Earthlinggb's Blog

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.

Israel: The Contrarian Agenda

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Uncategorized by earthling on November 26, 2011

The following totally scrambles the existing thinking in both mainstream AND alternative media as I see it. I have not read or seen anything which suggests what you are about to read. Therefore, I take all responsibility – right or wrong – for the following analysis.

Lord Jacob “Israel” Rothschild

The Globalist agenda is a very immense one and while I have attacked and criticised Zionism (ad nauseum) over a period of time, I’ll also be the first to state that it is Israel which the globalists now wish to destroy in one way or another. While most of you will consider Zionism = Globalism in many ways, it is and it is not.

Zionism is a tool of the globalists. Nothing more, nothing less. Zionism is a political ideology and movement which is built upon a false association with judaism. It purports to be the ultimate wish and ideology of there being a jewish homeland and that that is its aim. It is NOT its aim.

So Zionism is a tool just as capitalism, fabianism, Nazism, comunism and fascism are tools. As you well know, each of these “isms” are constructed and then, at the right time, destroyed by the globalists. The globalist money builds them and the same money destroys them.

Now remember: Israel and Zionism are Rothschild constructs – entirely. Rothschild is head zionist and head globalist. What comes first for the Rothschilds?

Answer: The Rothschilds!

The Rothschilds bought the Suez canal for the British government in the 1800s (or you could put it this way: The British government bought the Suez canal and was loaned the money for it BY the Rothschilds). In effect and as is historical fact, the Rothschilds then controlled both the Suez AND the British government. Very little has changed since.

Benjamin D’Israeli was British PM at the time and when he died, who then was trustee of D’Israeli’s will and testament? Answer: Lord Rothschild. But that’s by the by.

During the 1800s and early 1900s, the globalists (headed by Rothschild) did not have an adequate grasp on the middle east and its riches, its resources, land etc. However, by 1948, the Rothschilds had finally achieved the promise of a “land for the jews” called Israel which the British government, via the Balfour Declaration (which the government had never intended, it would seem, to be a remit to create a jewish only state but simply to be a concession to Rothschild that his “beloved jews” (not at all actually the true interest of the Rothschilds but a very useful tool nevertheless) would SHARE the state (a British mandate) with the Palestinian people. Well, times move on as do the machinations of the globalists like Rothschild so that we now have this “Mad dog” state (their own words by Moshe Dyan) called Israel.

Why did Rothschild and the globalists (helped by a Zionist organisation, some of whom may well have believed that Rothschild’s plan was to have a safe haven for jews) want an “Israel” in the Middle East? Because they then had a “beach-head” from which to attack the region they had otherwise failed to bring under their control.

So, the establishment of Israel (by way of terrorist acts against the very government who handed them their “safe haven” in the desert) provided a means to an end and a first step for the domination of the region. How was such domination achieved?

Easily.

This “race” which we shall refer to as “jews” but who never originated from this land and neither was this land ever called “Israel” but was, in part, Canaan, at the time of Jesus and before – the Israelites were simply one of many tribes in the region and Israel himself (the Tribe OF Israel) was a man called Jacob (so the story goes) – have been persecuted over centuries by so many different races, creeds, cultures and nationalities (the question is why? Let’s be blunt, if you are sacked from a great number of jobs, the likelihood is that the problem lies with you right? think about it) that, to have the “race” in the centre of the Middle East (entirely Muslim) is like throwing a single christian into a den of Lions. Perhaps a poor analogy however, because one would always support the christian since he is both the underdog and it suggests the muslim world of Arabs are like a pack of animals – but then that is precisely what Rothschild would capitalise on. That ideology.

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[30] According to the Hebrew Bible the name “Israel” was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; “struggle with God”[31]) after he successfully wrestled with an angel of God.[32] Jacob’s twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,[33] led the Israelites back into Canaan in the “Exodus“. The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word “Israel” is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).[34]

The area is also known as the Holy Land, being holy for all Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá’í Faith. Prior to the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence, the whole region was known by various other names including Southern Syria, Syria Palestina, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Iudaea Province, Coele-Syria, Retjenu, Canaan and, particularly, Palestine.

Now, what happens when you have what is promoted as a judeo-christian nation which is purportedly the “only democratic nation in the region” (translation: the only fully controlled and owned globalist state in the region) while that state actually takes an aggressive stance toward its neighbours from day one while bleating that “if we don’t stand up for ourselves the Arab/Muslims will slaughter us”. Yet, had they shared Palestine with the Palestinians and lived in peace (and as we know, terrorism of the King David Hotel and other atrocities around that time is not the way to settle peacefully with one’s neighbours AND hosts), there would have been no wish on the part of their neighbours – the muslim world – to feel this way. Again, we must ask ourselves who is at fault here when jews or “jews” have been thrown out of almost every nation they have used as a host in history (while isn’t that a fact? They have had HOST nations a little like, one could say, the movie “Alien” where the human body acted as a HOST for the Alien embryo). How does one destroy a nation or a culture or movement? By planting “aliens” with agendas into the nation. By setting up oneself within a host and eating away from the inside. If you have different hosts in different lands and you wish to destroy them all then one good way would be by setting up a “diaspora” now wouldn’t it?

Diaspora definition: any group migration or flight from a country or region. Synonyms: dispersion, dissemination, migration, displacement, scattering.

Interestingly: “Spore” definition: A usually one-celled reproductive body that can grow into a new organism without uniting with another cell. Spores are haploid (having only a single set of chromosomes). Fungi, algae, seedless plants, and certain protozoans reproduce asexually by spores.

Now, remember, I am not speaking here of an everyday, ignorant jew – ignorant of the agenda of a zionist movement which is wholly controlled by globalist interests and who have NO interest, nor similarity, to an everyday jew (just like the everyday, ignorant Brit or American who have zero in common with the British or American wealth establishment and who are globalists themselves or pawns thereof). So PLEASE understand this and do not be so willfully ignorant as to, once again, read this quickly, pick up what you want from it and scream “anti semite”. Or, by all means do so – I couldn’t give a rats arse if you are willfully ignorant!

So then Rothschild and the globalists have their “beach-head”, Israel, within the Islamic region of the world and they use the tool of “persecution throughout the ages” and the tool of “the Holocaust” (nothing to do with Arabs by the way) and “democracy” and all that good stuff to create the myth of “poor little Israel” while “poor little Israel” has nuclear weapons which have never been admitted to the UN security council while that same body – controlled by the same globalists, Rockefeller this time – demands every other country in the region and elsewhere to declare their nuclear weapons and/or refrain from developing them – the hypocrisy is absolutely stunning isn’t it?). Therefore, every move Israel makes is one of defence even when it is the agressor. The western mainstream media owned by the globalists ensures that the ignorant mass of conditioned western population, swallow the story they’re given while Israel is acting precisely as the globalists want – to shake up the region.

Over time – after the 2nd world war – the globalists further consolidate their position in the Middle East by way of their technology and capability in finding and then drilling for oil via their oil and gas multinationals. The IMF does its bit to leverage entry for western conglomerates (globalist interests) into the region using bribery and outright corruption to increase the region’s debt but the region is still under the ultimate control of non western orientated leaders and establishment.

Then comes 9/11.

Netanyahu: “Good for Israel”. No buddy, you may have thought so at the time (but I doubt it because I’m sure you know the globalist plan) but you’re going to find out that it was the worst thing for the PEOPLE of Israel even though you, as a state, played a formidable part in it.

You see, while your Zionist neocons like Wolfowitz, Perle, Donald Rumsfeld etc wrote your PNAC document wherein you state:

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

and

 “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”

[ And please note that the “What we require” and references to the “United States” are all actually translatable to “We” and “United States” being “Globalist interests” and nothing to do with the United States people at all – the US (and UK/NATO) military is ALL globalist controlled]

And you THINK that is beneficial to jewish/Israeli interests, you are terribly wrong.

So while Ehud Barak and Richard Perle are shouting for the Western nations (Christians doing the dirty work of the “jews”/Zionists once more) to attack a long list of nations in the Middle East on the very day of 9/11 on British TV (funnily enough all those same nations we are picking off one by one up to the present day)…..

Watch and listen from 7.20 onwards:

…. the culmination of all of this leads to a VERY different outcome for Israel which has not yet (but will) revealed itself.

When the magician does his magic trick through slight of hand, you are watching his left hand while his right is doing the REAL job!

Let me explain:

Israel refuses to tell US its Iran intentions

Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, raising fears that it may be planning a go-it-alone attack as early as next summer. (that is Summer 2012)

The US leader was rebuffed last month when he demanded private guarantees that   no strike would go ahead without White House notification, suggesting Israelno longer plans to “seek Washington’s permission”, sources said. The disclosure, made by insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between America’s most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s hawkish prime minister, comes amid concerns that Iran’s continuing progress towards nuclear weapons capability means the Jewish state has all but lost hope for a diplomatic solution.

On Tuesday, UN weapons inspectors released their most damning report to date   into Iran’s nuclear activities,   saying for the first time that the Islamic republic appeared to be building   a nuclear weapon. It was with that grave possiblity in mind that Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, flew into Israel last month on what was ostensibly a routine trip.

Officially, his brief was restricted to the Middle East peace process, but the most important part of his mission was a private meeting with Mr Netanyahu and the defence minister, Ehud Barak. Once all but a handful of trusted staff had left the room, Mr Panetta conveyed an urgent message from Barack Obama. The president, Mr Panetta said, wanted an unshakable guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations without first seeking Washington’s clearance.

The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.

“They did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent, but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington’s permission, or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway,” one said.

An Israeli attack could probably manage at most a dozen targets, using more than 100 F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

But not everyone is so sure. Mr Obama’s willingness to take on Iran militarily is openly questioned in Israel. And while many Israelis do not believe Iran has any intention of actually firing a nuclear missile at them, the the key question is whether their prime minister is one of them.

In Mr Netanyahu’s eyes, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is another “Hitler” whose aim is to complete what the Holocaust failed to do by wiping out the Jewish race.

“People outside Israel don’t understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making,” said Mr Bergman, the military analyst. “At the end of the day, this policy of  ‘never again’ would dictate Israel’s behaviour when intelligence comes through that Iran has come close to a bomb.”

Israel-refuses-to-tell-US-its-Iran-intentions.html

Now, let us, at this point, correct the proven mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s words regarding “Wiping Israel off the map”. He did not ever say this. He stated that the Zionist regime (NOT Israel or the Israeli people) should disappear from the pages of history. ENTIRELY different words and intent from that which the Israeli, American and British mainstream media and press would have us all believe – but then it is the globalists who own them so it is what we have come to expect from our media whores.

Further, Israelis have every right to believe that Iran would not attack them. For what reason would Iran wish to attack? Let’s forget this old worn out “tactic” of “Because they hate us for our freedoms” – WHAT freedoms? Who feels free in ANY country these days under this Orwellian nightmare called Globalism? The Israelis themselves, I am sure, just like us Brits or Americans hardly feel “free”. We are not! We are controlled by a UN based upon a legal system oppressing us through our registration of birth (but that’s the subject of another blog you can read).

Israel themselves have nukes! Do the countries of the Middle East and their people live in constant fear that Israel would nuke them? (let’s ignore for a moment the fact that, with zionist hawks like Netanyahu at the helm, they probably would). Do the nations of the world all live in constant fear that the US or UK or any of the other nations with nukes are going to nuke them tomorrow or any day soon? Then WHY does the Israeli regime think Iran would? (even IF Iran were developing nukes which has, as yet never been proven while Iran says it is for nuclear energy). Is it that “persecution complex” which follows them everywhere at large again? Well by the sound of the above – “People outside Israel don’t understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making,”  – it probably is!

Imagine a PARANOID, rabid dog (or “Mad dog”) with nuclear weapons! Now THAT scares the hell out of me more than Mahmoud Achmadinejad!

So, what we have here is an Israeli regime suggesting they may well make a pre-emptive strike upon Iran in or around Summer 2012. Would that be to the globalists’ liking? I say yes. Very definitely so. Yet, from reading the above article and others, it would seem it is not to Obama’s liking now wouldn’t it? And yet we know that Obama is a globalist puppet so that doesn’t make sense does it?

Herr Rockefeller

Well yes it does. Because while the world believes that the US and UK etc are big Israeli buddies (and I have suggested this myself on the face of it in blogs and videos while I also recognise the bigger “game” in all of this), they are not. They are “buddies” (more like paid servants) of the Rothschild and Rockefeller globalists. Yes Rothschild owns/controls Israel BUT he sees it as simply another pawn in the game. Rothschild doesn’t give a damn about people whoever they are whatever nationality, religion or race. Rothschild doesn’t give a damn about the ideology of an Israeli state for Jews except it has been of great use up until now. NOW, however, it is past its “sell by” date. It’s usefulness as a regime in the middle east has come to a stop.

Why? Well, because, since 9/11 what has happened? The globalists have now directly taken up real estate in the region. They have Iraq and they now have Libya and, of course, Afghanistan. The globalists now control Israel and three other far more sizeable nations in the region. Israel is actually no longer needed AND, in fact, is somewhat of a problem for them because what the globalist plan is, is the total unification of the Arab muslim world under Islam with all states having the globalist (“western”) puppet regimes. However, the muslim nations/people do not want this “Mad dog” jewish nation biting at their heels and they wish to feel they are in charge of their own destiny. The Arab League and the Muslim Brotherhood (entirely globalist controlled) will have them believe they have achieved it while, quietly, the puppets will be singing the globalist tune (it was NEVER the western tune because the globalists are not interested in the ideas of east and west but simply globalism and one world government – the world is seen as their oyster NOT a country or region).

So HERE is the crux of the matter:

If and when Israel decide to make a pre-emptive strike on Iran (or perhaps another nation) – and Netanyahu is very probably well in step with the globalist aspirations to the point he and his cronies would be happy to sacrifice Israel for the agenda – the US globalist controlled Armed Forces (perhaps along with the UK and EU and NATO) would crush Israel.

I mentioned the Wolfowitz’s and Perles earlier. These nerds are lackeys in the scheme of things. They are useful idiots. Perhaps they actually believe they are having the western nations carry out Israel’s dirty work for Israel’s benefit or perhaps they ARE smarter than that, I don’t know. What I am 99% convinced of however is that while these guys strategise, there is a level above them who strategise on the “Grand Chessboard”. These individuals are the Kissingers and the Brzezinskis.

Now why does Obama seem reticient to attack Iran while also trying to be diplomatic and friendly with Israel? In fact, one would consider him to be very friendly with Israel since he is funded by Goldman Sachs and Rothschild picked etc. But Goldman and Rothschild are NOT concerned with Israel but with globalism. THEIR “Zionism” is not the zionism of the many jews who have bought into the story and ideology of a “homeland for the jews”. The Zionists allowed and consciously wished for the deaths and persecutions of the jews in WW2 and they got it. They wanted it because they wanted sufficient jewish blood to be spilled to give them a strong case to create the jewish homeland in Israel. But it was NEVER for the purpose of having a jewish homeland. It was for the purpose of having that globalist “beach-head” in the region to agitate while the globalists made their further plans.

Why did the Zionist organisation smuggle Nazis into Palestine near the end of the war? Smuggling Nazis into the homeland for the jews? Come on! Use your head!

YES THEY DID!

Zionist Organisation smuggling Nazis into Palestine

So, as said earlier, high above the Wolfowitz and Perle neocons are the Kissingers and Brzezinskis. Now, Brzezinski wrote his book “The Grand Chessboard” in 1997 – 3 years before the neocons wrote their PNAC document suggesting a new Pearl Harbor would be useful to drum up Americans support for imperial wars by the American military (on behalf of the globalists who Brzezinski works for) and this is what HE said in it:

“…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Now let’s put the PNAC and Brzezinski quotes side by side:

“…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” PNAC

“…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” BRZEZINSKI

Zbigniew isn’t a jew yeah yeah yeah he’s a metal guru!

Now, by all means, look up the source document and book for each of these quotes and read in full context. You will see it changes nothing. Both of these groups/people knew what had to be done and they did it. If you wish to believe in coincidences like this then you might like a book I would recommend: Fables and Fairy stories by Hans Christian Andersen! Be careful though. It contains adult content suitable only for those 8 years and older!

But where is your evidence Earthling regarding the idea that the globalists (via the American/UK/NATO forces) would consider taking out Israel?

Here:  zbig-brzezinski-obama-administration-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

“We are not exactly impotent little babies,” Brzezinski said. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.”

And, from what I have read extensively about the modus operandi of the globalists plus having read “The Grand Chessboard” in entirety by Brzezinski and recognising whose payroll he is on and whose orders he takes (Rockefeller’s), I can see exactly that the grand scheme in this is to remove any and all Israeli threat to the Middle East (either destroying in totality the state called Israel or simply removing the zionist/jewish homeland ideology of it and its regime) and uniting the Islamic republics under a strong central core (which I believe may well be Iran) with globalist puppet leaders in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt etc etc etc. Such a region – wholly controlled by globalist interests – then “making amends” with the west and becoming “friends” and turning on the major “enemy” of the globalists: China. That is the intention. That is the globalist agenda. Taming China and Asia and then creating the One world government under globalist/banking control. The western nations already succumbed centuries ago. Parts of Asia already have such as Singapore and the Philippines (also Australia). Africa will be off limits to China resource-wise once the Middle East and the west make their “pact”. We can see Italy and Greece being run now by trilateralist central bankers. My only question is Russia. They are still very much influenced by the “Zionist”/”jewish” west but it is questionable by how much. Putin for instance doesn’t seem too enamoured by Rothschild.

So Israel the upshot is: You are a pawn and while you see the sabre rattling by the US and the west against Iran, the real target is you!

 

While here’s one last little quirk to think about:

Do you remember earlier the Telegraph report suggesting perhaps a strike by Israel in the Summer of 2012?

Just so happens that’s Zion Olympics!

And David Cameron has stated he is going to have surface to air missiles at the ready to defend against what? Terrorists? I mean there are terrorists and there are terrorists right?

surface-air-missiles-olympic-games-214629358.html

“Come on down to London and enjoy the 2012 Zion Olympics. 1000 FBI agents, Mossad agents – this is the Olympics to end all olympics! It’s the MOTHER (fcuker) of all olympics! We even have Surface to Air missiles ready for launch against …… what? More hijacked planes? The Royal Airforce can’t send up intercepts to hijacked passenger aircraft? You think the men in caves have got hold of a nuke? Perhaps one you lost David? 😉

Christ lads! Whatever you do, don’t try to set any new world records for javelin or discus throwing otherwise you may just set off something else if you throw them to high and far: You may set off World War 3 and end up with not a new world record but a NEW WORLD ORDER!

BE WARNED!

 

 

 

Trump’s America: Destroyed by Executive Orders!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on November 7, 2011

So you love your new President’s Executive Orders?

In a few years’ time you will understand what they were all about you STUPID people!

But meanwhile, in your ignorance and false hope (just a “mirror” of Obama’s which you also fell for) you’re supporting the destruction of your country.

But hey, I know you’ll never believe or admit to it. But then, I don’t say I’m more intelligent than you (not at all), I just say I’ve done a vast amount more research to understand it.

(And for those of you who may be new to this site – I am neither American NOR liberal, nor right wing – I don’t buy into it all because I see the “show” which it is)

America: Not too long from now, you are in for a rude awakening. However, it will be subtle while you, strangely, buy into it. They’ve won – they’ve divided you sufficiently to be able to take the next steps.

US President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders in the Hall of Heroes at the Department of Defense Friday, Jan. 27, 2017 in Arlington, Va. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS) 1196704

US President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders in the Hall of Heroes at the Department of Defense Friday, Jan. 27, 2017 in Arlington, Va. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS) 1196704

 

Dear America,

It was nice knowing you! You never quite managed Independence (even though you may have thought you did but then you know how immensely deceptive these people are now and have always been) but you were the closest thing to freedom – note I do not use that disgusting, deceptive term “democracy” – that the planet ever had. However, even all the way back to George Washington, you were never quite free. But that detail, perhaps, is for another time, another blog and will take a long, arduous explanation.

How America was founded – the principles in a nutshell:

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Jacob G. Hornberger, November 2001

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Regardless of one’s judgment concerning the type of government that the Constitution brought into existence in 1787, no one can deny that it was truly the most unusual and radical in history.

Consider: With the tragic exception of slavery, the United States was a society in which people could, by and large, engage in any occupation or economic enterprise without a government license, permit, or regulation.

Where people could travel anywhere in the world without restriction (no passports) and trade with whomever they pleased without the permission of their government officials.

Where people could accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without government interference, because the Constitution did not permit the government to levy taxes on income.

Where people were free to do whatever they wanted with their own money — save, spend, donate, invest, hoard, or even destroy it.

Where government was not permitted to take care of people — no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education grants, or foreign aid.

With a few exceptions (e.g., 1850s Massachusetts), there were no compulsory public (i.e., government) school systems.

No wars on drugs, poverty, or wealth.

And open borders for the free immigration of people from anywhere in the world.

Like I say, regardless of how you might feel about the political and economic philosophy of the Founders of our country, no one can deny that the political and economic system that they brought into existence was the most unusual and radical in history.

Our Founders’ philosophy toward foreign affairs was also an unusual one. A primary responsibility of the U.S. government, they believed, was to protect the nation from invasion or attack and not involve itself in the affairs or conflicts of other nations.

The Founders clearly understood that horrible things would be seen all over the world, such as brutal tyrannies and cruel dictatorships — after all, they themselves had only recently been the victims of the brutality and cruelty of the British Empire.

But they believed that the best gift that America could give to the world would be a model for a free, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous society — a beacon for the rest of the world to follow. And they believed that that goal would be not be served if their government had the imperial power to straighten out messes all over the world.

Here’s what George Washington counseled to all succeeding generations of Americans in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns…. Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

Celebrating American freedom on July 4, 1821, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives setting forth the vision of the American republic:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart…. She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence … the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world.

Thus, when our 18th- and 19th-century ancestors celebrated the Fourth of July each year, the concept of freedom that they were celebrating was totally different from the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth. The freedom they celebrated involved a way of life in which government had little power to take their money, regulate their peaceful activities, or take care of them. It was also a freedom arising out of their government’s noninterference in the conflicts of foreign nations.

No one can deny that somewhere along the way, America changed direction, both domestically and internationally. How about a national debate as to which vision — the vision of Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, or that of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon — should guide our nation into its third century of existence?

Meanwhile, let’s look at the reality behind what is termed an “Executive Order” by your President:

Executive Orders: The authority to use Executive Orders isn’t even provided for in the US Constitution! It’s clear that when a President is sworn in he is the Executive and has the power to ensure the law is faithfully/properly executed but the following is essentially all that refers to the Executive power of the President within your Constitution….

“The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

But that does not, in any way, suggest that he has any power to create laws and yet that is what all these EOs do!

The Constitution clearly means that he ensures law (as created by the CONSTITUTION not him!) is executed properly! They have seriously gone way beyond their powers and remit!

Washington himself was the first to issue an Executive Order. Unfortunately, however – and rather ironically, it was he who created the precedent so early into this Republic governed by the rule of law NOT Executive Order!

President Rutherford Hayes once warned that although  American chief executives had to that point been conservative men wedded both to  precedent and to modesty in the exercise of presidential power, a future  president committed to concentrating power in his hands could make of the office  what he wished.

Attorney William J. Olson spoke to those gathered for Y2K and the Presidency, the May 8 conference sponsored by The Conservative Caucus, concerning the unconstitutional use of Executive Orders. Excerpts from his talk follow:

“President Washington issued the first Proclamation; it was…to declare a Day of National Thanksgiving. It was…pursuant to some Congressional action… certainly that’s a Proclamation that’s perfectly legitimate. …

“Even his Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation…was pursuant to a 1792 statute.”

“But then we get to the Neutrality Proclamation, which did not cite any Congressional or statutory authority. It sought to impose penalties on U.S. citizens who would deal with European powers at war. …it was viewed by others in government as an abuse of Executive authority.

And, when prosecutions were begun under that statute, the
court said, ‘No, that does not have the force of law, Mr. President. That is your opinion. You do not have the Congress’s concurrence.
…’ The Congress then passed the law, and the prosecutions continued. But in any event, it was very instructive time because people had then read the Constitution. …”

[Note this last proclamation forbade any dealings with European powers at war. A GOOD call actually considering the fact that the Bush patriarch and so many other so called “Americans” (actually all globalists no matter whether they hold an American passport) funded the Nazi war machine even after war was declared and so many of the Allied Powers troops were slaughtered by the “machine” – well oiled let’s say – which these so called “patriots” funded. Why is America (and yes Britain too) so stupid an sleepy-headed to acknowledge the facts that our governments and their Corporate/Banking paymasters play both sides and kill our own?]

Before leaving George Washington however, it is immensely enlightening to read incredibly prophetic words from the man regarding the introduction of political parties – Republican and Democrat not existing until after Washington’s Presidency (although there had been Federalists and Anti Federalists there were no specific parties):

The Dangers of Political Parties

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.
[Note: It is then obvious from this that the Federalists exist today in the form of Republicans while the Democrats have been more aligned with the French/German EU concept albeit that in the past 10 years or so Democrat and Republican, just as with Labour and Conservative in the UK, have been far more strongly aligned. Such is the influence of the real powers: Bankers, Bilderberg etc. There is still this split however to a degree whereby, in Europe, the British Conservative party, on the whole, still wish to have the greater say in Europe than the Labour Party which ties in with the Federalist/Republican attitude toward the UK and Europe. They all want the EU, it is just there is a little “negotiation” going on as to who has the greatest power within it. I am sure the Pilgrim Society will be working hard on this!]

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.

Moreover, Washington makes the case that “the alternate domination” of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and “is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” From Washington’s perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and “gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

Back to Executive Orders:

“Presidential executive orders are a particular type of presidential document that has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute. There is no law defining “executive order”, the meaning of the term has varied over the years. Prior to 1936, a document was an “executive order” because the president himself designated it as such. On February 18, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7298 prescribing a uniform manner of preparing executive orders”.

guide_prespapers.html

Isn’t it interesting to read how the University of Oregon puts this? “has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute”.

The reality is nothing of the kind. There is NO authority derived from the Constitution or a Federal Statute whatsoever as we saw earlier. They even indicate this when they say  “There is no law defining “executive order””. We have to then assume that American law students just accept this on face value! Not very prudent of them then and indicates a concerning lack of diligence on their part!

Can Executive Orders be Overridden or Withdrawn?

The president can amend or retract an executive at any time. The president may also issue an executive order superseding an existing one. New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, let’s be clear here: Executive Orders are NOT “Law” at all in ANY shape or form. They are purely the wishes of the incumbent President. Period! That is purely and simply a dictator’s dream!

Theodore Roosevelt did not merely extend executive prerogative here or  there; he put forth a full-fledged philosophy of the presidency that attempted  to justify his dramatic expansion of that office. He contended that the  president, by virtue of his election by the nation as a whole, possessed a  unique claim to be the representative of the entire American people – a position  taken by Andrew Jackson during the 1830s and for which he was sharply rebuked by  John C. Calhoun. Each member of the executive branch, but especially the  president, “was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do  all he could for the people.” He could, therefore, “do anything that the needs  of the nation demanded” unless expressly prohibited in the Constitution. “Under  this interpretation of executive power,” TR later reflected, “I did and caused  to be done many things not previously done. … I did not usurp power, but I did  greatly broaden the use of executive power.”

Since TR believed himself to be doing the people’s will,  and since he believed his own rhetoric that portrayed the president as the  people’s unique representative in American government, his need to fulfill this  special mission overrode concerns about the separation of powers. He remarked  privately that in the United States, “as in any nation which amounts to  anything, those in the end must govern who are willing actually to do the work  of governing; and in so far as the Senate becomes a merely obstructionist body  it will run the risk of seeing its power pass into other hands.”

It was TR who pioneered rule by executive order as a  governing style among American presidents. Many Americans rightly howled during  the 1990s when Bill Clinton’s aide Paul Begala famously said of executive  orders, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” But Clinton, who once  called Theodore Roosevelt his favorite Republican president, was only exercising  a power that TR had made a major feature of the presidential office early in the  century.

To appreciate the transformation that occurred in  American government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by  the presidents of the late 19th century. Presidents Hayes and Garfield each  issued none. Arthur issued three, Grover Cleveland (first term) six, Benjamin  Harrison four, Cleveland (second term) 71, and McKinley 51. TR issued  1,006.

Now, it is true that TR served nearly two terms. But  that figure is so much higher than that of his predecessors that it reveals a  vastly different philosophy of the presidency from that held by those who  preceded him.

To take just one domestic example, TR intervened in the  United Mine Workers strike in 1902, ordering the mine owners to agree to  arbitration. Should they instead remain obstinate, he threatened to order the  Army to take over and operate the coalmines. When informed that no  constitutional authorization existed for such a brazen act of confiscation, he  replied, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told the Washington  Post that when the Bush administration entered office, it was determined to  reinvigorate the presidency and reverse the steady reduction in executive power  and prerogative that had persisted since Watergate. But what reduction could the  vice president have had in mind? “The vice president,” noted Sen. John E. Sununu  (R-N.H.), “may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has  somehow lost power over the last 30 years.”

Whether or not the vice president was correct in his  analysis of the state of the presidency in the year 2000, there can be no  question that since then George W. Bush has dramatically expanded the powers of  the president – primarily though not exclusively in matters pertaining to the  war on terror.

One of the most notorious examples involved the torture  of prisoners, a power the administration claimed in the face of law and  international agreements to the contrary. “The assertion in the various legal  memoranda that the President can order the torture of prisoners despite statutes  and treaties forbidding it was another reach for presidential hegemony,” wrote  Anthony Lewis in the New York Review of Books. “The basic premise of the  American constitutional system is that those who hold power are subject to the  law…Bush’s lawyers seem ready to substitute something like the divine right of  kings.”

The Limits of Presidential Power:  Domestic Surveillance

Arguably the greatest controversy of all was the  revelation at the end of 2005 that the Bush administration had engaged in  domestic surveillance without the necessary warrants. James Bamford, author of  two books on the National Security Agency, points out the pertinent aspects of  what would appear to be the relevant law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance  Act (FISA), passed in 1978. According to Bamford, then-Attorney General Griffin  Bell testified before the intelligence committee that FISA acknowledged no “inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance.”

As Bell himself put it, “This bill specifically states  that the procedures in the bill are the exclusive means by which electronic  surveillance may be conducted.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush administration  officials spoke again and again of the president’s inherent powers. But the  pertinent statute in this case disclaims any such powers and requires that the  president proceed according to the guidelines set out by Congress, which  involves securing warrants from a special court. As things stand, the president  is claiming a right to engage in surveillance of any American, unrestrained by  any institutional check, in the service of the war on terror – a war that by its  very nature must go on indefinitely and, indeed, that we can never really know  is truly over.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the  reason the administration did not seek to revise FISA to give the president the  clear and unambiguous power to order these wiretaps was that even a Republican  Congress would not have gone along. In a Dec. 19 press briefing, the attorney  general said, “We have had discussions with Congress in the past – certain  members of Congress – as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to  adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be  difficult, if not impossible.”

The administration’s claim, as set forth by the attorney  general, is that Congress implicitly agreed to such wiretaps when in the days  following Sept. 11 it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators and  their allies. Of course, if Congress really had authorized them, it is not clear  why it would be so difficult for the administration to persuade Congress to  amend FISA accordingly in light of this permission.

The Limits of  Presidential Power: The New  Deal

Gonzales’s argument calls to mind H.L. Mencken’s 1937 “Constitution for the New Deal,” a satirical rewrite of the U.S Constitution,  which says of the attorney general, “It shall be his duty to provide legal  opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the  President.”

As the controversy over the wiretapping developed, it  was only a matter of time before the “even Lincoln did it” argument would be  heard. GOP apologists did not disappoint, reminding Americans that Honest Abe  engaged in massive violations of civil liberties while president. But Tom  DiLorenzo raises the proper reply to such claims in the form of remarks by  Supreme Court Justice David Davis – a personal friend of Lincoln – in the 1866  case Ex Parte Milligan: “The constitution of the United States is a law for  rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its  protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No  doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit  of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great  exigencies of government.”

As DiLorenzo suggests, if the government were to be  given carte blanche during wartime, all that would be necessary to whittle away  the people’s liberties would be to concoct – or to provoke – an endless series  of crises.

This is all deeply disturbing, to be sure. But to hear  much of the Left tell it, the presidency of George W. Bush is a bizarre  aberration in the history of the presidency and more or less sui generis. I have  no objection to those who describe the Bush presidency as utterly disastrous,  and I do not mean to excuse the president by recalling that the ideological and  institutional roots of the imperial presidency extend back at least a century.  My point, rather, is that a bit of history can enrich our  understanding.

Now, with all that in mind, perhaps you would wish to read the following Executive Order (just one of MANY bad ones which has been formulated to destroy America) written by George H.W. Bush:

?pid=23625#axzz1cxzNkkB0

He put America on sale to the highest bidder. While REMEMBER, all of that infrastructure (and natural resources) was built by you, the American people and funded by your tax dollars! The important Executive Orders for the people truly in charge never get repealed and the ones that do not quite do the job, get amended.

And note:

“Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No.
12612”
Federalism = “Monarchism” = Despotism
And now, it is so ingrained into your psyche that the Federal Government is all there ever has been and ever shall be that you have lost sight of what it SHOULD have been! You therefore, have lost your liberty and freedom America as so mant said you would. But it’s been out of sheer ignorance and misplaced pride. But pride comes before a fall.
The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised “monarchic” power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than Federal Government (and in the Federalist papers James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington.

Noted Anti-Federalists

One can also argue that Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but that his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

And who is it, do you think, who demands all of these Executive Orders and for what purpose?

It’s VERY simple. When you wish to destroy the sovereignty of a nation which has a working Constitution based upon the rule of law, you ensure you can change the law.

My question is: How do you make a “Conspiracy Theory” out of a blatant confession?

Rockefeller’s 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” he wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

A child could understand this and say “There you go dad! There’s the culprit! Well at least the main “American” one!”

Oh the Irony!

As you cheer your new President on, because his Executive Orders are “stiffing” (so you believe) the liberals and the NWO, you’re actually promoting the death of that Constitution you conservatives, Republicans and Tea-Partyists say you love!

This “game” of theirs is FAR deeper than it seems you can fathom.

While, what do you do when you recognise the public are on to you? You give them a “leader” and promote him by attacking him endlessly and viciously because then the people BELIEVE he’s working for them! Such a simple, reverse psychology tactic. And your man Trump is one great actor!

How about that for sheer stupidity?

NB: Portions of this blog have been taken from various sources including Wikipedia and The Daily Reckoning.

BILDERBERG: OUTED!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The illegal wars by earthling on October 4, 2011

BILDERBERG: You’re finished! The problem remains however that the people behind you aren’t… yet!

Your David Rockefellers, Tony Blairs, Gideon Osbornes, Ken Clarkes, every last one of you TREASONOUS BASTARDS who have attended this organisation’s meetings for the last 60 years and pushed through the agenda (via your working groups of the RIIA, CFR, Trilateral Commission etc etc) of destroying national sovereignty, planning and executing wars worldwide, crashing the financial system for your benefit and colluding in crimes against humanity, are finished. It is time for the people to lock you all up for life. And in our language life MEANS life!

Gerard Batten MEP in EU Parliament. He’s slow though because the UK treasury has admitted through a FOI request that, indeed, policy IS discussed (therefore made) in Bilderberg meetings. Why he doesn’t just come right out and say it is beyond me!

Now, you “Detectives” out there in your airy fairy land of just doing as you’re told by a bunch of black robe wearing judicial twats and who spend your days scouring over something pathetic which pales in any significance yet is for the purpose of exposing the REAL crimes such as this – why don’t you do a job which reflects the supposed nature of your position and investigate REAL criminals? Oh but DAMN I keep forgetting it is the real criminals who control the system which you protect and that pays your wages to scour the hard drives of people like me now isn’t it? So, in fact, you’re the criminals’ protective unit. You’re the “Mafia police” in essence. Yet you expect us, the public to trust you to keep law and order? Who’s “law” and who’s “Order”?

And you know the sad thing Detective Manchester? You all seem to be doing it believing you’re doing the right thing while the very system you protect is destroying the wealth and the safety of all your own – your mother, your father, your sister, brother, cousins, friends etc. Look in the mirror bud and work it out!

Here’s a little starter for 10 for you. See how bright you are to pick up on this and do your own investigation shall we? Or is it too big and you’d rather just have an easy life behind that desk picking on the little guy? The little guy who, in fact, is the equivalent of you and yours. You just don’t get it do you Detective?

“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is
now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial
meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the
new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis
evolving around the Cold War. ”

Asia Times May 2003:  EE22Ak03.html

“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook
presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid
with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the
geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the
U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn,
President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of
monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative
bubbles of all time.

“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America
and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property
markets……..”

London Times Sept 2002:  http://www.nogw.com/articles/rothchildmeeting.html

Now, think logically detective. How could these reports POSSIBLY have been made up as any kind of propaganda? They were YEARS before this so called “out of the blue” crash while the wars around the middle east have all come to pass as have so many others. So WHO had the “crystal ball” Detective? The reporters? Or the people in that Bilderberg meeting? It’s GOT to be one of the two right? So I’ll leave it up to the detective capabilities of the Scottish detectives themselves to figure it out. After all, by god you can “detect” me for having a bit of a ‘conflict of words’ with an alleged jew on a messageboard. Is that the best detective work you can do Detectives? 🙂 We should all sleep safe and sound in our beds thenin the comfort of knowing our detectives can detect a little spat on a messageboard and get stright into action huh? Keeping the world free of corruption and crime I see! hahahaha. It’s hilarious, sorry detective but it really is! 😉

Meanwhile, you just need to read a few things dating back into the 90s and you will see the “genesis” of all of this being prepared by Zionist neocons and Obama’s own mentor.

So here’s dear old Lord Chancellor Ken. Proven lying bastard by yours truly simply taking his words and comparing them to the reality and the words of the UK treasury. Can’t get ANY FCUKING SIMPLER than that now can we “Detective”?

But Detective, you’re not allowed to have a political opinion! That’s out of your remit! You’re forbidden from holding one and, therefore, you are simply controlled by the very people you should be enforcing the law upon! Have you ever looked up not only International law but British law regarding war crimes? If you did you would readily see that the British government (Tony Blair and now Cameron for two examples) are 100% guilty of warcrimes. Where’s the handcuffs Detective? ….. Nowhere. And you know why? Because YOU are one controlled lackey who is disallowed from intefering in politics when it is the politicians themselves who are destroying this country from the inside and out. You’re IMPOTENT man and while you steal my property, I actually feel sorry for you! You’re BLIND.

And here you have an outright confession of guilt – yes Mr Detective guilt because to state as is stated is admitting an all out attack on the sovereignty of nations. Not by tanks (unless you’re a Libya or Iraq etc) but by financial WMDs and the bribery of politicians to take the money and then legislate in your favour opposing the constitutional basis of the nation(s).

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

Read again SLOWLY Detective! He says OTHERS characterize him as conspiring with others but he then states in pure hubris that he pleads guilty AND he’s proud of it!

Are you fcuking thick Detective?

If the Council as a body has stood for anything these 75 years, it has been for American internationalism based on American interests. If the Council has had influence during this period, it has derived from individual members taking the varied and often conflicting fare of Council meetings and publications to a wider American audience. From Foreign Affairs articles by W.E.B. DuBois and George F. Kennan to books by Henry A. Kissinger and Stanley Hoffmann, the Council’s role has been to find the best minds and leaders, bring them together with other Council members, and provide forum and stage.

Leslie H. Gelb

President,

Council on Foreign Relations

foreword.html

Now did that say “British public interests”? No it didn’t. How fcuking clear does this have to be for you “Detectives”??

As for our War criminal extraordinaire, Tony Blair, well who do you think this guy Rockefeller is talking about when he describes himself as an internationalist and CONSPIRING with others to bring about an integrated world political and economic structure (World Government in other words run by banks and corporations and that just means purely for THEIR profit)? Well here’s an example:

Evelyn and Lynn Forester De Rothschild

And who was it that ensured our resident war criminal (who is now still being protected by you lot using OUR taxpayers money because he’s afraid the taxpayers may want his blood for the shedding of theirs due to his lies – ironic isn’t it?) got his cushy job at JP Morgan at $2M/year while it is now mainstream that Blair was in Libya during his No.10 tenancy doing deals FOR JP Morgan?

[The VERY SAME oligarch who was involved in the Rothschild/Gideon Osbourne yacht scandal just a couple of years ago! Deripaska, the Rothschild goon! Isn’t it funny how Rothschild is in on the game with the very same faces influencing (and bribing) Blair, Mandelson, Osbourne – it doesn’t matter who or what side of the political fence they are because politics is the sham to display to the unread and uneducated:  Libyan-link-oligarch-funded-Blair-initiative.html

Behind the scenes you see on the telly and in the press, all these political whores work for the same masters and are rewarded for it. While you “Detectives” haven’t a fcuking clue!]

It was the fcuking Rothschilds. Yes those same scum who own and control and first funded the set up of the zionist state of Israel. Our Tony, of course, then becomes also the Middle Easy PEACE envoy! You couldn’t make this shit up Mr Detective!!

“The event is being arranged by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who hosts
influential gatherings for London’s elite. Those invited include at least seven
billionaires with a combined wealth of more than £25billion.

Invitations to Downing Street were given to tycoons willing to donate more
than $25,000 (£13,000) to the Tate gallery. Organisers of the event, American
Patrons of Tate, which Lady Rothschild chairs, claimed the No 10 evening is part
of wider fundraising efforts for the gallery, and that the main event will be a
dinner in Manhattan, which will not be attended by the Blairs.”

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

The coincidences eh? Now here’s another one:

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank

General Charles Ronald Llewelyn Guthrie, Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, GCB, LVO, OBE, DL, KCSG, KM, KCJCO (born 17 November 1938) was Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997.

He is a cross bench member of the House of Lords. He was created a life peer as Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, of Craigiebank in the City of Dundee, after retiring as Chief of the Defence Staff. He was one of the several retired Chiefs of Defence Staff who spoke out in the House of Lords about the risk to servicemen facing liability for their actions before the International Criminal Court, particularly in respect to the invasion of Iraq. He has been appointed Colonel of the Life Guards and Gold Stick-in-Waiting to Her Majesty the Queen.

A Roman Catholic convert, he is a Knight of Malta and Patron of the Cardinal Hume Centre.

Guthrie was criticised in 2008 by George Monbiot for an alleged lack of understanding of international law. Monbiot based his argument on Guthrie’s September 2002 advocacy of an invasion of Iraq and subsequent comments, in which he appeared to support launching “surprise wars”, something forbidden by the United Nations charter.

And here’s the rub:

He is a non-executive director of N M Rothschild & Sons, Ashley Gardens Block 2 Ltd and Colt Defense LLC, (section21.aspx) and Chairman (non-executive) of Siboney Ltd.

Extract from Guthrie’s comments in Parliament re the Iraq war which he fully supported:

“I ask the Minister to answer two questions that he has already been posed. First, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, I was assured that it was unthinkable for British service men and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court. Can the Minister assure the House that that is still so?

Secondly, can the Government give serious consideration to the British Armed Forces, like the French forces, opting out of their commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights? Many of us feel that we should, in view of our experiences in Iraq.”

Obvious then that he is well aware of the breaking of International law – something he had to support for his boss Rothschild to have Blair and the British military support the imperialistic aims of the internationalists such as Rothschild and Rockefeller.

Excerpt from George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian:

Let me dwell for a moment on what Guthrie said, for he appears to advocate that we retain the right to commit war crimes. States in dispute with each other, the UN charter says, must first seek to solve their differences by “peaceful means” (article 33). If these fail, they should refer the matter to the security council (article 37), which decides what measures should be taken (article 39). Taking the enemy by surprise is a useful tactic in battle, and encounters can be won only if commanders are able to make decisions quickly. But either Guthrie does not understand the difference between a battle and a war – which is unlikely in view of his 44 years of service – or he does not understand the most basic point in international law. Launching a surprise war is forbidden by the charter.

It has become fashionable to scoff at these rules and to dismiss those who support them as pedants and prigs, but they are all that stand between us and the greatest crimes in history. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”. The tribunal’s charter placed “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression” at the top of the list of war crimes.

If Britain’s most prominent retired general does not understand this, it can only be because he has never been forced to understand it. In September 2002, he argued in the Lords that “the time is approaching when we may have to join the US in operations against Iraq … Strike soon, and the threat will be less and easier to handle. If the UN route fails, I support the second option.” No one in the chamber warned him that he was proposing the supreme international crime. In another Lords debate, Guthrie argued that it was “unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court”, regardless of what they might have done. He demanded a guarantee from the government that this would not be allowed to happen, and proposed that the British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement.

constitution.iraq

International law is clear as day. While look at another “coincidence”. Guthrie argued in the house of Lords FOR the strike on Iraq in Septemeber 2002. Now re-check the Times article above regarding the meeting at Rothschild’s Waddington Manor – just so happens it was September 2002! How very predictable!

Now let’s take a look at Colt Defence shall we? Of which Guthrie is a non executive Director:

Customers.aspx

They supply just about the entire world with weapons so who is it we’re fighting? Martians? Otherwise it would appear they sell weapons to anyone and any one of these countries could stage an attack on any other, ignoring for a moment that they will be using the arms to kill their own people then Guthrie and crew say “hey you can’t do that! We sold those weapons to you to shoot pigeons!” (but then I suppose the World Wildlife Fund would be up in arms about that eh Philip?)

“Selecting the weapon that will equip a country’s Armed Forces is a crucial process with strong military and political implications; the best and most combat-proven weapon in the world should therefore be chosen. The example established by the U.S. Armed Forces and the armed forces of more than 90 other nations around the world confirms that Colt weapons significantly increase the field readiness as well as the operational, tactical and strategic capabilities of any country’s Armed Forces.”

“Prior to joining the company, Mr. Flaherty was a Managing Director in the equity capital markets origination business at Banc of America Securities LLC. Prior to joining Banc of America Securities in 2001, Mr. Flaherty was an investment banker at Credit Suisse First Boston.”

An investment banker no less and not only any old one but a Credit Suisse one! And who controls Credit Suisse? None other than dear old David Rockefeller! Now, do you think any and all wars might just be VERY lucrative for old Guthrie and the Rothschilds/Rockefellers of this world?

Now DEAR Detective. All I’m doing is researching and posting my findings online. If some unknown cyber personality then cries wolf and feigns offence while being quite happy to goad people (and there are many more) to be blunt with the little self proclaimed “jew” while he, like you, does not understand the historical and existing impact of zionism on the world INCLUDING the negative impact on the everyday TRUE jew, then that ain’t MY fault Mister!

So, if it’s your wish to continue to sieze MY property – not yours and not the British judiciary’s or the British Government’s – while you act as a protector of liars, thieves and war criminals in your ignorance, then I suggest you check the law. Your actions are both, enabling the ongoing cover up of war crimes and treason, and as a party to such, you are liable and effectively committing the crime of Misprision of Treason.

We urge all civilians to go to New Scotland yard, or their local police station to report UK war criminals, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lawson and around 250 MPs who are all WAR CRIMINALS
For more information and assistance please see
http://makingwarshistory.org
Also
http://taxrebellion.org
And
http://bsnews.info/

Kellogg–Briand Pact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

Nuremberg Trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

List of war crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

• The Genocide Convention, 1948.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
• The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
• The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
• The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.

But hey, Detective, there may be an answer as to why you’re pissing me about rather than investigate all of this. You see, Zionist Israel can do whatever the hell it wants it seems and when David Cameron professes himself a zionist then what do you expect huh? He even changes British law in the face of International law JUST FOR THEM! Get it? Is it SINKING IN YET?

In the UK the  judicial system allowed private parties and individuals to present their  own evidence of war crimes before a magistrate who could then, if he or  she felt the case was strong enough, issue a warrant for the suspect’s  arrest. Consequently, in 2005 retired Israeli General Doron Almog only  escaped arrest by skulking in his plane before being flown back to  Israel, while in 2009 Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni cancelled her trip rather than face arrest. Other senior Israeli figures simply chose to stay away from Britain.

Sadly on 15 September this means of potentially achieving justice was revoked. In response to Israeli protests the UK government chose to change its laws rather than see Israelis arrested. In a move condemned by Amnesty International, the UK  government amended the law on universal jurisdiction so that in future  only the Director of Public Prosecutions can authorize the arrest of a  suspected war criminal (“Tories make life easier for war criminals,” Liberal Conspiracy, 30 March 2011).

Contradictory grounds

Oddly, the UK  government defended its decision on two contradictory grounds. The  first reason it put forward is that the evidence used to secure the  arrests stands little chance bringing about “a realistic prospect  of conviction.”

This is disingenuous, to say the least. As Geoffrey Robertson, a UN appeals judge, states: “The change in the law has nothing to do — as the UK claims — with ensuring that cases proceed on solid evidence. No district judge would issue an arrest warrant lightly (“DPP may get veto power over arrest warrants for war crime suspects,” The Guardian,  22 July 2010).” Secondly, the reason for the arrest is so the suspect  cannot flee while further evidence is being gathered. Indeed, this is a  common way for domestic investigations to proceed.

The other equally disingenuous reason the UK gave for the change in the law is that arresting suspected war criminals may endanger the non-existent peace process.

This absurd view was advanced by UK  Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, who decried the previous law because  it constituted a risk to “our ability to help in conflict resolution or  to pursue a coherent foreign policy.”

Indeed, claiming that the previously granted arrest warrants had been politically motivated, UK  Foreign Secretary William Hague declared, “We cannot have a position  where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country.”

However, the UK’s  retreat from the implementation of universal jurisdiction is not a lone  example of the power of the Israel lobby to affect states’ domestic  legislation. A similar shameful episode ensued when Ariel Sharon was  indicted before the Belgian courts, in that instance not just Israel but also the United States brought pressure to bear, Donald Rumsfeld going as far as to threaten to move NATO headquarters from Belgium.

Which raises the question, if enforcing international humanitarian law is a threat to peace, then why do we have it?

?p=3954

And from the Guardian:

change-universal-jurisdiction-law

You see Detective… these people aren’t jews they are Zionist Nazis! They are the jews’ nemesis and USE the “jewishness” to create a “shield” around themselves by bringing up the fcuking holocaust for the 2o trillionth time! While they then also evade the charge of racism as they set up a JEWISH ONLY EU Parliament!!

Jewish EU Parliament: 50141

Try THAT if you’re Christian or Muslim!

But the fact is they use this “jewish oppression” tactic over and over while, if you look at who is, in fact, manipulating and controlling all of this, these people ARE NOT oppressed. THEY are the oppressors! And neither are they JEWISH they are ZIONIST first and foremost! They’d slit a jewish throat as quickly as they’d slit yours or mine! You DON’T HAVE THE POWER to create your very own EU PARLIAMENT (contrary to any and all other accepted norms of racial equality, anti-xenophobia and political correctness) UNLESS you have money, influence and power! To suggest these people are oppressed is absolutely ridiculous! Ever heard of “A wolf in sheep’s clothing”? Ask Tony our war criminal. He knows being a Fabian!

Is all this information fcuking with your little brain Detective? Can’t process it? Is that the problem?

Be a good lad Detective. Return the almost £2grand worth of euipment you stole from me for your masters while neither you nor probably them have the slightest clue what the big picture is! After all, you’re not allowed to get involved in politics therefore you’re disallowed to catch the real fcuking criminals!

The biggest crimes of the century against humanity and all you can do is scour hard drives of a bloke who knows it.

Fcuk your idea of “law” mate. The “law” IS an ass! A very corrupt one at that!

New York City Police Foundation — New York

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York
City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the
foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen
security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops,
as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD’s main data center.

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie
Dimon a note expressing “profound gratitude” for the company’s donation.

“These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” Dimon
said. “We’re incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know
how much we value their hard work.”

Then LEARN Detective!…..

James Dimon is the chairman & CEO for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Bailout Company), a director at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a corporate fund board member for the Kennedy Center, a director at the Partnership for New York City, a director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and a director at Catalyst (think tank).

Now look up the letter “D” in the CFR list of membership and what do you get?

gX?_DAWSON_HORACE_G%20JR

And look up “D” in the Trilateral list of membership:

hF.html

Well would you credit it? Not only does wee Jamie come up on both BUT you also have Evelyn’s wifey Lynn come up on the CFR list.

Now ISN’T it a small world full of nothing but JUST coincidences?

To keep who safe exactly? Answer: JP Morgan, Tony Blair, Bilderberg etc etc etc

You’re bought and paid for Detective! That’s “law” for you!

Get yourself brains detectives! “That’s not a criminal conspiracy that’s just coincidence and democracy in action!”

My lilly white ARSE!

An addendum for our American cousins who read their Constitution. Here’s a man saying he supports what the Tea Party have done to HAVE Americans read their Constitution while he is a liar, a fake and breaks the Logan Act (look up your Logan Act too).

He doesn’t like to even acknowledge the word BILDERBERG. Wake the hell up America!

But I guess just as you never heeded the warnings regarding the Kenyan you’ll not heed this one either will you? They own BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum you slow minded idiots! On BOTH SIDES of the Atlantic!

The British Police: And here was you thinking it was just me!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on July 29, 2011

When the Guardian run a headline and article like this, there is pause for consideration. On one hand, it is welcome since it is becoming increasingly obvious throughout our society, that the Police are a “law unto themselves”. On the other hand, it is immensely concerning because, as we know (or should) our press is not exactly free and they are, at an editorial level, controlled to ensure that anything the state does not wish to be exposed and published shall not be. As an aside, this is very clear when one thinks of the steps taken by the state to suppress (and oppress) any and all newsmedia who would consider publishing information on the Hollie Greig abuse issue. So one must consider the possibility that this article has been given the “clear to go” by the editorial team because they have not been stopped by the higher chain of command. This is concerning in that one can consider, then, that the establishment (state) are more than happy to have such published for their own reasons.

There is another element to this story, however, which is unstated in the article itself yet, given a moment’s thought, is quite clear:

The British Police are there to protect “the Public” (indeed) but as the article states “Are they?”. Well, they are the protectors of THE STATE, the SYSTEM, this so called “democracy”. If, as the article points out, they are NOT necessarily on “our side” (i.e. the PEOPLE’S side – and I believe I may have just pointed this out before if you care to look at previous blogs) then what the article is ACTUALLY intimating is that THE STATE is not on “our side”. Now give that some thought because that is PRECISELY what this article is saying whether or not the journalist who wrote it appreciates this. The Police act on behalf of “The Crown” and “The State” as do the Judiciary etc. The Police have been given these freedoms to act as they do BY the State. It is not “by accident”.

So, then, here is the article:

 

 

Can confidence in the Metropolitan police sink any lower? Even before the past few weeks revealed the possibility of their complicity in the News of the World hacking scandal, and the past few months their brutal attitude towards the policing of students and other protesters, there were many who already had reason to mistrust those who claim to be “working together for a safer London”.

Take Ann Roberts, a special needs assistant, who was recently given the go-ahead in the high court to challenge the allegedly racist way in which stop-and–search powers are used: her lawyers claim statistics indicate that a black person is more than nine times more likely to be searched than a white person.

Or take the family of Smiley Culture, still waiting for answers after the reggae singer died in a police raid on his home in March this year. They are campaigning on behalf of all those who’ve died in police custody. Inquest, a charity which deals with contentious death, particularly in police custody, reports that more than 400 people from black and ethnic minority communities have died in prison, police custody and secure training centres in England and Wales since 1990.

Ian Tomlinson’s family may finally be able to see some justice when PC Simon Harwood comes to court in October on manslaughter charges, but if the story had not been tenaciously pursued by journalists (particularly the Guardian’s Paul Lewis) the police would no doubt be sticking to their line that a man had merely collapsed at the G20 protests and that missiles had been thrown at medics when they tried to help him.

The appointment of Cressida Dick as head of counter-terrorism following John Yates’s resignation is similarly unlikely to inspire confidence in anyone who remembers her role in authorising the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, mistaken for a terror suspect because an officer decided he had “distinctive Mongolian eyes“.

One of the positive effects of “citizen journalism” is how much harder it makes it for the authorities to disseminate disinformation, such as the stories put out by the Met concerning Tomlinson’s death. More recently, in the case of the arrests of UK Uncut protesters in Fortnum & Mason, video footage of chief inspector Claire Clark deceiving the group into a mass arrest has proved highly embarrassing to the police, who nevertheless freely admit that arrests at protests are part of an ongoing intelligence-gathering operation. The use of undercover police officers, such as Mark Kennedy, recently found to have unlawfully spied on environmental activists, has further increased suspicions regarding the motivations for police spying, not to mention the fact that its illegalitymakes it wholly ineffective against those it would seek to prosecute. It is cheering to see those targeted fighting back against such criminalisation of legitimate protest, particularly among those too young to vote, such asAdam Castle, who is taking the police to court over kettling at a student protest last November.

But given the many allegations of police corruption, racism, spying and death in their supposed care, why does anyone feel safe when the police are around? Robert Reiner, professor of criminology at LSE and author of The Politics of the Police, describes the phenomenon of “police fetishism” in the following way: “the ideological assumption that the police are a functional prerequisite of social order so that without a police force chaos would ensue”. In fact, as Reiner points out, many societies have existed without an official police force or with very different models of policing in place. While it may be hard to imagine Britain without a police force of some kind, it is increasingly clear that those who “protect” its largest city are far from doing any such thing.

In the runup to the 2012 Olympics, we should be deeply concerned about the Met’s policies and actions, particularly when they congratulate themselves on things that appear to be utterly in contrast to the way everyone else experienced them, such as the supposed “restraint”shown by police on recent demonstrations. Before the royal wedding, many were arrested on what have been described as “pre-crime” charges, with the effect that many were banned from the city for several days for doing precisely nothing. In parliament, David Cameron described the royal wedding as a “dry run” for the Olympics. If by this he means simply a large spectacular event watched by many around the world, then that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, he means it to be yet another opportunity to pre-emptively criminalise, to increase surveillance, to restrict the movement of individuals and to condemn protesters, then we have a serious problem.

The resignation of those at the top of the police, and waning public trust in police policy in general, give us a perfect opportunity to question the Met’s organisation and tactics. It may be difficult to shake off the idea that the police are “a condition of existence of social order”, as Reiner puts it, but to stop imagining they are automatically on our side might be a good place to start.

 

 

Now, I would ask (plead?) that any of our Police force (and/or Armed Services personnel) who read this, pause for some serious reflection and soul searching and consider the content and the message behind this piece of mainstream journalism while, if you wish, considering my previous posts/commentary on the Police in this country and what it is you are not understanding/grasping about where this is all taking us. That includes YOU!

The Police are now losing their jobs (34,000 countrywide by 2014/15).

Why is this happening? It’s called “AUSTERITY”. These measures are being put in place by the IMF and the IMF’s demands are being met by our government for our government have no option (but they DO have an option). They have no option because of ONE SIMPLE FACT: WHO is in control? The Creditor or the Debtor?

Our government BORROWS money by issuing gilts and government bonds. What ARE gilts and bonds? What gives them their value? Where do they come from?

The answer is VERY simple and you need to UNDERSTAND THIS: They are guarantees to the Creditor (they are COLLATERAL) and they derive their value from US. From OUR labour (the sweat off our brow) PLUS the land, the infrastructure, forests fishing rights, every piece of REAL value within our borders and our seas and continental shelf. If this country does not generate enough GDP or GNP to pay the debt then the Creditor gets to a point where they say “How are you going to pay me?” THAT is where the collateral comes in and where the government sell off of assets comes in. The Creditor takes further and further control of these assets and the country is no longer sovereign (and the UK has not been sovereign for decades if not centuries). The wealth is then handed into private hands and this is why, more and more, the Corporations take over (which are entirely controlled by Private Banking interests because it is the private banking interests which have a complete monopoly on the issuance of currency and credit.

Now I could go ON and ON about this but for the sake of brevity I won’t and I will leave it to the readers’ intelligence to see how this PONZI scheme works! It is not a “ponzi scheme” from MY words, it is so from the words of our politicians over decades and this is shown, again, in other recent blogs of mine. Anyone from Douglas Carswell MP last year to Captain Henry Kerby in the 1960s and Lord Sudeley in 1999. AND OUR GOVERNMENT KNOW IT!

My God BEN BERNANKE (Alan Greenspan’s successor and current Chairman of the Federal Reserve System even last year has ADMITTED there is no need for ANY nation to have a national debt!

If there is no need for a national debt then there is no need for AUSTERITY measures. If there is no need for austerity measures there is no need for cuts. To ANYTHING!

So the POINT IS: POLICE WAKE THE FCUK UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE BECAUSE, AS YOU CAN NOW SEE THROUGH YOUR OWN CUTS, THE SYSTEM IS NOW ATTACKING YOU TOO!

And to the Armed Forces: YOU and YOUR FAMILY are being attacked by this system yet this same system is asking you to protect it! DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOU ARE GETTING USED TO CREATE THE VERY SOCIETY THAT IS GOING TO OPPRESS YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES? DON’T YOU GET IT?

It is very very very simple!

 

Now for god’s sakes lads WAKE UP!

National debt = ZERO: Austerity unnecessary.

Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on April 16, 2011

But our CORRUPT British government (ALL PARTIES) DO NOT WANT THIS and will NOT tell the British people the big con whereby your wealth – and the country’s as a whole – is being stolen from underneath our noses while these parasites, which includes our monarchy, feed from you by filling you up with debt then allowing the Banks to burst the bubble and call in the loans/debt.

Britain, just as the Federal Reserve is fleecing the American public so too is the Bank of England fleecing you. And our governments play along because, as you may have noticed, those who are in government are very well taken care of financially.

PLEASE, for your own sakes and for the sake of us all: WAKE THE HELL UP!

I have since personally received a copy of Henry Kerby’s transcript of this EDM from the PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVIST.

THIS is why our country (and I may add ALL other countries’ sovereignty is going down the plughole and our debt is ever increasing and shall never end. THIS is why we have an UNNECESSARY AUSTERITY: Because the POLITICIANS will NOT issue our own currency debt free. I hate to add this but it is just fact: Adolf Hitler was NOT the instigator of WW2. He worked out the problem and the problem was Private controlled Bankers (the MAJORITY of them jewish because ONLY the jewish religion from centuries past allowed USURY and the British Christians in the 1600s then adopted it when the christian religion had always denounced it) who created the money out of thin air and loaned at interest. They are PARASITES and very few people understand this.

Who REALLY instigated WW2 and why? (and WHY are they doing such again today?):   jews-declare-war.htm

Many people will NOT like this idea but it is NOT an idea. It is FACT!

Notice it was all well before 1939 and why? Because Hitler was not playing ball and was issuing his OWN currency! WHO writes History? The victors do! THAT’S why you don’t get the truth in your history books at schools people!

The entire nations of the world are in debt. Every single one of them (you can find the figures through googling easily enough). Now just stop and think in very simple terms (BECAUSE THIS IS VERY VERY SIMPLE): If YOUR family was the only family on earth but was still in debt, WHO would your family be in debt to? Who COULD it be? The answer: No-one!

Now apply that to the fact that EVERY nation on earth is in debt. For EVERY debtor there is a CREDITOR. Who has sovereignty? WHO is in control? The CREDITOR is.

So if EVERY nation is in debt (which they are) then WHO, ultimately, is the creditor? The ENTIRE HUMAN FAMILY is in debt! To who?

To the Private Central Bankers. THAT is why we all have austerity and why countries like Greece and Portugal and Ireland and even us, the UK, are selling off assets. Because our politicians are in bed getting their kickbacks from the legislation they adopt in favour of the banks! It’s not your local high street bank we’re talking about here. It is the entire banking system controlled by the IMF and Central Banks. The WHO is who is behind them? Well we KNOW who!

Captain Henry Kerby MP: UK Parliament Hansards 1965:

1. The UK government DO NOT WISH TO eliminate the National Debt. It has NEVER been their intention!

2. “No”. Could this be ANY clearer for you?

3.  Captain Henry Kerby’s Early Day Motion dated 22nd December 1964.

Ask yourself a VERY simple question: Why would the British Government NOT wish to pay off the National Debt?

A Motion to Restore the Power of the Issue of Money to the Crown

This article appeared in Prosperity, October 2001

By Captain Henry Kerby MP

On the 22nd December, 1964, Captain Henry Kerby, MP, placed the following Motion before the House of Commons.

It was an “Early Day Motion” and so it was never debated and, consequently, does not appear in Hansard. It is, however, published in the Early Day Motion records and we have a copy of it here at Prosperity.

The House of Commons Public Information Office Factsheet on Early Day Motions states that an “Early Day Motion” is the “colloquial term for a notice of motion given by a Member for which no date has been fixed for debate” and where “in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no prospect of these motions ever being debated. Their modern existence is due to Members wishing to put on record their opinion on a subject and canvass support for it from fellow Members. They do this by inviting, actively or passively, other members to endorse the proposed motion.” However, even if 250-300 Members might endorse it, “the lack of prospect of the motion being debated remains much the same.”

Below we reprint the full text of Captain Kerby’s Early Day Motion, titled as below, and his comments — unpublished in the official record — follow.

THE EMISSION OF ALL THE MEANS OF EXCHANGE

That this House considers that the continued issue of all the means of exchange – be they coin, bank-notes or credit, largely passed on by cheques – by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money in all forms should be returned to the Crown, then to be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations, as a public service, not a private opportunity of profit and control for no tangible returns to the British people; and that the volume of money be controlled so as to maintain stable prices:

That the nationalization of the Bank of England did nothing to solve this problem as the bank only serves a subsidiary purpose and almost all money is still created out of nothing by mere book entry by private banks:

That the aims of those who want to assure private property and free enterprise, as well as those who want to protect the British people from unfair exploitation, would both be best served by restoring the power of issuing money to Her Majesty The Queen, in accordance with ancient tradition and law, as is also demanded by the American Constitution, which gives the right of issue solely to Congress, so as to assure the State and Nation the benefits of that emission and relieve them of the immense and growing burdens of a parasitical National and private debt; and to make certain that control passes to the taxed and is taken out of the hands of the present hidden and unlawful beneficiaries of taxation, much of the proceeds of which they collect as interest on all money and immense debts:

And therefore this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to introduce the required legislation, to assert the proper sovereignty of The Queen in Council in this most important of all sovereign functions, to assure unprecedented prosperity with true sovereignty and liberty.

Captain Kerby’s comments:

It is not generally understood that for many centuries, in Britain and in almost all other civilized countries, the power and duty of coinage, i.e. of the issue of money in all forms – coin, notes and book-entry credit passed on by cheque, etc. – was vested solely in the Crown or State. For this reason the tradition still persists of putting the Sovereign’s portrait on the coinage, though in fact since the end of the 17th century, the reign of William and Mary, by far the greatest part of all the effective means of exchange are issued by private bankers out of nothing by mere book entry, to be lent at interest to the State and to private borrowers. Thus real power passed from the State to the private bankers.

There is ample evidence from many independent sources to prove that most of the means of exchange in modern conditions originate with bankers. In America it is aptly called “fractional reserve banking,” meaning that if you have a pound in cash in the till you can issue ten or twenty times more in the form of “credit” on the books, which is mostly circulated by cheques.

Not a few Heads of Central Banks of Issue have stated the facts at public enquiries or in the press, including the chief of the Canadian Bank of Issue, also Mr. Marriner Eccles — at one time in parallel position in the U.S. Federal Reserve — and the late Mr. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of the Midland Bank. They and many others confirmed that it is the function of banks to create money out of nothing and lend it out.

The “Report of the (New Zealand) Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking and Credit Systems,” 1956, states in part; Para. 164: Creation of Money by the Trading Banks: “The fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existence as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously disturbed many witnesses …”

This evidence is paralleled by that given in 1960 to the Radcliffe Committee in London. We quote from the evidence given by the Bank of England, Vol. 1, Memoranda of Evidence; p.9. 4. The Control of Bank Credit in the United Kingdom:

2. “Because an entry in the books of a bank has come to be generally acceptable in the place of cash it is possible for the banks to create the equivalent of cash (i.e. credit). Thus a bank may pay for a security purchased from a customer merely by making an entry in its books to the credit of that customer’s account: or it may make an advance by means of a similar entry. In either case, an increase in its deposits will occur.”

In the United States of America, the Constitution clearly provides in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 5, that only Congress shall have the power to coin (issue) money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin (rate of exchange). Yet obviously this constitutional provision has been completely ignored in practice almost since American independence. In the United Kingdom, too, the spirit of the old laws and traditions has been circumvented.

Yet this is no mere academic matter, but a question of supreme importance, affecting the Sovereignty and very existence of the State and country. It has been said that there should be no taxation without representation, yet private financiers can issue “imaginary” money out of nothing by mere book entry and lend it at interest, they acquire the profit of issue and of interest gratis, at the cost of the whole community. This is taxation in the fullest sense, accompanied not by the representation of the taxed, but by the complete power of the true tax collector, who is the ruler. The basic truth of no taxation without representation is turned upside down and inside out.

It follows that the power of Parliament in general, and especially with regard to Money is non-existent, and all true sovereignty is in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money and determine its value and distribution. If even the State borrows from them, having abandoned its own powers of coinage (emission) to private financiers, how can that State claim to be truly sovereign? The real basis of the power of the money-creators and money-lenders lies in the fact that few know the truth about this financial “hidden hand.”

Conservatives with knowledge and long historical memories will recall that the original Tories were Jacobites. Today this question does not apply to the Crown as Her Majesty enjoys the loyalty of all Her subjects. But the spirit of the old Jacobites expressed a sounder understanding of the functions of the Crown as fount of Sovereignty, to be exercised with Counsellors. In the context of that conception it was natural that the power of monetary emission should belong to the Sovereign, and long experience has shewn that that proposition was sound.

On the other hand the old Whigs were the proponents of “Dutch Finance,” of the issue of the means of exchange as an interest-bearing debt by private bankers, and of the domination of the State by High Finance, not the Sovereign in Council, the King and people. With the decline of Liberalism in Great Britain it might be thought that Socialist Labour is the heir of that tradition.

It is the claim of Socialist leaders that theirs is not the Party of the Big Money Men. The test is this: will Labour understand that the “nationalization” of the power of coinage (emission) is the supreme necessity? And not the confiscation of the fruits of many peoples’ labour and invention.

If the Socialist Party does not pass this test and continues to protect parasitical finance, if only by its silence, then it will lay itself open to an attack which it could never repulse, however long it may postpone the show-down.

Here, then, are some basic propositions which should be known to all, and which are behind the intentions of the Motion:

1. All the means of exchange, with the exception of a very small fraction (coin) are created in the books of private banks when they lend to the State and private borrowers. Conversely, when a loan or overdraft is repaid there is less money in circulation.

2. Even notes and coin come into circulation only in exchange for book entry purchases of Treasury Bills by banks, and thus are virtually issued by the bankers.[For a fuller description on how notes and coins come into circulation, see April 2000 Prosperity]

3. It follows that those who have the power to “create” out of nothing all the money in each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total power over all States, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and so on. Therefore the powers of Parliament are largely ephemeral.

4. It is essential that the issue of money be as needed by the whole nation and hence free from private or political influence. Consequently it is essential that the Queen in Council should resume the power and duty of monetary emission. If new money is spent (not lent) into circulation, taxes could be reduced to a small fraction of their present and growing burden and the National Debt will gradually disappear.

5. Banks should only be able to lend moneys they have earned or borrowed. Their other functions would remain.

6. With the release from the debt and tax burden and with the issue of money in accordance with the needs of exchange, the country would experience unexampled and lasting prosperity, with no slumps and unemployment. Financial principles and policies would be open and broadly understood: instead of being Master, Money would become a public servant.

Jewish banishment and The “City” of London

Posted in Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Money, Political History, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on February 26, 2011

I think it’s important, for the “naysayers” who visit this blog, that I prologue it with a point re the “Crown of England”. The following is a statement made by Tony Benn in the Houses of Parliament not too many years ago (and it matters not when such was said anyhow). This is very very simple: The British people have no idea who this “Crown” is. It acts outside of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. As such, it acts outwith the law yet decides what this thing called “Law” is!

The Crown prosecutes. Our Armed Forces fight and kill and destroy nations on its say so. Our Police and Forces take an oath to this “thing” called “the Crown”. They believe it to be “Her Majesty” the monarch without understanding at all that the monarchy is NOT a person or the Queen and her family. The Monarchy is a Constitutional Office. When it comes to the profit of the British Queen and her family from the “Crown Estate”, it is, in actual fact, deceptive criminal theft by the “reigning monarch” (like a reigning CEO of a corporation stealing the wealth of the company yet, the person in the office of CEO does not have the legal or lawful entitlement to take the wealth of the company because it is the Corporation in total as a legal person which owns the wealth and NOT the CEO). This is PRECISELY the same when we look at this “Constitutional Monarch” in office profiting no longer from a Civil List but from various sources of the country’s wealth.

Our Armed Forces, Police and judiciary are immensely ignorant but do what they are told otherwise they will not eat. They do as the “Crown” bids simply because, if they question it, then their wealth and the wealth of their family disappears. The Policeman with integrity would be sacked and the soldier fighting for his dearest “Crown” would find himself at the mercy of “friendly fire”.

So, what were those words of Tony Benn which crystallises the seriousness of this issue?

Here they are:

“I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not.The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”

tony-benn-the-straight-man

Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:

WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE’S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.

Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits

“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”
Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)

Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?

Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —

Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.

1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )

[As an addendum to the above, I feel it is necessary to clarify that, before the expulsion in 1290, there was the Statute of the Jewry in 1275, entirely based upon the moneylending and usury issue:  jews1275.html

Now please understand that this is just pure factual history and the pieces fall where they fall.

It seems very obvious to me that, while the Islamic religion has not forgotten one of its fundamental cornerstones: NO USURY, the Christian world simply has. For NO USURY is a cornerstone of the christian religion too. I wonder, then, why Christians call themselves christians? They don’t follow Jesus’ teachings and haven’t done so in the west since the following took place – the readmission of jewish usury into England by Oliver Cromwell during the 1640 – 1660 period and then the establishment of the Bank of England where one can see, William of Orange and his Queen, Mary became original investors – it is on Bank of England documents]

JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —

To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS
MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.

A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.

With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )

ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN
(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.

A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.

The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.
* The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.

Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )

Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.

Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England

Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange

Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby

Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery

UPDATE 4 Nov 2011: George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper. Although he just doesn’t go quite far enough into the history and the connectivity. Mainstream media now supporting much of the above regarding the “above the law” nature of the City of London. I rest my case your honour!

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance.

    • George Monbiot

Daniel Pudles 01112011

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

It’s the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it’s the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, “among local authorities the City of London is unique”. You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You’re most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don’t even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you “must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery”. You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a “contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year.” This is, in other words, an official old boys’ network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.

The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation’s unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.

The Lord Mayor’s role, the Corporation’s website tells us, is to “open doors at the highest levels” for business, in the course of which he “expounds the values of liberalisation”. Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it “handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City”, such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts “extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services.” But this isn’t the half of it.

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London’s mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.” The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it’s colluding with Babylon.

If you’ve ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. “The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …”.

The Corporation’s privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK’s dependent tax havens.

But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor’s Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.

Article: corporation-london-city-medieval

Now, when you think of “an Empire” and you may think America is the Empire of today, think again. Britain “lost” it’s Empire didn’t it?

Well maybe or….. Maybe not.

I go with the latter. You see, it does NOT take an army to ensure an Empire. What size if the Commonwealth? The Commonwealth is THE largest group of human beings (and resources) in the world. What is the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government of the United States? What controls them? What if it were that the City of London and Bank of England controlled them? So many (the majority) people believe this is just a “flight of fancy”. It isn’t.

Watch this next movie (very enlightening) and consider the following Telegraph article (which I have blogged about elsewhere on this blog):

The United States becoming an “Associate Member” of the Commonwealth? Now WHY would they “need” to do that? And what about Brexit? What’s that all about?

Well, this is what it may well all be about:

From U.S. Congressional Archives 1940:

Mr. Speaker, In order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Re-public, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point. These articles are entitled “Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife.” This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled “Triumphant Democracy.”

In this he expresses himself in this manner:

“Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited states—the British-American Union.”

“Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody— any Congress, any government, any President—to break the good faith which they have pledged to the mother country. In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book entitled, “Triumphant Democracy.” I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which we destroyed constitutional government, international security, and paved the road for us to become a colony of the British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under the control and domination of the Bank of England and the international banking groups that are now financing the British-Israel movement in the United States. It was also the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone does not know is that we were committed to this war in 1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan’s own testimony before the Senate committee investigating the munitions industry. Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British- Israel movement.”

Please note that the following movie (and other such movies) will NEVER mention jewish control of the banks or banking system, so don’t be looking for it. But bear this in mind while watching.

NOW, IF YOU WANT A LIST OF THE ORIGINAL JEWISH HOLDERS OF STOCK IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/the-jew-bank-of-england/

I hope you notice the myriad of Spanish and non jewish sounding names in that list. This list, as I know, is not available anywhere else in blogs throughout the internet. I may be wrong.

All of the above can then lead me into tying this up to what is happening in China and Hong Kong today but that would have me simply regurgitating my blog “CAPITALIZING CHINA”.  How has the City of London then taken significant control in China?

Enter the concept of the “Legal Person” – a British legal basic jurisprudence term: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/capitalizing-china/

Am I a “Conspiracy theorist”? YES….. indefatigably YES! Why?

Because I’ve researched, done my homework and I have found that the entire globe is shaped by events which are entirely linked. So yes, there IS one umbrella conspiracy. Not to say there are not factions within it who play on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”, BUT they all use you and I as pawns in this big game.

Let the naysayers in media and elsewhere scoff as they will but they are entirely ignorant; generally, have never fully immersed themselves into research and know that to do so and then speak of it, they would lose their well paid positions.

A couple of things to ponder over:

LEGITIMACY BILL

HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

With all deference to the most reverend Primate, that is not what the court is            338            asked to declare. The court is asked to declare that the child was born in lawful wedlock between Mrs. X and Y. Otherwise, by the laws of legitimacy as understood in this country, it could not be a legitimate child. It is that which personally I find so shocking.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seemed to think—at least so I understood—that there was no material difference between the situation which I have just described and the situation which was dealt with by the Act of 1926, under which both the parents were unmarried at the time of the birth of the child and they merely, as it were, anticipated the ceremony. But to me at any rate, there is all the difference in the world between the two cases. In one case both were free to marry each other; in the other one or both was solemnly linked at the time in wedlock to another man or another woman. How is it possible for the court to ignore that fact? If I may say so with all deference—and this is a great impertinence—some lawyers always seem to think that by adding the adjective “legal” to the word “fiction” it makes it much more respectable, just as in politics when a Government wants to do something which is manifestly unjust to some section of the community it thinks it makes it sound better by calling it “social” justice. In both cases, the addition of the adjective is intended to produce a different and more agreeable atmosphere. But to the ordinary man, such as most of us in this House are, a fiction remains a fiction, whatever adjective is attached to it; a lie remains a lie even though it is condoned by the law.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………

Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”

 

“It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”

 

Rockefeller EUGENICS (A Nazi in disguise as a philanthropist)

Posted in "Terrorism", The Corrupt SOB's, Vaccinations by earthling on August 4, 2010

Lily E. Kay:

Dr. Lily E. Kay, a visiting scholar in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS) and one of the outstanding historians of biology of her generation, died on December 18 2000 of cancer.

Dr. Kay’s work drew from multiple disciplines to understand science in its many social and cultural dimensions. Her most recentbook, Who Wrote the Book of Life? (Stanford University Press, 1999), traced the efforts of biologists, biochemists and information scientists to explain the genome as an information system written in DNA code. Dr. Kay showed how the “code” is not really a code and thus why cryptoanalytic techniques failed, and how the genetic “code” was eventually broken instead by biochemists who only reluctantly translated their work into the metaphor of code because that language had become the only way to get a hearing.

Her earlier book, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rise of the New Biology, has become a classic account. When it first appeared, it too was controversial but also received accolades from scientists such as Joshua Lederberg and Linus Pauling. Her views were always sharply argued, holding to account both extreme biologial reductionism and legacies of eugenicist views in contemporary biology.

Born in Krakow, Poland in 1947 to concentration camp survivors, Dr. Kay moved with her parents to Israel and then came to the United States in 1960. After she graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1969, she taught high school physics in Pittsburgh and was a research associate in biochemistry at the University of Pittsburgh from 1974-77. In 1977 she became a senior research assistant at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA, working on the molecular biology of viruses. She earned a PhD in the history of science from Johns Hopkins University in 1986.

After two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, she joined the history of science faculty at the University of Chicago, and in 1989 she began an eight-year stint on MIT’s faculty in STS, which had just established a new PhD program. In recent years, she worked as an independent scholar, with guest appointments at Harvard University and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.

When she died, Dr. Kay was working on a book on the MIT neuroscientist Warren S. McCulloch and the fields of research he helped spawn: serial computing, artificial intelligence and models of brain function.

One can read most of the book, “The Molecular vision of life…”, here:

books?id=mHTuL_bRLBQC&dq=The+molecular+vision+of+life&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=h-tZTJGdIZP40wSUtt3ZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

However, let me offer you just ONE small section taken from Page 9:

I’m sure you will recognise that Dr. Lily E. Kay was as far removed from “Conspiracy theory” as one would wish to be. It is simply this: When you LOOK, you FIND and there are masses of absolute facts proving who and what the Rockefeller family is and what it’s agenda is.

So, with the very best intentions of not hurting anyone’s feelings: Shut your ignorant mouth if you are, once more, going to throw the pathetic “Conspiracy theory” insult at any of this for if you do, it is this simple, you are insulting yourself by displaying your own incapacity for logic and understanding. Of being able to see what is right in front of you!

While isn’t it interesting to note:

Rockefeller Foundation: 1913

Federal Reserve Act: 1913

Founding of the ADL: 1913

Founding of the IRS: 1913

This is all ridiculous right? Of COURSE it is!

While the NHS is being pressurized by Doctors and government suggest it should have a renewed “Constitution”. Don’t heal the sick from lifestyles which have been pushed on people as A-OK and have, in fact, provided the government with huge sums of tax income while they still legalise it. BUT they criminalise such things as medical marijuana.

Yes yes, it’s all a ridiculous fabrication indeed!

‘Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people’s “responsibilities” as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restric­tions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments’.

Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html

‘Patients would be handed “NHS Health Miles Cards” allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.

Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services – such as jumping the queue for council housing.

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.’

article-23410977-nhs-should-not-treat-those-with-unhealthy-lifestyles-say-tories.do

So, we’ll push the drugs. We’re admitting they kill people (just like illegal drugs but the legal ones kill even more) but what we’ll say in our and the tobacco and alcohol industry’s defence is that it is a choice and choice is a cornerstone of peoples human rights and freedoms. However, we will remove such rights and freedoms (therfore proving we’re a crock of shit) when it comes to those drugs which grow freely on god’s earth. There, we say you have no rights (because that’s just too lucrative a business for us).

So while we offer SOME rights that we know kill you, what we won’t now provide is your right to healthcare. It’s a LOVELY genocide tactic isn’t it?

Meanwhile we government, banking and other corrupt bastards with money which we control the issuance of, have our private health and no matter WHAT we do to our bodies WE will get that healthcare – a healthcare which is, in fact, funded by you the taxpayer (Yes, even though “private” it STILL gets funded by the tax you pay) who perhaps can’t afford it yourselves!

“Trusts are being encouraged to concentrate on profitable areas of work rather than the most essential … like mental health, accident and emergency and care for the elderly. These are not profitable. But heart operations for wealthy Arabs will be.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/01/nhs-plans-put-wealthy-first

What did he just say????…. Ah! Wealthy Arabs he said not Wealthy Jews. I guess that’s not anti semitic or racist then huh? The ADL won’t be chasing after his ass then! Funny the double standards we have isn’t it? And it’s like a one way street: Say whatever you want about any other religion and no-one gives a toss but if you mention a political ideology such as Zionism (which is actually the most anti semitic ideology on this earth) then, ironically, you’re treated as if you are some form of jew hater! I wonder what the Scottish judiciary think of the substantial number of jewish people who are anti Zionist?

I say: Get a fcuking brain and learn something!

We’re just brilliant aren’t we? Brilliantly Evil!