. So the rights of employees have to give way to the rights of the corporation.

The Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby isn’t a surprise. The Roberts Court has been largely hostile to the rights of women — allowing greater restrictions on abortion, restricting their ability to sue for workplace discrimination, and limiting the scope of family leave laws. Meanwhile, the data show that the Roberts Court is the most business-friendly Supreme Court in nearly a century. Just as Citizens United expanded the rights of business corporations to speak about political issues — and, in the eyes of many, enabling them to drown out the voices of We the People — Hobby Lobby has given businesses another powerful tool to fight against regulation. Hobby Lobby’s religious rights enable the firm to ignore the voices of women who wish to enjoy the health benefits from controlling reproduction.

And women may not be the only victims. What religious rights will business corporations seek next? The Court said that its decision wouldn’t necessarily mean that closely-held businesses could obtain exemptions from health care regulations mandating insurance coverage for vaccinations and blood transfusions. Yet the Court did grant those corporations today a right to make such claims in court. If ensuring women’s control over reproduction — a constitutional right — isn’t a strong enough reason to limit the religious rights of Hobby Lobby, it’s not clear why these other laws won’t fall too.

LGBT people may be next. Remember a few months ago when Arizona almost adopted a controversial law that would have given business corporations a broad right to use religion to make claims for exemptions from the law? That proposed law was rightly seen as an attack on LGBT rights, as supporters insisted that business owners who object to same-sex marriage shouldn’t be forced to bake cakes, take pictures, or arrange the flowers at such ceremonies. After Hobby Lobby, now all business corporations have a right under federal law to claim religious-based exemptions to all sorts of laws — including laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

To its credit, the Court’s majority recognized the trouble created by the ruling and suggested that firms would not be entitled to discriminate on the basis of race. “The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race,” the majority wrote. Yet the Court’s omission of LGBT discrimination is worrisome. The justices must have understood that the current conflict between religion and anti-discrimination law involves LGBT people, not racial minorities. No corporation is seeking to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against African-Americans, while several are seeking to discriminate against LGBT people. About that, the majority says nothing.

If the Court’s ruling is read to permit challenges to laws barring discrimination against LGBT people, Hobby Lobby will be the Arizona law on steroids. It wouldn’t apply in one state but across the nation.

So while a business corporation can’t go to church, fast on Yom Kippur, or travel to Mecca for Ramadan, it can still go to court and, on the basis of religious freedom, demand to be exempted from the law that applies to everyone else. Today, women are the victim. Tomorrow, it could be LGBT people. Indeed, after Hobby Lobby, every person is at risk. Everyone, that is, except the corporate person, my friend.


“Honest, it’s about women’s rights!” screams Barry.

“Don’t listen to these anti government type conspiracy theorists”

“My policies have absolutely nothing to do with James Lovelock’s beliefs nor have they anything whatsoever to do with the Georgia Guidestones and Agenda 21. Anyone suggesting this stuff needs sectioned!”

From the White House’s Facebook page – “Share this if you agree: Women—not their bosses—should be able to make their own health care decisions. #HobbyLobby”

Obama women healthcare


Wait a minute! IS this from the same guy that introduces Universal healthcare and demands that everyone must buy it? Hmmmm…. I’ll tell you another thing Barry. Since you’re letting all the illegals in, why not extend Obamacare to them and to Pakistanis, Afghanis, Iraqis etc etc. The insurance companies would love you because for the thousands of them you drone, and if you keep selling guns to Mexican drug cartels and all the carnage which ensues from that, the insurance premiums would skyrocket and if you’re dictating everyone must take the insurance then hey! You and your cronies who pay you so well are on to a winner with that idea!

Anyhow, every death helps right Barry? Every life extinguished helps toward that goal of 500 million. A few wars – maybe a big one, a few viruses unleashed, GMO foods and later, legislation to demand no further births (except for “those who can afford it” right Barry?).


Some Facebook comments –

Tracey Lavis: I call bullshit!!! The ACA VIOLATES our Constitutional Right of Freedom Of Religion by forcing the owner of a company to pay for and endorse an act or product that violates his religious beliefs! I don’t see you FORCING Muslim grocery stores to sell pork, so you SHOULDN’T be forcing Christians and other religions to pay for abortions and birth controll!

“The Constitution Of The United States Of America”… The LAW of OUR land… I hope our next President ACTUALLY knows IT, understands IT, FOLLOWS IT, and DOESN’T VIOLATE IT AS HE PISSES ALL OVER IT LIKE YOU DO BARRY!

You’re a flippin’ disgrace to America and all that She stands for!


Lynne Howell:  I am a woman and a Democrat and a proud, happy recipient of Obama care. I understand abortion is the law of the land. That being said, the Democratic Party does not speak for all women on these issues. With all due respect, Mr. President…now that the Supreme Court has spoken, wouldn’t the road less traveled call you to take a leadership role and consider this to be a win/win situation where the wisdom of Solomon was invoked? You, yourself said that ACA was not perfect but that you were calling us to use the system to tweak…isn’t that what has happened…I believe that what is at stake here are human rights..if fertilized eggs were not human perhaps there would be a rationale for denying them a right to life…but when you speak of women’s rights, please remember me…one of your greatest fans and a loyal Democrat…and profoundly proud that our Courts have shown wisdom.


Jan Long: Again, anyone see the Hobby Lobby hypocrisy in this:

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby’s retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby’s health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla andMirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

The retirement plan comes with a “generous company match,” which amounted to $3.8 million in 2012.


Joe Coleman:  “This entire thing has nothing to do with birth control. It’s about whether the government can force anyone in this country to pay for something they do not condone. Should you be forced to pay for something you have a moral objection to? the answer in this country should be NO. We do not live in China or India or Iraq or Iran. We live in America where the founding fathers tried to make sure the government can not and does not control our lives.”


Richard Cacciotti:  How stupid do you think we are Obama??? First of all, since when is it a crime for a PRIVATE FAMILY owned business to not be able to practice their religious freedoms, which includes rights to life? Secondly, the ruling only applies to emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill. So, my question to you is are you going to suck it up and move on or are you sitting in your golf cart fuming over this decision are you trying to figure out how you can use the power of your pen and override a Supreme Court decision? I am hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of your hold on the system and the media. Of course your buddies at MSNBS and NBO news are in your corner, but the only people who will see their reports are well… YOU….! Please tell me you found out about this decision as we did while watching the news. lol Happy Monday! Hope the rest of your week SUCKS!


However, what most, if not all, of these commenters will not accept is the following. They will simply let their cognitive dissonance come to the fore and dismiss the obvious. They won’t allow their heads to say to them “Something strange here. This “Gaia thing, Agenda 21, Rockefeller and Bill Gates interests in population reduction etc is one hell of a coincidence!”. Nope, they will NOT even entertain the idea. More fool them but hey, you can only take a horse to water as they say.


Let’s ignore James Lovelock on BBC Hardtalk, so absolutely certain “Gaia” will destroy 5 sixths of the Earth’s human population within this century.

Down to one billion people or less:

And let’s not even consider how that number Lovelock quotes is so very close to the 500 million stated by the Georgia Guidestones as being “in balance with nature” (again, Gaia worship).

Let’s ignore all that and the fact that we live among people who truly wish to rule over this earth and simply have enough population which they deem is enough to turn the wheels while they then have complete control and freedom to enjoy 9/10ths of the planet (or more) while having the United Nations ensure we keep within the Agenda 21 specified cities of multi tenant dwellings and in apartments just a couple of hundred square feet for each of us.






Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

What we have here is ANOTHER “WOMAN” supporting the legal rights of PAEDOPHILES!

If YOU are a woman with ANY morality whatsoever, you will vigorously attack this woman, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt as well as any other woman who is following this SICKENING “PROTOCOLS”- based attack on the family, parents and promoting the homosexual/paedophile agenda!

Now, I’ve blogged until I’m blue in the face (and language) regarding the LEGAL PERSON. You had BETTER start understanding that it is this “legal person” which allows for the state – and the PROTOCOLS-based, Trotsky/Marxist/Zionist/Jewish agenda – to absolutely control YOUR child, YOU and your family.

The “law” is a minefield of contradictions and political agendas. What I find hilarious is that, when you approach an MP to point out serious anomalies or issues with law, they suggest you take it up with a lawyer and court since they can have “no influence” over the courts. However, the reality is that the UK House of Commons (even though the House of Lords can delay a bill) is the LEGISLATIVE house who are responsible for our laws (they have the equivalent of “parental responsibility” in effect without accepting the accountability – see video for a discussion of this re parents by Reece). Law EMANATES from politics! However, my point regarding the “minefield” is that, for example, while Reece speaks of Parental Responsibility rather than what was Parental Rights, what is unsaid here – even though the argument sounds balanced and we wish to ensure children are protected and safe – is that, by changing the emphasis in 1989, what we have seen since and ongoing, is a “grab” by the government of our children. YOU brought them into the world and, while I agree they are not our possessions per se, I strongly advocate that, as a minor, a parent should have (“should have?” it’s obvious!) full control over their child(ren) as opposed to the State, UNLESS it is proven (by a JURY of peers, which we no longer have either!) that the child has been harmed in some significant way. I say “some significant way” because the reality is, we are ALL harmed to some degree or another as children by our parents (and, I may add by society). The government harms children by having them born with a debt over their heads! Nobody says a word about that though! I could go on for a long time on this and expand but the blogpost would become a book.

Edwina Currie, as you will hear in my blog related to Sonia Poulton just yesterday, makes a comment – rather out of the blue since the organisation had not even been mentioned in the discussion – regarding the “conspiracy” being equated with the LSE (London School of Economics). You have to simply ask yourself why she even considered raising the LSE in that context in her condescending fashion. Well, it’s because she is more than aware that the LSE is fundamental to the subversion in this country. However, to understand how real that is, you would have to research the LSE, the number of connections it has had with global politics, terrorism and how substantial funding was given to it and the University of London, by the Rockefellers.


Someone asked me yesterday whether I was aware of the “Responsible person” being introduced in Scotland for each and every child born in the country. At first I said no I had not heard of it but, when explained, I realised I had but just had not connected with the phrase since, at first, it wasn’t mentioned as being connected to children when the person mentioned it.


Helen Reece is a middle-class Sexual Bolshevist and radical feminist agitator in the United Kingdom. She is a barrister and a reader in law at the London School of Economics. Her specialised field is attempting to undermine the family and subvert law in regards to the “regulation of the family”. In her earlier period, she was known for agitating to have innocent children placed with sodomites as part of adoption. This has naturally developed into her agitating to have children handed over to convicted pedophiles and rapists.[2]

She is involved with the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent, a critical theory style, cultural Marxist association, founded by Frank Furedi and Ellie Lee. The former a Trotskyist Jew,[3] red professor and pro-pedophile activist, who previous founded and led the Revolutionary Communist Party. The latter a sociology ideologue and apologist for the Abortion Holocaust with the Pro-Choice Forum.

Reece drew the attention of anti-child abuse groups in 2010, when she began to openly agitate to hand children over for adoption to pedophiles.[2] At the time of her agitation laws are in place to stop pedophiles and sex offenders from getting their hands on children. In an article in the Child and Family Law Quarterly, she called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to lift laws automatically banning sex offenders from getting their hands on children, invoking the human rights hoax and so-called “discrimination”.[2] She claimed that under article 14 of the so-called European Convention of Human Rights, governments who are not pro-pedophile enough may be challenged legally.[6]


Frank Furedi:



Update: Since writing this blog in 2014, it has just come to my attention that Helen Reece died of cancer last year at the age of 48. I wish to say that, while I attacked the woman, her connections and her politics – which all disgusted me and I will continue to attack anyone with the same mindset and agenda or who do work which, knowingly or unknowingly, promulgates the overall agenda – I get no satisfaction out of the death of anyone (except for, perhaps, Rothschilds and Rockefellers, Kissingers, Clintons, Bush’s, Blairs etc etc). Ok, I’m not perfect – wouldn’t want to be in this case!



The Reset, the Barrister and the Legal person

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Vaccinations by earthling on April 27, 2014

The following was originally published in 2014…. Nobody listened!!

NOW “The Great Reset” is trending on Twitter: Too little too late suckers!

There’s something called “” and people like Michael Meacher MP are offering their name in support.

In addition, there is also a Barrister (or ex Barrister) by the name of Polly Higgins who has written a book called “Eradicating Ecocide” and has proposed to the United Nations law(s) to be considered in battling such.

Polly Higgins - Barrister.

Polly Higgins – Barrister.

Proposing anything to the United Nations, in my view, is dangerous (as I’m sure many of you out there who have your finger n the pulse are aware of). We’re all very aware of who funded and still funds the UN. If not, here’s your answer:

But I’ve brought the above up in many previous blogs so that’s nothing new but is included for anyone new to the information anyhow.

Now, Rockefeller also created and funded the Club of Rome (“Limits to growth” and “The first global revolution”) which first promulgated the concept of Global Warming and they explain in the second book, why they did so. There for all to see.

Due to that, we now have “Sustainability”, the U.N.’s “Agenda 21”, 350 million people in China relocating from their homes in rural communities to cities (the largest movement of people in the history of the human race) where the building of entire cities and blocks of flats to house them is progressing at a devastating pace. We then also have issues in the USA ala Cliven Bundy and the BLM. Again, all part of Agenda 21. Meanwhile the human race – as it is getting shoved into smaller and smaller areas throughout the world like sardines – is complaining there are too many people on the planet. Well they would think that wouldn’t they? If they are being herded by the millions into cities while the governments are being paid off by the bankers and corporations to gather up more and more “protected land”. Protect it for whom? Tortoises?

No. To protect it for them. So they may spread themselves out across their vast tracts of land they buy up and then use for their own purposes – either their palatial, multiple hectare homes or for their corporate interests.

Meanwhile, Rockefeller (and globalist friends) give speeches about population control:

Listen to his first minute or two of speech and compare his concern re population growth based upon better health with Bill Gates (his “best buddy”) talking about population reduction based upon ….. better health! How bloody strange is that? Ah but it’s not. These people are psychopaths – not very bright but extremely wealthy. They can completely contradict themselves from one minute to the next and then simply deny it or explain it or completely ignore it. Because NO-ONE challenges them on it. They are surrounded by governmental, banking, corporate and media arse lickers.

While Bill Gates isn’t a climate scientist or any kind of scientist. He’s now a fully fledged politician and corrupt bastard. Bill has an agenda and it’s Agenda 21 just as Rockefeller’s is and just as Rockefeller’s U.N. and Club of Rome’s is.

But Bill says vaccinations and, therefore better healthcare (reproductive health services means abortions of course – Bill is another one who likes to murder non legal persons. Humans but they’re non legal – get the picture?). You can’t murder something which is deemed as not existing. A great little “legal fiction” they capitalise on and get away with genocide by using. Aren’t these philanthropists great? 😉

So what’s the “Reset”? Well, look it up if you don’t know. Basically, it’s another one of these ideas to bring the human race to “freedom” of the banking/government fascist corruption. Nice website and nice logos. The trouble is it seriously smells to me like another “grassroots movement” that is anything but.

The thing I have the issue with is you have two people: Polly Higgins, Barrister and Michael Meacher (Fabian socialist and MP) involved and already manoeuvring within it while throwing THEIR ideas at the United Nations (Rockefeller central and an institution which supports the legal person and the corruption of it).

Now, let’s take a closer look at a book that Polly Higgins wrote in 2010 on the subject of “Ecocide” – something close to her heart and also close to the globalists’ hearts for reasons I gave above. They want to “protect” the vast swathes of the planet which THEY buy up. 😉

Eradicating Ecocide Corp fiction 1 Corp fiction 2 Corp fiction 3 Corp fiction 4 Corp fiction 5

She speaks at “TED talks” and at the London School of Economics and she talks about “Earth Law” – a real little scottish, tree hugging barrister then.

“In service to something greater than myself” she says. Hmmm. Echoes of George Bush and his talk about 1000 points of light and serving something greater than ourselves.

Don’t dare to be great Polly because all you are doing is regurgitating the same propaganda of those you suggest you are rallying against. Sorry girl but you’re rather stupid. And you laugh a lot don’t you? Laughing at what you think is funny about what YOU say. But it isn’t funny at all. You’re telling people on that stage what YOU think of the world as if it is what everyone should think. You are VERY dangerous. Prima facie, you sound so “lovely” – all about “journeys” and from “independence to interdependency”. Oh and the soft voice which puts it all over. Like a female Tony Blair. You’re a “Friend of the Earth” – “bring these ideas forth”, “how do we do this from a place of peace than from anger”, “How do we co-create that world” – Oh how you “ask” each and every one of us to “dare to be great too”.

Transparent as hell Polly. But ever so “sweet”.

Oh you’ve learned SO WELL dear! Really, your projection and delivery is “lovely”, How could anyone question you?

Well sweetie, it’s easy! Pardon me but you’re filled with conditioned shit! But you love it don’t you? To be on that stage, To create your “name” on the global stage. Perhaps even to be invited, at some stage, to a Bilderberg conference. You’re perfect for it Polly! Pretty Polly! Pretty Polly! Squawk!

While in the above book, Ms Barrister, you discuss the legal fiction and the legal person. So you’ll be up for the debate then while most of you peers will ignore it all and laugh it all out of court any chance they get, YOU acknowledge it all. But you do so because, in this case – your “Earth law” – it is useful to raise the issue (applied, in this case only to the corporation of course). But let’s widen the perspective Ms Higgins shall we? Let’s analyse the “Natural person” also which, after all, I have already proven over and over in other blogs, is every bit as much a legal fiction as is the corporate person.

Or is it that you’re not interested in people Ms Higgins? Just the Earth? Does that “sweetness” fall apart when you are faced with someone wishing to debate the entire law of persons with you rather than just that tree hugging Earth law?

Do you wish to be one of the “meek” Polly? What part of the earth do you wish to inherit Mme Barrister?

You can’t fight the power Polly, you took an oath remember?

Anything you achieve will have been given the power’s blessings.

Is it you who’s naive or is it you think I am?

A mother’s love eats itself

Posted in Law by earthling on April 21, 2014

Do not read further if you are unwilling to read this with an inquisitive, logical, educated, aware and open mind.

This is intended to challenge you and your very belief system. It is not intended to offend but, if it does, I offer zero apology for it. You choose to be offended rather than to consider the quite obvious outcome. Your prerogative is to ignore if you so wish. My prerogative is to present this for your consideration. There will be many of you mothers out there who simply will not wish to consider it because it will have a similar effect to giving a new software program to a robot which conflicts with its existing logic and the robot breaks down repeating “Cannot compute….cannot compute…”.mothers-love-quotes-pictures

I am a father. I lost my children to lies and corruption and I simply will never overcome the pain and anger associated with that. No matter how many days go by, how many birthdays, christmases and just every single day of life – I will never lose the pain of losing my children’s hearts to lies and corruption. I gave my children everything a father could – not just in terms of financial stability, wonderful birthdays and christmases, an international lifestyle and education but also through the hours and days and years I spent bathing them, reading to them, listening to them, playing with them, teaching them, up in the middle of the night with them for months on end while having work in the morning, returning home from exhausting business trips to park the car and then get them ready for bed, teaching them to swim, cycle, listen to their stories and their secrets and wishes, listening to them breathe in the early mornings just after midnight while sitting at the bottom of their beds, being the “umpire” in their fights and arguments together, knowing that “look” when they wanted to wrap me around their little finger – just loving the ground they walked on.

a-mothers-love-jane-brackI understand the ideology women have behind this “A mother’s love” idea. But I really do take offence to it in many ways because, while I appreciated my own mother’s love and have to question my father’s (no doubt about that), I, personally, could not have loved my children anymore than I did (or do) and there is not one man or woman on this planet who loved their children any more than I did. Their own mother would suggest that she did and what I state is trash but then she has to. She has to maintain the fiction.

However, the point of this blog is to illustrate how that very “mother’s love” (seemingly unconditional – I say seemingly because there is no such thing as unconditional love no matter what your emotions may wish to believe) is, itself, poised to destroy the very ideology inherent within it.



Many of you (a great majority in fact) – whether a mother or a potential mother – are politically correct, rabid supporters of “love” whether that love is between a man and a woman OR a man and a man. Your arguments for such a stance (having been brainwashed by political correctness AND, also perhaps, having a gay son of your own as we seem to be breeding them like rabbits these days OR is it due to environment? Government legislation based on agendas, promotion of it in literature and pop art – especially the latter where all today’s “heroes and heroines” seem to be sexually ambivalent at best and sheer raving gays at worst) vary from “how can one be anti “love” in whatever form it takes?” to “you’re back in the dark ages”, “you’re a homophobe” etc.mothers-love-is-deeper-than-ocean

If you’re a mother of a homosexual you’ll protect that choice in life by your son (or daughter) viciously. You’ll justify it in any and every way you possibly can because it is YOUR child. That is very commendable of you and it is a reflection of that deep “mother’s love” you hold so dear. However, the irony is immense. Remember the term politically correct? Ask yourself something – it doesn’t take too much thought I promise you. If something was “marginally correct” or “somewhat correct”, “legally correct”, “morally correct” even or “mathematically correct”, you’d consider the fact that, having the descriptor r adjective before the word “correct” would diminish its absolutism of being “correct” in all circumstances. a-mothers-love-kathy-yatesAfter all, if something is “correct” then it is correct. Period! But here we have “POLITICALLY correct”. Was the Iraq war “politically correct”? According to Tony Blair and the majority of politicians it was and still is because no-one has been brought before the courts on charges of war-crimes. So it MUST have been correct right? No? Are you arguing with the politicians on this? Isn’t “politically correct” correct after all? Isn’t it “politically correct” – and, therefore, correct – to protect murderers, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists under the Human Rights Act? The politicians say it is. These people have rights just like you and I. Are you disagreeing with that “politically correctness”?


mothersloveYet political correctness is precisely what has driven the homosexual community to the point that two men can now get married. It is this political correctness which has said that two men can adopt and bring up a child as their own and you, as a mother, are all for that – particularly if your own son is gay while you also like to watch all of these TV personalities and pop stars etc who are gay. They’re “cool and fun” aren’t they? They make you laugh and they do no harm to anyone – they’re just little funny gays with good dress sense and can make for fun friends and also have the added “extra” of making you – a straight woman – feel cool and bask in the reflected glory of their “friendship”. Who knows? You may even, as a woman, have suppressed sexual fantasies of your own (I’ve met a few) and it allows you to be “part of the scene” so to speak. Plus, you may be a girl in her teens or twenties or thirties even and have yet to hit that “motherhood” urge. Or you may never have the urge. Additionally, you may be a woman who’s had her fair share of violent or abusive men and it draws you closer to the gay community where you feel less fear and more comfortable. There could be a never ending number of reasons for your support and acceptance of homosexuality. While I have made my own views clear on a few posts on this blog, this particular one is not to dwell on my views but to bring something very real to your attention:

That is the irony of your position.

Here are two little gay boys – now married and now with the “rights” to adopt children – just like Elton John and partner and many others.


Our Prime Minister, David Cameron, was provided with this headline in the Independent newspaper to accompany this:

“Gay marriage: ‘When people’s love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change,’ says PM as first same-sex couples tie knot”

Isn’t that nice of him? Isn’t that nice of the government? He and they decide to recognise that, all along, they were wrong to disallow gay marriage and control who has the right to love and who doesn’t and who can love who and who can’t. Isn’t the government and the Prime Minister so enlightened? Well aren’t they?

mothers-love 2Well let’s consider their decision in the true light of day. What they are saying is that THEY decide and THEY control who has rights and who doesn’t and who has the freedom to live and love as they wish. The PM and the government are bestowing kindness upon our little gay friends. They’ve bestowed such kindness upon heterosexuals for a long time while, I should add, that religions don’t. A muslim woman marrying outside the faith is frowned upon at best and, at worst, she is ex communicated. Similar with judaism. Christians don’t give a shit simply because christianity no longer exists and, if it does and one lives by its rules then like the muslim and jewish extremist, one is a “christian fundamentalist” and to be reviled as such. If a christian points to the teachings of jesus and his references to the “synagogue of satan” (in the King James bible which the present Queen took an oath to uphold) or points to Jesus’ “cleansing of the temple” –

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

—Matthew 21:12–13

then one should be frowned upon in this ecumenical, accepting, politically correct society of ours.

And yet David Cameron is referring to himself these days as doing Jesus’ work with the “big society”. He speaks of his faith in christianity while proclaiming his “jewish values”. Which is it Dave? They are two VERY different religions otherwise they would be the same wouldn’t they? Don’t talk to me about this “judeo-christian” shit. That’s purely for political expediency and based on bullshit political correctness and business and geo-political strategy.rbrs_0240

But back to your “kind consideration” to offer homosexuals the same “rights” as heterosexuals. Up until 1927, the UK government hadn’t even given rights to women who, at that time, were considered the property of their husbands. So what is it that changes David? What is it the government, in their graciousness, provides to “free people” in the “free world”? If we’re “free” then why do we need your permission? I’m a heterosexual and I don’t WANT your permission or your acceptance! If I were to turn gay tomorrow (god forbid) and wish to be with a man, I wouldn’t come running to you for permission David. I wouldn’t ask for the “right” to love or to marry and, in fact, if I were to wish to be with a woman in my life from tomorrow onward, I wouldn’t come running to you then or the courts or any institution.

You can literally fuck off David. I choose to love who I wish.

Marriage? What is that? It is a contract and a REGISTRATION with the state. It provides the state with control over my and everyone else’s decisions just like the registration of a car or of a child. I don’t want you or anyone else involved or dictating my life and my actions. You don’t decide how many children I have and if I wish not to register them with you then I don’t do it! Ah! But it’s the law is it? And when registered, if I bring my children up in a way that YOU deem inappropriate, that registration gives you the right to intervene with my family. If my marriage dissolves, the registration of it gives you the right to determine who gets what from the economics to the children.

And that is what our little gay compadres want too. To be controlled by the state. And here, of all people, is little Sean and his boy wishing for the state to take on that authority over their life when Sean is meant to be an “enlightened truthseeker” – haha don’t make me laugh!

So what do we have here? Elton and David.

DSC_0257Where is “MOTHER” in that photo ladies?

Mother is non existent.

So what do you say to Elton and David ladies? Do you STILL hold to that ideology of a “Mother’s love” when speaking to them as you fully support the idea of gay marriage and the raising of children by a gay couple? Do you? I don’t think you can. I think fat little gay Elton and his lover/husband will be very offended by your suggestion that a “mother’s love” surpasses that of all others don’t you?

So where does that leave you as you have bleated for years/decades/centuries about how a “mother’s love” is unsurpassed and that it is YOU – the mother – who bears the child?

I’ll tell you where it will soon leave you: NOWHERE!

Because that thing called “political correctness” is going to rear its ugly head once more and the state will have to say (it will HAVE TO because it has given itself no other choice) that it is unacceptable to suggest that a mother’s love is worth more than a gay father’s love.

And when that becomes apparent to you mothers out there who are so accepting, politically correct and supportive of gay marriages and gay families, remember:


You will no longer have that proud pedestal to put yourself on. The question is: Do you even care anymore?

So while you proclaim that YOUR love is so much stronger than a father’s, it seems either it isn’t, because you are currently denying it by your acceptance that children do not need a mother OR you never really believed it in the first place. You see, one needs to have the courage of one’s convictions. You as a mother who accepts and supports the gay agenda, does not have that courage nor conviction. Your “love” is killing the very fabric of what you suggest that love is based upon. And you can’t even recognise it!

I never believed in the “Mother’s love” anyhow. It varies from one human to the other and I, as a father, had and have far more love for my children than their mother ever did. Some men will love their kids that much, some men won’t. But it is the same for women.

However, what you’re doing, as women, is destroying your argument and the government and state will take every advantage of that as we move in to this new paradigm. A politically correct “Father’s love” = “Mother’s love”. Oh the irony! 🙂


[But then he doesn’t exist either. Tell me? What DO you believe in these days ladies? The power of your vagina?]

Remember it was men who gave you your “emancipation” and the majority of you have no concept as to why.

That is because most of you are idiots. And before you say that is misogynist of me. No, no. I hold the same view of my own sex too.

A mother's love FB page

How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women

February 1, 2007
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.

I will expand on the Rockefeller’s role, but first we need to remember that for a woman, love is an instinctive act of self-sacrifice.

She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and receiving their love, respect and gratitude.

A woman makes this supreme sacrifice to only one man who will cherish her and provide for his family. Men instinctively want to fulfill this responsibility. This is the essence of the heterosexual contract (i.e. marriage): female power in exchange for male power expressed as love. Sex is the symbol of this exclusive bond. Marriage and family may not be for everyone but it is the natural path for most.

Feminism has trained women to reject this model as “an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype” even though it reflects their natural instincts.

On Thursday a British writer reported overhearing two young women:

“All men are useless these days,” one said. “Yeah,” said the other. “The trouble is that they haven’t risen to the challenge of feminism. They don’t understand that we need them to be more masculine, and instead they have just copped out.”

That’s their logic? If women are less feminine, men will be more masculine? Men aren’t designed to fight with women. They need to be affirmed by a woman’s acquiescence and faith. When women constantly challenge them, men will “cop out” of marriage and family.

Now that love and marriage have been “discredited,” women have nothing left to exchange for love but sex. Thus, many are unnaturally obsessed with appearance and pathetically give their bodies to all and sundry.

Permanent love is not based on a woman’s sex appeal, or personality or achievements. Ultimately, it is based on self-sacrifice. We love the people who love us.

People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive.

Recently Aaron Russo, the producer of Bette Midler’s movies and “America: From Freedom to Fascism” identified all three confirming what I have been saying.

While trying to recruit Russo for the CFR, Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women’s liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. He admitted they want to “chip us.” Google “Rockefeller Foundation” and “Women’s Studies” and you’ll get a half million citations.

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

A drastic paradigm shift is required to make sense of the world. The Rockefellers are part of the private world central banking cartel that also controls media, defence, pharmaceutical and other cartels. To protect their monopoly of credit and wealth, they are instituting a world police state (“world government”) using the bogus 9-11 attack and endless war as a pretext. Rockefeller told Russo about this plan a year before 9-11.

The poet Charles Peguy said, “Everything begins in faith and ends in politics.” The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati.

Modern Western culture is Masonic. Based on Luciferianism, Freemasonry teaches that man and not God determines reality. (Naturally, they need to overrule natural and spiritual laws in order to assert their own control.) They have noticed that people are diffident malleable creatures who prefer to believe what they are told than trust their own reason or perception. Thus, for example, the media successfully promotes homosexual values that conflict with our natural instincts.

Every facet of the mass media (movies, TV, magazines, music, commercials, news) is used for indoctrination and social control with the ultimate goal of enslavement. There is a connection between what happened in Communist Russia and what is happening in America today. In both cases the central banking cartel is asserting its totalitarian control.

The mass media’s function is to distract us from this, and the imminent Iran war and North American Union. Currently they are using the global warming fracas for diversion.

In order to destroy the family, the media convinced women that they could not rely on the heterosexual contract.

Myrna Blyth was the editor in chief of Ladies Home Journal from 1981 to 2002. In her book “Spin Sisters” (2004) she says the media sold women “a career in exactly the same drum banging way that the Happy Homemaker had been ..sold to their mothers.” (38)

The Illuminati undermined women’s natural loving instincts using the following mantras:

1. Men can no longer be trusted. Using the Lifetime Network as an example, Blyth concluded “all men are 1) unfaithful rats 2) abusive monsters 3) dishonest scumbags, or 4) all of the above. Women on the other hand were…flinty achievers who triumph despite the cavemen who…want to keep them in their place.” (62-63)

2. Women are victims by virtue of their sex. Blyth says the media sends “one message loud and clear. Because we are women, we remain victims in our private lives, at work, in society as a whole.” (156) Thus women must have a sense of grievance, entitlement and rebellion. The same tactic was used to manipulate Jews, Blacks, workers and gays. (See my “Victim as Moral Zombie” )

3. Women should be selfish. “Liberation and narcissism have merged,” Blyth says. Leisure now means, “time for yourself, spent alone, or perhaps with one’s girlfriends but definitely without spouse and kids…Endless articles preached the new feminist gospel, that indulging yourself is an important part of being a healthy, well adjusted woman.” (65)

4. Sex is not reserved for love and marriage. Magazines like Glamour and Cosmopolitan urge young women to “put out on their first date,”ogle men openly” and be an athlete in bed. There is no discussion of marriage or family. (160) Such women can’t trust a man enough to surrender themselves in love.

5. Self-fulfillment lies in career success and not husband and family. “The social rewards of holding down a job are critical to one’s sense of dignity and self worth,” Betty Friedan pontificated. In fact, “most work is deeply ordinary,” Blyth observes (35-36.) (I’m not saying women can’t have jobs, only they shouldn’t be tricked out of having families if they want them.)

Thus many women are schizophrenic as they attempt to reconcile their natural instincts with constant exhortations to do the opposite. The wreckage — broken families and dysfunctional people — is strewn everywhere.

At the same time, Playboy Magazine etc. aimed a similar message at men. You don’t need to get married to have sex. Marriage and children are a bore.

This consistent media drumbeat is organized brainwashing. Society has been totally subverted by the central banking cartel, using a Satanic cult, Freemasonry as its primary instrument. Most masons are unaware of the truth but the owners of the mass media certainly are.

We used to say, “as American as motherhood and apple pie.” Only satanists would trash motherhood. Far from empowering women, feminism has unsexed many. It has deprived them of a secure and honored role and reduced them to sex objects and replaceable workers.

Luciferians promote rebellion because they are defying what is natural and conducive to happiness. Like their symbol, Lucifer, they wish to play God.

God’s love can be seen in a woman’s dedication to her husband and children. Thus the bankers must destroy it.


But you just don’t wish to accept any of this as real do you? Even when it is presented to you today by the following realities:

Two school named person

The Rockefeller President’s review and annual report of 1984 (2003 is the copyrighted copy date):

Rockefeller foundation annual report

And the Rockefeller Feminist work continues to the present:

Rockefeller feminism


Now you may say that women’s position in society needed to be improved. A right minded individual would not argue with that but remember, it was not the man in the street, your husband or your father who legislated against you as persons up until 1927. It wasn’t men per se who did any of that. It was the men (and women) in positions of political and financial power through their agenda for social engineering.

What I’m trying to point out to you is the fact that, while equality between sexes was required, it was law, and those who control law, which stifled it for so long and then these same people have developed your “feminism” for reasons NOT to your benefit. It is manipulative and it is for the destruction of the family. By all means embrace such manipulation if this destruction of the fabric of society is what you wish for but, word in your ear – you’re going to seriously regret it one day.

I have no hatred toward gays. Their sexual preference makes me sick but then a lot of things make me sick – like George Osborne’s face for example. Nick Clegg talking shit and lying to you all. David Cameron talking through his ass. Paedophiles make me sick too – lots of things do. The gay issue I have is that I know it is useful to the social engineers in further destroying the family and the gays will embrace that destruction because then there is no “norm” to point at their abnormality.

The state then has our children from two years old with a state “named person” – NOT their mother or their father – as responsible for them. The new generations then grow up not recognising YOUR authority as a mother or mine as a father but the STATE as their parent.


And “A mother’s love…”? Shut up! You can’t say that, it’s discriminatory and will make children without a mother but with two fathers think there is something wrong with them and their family. That becomes hate speech. So ladies,


Mark my words, it’s coming and you’ve opened the door to it!



Columbia Law Review supports Earthling re Human Rights and Persons

Posted in Law by earthling on April 3, 2014

I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet – but BY GOD I do when, if ever, a little Barrister shit, MP, lawyer or judge dismisses (or dares to dismiss) what I have been blogging about re the “LEGAL PERSON”.

I have challenged any and all “Legal Eagles” on this matter both, in my blogs and directly. The ONLY defence they have is a non defence and that is to simply dismiss any discussion because THEY are “Legal People” and THEY should know!

NO, I’m dreadfully sorry you little arrogant, overpaid, oath taking, incompetent fools but you are now, with this, fully put on notice. The following cannot be dismissed one iota – neither could many of my previous blogs on this subject but NOW, I have even MORE concrete agreement by your very own: THE COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW!

So, listen you snotty nosed, wig wearing little creeps, don’t fuck with intellect!

Setting the scene: “This suggests that it is the component concepts – NOT PERSONHOOD ITSELF – that are INDISPENSABLE for grounding our moral and legal institutions about rights.”

This is precisely what I have been saying all along. However, the Columbia Law Review goes on to explain why this is in their terms. The discussion around Davis is crucial to appreciate here. You must also recognise what a dilemma the courts are in here. The original mid level appellant court – IF such a ruling had stood – would leave President Obama today and all “family planning” (Planned Parenthood for example) centres plus others, open to charges AND prosecutions of murder and manslaughter. This is literally what the American courts were dealing with here and they could not possibly allow that decision to stand.

You must then understand this: The line between murder and not murder lies solely upon opinion and solely upon a fundamental legal concept which they must, in all respects, protect from the general public’s understanding of it. For it is this fundamental concept which not only provides them with discriminatory control regarding “what type of person you are” (e.g. citizen, subject, illegal alien, homosexual, heterosexual, pregnant woman, racial minority, religion, sex etc etc) but also the absolute power of life and death. For example, if you are NOT recognised as a PERSON, you have NO “Human Rights” today. While they bestow personhood upon inanimate bodies with NO morality whatsoever. A Corporation’s primary basis for existence is, and has always been, recognised in law as PROFIT. Such being recognised in law is PRECISELY why the Corporation (think now The Trans-atlantic Partnership Agreement) can SUE a country’s government in the courts for trampling upon its rights. It’s MAJOR “right” being to make a profit! Yet a Corporation, while the trustee(s) are the employees, the Directors and the shareholders (the latter being the real beneficiaries), the Corporation itself (nothing more than a piece of paper precisely equivalent to how you and I’s birth certificates are used) is where the interest (Right) lies.

To explain: From the University of Pennsylvania law review and American law register…



The RIght or interest is held by the Corporate person – a non living entity. A PIECE OF PAPER which has been bestowed the “right” in law, to make a profit. The CONTROL lies in the hands of those whose job it is to pursue this interest which the Corporation has and, as such, within what is called the “nexus” of their position as a representative of such a non living entity with such rights, the REAL LIVING PERSON (human being) is, effectively, given a pass to pursue such interests in whichever way he/she deems fit. The Corporate “veil” of Personhood then protects (Limited Liability) the human beings from a vast number of actual crimes they will commit on behalf of this corporation. This is why you consistently look at the news of Banks simply paying fines and those who literally, physically and with MENS REA, commit the crimes as they control the activity of the Corporation. The Corporation as an organisation of many people also allows, then, those such as Lloyd Blankfein and many others to simply say “I didn’t know”. The worst that can happen, generally, is that he would be sacked by the Corporation for negligence or incompetence. It rarely happens however and why? Because he, in fact, has pursued and achieved the very aims of the corporation/bank that the shareholders (the real beneficiaries) want.

Ok, returning to the Human side of “Human rights” and the “person”…. I hope you can see, quite clearly, the predicament the courts were in.


HR person 1

HR person 2

At this juncture, I would only speculate as to why the court would not wish to explicitly say that the embryos could be treated like property. As I see it, that would ALSO cause the state a very big problem because then it could be relied upon by PARENTS that the child is the PROPERTY of their parents rather than the property of the STATE.

The “first position” of the American Fertility Society (you see? it is all opinion and they need to be VERY careful which opinion they choose in every circumstance and that they leave “margins” for arguments in other cases. They cannot afford to have absolute written law with no margin for argument – it is why the US constitution, for example, is under attack – as is the UK’s). was that the embryo is a human being (subject?) directly after fertilization. It then states that such a “view” (opinion) requires that it be accorded the rights of a person. Yet, later, this journal goes on to contradict this view and, as we know, Jade Jacobs Brooks – a British teenager, a living, breathing, human being, was not accorded such rights as a person because she was not recognised by the law as a person because she did not have a valid birth certificate.

HR person 3

“In all three positions, the concept of the person looms large”. Indeed it does!

“the embryo’s lack of personhood justifies the withholding of rights”. Along with previous blogs with statements made by the UN, law sources etc, this, once more, provides concrete proof that, until one is recognised as a person, one has no “rights” which are, erroneously, referred to as “Human Rights”.

“The quandary encountered by the court in Davis represents a general problem within legal reasoning.” Indeed because legal “reasoning” does not allow itself to be bound by logic. It cannot afford to do so. Logic would infer solid law. Think about that for a few moments. For one thing, if there were solid laws (which there certainly could and should be but they are made slightly “gaseous” by added complexities and purposefully) then there would be no need for LAWYERS! Lawyers PRACTICE “law” and they are there to ARGUE concepts. Many of our legal cases go on and on purely to give the legal system, through the use of judges hearing “arguments”, the time to decide which OPINION (or fusion of opinions) provide the correct result for the State’s agenda. That is all this total rubbish is for.

“But these sources frequently offer conflicting guidance on the exact content of the concept of the person or its relationship to the idea of human beings.” Indeed they do and for a purpose. Meanwhile “the IDEA of human beings”? They’re suggesting even human beings are an “idea” now?

(Is person a broader category than human being or merely a synonym?) – Do you remember my blog entitled “The human rights Act deception” where I challenge the Barrister upon this very issue and prove to him that his idea of the two being synonymous is total hokum and proven hokum! The LOGIC of his stance is impossible. While it is clear that a human being is NOT a Business/Corporation I would hope you appreciate!

“Rather than illuminating human rights claims, the concept of the person often obscures them. This suggests that, despite appearances, the concept of the person is unnecessary for human rights”.

“By exploring these three categories of arguments, it becomes clear that the concept of the person cannot be the foundation for a human rights claim.”


HR person 4


“To take just the most obvious examples, the U.S. Constitution ascribes Fourteenth Amendment rights to persons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes reference to human beings, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes reference to both..”


HR persons 5


So, we arrive at another core issue: “All persons are equal before the law”. It is patently untrue and unworkable under the assumption (or concept) of “the person”. I mention in a previous blog that, according to the human rights act, one “right” is the right to be recognised AS a “person” before the law. I then point to the obvious here: If it is a “Right” then you have the “right” to WAIVE that “right”. If you are not offered that choice then it is not a right at all and they are simply lying. Which they are! However, here is the issue when it comes to, not embryos, but living, breathing human beings and “All persons are equal before the law”. It is a beautifully simple demonstration of the use of “the person” concept as a discriminatory one for purposes of control of all various “categories” of “persons”.

HR persons 6

HR persons 7

HR persons 8


HR person 9

Now, you cannot possibly get any clearer than that stated above regarding Roe v Wade compared with the wrongful death cases. On one hand, the “law” treats a fetus as property belonging to the mother to do with as she wishes (within a certain timescale which is totally arbitrary and changes like the wind similar, then to whether homos are perverts and “non-persons” or the age of consent.) literally allowing her to murder her child, while, on the other hand, in the case of wrongful death, the mother (or father or any “person” causing injury to the fetus and death), with a fetus of the same age, CAN be charged with its murder. Treating the fetus, in this case, not as property of the mother but a “person” with full rights. This does nothing but prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the “law” is constantly tailored to fit the wishes of the state because the reality of all of this is, transparently, that the “person” is the PROPERTY of the state.

This is why it is madness for homosexuals to actually BEG to be recognised as “persons” with full rights by the state. They are literally begging for the slavery we are all under. Every marriage, every birth, every registration of any and all property we may own, is literally a begging to the state that our existence, our actions and our needs are recognised AND, therefore, regulated (controlled). We literally hand ourselves over as bonded property of the state and, insodoing, we give them THEIR RIGHT to treat us as they do.


HR person 10

Does the above consider the further conflict: If the person is dead and is no longer a person, therefore possessing no rights, then from where are the rights derived when it comes to executing an estate? You may suggest that, while alive, the deceased had appointed an Executor for this BUT, the deceased is now dead and no longer exists as a person. Therefore, the Executor has no legal identity of a person to Execute for! How does an Executor execute  for a non existent person?

How do you legalise the immoral? You create another category of person: The “Brain dead”. You may then harvest their organs. This, of course, has many uses and points to many elite wishes/agendas but I’ll leave that up to you to consider. Again, however, it displays the problem and contradictions totally inherent with the concept of “person”.

HR person 11


HR person 12

Ah! Animals. Dolphins and India spring to mind once more. Remember when reading all of this, that none of it is arguing for any position on the basis of who and what is deserving of rights. It is simply pointing out how the arguments in each case expose the issue with the “person” as a concept. The entire journal article, therefore, pointing at the concept as one which is fundamentally flawed and used to legalise what are discriminatory opinions.

HR person 13

HR person 14

What if you have MPD and you haven’t paid your council tax? 😉 Everytime the council knock at the door, you could say the person responsible for paying it wasn’t in! When it came to court, could they make you bankrupt and/or throw you in jail if you did not present the court with “Jimmy” while the name on your birth certificate is Bob? Or vice versa. Yet, there are times when the courts literally have distinguished between one legal person and another within the same body. THINK about that!

HR person 15

The “law” truly is an ass! It cannot make up it’s own mind about the very fundamental concept of what it prosecutes!

HR person 16

HR person 17


So now we come to another “person”. A “person” which truly doesn’t exist. It is a piece of paper; a document sitting in Companies House. It has no heart, no brain, no soul. It is effectively dead but it “speaks”. It “speaks” through “mediums” called Directors and employees. They do this “spirit’s” bidding even to the extent of real human beings detriment AND to their own detriment. They give it power. They pursue its aims – not necessarily because they really care about its aims (most people hate their job) but because they, themselves are “bribed”. They receive this thing called “money” to do precisely what this document wants. The document is “dead” (non-living) but it “speaks” and acts. A corpse is dead and an orator speaks. This is why it’s called a Corporation.

What if you removed the “person” status of a Corporation? Certainly, they could still exist and operate, they just simply would not have rights. The rights (and duties) would fall to the owners/Directors and employees. Do you think, then, these Corporations would begin to act more responsibly? I think so. Real people’s necks would be on the block and, after all, it is these real people who take all the actions of the Corporation. It is not a dead document which does, it is real people with no conscience and the knowledge they are protected from prosecution to a great degree by the Corporate veil. None of this is rocket science. It is all very very simple. You’d then ask how does the corporation enter contracts and hold property etc? It doesn’t, its owner(s) does. For instance, everything in Microsoft’s name would have been owned by Bill Gates personally. All property, all employee and customer contracts made with Bill Gates NOT “Microsoft”. Of course, he could delegate the administration of all of this to others if he wished but it would be his name – not as a “Microsoft” representative, but as Bill Gates, who assumed ALL liability. Of course, the Titans of business and banking would scoff at this suggestion but only because it would scare the living daylights out of them.

HR person 18

HR person 19

Subjecting a Corporation to criminal liability simply means that it is the Corporation which is solely liable for the actions of real human beings. What can you do with a piece of paper? Throw it in jail? Burn it at the stake? Hang it with a paper clip? No, all you can do is fine it and that is all that is ever done. While those controlling it walk away having, many times, been those who have committed acts of genocide, murder, financial terrorism (resulting in deaths). As you will see above, everything a Corporation is and does is related to real people. Of course that is the case because it is real people who commit the actions and who gain or lose from such. Entire countries and peoples affected by the creation of a few words on a page.

While, I have blogged before about the fact that all states and nations (including the EU now) are “Legal persons” and if they are, then all persons are equal before the law. I have then explained how THEIR justifications of states and nations having “higher rights” than we, does not hold water because, just as it is necessary for all nations within Europe to hand over their sovereignty freely to the EU – that being a fundamental of law and law of contract, as stated earlier, would null and void any contract signed under duress – the same applies to we, the people, handing our sovereignty (that is our powers) to a nation state apparatus. Again, the legal world cannot argue against these fundamentals of their own law.

HR person 20

HR person 21

HR person 22

Now, you will read from the above, that the author of this piece suggests the concept of the person is essentially adequate where there is no controversy around what a person is, such as adult human being for example (however we do know, re homosexuality and transexuality etc, that there IS controversy) BUT, he goes on to mention that the person is a “cluster concept”. He omits to mention the various “clustering” (categorisation – therefore, discrimination) which is practiced throughout the legal world based upon sex, religion, colour, married status etc and that such “clustering” can (and does) have the effect of provisioning more rights to some than to others. The perfect example being the contract between an employer and employee. You may sign a contract (and a contract which has all terms laid out plainly) but the employer decides to break that contract in the knowledge that statutory law, essentially, gives no recourse to the employee unless the employee has been with the company for at least 2 years. Such a stipulation is not stated in the actual contract but the government, in their wisdom (and it is wise because they know on which side their bread is buttered) assumes control of the employer/employee situation as it does the husband/wife contract. However, IF you as an employee, happen to be a pregnant woman, a racial or sexual minority, then you have a stronger set of “tools” to fight with. These “tools” – simply being your categorisation of “person” – are effectively, increased rights.

The law, itself, is entirely discriminatory and for its own purposes and it uses the “cluster concept” of the legal person everyday and applies it to what the author suggests are obvious persons.

HR person 23

HR person 24

HR person 25

HR person 26

Please note the obvious from the above: (a), (b), © and (d) ARE synonymous with being a human being, therefore, the NEED to be referred to, or bestowed the “title” of “person” is unnecessary. Even titles such as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Dr”, “Miss” and “Ms” are not only used to denote sex but also status. The forms we are asked to fill out regarding “equal rights” – whether they be for a job application or otherwise, are there NOT to provide EQUAL rights but to administer political objectives. Once more, that clarifies the use of the “person” and the titles and categories it requires to ensure that various groups and subgroups of human beings are treated differently and NOT equal. The sheer statement that it is to ensure “equality” is a total fabrication for, with this information, the government (and the courts on the legislative’s behalf) drives positive discrimination. How many times have you heard “We need more women in government”? Or “We need more blacks in the police force”? Or “We need more gays…”, “We need more interdimensional soul rabbits”.

The PERSON and its “clustering” (categorization) is nothing more than a vehicle for social control. It promotes political aims and it suppresses the whole idea of “free market enterprise” for example and the right of choice based upon not who is best for a position but, due to statistical requirements of having a group of people – either in a corporation, the police, the government – which category one must choose in a given situation. This is fundamentally discriminatory!

The government and the courts state that discriminatory practice is unlawful BUT, it is absolutely clear: They are the worst offenders! 

“What really matters for purposes of settling a human rights claim is the biological concept of the human being”. Spot on!

But, while he doesn’t state this, it is then emphatic that “Human Rights” should not be offered to juristic persons (corporations). This then feeds back into the idea that the rights and responsibilities must sit with the “persons” (humans) who take the actions and decisions within the corporations. By providing corporations with “human rights” the world has undermined the human rights of humans! It has undermined the reality that a human life is of prime importance.

“We would then be obliged to offer a completely independent basis for granting rights to those entities.” Yes indeed! While those rights should never, at any time, be placed higher in the pecking order or conflict or suppress the human rights of human beings. But they do because of the “clustering” of the concept of “person”.

“It also produces the uncomfortable situation of arguing whether someone is a person in order to determine if he or she gets human rights.” And there you have it. Please read my blog The Human Rights Act deception and consider and review the situation which Jade Jacobs Brooks found herself in.

HR person 27


“The benefit of this view is its power to ascribe rights to group agents such as corporations and nation-states.” Note, this is ONLY a benefit to those who would wish to ascribe such rights to these assumed “persons”. There is no benefit to wider humanity in doing so as I hope I have just clarified. Also, as I have touched on, there is no need to ascribe person rights to such. Once can simply ascribe the rights and responsibilities to the humans controlling them. But remember, the author of this Columbia law review article lives within the system. Yes he questions it – and insodoing, points us to the realities – but he will never attack it substantially.

HR person 28

Above, the idea of “rational agency” is once again mentioned as enough to provide for rights and responsibilities. But is it? Remember, the rationality of a corporation is stated in its fundamental documents. Its rationale is to make profit. If, then, a court is convened to consider the rationality of the corporation’s actions, it is clear that the terms within the “birth certificate” of the corporation (i.e. its Article of incorporation) will be considered by the court. Its purpose is to make a profit for its shareholders. Its purpose does not state that it will be or act as appropriate for the benefit of humanity. Therefore, the court will rule that, in its actions, it is acting rationally. Of course there is further complexity in this but that is the bottom line and from where the court begins in its determinations. A corporation has no soul. It has no heart. It has no humanity. The people controlling it for the benefit of the shareholders (and the shareholders themselves) are then able to pursue their greed with impunity. This is why no bankers go to jail!

HR person 29


Remember that, just as I talk about the concept of the corporation as a “person”, the same analysis can be applied to the state, government etc. Again, they are complemented by human beings who control and direct the “ship of state”. One simply needs to ask oneself: What is the goal of the state? It must have one. The vast majority of people assume it is one where their wishes are pursued by representatives. I would think, by now, that naive view is being crushed underfoot wouldn’t you? Once more however, just as there is a “corporate veil” there is an even more opaque (and protected) State veil! And why wouldn’t it protect and obscure itself? It has to. The state is a mafia plain and simple.

“Since the corporation is a valid subject of human rights – e.g., it deserves the right to property – then corporations deserve to be called persons.” But no, they do not. The writer is first assuming that corporations deserve the right to own property to come to the conclusion they deserve personhood. Step back Mr and consider your first assertion first. Who says they deserve the right to own property? Make that argument first before you use it to assert the second assumption.

HR person 30


“This does not mean that personhood is empty or should be eliminated from the lexicon of human rights dialogue;”  However the reality is that it should and every word stated by the writer clearly demonstrates this. His assertion here is simply the assertion, once more, of someone who operates within the system and simply cannot afford to state it as it should be. He is accepting of the basic ideology of the legal fiction concept of the person while, at the same time, he is making arguments which clearly show it is fundamentally flawed and is the most dangerous concept to human rights as one can get.

While here is an interesting statement: “Being married consists in certain lower level facts……the intention to raise a family together…”. No, entirely wrong. Two homosexuals do not get married with the intention of raising a family do they? Not even all heterosexuals who get married necessarily wish to raise a family. In fact, why would anyone wish to raise a family in this world as it is? If I were 25 again I would seriously consider not having children. What? To have them grow up into this system of utter control? Where the entire fabric of society is breaking down? No, I fear for my kids that I do have and that, fundamentally, is why I write this stuff. Not that they necessarily care!


HR person 31

Ah but of course the legal system wishes to recognise “Common law” marriages (whilst it ignores common law just about everywhere else and almost tries to insist that such does not exist in many aspects of law) because, with the numbers of people who are simply not married but living together, the state sees that as a loss of control. So what does it do? It preys on people’s needs and/or greed within the system which exists and has ensured such needs and greed exist by saying “We will recognise common law marriage” and those who are in such relationships think “ah! That’s nice of them”. Again similar to the now “We will recognise gay marriages”. Of COURSE they will! If they didn’t, they have no control over them. And the gays have BEGGED them to take control over their freewill!

We’re talking stupid here! Real serious ignorance and naivety. “Please legalise my actions! Please recognise them and accept our registration so you may then take control over our affairs!”

HR person 32

HR person 33

HR person 34

HR person 35

HR person 36

“These concepts were “infecting” legal theory because they could not be defined through experience. Cohen argued that these metaphysical concepts distract judges from seeing that their decisions are based on social policy, economics, and other extralegal considerations.” Just as I pointed out above: The law is only a reflection of social control imposed by a state/governmental agenda. Period.

HR person 37

HR person 38

“For example, biological human beings and rational agents might have different rights. Individual human beings and corporations need not be treated the same.” Whereas, as long as corporations are included within an umbrella group known as “persons”, along with human beings, then the corporation (AND the state/nation. intergovernmental legal person – UN, the EU etc) shall undermine the primacy of the human being and the human spirit. Non living entities used as vehicles by living entities who wish to have power and control over all others so as to shape the world precisely as they wish.

HR person 39

HR person 40

“Groups demanding human rights have not only used the concept of the person to achieve remarkable change…”. Yes, but once more, our author here approaches this from the standpoint of someone who sees politics (as it presently exists) as a necessity. And yet, politics IS the very vehicle of social control. Take politics out of law – eradicate it altogether – approach the question of human rights from a purely “libertarian” standpoint which states each and every human being has inherent rights and no corporation or state has the right to interfere whatsoever, then you have no need for these groups to use the vehicle of the “person” to create such change. They are using a vehicle for control to argue for rights that they should have anyhow and by arguing for the vehicle of control to recognise those rights, they are, in effect and in reality, providing that vehicle with MORE control!

HR person 41



The facts as stated above, confirm the fundamental truth of the matter. There is a fundamental difference/distinction between the legal person and the human being. The courts and state legislators use the former as a form of social control and for the state’s agenda.

There is a website by the name of “UKhumanrightsblog” by Crown Office Row ( ) which is attempting to demonise and target those who are understanding these concepts and how they are used. The website states this:

“The Freemen, alongside other groups with similar creeds, believe that if you change your name and deny the jurisdiction of the courts, you will be able to escape debt collectors, council tax and even criminal charges. As this member of the Occupy London movement, “commonly known as dom” wrote in (of all places) “if you don’t consent to be that “person”, you step outside the system“.

As you may have guessed, this magical technique never works in the courts, but judges are often flummoxed when faced with the arguments, which are odd and in many ways risible. But what has been lacking is an authoritative, systematic judgment explaining, in detail, why that is. Until now, that is.”

It then justifies its position, in part based upon this statement by a Canadian judge:

“Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.”


Do you notice the obvious?

They use the very concept of the “person” to justify (and protect) the use of the “person” as their fundamental tool. 

They are effectively stating: You are a person who is challenging the concept of “person” and, because you are a person, you are not allowed to do that and, as such, you are vexatious.

There is no other way of them protecting themselves from one who challenges their most fundamental assertion. You are “vexatious” because you have them checkmated.

Trust me. Those of you who know this information are extremely powerful – not on your own – but as a group. You are exceptionally dangerous people because you are both, knowledgeable and, I would hope, peaceful. I have no idea how many of you are out there in any one country (take Britain in this instance) but IF an organisation was put together who did not “in fight” and did not argue or sweat the small stuff, but simply concentrated their efforts on this singular issue, your danger to the system which oppresses you would be formidable. Forget voting for political parties. That has no power whatsoever. THIS is what contains power!

Globalism 101

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

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

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

Office of the historian US china

US China chronology 1

US China chronolgy 2


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

CH legal 2

CH legal 3

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

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

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

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

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

MH370: The proof that Intelligence agencies are playing a game.

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Media, Politics by earthling on March 24, 2014



“SEPANG: Rolls Royce, the engine manufacturer of the ill-fated MH370, has denied reports that the jetliner was sending engine data for some five hours after it lost contact with the main control tower last Saturday morning.
In making this public, Defence-cum-Acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said Malaysian authorities have checked with Rolls Royce, and the engine maker of the Boeing 777-200ER jet has categorically denied the reports which had quoted unnamed sources.
Over the last two days, unnamed US officials have repeatedly said that engine data from MH370 was beamed back to Rolls Royce after 1.30am on Saturday when the plane carrying 239 passengers and crew went missing on its flight from the Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing, China.”

Now this is not the only example of “unnamed sources” feeding into the confusion. And if you think for one second that these are just “mistakes” then you are naive. We have had “unnamed sources” feed information into this media circus continuously about all aspects while we have also had “experts” who have (and who are) done nothing but speculate – sometimes totally erroneously – about what they think has happened. Anyone can do that and their “expert opinion” over the time, has proven that.

But we need “experts” to speculate don’t we? Just as we need “experts” to speculate on the stock markets and destroy the world’s economy! When are the people of earth finally going to understand they are being played morning, noon and night by “experts” fed up to us by media who are advised that they must speak to this “expert”? Meanwhile the media also serve us unnamed sources continuously and yet, if you or I were to contact the media with a story, the one thing they want (and they will do nothing without it) is that you state your name, address, contact details and are willing to have your name and face spread across their front pages. But NOT when it comes to “unnamed sources” it seems. And why do you think this is?

Because the unnamed sources are “planted” to feed that confusion. YOU NEED TO WAKE UP TO THIS!

Why would a “respected” newspaper give these unnamed sources credence? (well because of who they are I guess). Therefore, who they are must mean they are considered reliable in their information which means they must be close to the action. Which means they know what is fact and what is fiction. So then why would such sources feed this information as “fact” when, in fact, it is “fiction”? Or is it?

What if the “unnamed sources” are actually providing the facts while the authorities are dismissing them? You might say that the Malaysian authorities’ statement in this case of the engine data is corroborated by Boeing itself. But then who is Boeing? Again, why has it not been raised that Boeing have a patent on remote control of their aircraft? Why has this not even been mentioned in the mainstream media? Boeing is joined at the hip with the US government! THINK about it! They are involved in military and space projects. They depend on the US government for contracts for such AND they depend upon the kickbacks given to US government officials when these officials ensure contracts with overseas customers. This is how the world works folks! To ignore all this (and boy are they desperate to keep you ignorant and naive) is just allowing them to do as they do again and again and again.


PLEASE FOR GOD’S SAKES WAKE UP HUMANITY! Otherwise, we really are all screwed.

The Bank of England have just, in the last week or so, come out and admitted that money is nothing but an IOU – a PROMISSORY OBLIGATION! Do you understand just how extraordinary this admission is? Yes many of us knew but for them to now admit it is earth changing. But be careful there is a reason behind it. They are STILL trying to keep the idea that THEY create the money in your mind. They don’t. They ISSUE it. That is one HUGE difference which you MUST understand.

The way to understanding who really creates the money (i.e. YOU – something they do not wish you to realise) is by getting to grips with Mathematically Perfected Economy and the basic theft of your PROMISSORY OBLIGATION.

Why do I mention this in a blog about MH370? Because it is the most fundamental issue which creates the rest of the corruption and wars and hijacks that’s why. The money issue and the legal person issue is where the entire con on humanity resides. It is then, from that fundamental con, the rest of world events take shape.

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats! (part 2)



Now, we’re beginning to get far more interesting. We now enter into the world of pure concept and the application of law to this concept called the “person” as a mathematical equation or statistic. We’re now at a point where there is an admission of what the “person” is and, from that, we can recognise how it is the legal system approaches its fundamental “unit” and how, therefore, the legal system can apply statute law to any and all groups which the legal system wishes to protect, elevate or otherwise. Proof, then, that you, as an individual with a mind, body and soul of your own (not to mention philosophy or morals or lack thereof) is of NO interest to the legal system. It is that very substance of our individual beings which the legal system of statutory acts cannot cope with. You MUST fall into a grouping in one way or another and in a multitude of ways, for the legal system to continue. This being the case, you can be an individual of the highest moral virtue and the legal system will dilute such to ensure you are treated the same as the worst of criminals if you just so happen to fall into the same grouping as the latter.

Essentially, then, the legal system can (and does) treat you the same way as Hitler is alleged to have treated the jews. If you are a jew, it matters not how moral you may be or even how much you may hold the same principles as a NAZI, you are a jew and you will be treated like one!

It is also like saying if you are black in America, the law enforcers are more likely to assume you to be a criminal.

Or, it is similar to saying “If you are muslim then you are most likely a terrorist”.

If you do not understand what I am saying here or my reasoning for it, I hope, in reading these pages and following the obvious intention, it will become apparent to you.

Person 4


Ok, let’s stop and think of just a few things here:

1. “when a case explicitly considers the legal personality of a given entity”. Think hard on what this is saying (and what we never really give much thought to). The law does not treat the “person” before a court according to that INDIVIDUAL’S personality (character). The law court simply considers the entity (Corporation, Private company, sole trader, partnership or human being of whatever race, colour, religious or political affiliation, sex, age etc) in accordance with a set of “rights and duties” which are arbitrarily assigned to such an entity based on a grouping. A perfect example of this is given in the video following where the barrister refers to this particular “person” not having much “armoury” because he is not a racial minority, homosexual or pregnant woman. It, therefore, is a prime confirmation of the grouping the law uses to determine which rights you do have and which rights you don’t have. It could not be clearer could it? And YET, the law “prides” itself in telling you that all are equal before it! What utter tosh!

Now, please tell me this could not be any clearer for you.

The thing about just applying the law of contract to an employment situation (remembering an employment contract is simply a CONTRACT like any other), is that it would handle a dispute between the employer and the employee based on a more balanced and fair assessment of  such a contract. Ignoring that even the law of contract has its issues, every person should have the same access to such law as any other person but what the government and courts have done is separated the law of contract and applied it purely to CORPORATE PERSONS while introducing statutory employment law to keep you and I, the employees, in our places. By doing so, they have elevated the stature of the Corporation above the stature of the human being. “Persons”, once more, shown not to be equal before the law. The statutory employment law is stacked against the employee. Your position has been significantly reduced by this law which says all persons are equal before it. It simply is not true when they have created divisions and compartmentalisation within law to account for it. What is their answer to that? Easy! They say “But that is the law!” What they will never acknowledge or even debate is that the law, itself, is set up fundamentally to discriminate between different groups of “persons”.

2. “according to its own particular purposes, when it is devising its own legal person”. How about that for a statement? From the very beginning of “law”, they have introduced the concept of a legal person and it has probably been as simple as this: Those who are considered such, have “rights” and those who aren’t, don’t. Just think about slavery. From then on, they have, step by step, begun the categorisation of persons while they have maintained the power (for that is what it is – pure power/force) to determine and/or decide who and what category of entity can become and be recognised as a “person”. For many years, women were not “persons” in their own right. Neither were slaves (obviously – they were property) nor homosexuals and transexuals. It is all so arbitrary that different countries have different legal regimes which either decide to recognise these groups or not. Everything is purely arbitrary and based upon political agendas!

3. “deep divisions in legal thinking”. The law cannot even agree what a person is! Can you understand, then, that just as this fundamental cannot be agreed upon, neither can categories and groupings because it is all down to opinion and political agendas. These people then enforce THEIR opinions upon you and I purely by the FORCE of law. Again it is all arbitrary application of other people’s opinions and has no basis in the fundamentals of right and wrong. It is for that reason that legal statutes are very rarely based upon fundamental morality.

4. “pure, legal artifice”. while there are other opinions, it is clear that the over-riding opinion is this one because it is this one which is applied.

5. “Other jurists are convinced that law’s person has a natural (and to some) even God given character.” This is quite obviously, then, not the version in current use otherwise there would be no such thing as a “Corporate person” unless you’re one of those (no names mentioned) who believe they do “God’s work”. God did not create the Corporation – a man-made “birth” certificate did (as it did for you and I as “persons). In the Corporation’s case, however, that birth certificate is simply a certificate of incorporation. Same thing but different nomenclature applied to two different subsets of the legal person. The natural person (you and I) receive “Birth certificates” and the Corporate person a certificate of incorporation. Somehow, these people expect us not to be able to see this. Amazing really how dumb they assume us to be.

Person 5


6. “which makes him morally considerable, and so commands a certain respect from law”. So, it would seem the second set of opinion which considers the “person” as a creature of nature and has “god given” character, provides for a given, specific person before a court to command respect from that court dependent upon his/her morality and, possibly, capability to argue his/her case and points as a moral and intelligent being. The first opinion does not, in any way, allow for this as we know.

7. The third type of person (or the third opinion of what a person should be) is interesting because it then begs the question: “Where is the line drawn between what society considers moral and immoral?” Who would be above the borderline and who below it and for what reason? Again, the reason being an arbitrary opinion by a legislature? What is further quite bizarre about this third opinion is, if you lined up a whole bunch of people who had never been before a court before, how would you decide who is sufficiently moral to be given “personhood” and who is not? If it then depended upon an entity committing a crime as to whether they were judged a person or not, then, on committing the crime, surely the judge/court would have to say this entity is immoral and, therefore, is not a person? If they then cannot be helf morally accountable for their actions, surely this means, then, that they cannot be jailed due to not having a “guilty mind” (mens rea). So everyone who committed a crime (and therefore was judged immoral, otherwise why prosecute them?) would be, at worst, sent to a mental institution. These people do not half get themselves tied up in their metaphysics and philosophy eh? 🙂

8. “jurists often move between different versions of the legal person……they are endowing the term with different meanings”. Now there is an admission for you!

P1, the Cheshire cat, is the one you and I know so well isn’t it? A pure abstraction based upon a concept. While see note 18 at the bottom of the page: P1 has no expectations of us as competent people but P3 does. It would appear, then, that P3 acknowledges one’s capability/capacity/competence while P1 treats you as a piece of meat belonging to a category.

Person 6


9. Re the reference to mathematics. Think of it this way – you remember set theorems? Sets and subsets? That is all we are in law. We have no presumed morality and competence individually. They apply law based upon categorisation.

10. “Anything can be a legal person…” and it goes on to state a few. They could decide a chair leg is a legal person if they so desired. This is fact.

11. “babies and other human legal incompetents…” Yes a baby cannot sign a birth certificate and the irony is this: The “person” (mother or father normally) who DOES sign the birth certificate is, in fact, incompetent because they are entirely unaware of the consequences of the contract that they are signing. Further, they are coerced into provisioning this baby with such a document and, thereby, “bestowing rights” upon it and yet they are unaware of this and do not even consider whether they wish to register the baby with a system which can then number it, tax it and control its contractual relationships (whether employment, marriage, whatever) throughout its entire life. Why do we go to divorce courts? If we were moral, competent, considerate people, we would be able to split things appropriately and do without such but no, we’re greedy and immoral. That is probably why there are so many divorces after all. But how is it that the law assumes jurisdiction over us as a couple? Because we have registered our marriage! It’s that simple. All we are saying to the state, by the action of getting married, is that, if things go wrong, we are handing over responsibility and authority to the state to handle our affairs because we are incompetent to do so. We don’t realise that this is all we are, in fact doing but neither do we recognise that the birth registration does precisely the same – not for a couple but for a single entity. So P1 assumes the parent is competent while P1 actually laughs at the incompetence of the parent. 🙂

12. And there you have it (we never think of these things really do we?): A ghost is a person. A deceased entity still has rights (and duties). Now think hard on that as we come to the next point about foetuses.

Person 7


13. Would you agree with me that a 2 week old foetus in the womb is by far a more living being than a deceased entity? Is that deceased entity going to suddenly come alive again and tap on your door at some point? So then answer me this: Why does the law not protect a 2 week of even months of age embryo in the womb? You know the answer don’t you? It’s called population reduction and it is a politically motivated agenda. If the law can justify retaining personhood for a dead entity, how can it argue that a living foetus (no matter it is living in another being’s womb) is NOT a person and not worth the law’s protection? That said, if a mother was moral, a mother would never have an abortion. If a father was moral, he would never support such. Yes there is the argument about rape and other arguments such as it may be born badly handicapped. The former, of course, is again due to immorality (an immorality I, personally, cannot understand, as I can’t many). The latter is a very difficult one to call for it is still a life yet it may be a very unfortunate life while, of course, the eugenicists would argue it adds nothing to the economy!

14. “For the logic of the system it is just as much a pure ‘concept’ as ‘one’ in arithmetic. And there you have the plain truth. A truth the legal system in practice shall never acknowledge no matter how obvious it is.

15. “Law is a self enclosed system, in this view, which does not look elsewhere for its meaning” or justification for its justification comes from the force it uses to enforce it. “The law is an ass”… “That may be, but the law is the law”. Created by and maintained by the very force which wishes to protect “the public”, “the national interest”, “national security”, ” the realm”. All of which is, in the case of the UK and commonwealth certainly, the Crown. But it is a system to protect the very people who created it and that is all it is. As such, it is a protection mechanism for a mafia.

16. “It is an artificial world whose members are to some extent arbitrary”. Need I say more?

17. “The legal personality of a corporation is just as real and no more real than the legal personality of a normal human being”. And that is entirely correct. That is why the legal person must be destroyed. The wonderful thing about this statement is that it was probably made to protect the status of corporations as persons but, at the very same time, by doing so, it exposes the reality of the person (including the subset of “natural person” therefore) in stark, cold light of day.

Why doesn't this sign say "KEEP ABORTION MORAL"?

Why doesn’t this sign say “KEEP ABORTION MORAL”?

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats!

Posted in Law by earthling on March 11, 2014

Men do not wield or submit to sovereignty. They wield or submit to authority or power. Authority and power are facts as old and ubiquitous as society itself. . . . Although we talk of [sovereignty] loosely as something concrete which may be lost or acquired, eroded or increased, sovereignty is not a fact.

If it is the Court’s claim that sovereignty is not only a fact of our political-legal world, but a fact to be encouraged, this claim will require substantiation: it is by no means self-evident that governments we create can enjoy the predicate “sovereign.” Even assuming such a possibility, does it make even a modicum of sense to suppose that what can be hemmed in by “Amendments” is actually “sovereign?” Can the claim of sovereignty be sustained? 

The following are just the first three pages of what is 22 pages long. I hope you find it of interest and I’d be pleased to get your feedback. It’s your interest that spurs me on. If it’s not there I’ll lose interest myself. I hope, through all of this, to not only make it clear to those who pour scorn over this issue that they are wholly ignorant, but also to allow me to demonstrate, here and there, through referral to the text, how the legal person con affects us all.

Legal persons

Person 1

So the “person” is either, metaphysical or a “convenient device”. While jurists (i.e. the legal profession) can’t even agree on which BUT they will prosecute you as being such.

The sheer fact that this essay needs to be written proves that the legal person is a fiction. Either way, “metaphysical” or not, it is the conjuring up of an entity for the basis of another entity being able to control it and dictate the rules it must live by (and we’re not talking just the rules of any sane individual here as, for example “thou shall not kill”. “Puzzling”, “uncertainty” AND “inconsistency” rules the day when it comes to the legal person! And it is the inconsistency part which provides us all with the most trouble as the state applies rules to various types and classes of “legal person” as they so desire. While courts and legislators just apply the rules in total ignorance of what they are applying such rules to! Ambiguity.

I guess ambiguity was the term of the day when Jade Jacob Brooks was not bestowed any human rights then. They couldn’t decide whether she was a human or not because she did not exist as a “legal person”.

Person 2

It is a conceptual analysis because the “Legal Person” is conceptual in of itself! It is a concept – nothing more, nothing less but, as they say “Perhaps the greatest political act of law is the making of the legal person” – NOTE: It does not say the EXISTENCE OF it says the MAKING OF! The point there being this: As soon as you are born (or perhaps even conceived), you EXIST – or are there some of you out there who would argue that? BUT, while you EXIST (as a living, breathing human being), it does not necessarily mean that you have been made into a PERSON – a LEGAL PERSON. And that is PRECISELY why Jade Jacob Brooks was (wrongly) described as having NOT EXISTED. To describe her as such was, on one hand, to the legal profession’s benefit however, on the other hand, it wasn’t in that it proved a dichotomy for them. How can a HUMAN exist but NOT be provided HUMAN RIGHTS?

The answer to that is then simple: HUMAN rights is a misnomer. HUMAN rights do not exist. LEGAL PERSON’S RIGHTS do!. One can only be given these rights IF one acquiesce’s to the system which offers them. However, in acquiescence to that system, one is then saying “Yes I will abide by ALL of your rules and yes, you can apply rules to me which are obviously discriminatory and corrupt”. For example, when it comes to employment law. An employment contract is what?

IT IS A CONTRACT. Law of contract already exists and, within such law, it is perfectly capable of handling ANY dispute in ANY type of contract. BUT the Banks and Corporations (as employers) do not WISH to allow people to enforce the law of contract so what have they done? They have had governments provide THEM with “LEGAL PERSONHOOD” with the ‘same’ “rights and privileges and duties” as you and I as actual HUMANS (referred to as “natural persons”) while, then using what is, in fact, discrimination to then provide benefits to employers (corporations) because, in law – as you are aware of today with the destruction of legal aid – the one with the most money is, invariably, the one who wins AND, if you do not possess enough money, you can’t even get to court now. Additionally, the corporations are protected (discrimination once more) because the state has introduced “Statutory law” – i.e. NEW rules – called “Employment law” which is STILL the law of contract but it has been corrupted for the benefit of the Corporate legal person.

With the emancipation of the slaves, they simply were given a step up on the ladder to be equal with the debt slaves whereas debt slaves, prior to their emancipation, could own slaves as property outright. The same discriminatory practice exists today when we consider the rights of homosexuals and the rights of transexuals. I would like to understand what these feminists have problems with however. What exactly is it they are not allowed to do as “legal persons” that men are? But women tend to see this “war” as a war against men yet I would submit that men genuinely do not see it and, if they do, they see it as for what it is: A war against PEOPLE by wealthier people who have indebted nations and governments and have bought their way into creating legislation just how THEY want it. It’s nothing to do with men. Theresa May and Hillary Clinton are NOT men just as Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman are NOT men! Will that stop any of them legislating against or for women? Will it hell! What steers THEIR views of anything is MONEY just as it is for their political whore peers! All of them bought off by the banking fraternity.

As you know, dolphins have legal person status now in India so the point made about animals will soon be out of date.

Corporations have “Dual status” of “persons” AND “property”. Well of course, because that gives them the flexibility they need when they need it. However, isn’t YOUR body YOUR property?

I like note 4 re slaves: The hypocrisy never ends not even today. Law is applied by the jurists and the legislature in whichever way they choose according to what is more beneficial to them at any one time.

And note 6 is a beauty and here we see the confirmation, in part, regarding the issue Jade Jacob Brooks found herself with for about 20 years of her life.

Person 3

So, it is recognised fully that there is no morality within a corporation (corp(se) “dead” oration “speaking”) but it is offered the rights of us humans. The concept depends upon “analogies and dianalogies” and anything else which can be thought of to justify it!

Some jurists who believe the corporation is both legal and moral are liars because those same jurists KNOW that the entire raison d’etre of a corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders and that principle is upheld in courts all over the world. This is PRECISELY why Monsanto and other corporations can sue other legal persons (companies, human AND governments) for a loss of profit IF any of these other legal persons stand in the way of such profit for any MORAL reason!

The Chinese legal person: The Ferengi

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

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

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

United Nations Flag

United Nations Flag

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

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

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

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

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

Ch legal 1

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

China's new civil law

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

China's legal framework for foreign investment

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

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

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

Rock China 1

Rock china 2

Rock 3

Office of the historian US china

US China chronology 1



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

US China chronolgy 2

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

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

Taken from Rockefeller Foundation’s own documents –

Rock UN

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

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