APRILFREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018    - (1994 -Official Website -APRIL-PT 1-2018 )- APRIL FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018 

      APRILFREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018       APRIL-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

  APRIL-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018        APRIL-FREEDOM NOW-NEW- HOME PAGE 2018

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links- IMMIGRATION-ARCHIVE- EU FILE        IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS FOREIGN AID FILE

AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF BRUSSELS AND BERLIN .

OUR HISTORIC  ENGLISH SEA HIGHWAYS GIVEN AWAY BY THE TRAITOROUS EDWARD HEATH WILL BE RETURNED IN MARCH 2019.

'Ye mariners of England/that guard our native seas/Whose flag has braved a thousand years/The battle and the breeze'.

Thomas Campbell.(1777-1844) Ye Mariners of England

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

293

In 1962,

Field Marshall Montgomery

 found Sir Winston Churchill sitting up in bed smoking a cigar. Churchill shouted for more brandy and protested against Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market which as we soon found out was in reality  HITLER'S plan for Europe under GERMAN Control.

 


    Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said - Google Books Result
     

    Britain's attitude, Churchill explained, resembles that which we adopt about the
    European Army. We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged
    with and do not forfeit our
    insular or commonwealth character. Our first object is
    the unity and consolidation of the British Commonwealth. Our second, “the
    fraternal ...

 

 

EASTER-REBIRTH

 

 

Daily MaiL on SUNDAY

 

Why don't we teach migrants we are a CHRISTIAN...

by LORD CAREY

 FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.. -

 

...I believe we should include Christianity in citizen tests for all those who want to come to this country. There are many questions asked of migrants about the Royal Family and Parliament, but little about the Church of England or Britain's Christian history.

And it is vital that the Government itself does its homework better. Politicians and advisers would do well to remember the contribution of Christianity to our life, and not just our 'holy-days' and celebrations.

In coordination with religious leaders, some thought should be given to special training in religious literacy for at least some judges, Ministers and senior servants who deal directly with religious communities-their freedom and equalities.

It is preposterous yet dangerous state of affairs when Christmas cards are considered offensive, or the Cross is banned because it is thought divisive. Yet this is the world we live in.

We should rejoice in our Christian identity as a nation and celebrate it. Ordinary British people are not drifting away from the Christian Faith- look at the packed church carol services up and down the country.

'Peace on earth and goodwill towards men'

 may be the song of angels, but it should also be the aim of all of us to build a nation where we are secure in our own faith and welcome others.

 

Full article

 

 

 

 

H.F.1073BREXIT NOW

 

MRS MAY

THE

SOUL

OF

ENGLAND

IS NOT FOR SALE

BILL OF SALE

FOR

ENGLAND

 

    Theresa May

     

     

     

     

     

    wants Saudi oil firm

     

     

     

     

     

     

    to choose

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    London | Daily Mail Online

     

     

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Theresa-wants-Saudi-oil-

     

    firm-choose-London.html

     

     

    5 Apr 2017 ... Theresa May holds talks with Saudi

     

    officials as she tries to get ... Aramco is set

     

    to be valued at £1.6 trillion when it sells five per

     

    cent of ... Saudi Arabia's state oil
     

     

    company Aramco is the most valuable firm in the

     

    world. ... New York's bid may be
     

     

    problematic because US Securities and ......

     

     Here

     

    comes trouble!

     

    *

    Full article
     

WITH THE WEALTH OF SAUDI OIL AT ITS DISPOSAL THE GROWING POPULATION OF THOSE OF ISLAM FAITH

IN

 ENGLAND

WILL HAVE NOT ONLY THE NUMBERS BUT THE BACKING OF THE RICHEST FIRM ON THE LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE.

[WE WOULD INDEED HAVE SOLD OUR COUNTRY FOR

MAMMON

AND CHANGED OUR COUNTRY FROM A CHRISTIAN BASED COUNTRY

TO AN

ISLAMIC STATE]

 

 IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS

 
 

No man  of equal sanctity had risen to take his place, when in 878. King Alfred

[English King of the English]

lay in his tent at Iley, on the eve of the battle of Ethendun. To the king appeared St Neot,

"like an angle of God; his hair white as snow, his rainment white, glistening and fragrant with the scents of heaven."

HE PROMISED ALFRED VICTORY

" THE LORD" HE SAID, "SHALL BE WITH YOU"; EVEN THE LORD STRONG AND MIGHTY IN BATTLE. WHO GIVETH V ICTORY UNDER KINGS"

(Psalm. xxiv., verse 8)

As MORNING BROKE, THE LITTLE BAND OF SAXONS FELL ON GUTHRUN AND THE SLEEPING DANES.   SO SUDDEN WAS THEIR  ONSET, THAT AT FIRST THEY CARRIED ALL BEFORE THEM .  BUT GRADUALLY THE TIDE OF BATTLE BEGAN TO SWAY.   IT WAS TURNED IN FAVOUR OF KING ALFRED, WHEN A MAJESTIC FIGURE WHOM THE SAXONS RECOGNISED AS ST NEOT HIMSELF, SEIZING THE ROYAL BANNER, MARSHALLED HIS COUNTRYMEN TO RENEWED EFFORT ,VICTORY, AND PURSUIT, SO FOR A TIME PEACE CAME TO THE LAND AND GUTHRUN AND HIS FOLLOWERS BECAME CHRISTIONS...

 THE PSALMS IN HUMAN LIFE-PROTHERO-1903

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

EASTER SUNDAY-APRIL 16-2017

H. F. 1173

 

FREEDOM
 
By
 
Lord Acton

( 1834-1902)

If the nation is the source of law, it is reasonable to infer that national consent is a normal element in legislation, and that the State ought legitimately to take its limits from the nation.
 
Laws are part of the thing's nature. Law is national, growing on a particular soil, suited to a particular character and wants. Legislation should grow in harmony with the people-should be based on habits as well as on precepts. It should be identified with the national character and life. On this depends growth and progress. The people cannot administer a law not their own. This is the reverse of self-government, which proceeds not from a code but from custom, is learnt not from books but from practice, is administered by the people themselves. However good the code may be, if it comes from aliunde than from national life and history, it destroys self-government . . . it is for this reason that it has never been possible to export more than phantoms of the British Constitution.
 
Every appeal against opposition was to the hereditary rights; the only protection which the Englishman knew was in the traditional laws of his country. By means of the perpetual recurrence to old principles, and of the gradual contrivance of new forms in which to secure their action, the English people conquered freedom. The intensity of their conservatism was an impulse as well as a guide to their progress . . . The one thing that saved England from the fate of other countries was. . . the consistent, uninventive, stupid fidelity to the political system which originally belonged to all nations that traversed the ordeal of feudalism.
 
'I DO NOT LIKE TO CONCLUDE WITHOUT INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPRESSIVE FACT THAT SO MUCH HARD FIGHTING, THE THINKING, THE ENDURING THAT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DELIVERANCE OF MAN FROM THE POWER OF MAN, HAS MADE THE WORK OF OUR COUNTRYMAN, AND THEIR DEPENDANTS IN OTHER LANDS . . . .ALL THESE EXPLANATIONS LIE ON THE SURFACE, AND ARE AS VISIBLE AS THE PROTECTING OCEAN; BUT THEY CAN ONLY BE SUCCESSIVE EFFECTS OF A CONSTANT CAUSE WHICH LIE IN THE SAME NATIVE QUALITIES OF PERSEVERANCE, MODERATION, INDIVIDUALITY, AND THE MANLY SENSE OF DUTY, WHICH GIVE TO THE ENGLISH RACE ITS SUPREMACY IN THE STERN ART OF LABOUR, WHICH HAS ENABLED IT TO THRIVE AS NO OTHER ON IN HOSPITABLE SHORES, AND WHICH (ALTHOUGH NO OTHER PEOPLE HAS LESS OF THE BLOODTHIRSTY CRAVING FOR GLORY . . .) CAUSED NAPOLEON TO EXCLAIM, AS HE RODE AWAY FROM WATERLOO, “IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME SINCE CRECY. '
 
( our thoughts are with our brave countrymen and their fellow-islanders, allies and friends in the Gulf).
 
2003
 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****.OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****    ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY****  **** THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? **** ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****   EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

DECEMBER 9-2014

H. F.1444

 
AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF BRUSSELS AND BERLIN .

OUR HISTORIC  ENGLISH SEA HIGHWAYS GIVEN AWAY BY THE TRAITOROUS EDWARD HEATH WILL BE RETURNED IN MARCH 2019.

'Ye mariners of England/that guard our native seas/Whose flag has braved a thousand years/The battle and the breeze'.

Thomas Campbell.(1777-1844) Ye Mariners of England

 

 

APRIL-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

 

AUSTIN MITCHELL: Don't let unpatriotic politicians betray our fishermen again

178

View
comments

Austin Mitchell (pictured) says he fought to protect the British fishing industry for 40 years as an MP

For 40 years as an MP, I fought to protect the British fishing industry — only to see it ruined in England and damaged in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Although Brexit now offers a great opportunity to rebuild the industry, it is tragic to see that chance being thrown away.

For it is appalling that Chancellor Philip Hammond is touting our fishing rights as disposable, and hinting that the Government may give them away in return for a better Brexit deal.

He has suggested that British fishermen might have to accept foreign trawlers having significant access even after the UK has regained control of its traditional fishing grounds.

Asked if it would be 'acceptable' to trade fishing rights for a better deal for lucrative sectors of the economy such as the City, Mr Hammond said: 'We would be open to discussing the appropriate arrangements for reciprocal access for our fishermen to EU waters and for EU fishermen to our waters.'

Shamefully, he's wobbling and playing into the hands of the EU's Brexit negotiators. For they are desperately cherry-picking parts of a deal (something, of course, our government's negotiators are not allowed to do) by demanding fishing access for their fleets in return for the UK having tariff-free trade access to the remaining 27 EU countries.

It is appalling that Chancellor Philip Hammond (pictured) is touting our fishing rights as disposable, and hinting the Government may give them away in return for a better Brexit deal

Such a craven concession would fit with the way our fishing industry has been sold out to foreigners over the years.

For four decades as MP for Grimsby (where fishing has been vital to the town since mediaeval times), I watched as fishing ministers (both Labour and Conservative) promised to get a better deal for the UK industry in the annual December negotiations.

I then watched as they betrayed those promises — announcing cuts in our quotas, bans on threatened species, as well as denying the British industry the subsidies and support that our European competitors were getting.

It even took a quarter of a century to get niggardly compensation for the thousands of fishermen who lost their jobs when our boats were expelled from Icelandic waters following the so-called Cod Wars in the Seventies.

What's more, we were refused the opportunity to rebuild our industry in our own waters, in the same way every other country was doing. It was Ted Heath who betrayed British fishing when, as prime minister, he took us into the Common Market. He saw our industry as 'expendable', giving away our fishing grounds in his desperate desire to join the European club.

And so we lost control of one of the richest fisheries in the world. For the six founding members of the Common Market ordained that member states should be given 'equal access' to each other's fisheries, re-defined as a 'common resource'.

For four decades as MP for Grimsby (pictured), I watched as fishing ministers (both Labour and Conservative) promised to get a better deal for the UK industry

Since then, it has been one sacrifice after another.

Ministers have not stood up for our fishing industry in the way their counterparts in other countries have done for their own.

For example, Iceland's government protected its waters from being looted, and Norway's membership of the Single Market did not give EU nations any fishing rights off its coast. As independent nations, Iceland and Norway have built up their fishing industries within their own 200-mile limits. So has almost every other fishing nation.

But not Britain, with its weak and unpatriotic ministers.

The fact is that other EU countries, having fished out their own waters, are desperate for ours.

Currently, foreign boats take 80 per cent of the catch in UK waters. EU countries catch nearly two-thirds of their fish in our waters.

Because 'Skipper' Ted Heath was conned into accepting 'equal access to a common resource', our waters are open to any citizen of another EU country with a boat and a net. There's no legal basis to the EU's demands. Fishing is not part of the Single Market, though fish products are.

Ministers have not stood up for our fishing industry in the way their counterparts in other countries have done for their own

Brexit means the UK leaving the EU. It means that instead of Brussels rules, the UN law of the sea will prevail — giving us sovereignty over territorial waters out to 200 miles, or the mid-point between nearer countries.

But the words of wobbling Mr Hammond suggest otherwise. No wonder there are grave fears our government might sacrifice our fishing industry by being daft enough to sign up yet again to the notorious Common Fisheries Policy. But it must not.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove, whose father had a fishing business that closed down because of EU fishing policy, has said: 'We're taking back control of our fishing policy.'

He added: 'It means that for the first time in more than 50 years we will be able to decide who can access our waters.'

Ministers must not renege on that promise. It is the Government's moral duty to protect our fishing grounds and maintain sustainable stocks to hand this precious resource to future generations. Other countries see our grounds as something to be looted for as long as they can — and preferably for ever.

Disingenuously, Brussels argues that fish don't have passports. They breed in one area and migrate to another.

That's true. But it shouldn't have been an excuse for a policy that covered immature and breeding stocks and punished British-based boats.

For many fish spawn in non-British areas of the North Sea, and are protected from fishing. But as soon as they mature and move into our waters, they can be caught.

Such unfairness is glaringly obvious to everyone in our fishing ports. But it seems Philip Hammond doesn't realise what those Brussels predators want. They want to frighten Britain and please the remaining 27 members.

 

The fact is that other EU countries, having fished out their own waters, are desperate for ours

It is no coincidence that the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, is a former French fishing minister who wants his countrymen to keep over-fishing our sea bass and anything else they can. It is also a natural desire for Germans. Almost all the herring they consume and 60 per cent of mackerel comes from British waters. One of the country's largest fish processing plants, Rugen Fisch, is in an area where Chancellor Angela Merkel has often canvassed during elections.

In my time as MP for Grimsby, I witnessed the over-fishing that the Common Fisheries Policy had led to, and have watched as foreign vessels suspected of over-fishing escaped checks by inspectors because they were too fast, while British boats that had done nothing wrong had nets inspected.

One of the worst scandals was the flagrant abuse of the rules which have allowed foreign vessels to register as British to cynically catch our quota.

Most surreally, I was once introduced to a man who I was told was the 'chair of the Fleetwood (Lancashire) Fishing Vessel Owners'. He was Spanish and spoke little English.

I've witnessed, in foreign ports, fish that has been illegally caught, being landed without a single check.

There's no reason for prolonging this farce. Or Britain's sad and enormous sacrifice.

The British fishing industry can only be rebuilt by safeguarding our waters and having the ability to enforce sustainable fishing. Only that certainty will bring investment.

After four decades of neglect and decline, our coastal fishing areas mustn't be betrayed again. I'm sorry, Mr Hammond, they are not negotiating counters simply to be traded away. They're a way of life and a vital British industry.

It's time for us to stand up and tell Monsieur Barnier: 'Allez vous en!' 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5480261/Dont-let-unpatriotic-politicians-betray-fishermen-again.html#ixzz59MnFZGjM
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

H.F.1469

BRITAIN AND EUROPE

The Culture of Deceit

by

Christopher Booker

 

*

PART  3

HEATH and 1970

[The Great Conspiracy]

 By the time Mr Heath came to launch his own, successful application to 'enter Europe' in 1970, he was already well versed in how to pretend that it was something other than what it was. Over the next five years, up to the time of the referendum in 1975, Parliament and the British people were incessantly assured that entry into the Common Market was simply a matter of trade and jobs, in no way would the British way of life be changed or Britain's right to srun her own affairs curtailed.

[At the referendum  In 1975 we voted NO!]

An oft-quoted line from Mr Heath's White Paper circulated to every household in the country in June 1971 promised

'there is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty".

This from the same man who before his death in 2005 admitted to the British people that he had lied because he believed it was what should happen .He failed to let them know that he  Rippon and others were Nazi-spys since 1938-detailed HERE!

In a television broadcast to mark Britain's entry in January 1973, Heath said:

"there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty.  These fears, I need hardly say, are completely injustified"

YET SHORTLY AFTER Parliament had approved British entry, word came from Paris that President Pompidou was proposing that member states should make a solemn commitment to

"move irrevocably to economic and monetary union by 1980".

This made a complete mockery of all the assurances given to Parliament that any plans for monetary union had been dropped.  In a BBC documentary series The Poisoned Chalice in 1996, Sir Douglas-Home looking askance at the news. He said to Heath

"the House isn't going to like this"."But that" Denman recalled Heath replying, "is what it's all about". When Heath himself was asked by the BBC whether he could really have said such a thing, his only response, after an unsmiling pause, was

 "well, that's what it was about"..

Another revealing measure of how deeply the

CULTURE OF DECEIT

had now set in was the curious story of the common fisheries policy, and the Heath Government's response to the crude ambush set up by the Six to ensure that, as part of 

THE PRICE OF ENTRY

the four applicant countries Britain, Iceland, Denmark and Norway, would have to hand over to the community their fishing waters, the richest in the world. (all documents cited on the CFP are from PRO files in FO [FOREIGN OFFICE] 30/656-9)

On the very day the applications went in, June 30 1970, the Six hastily approved the principle that member-states should be given "equal access" to each other's fishing waters, under Brussels control. The point was that, because this had now become part of the acquis communautairte, the body of existing Community law, ythe applicant countries would have to accept a fait accompli. Within a few years, as everyone knew, national fishing waters were due to be extended out under international law to 200 miles. Because the waters belonging to the four applicants states would then contain most of the fish in European waters, this would give the SIX an astonishing prize.

In fact the Six knew that their new fisheries policy

WAS NOT LEGAL.

Among Foreign Office papers released in 2001 was an internal Council of Ministers document, dating from June 1970, which shows how desperate the Brussels lawyers had been to find some article in the

TREATY of ROME

 which could be used to authorise such a policy.

THERE WERE NONE.

The policy therefore had

NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION,

and other papers show that the

'FOREIGN OFFICE'

KNEW THIS TOO.

[Since the sixties under Macmillan and Heath and since with the late exception of Margaret Thatcher who paid for her late conversion with 'NO!-NO!-NO! to closer union the so-called British Foreign Office was and still is with David Cameron in reality under the control of  BRUSSELS.]

But so determined was Mr Heath not to offend his prospective new partners that he decided

NOT TO CHALLENGE [THE LEGALITY OF] THEM.

Britain would simply accept the

ILLEGAL NEW FISHERIES POLICY

even though this would mean handing over

ONE OF THE GREATEST RENEWABLE ASSETS AND WOULD SPELL DISASTER FOR A LARGE PART OF HER FISHING FLEET.

Gradually the British fishermen got the idea that they were about to be

SACRIFICED

and in the closing months of 1970 various MPs for fishing constituences wrote to ministers asking what on earth was going on. They were fobbed off with evasive replies. In deed, as the recently released papers show

[ In 2001 under the 30 year rule-Public Records Office-Kew- re Heath's application to join the supposed Common Market but really a

politically based Super-state

 to be known as the

 European Union.

civil servants eventually worked out a careful form of words

[As they will  in February 2016]

intended to to reassure the fishermen that

'" proper account would be taken of their interests".

BUT

behind the scenes,

as a Scottish Office memo put it on November 9-1970

ministers were being told how important it was -not to get drawn into detailed explanations of just what problems might lie ahead for the fishermen because,

"in a wider UK context, they must be regarded as expendable."

 

The following year the White Paper promised that Britain would not sign an ACCESSION TREATY until the Common Market's fisheries policy was changed. Geoffrey Ribbon [a Nazi Spy  with Edward Heath and Roy Jenkins recruited by German (Nazi) intelligence part of of a spy cell in Balliol College in 1938-reported to MI5 by the MASTER

A. D. LINDSAY]

Rippon repeated this PROMISE to PARLIAMENT and to the TORY PARTY Conference.

But in November Mr Heath realised that time was running out.  Unless he accepted the fishing policy as it stood, his plans for Britain's entry in January 1973 would have to be abandoned.

He instructed Rippon to give way, and when Rippon was questioned about this in the House of Commons on December 13, 1972

HE ANSWERED WITH A STRAIGHT LIE.

He claimed Britain had retained complete control over the waters round her coastline, knowing that this was simply

NOT TRUE.

So barefaced was this

DECEIT

over fishing rights that successive government and fisheries ministers would continue to obfuscate the truth.

[TELL DAMN LIES]

of what had been done for the next

THREE DECADES

In June 1975, the month when inflation hit 27 percent,

ITS HIGHEST LEVEL IN HISTORY

came the

REFERENDUM

Surrounded by all the evidence of a

MAJOR ECONOMIC CRISIS,

[THE GREATLY MISLED AND LIED TO]

BRITISH PEOPLE

VOTED BY 2 to 1

TO REMAIN IN A

[SUPPOSED]

"COMMON MARKET"

which the vast majority believed was intended to be no more than a free-trading area arrangement'

The supporters of the YES! campaign, including the leaderships of all  three political parties [AS again in 2016] did little to disillusion them.  The message was that a 'YES' vote was all about protecting jobs [As yet again in 2016] and Prosperity', offering the lifeline Britain's ailing economy required.  As for any fears that there might be moves towards "an Economic andn Monetary Union" and "fixed exchange rates for the pound", the Wilson Government's own leaflet to every household promised categorically

" this threat has been removed".

END

 

 

*  *  *

 

[WE VOTED IN 1975 TO LEAVE THE NAZI-PLANNED

SUPERSTATE

AND  WE ARE STILL FIGHTING THIS NAZI ABOMINATION TODAY IN FEBRUARY 2016.

[Unfortunately even after 41 years we are still hearing the pathetic plea that we cannot LEAVE THE EU because that is where the business is. The last individual we spoke to a few days ago a technician with a mind to match could not understand that we would NOT be leaving EUROPE-THEY NEED US- but the

COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-UNDEMOCRATIC-EUROPEAN UNION

[What you are hearing from the lips of pro-EU ministers today in 2016 are the same LIES and DECEIT of 1972/3 and 1975 and ever since. We have even heard yet again about the 3million job loses -an interview on Channel 4 on February 16 -a pro-EU  minister struggling to find any constructive facts to support his pitiful view. From what we hear about Robots taking over millions of jobs in the future. The Government should be encouraging as many people particularly those who have no intention in ever integrating into our society but hope to bring about a ISLAMIC STATE to return to their natural habitat as soon as possible. It  is because of the ineptness and stupidity of the present and past governments who infected by the now discredited politically-correct notion of

MULTICULTURALISM

 has left the greater part of our major towns and Cities as

FOREIGN ENCLAVES.

 

 

ENGLAND

'WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.'

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

[THE PROOF OF THIS STATEMENT IN 2015 IS SHOWN IN MANY TOWNS AND CITIES IN OUR ONCE FAMILIAR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND BEFORE THE EU AND MASS IMMIGRATION FROM

 

FOREIGN CULTURES LEADING TO FOREIGN ENCLAVES

WITH THEIR BIRTH-RATE OF 4-1 AND MORE IMMIGRATION FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES  AND FROM  ELSEWHERE WILL UNLESS FIRM DECISIVE ACTION IS TAKEN NOW! WILL LEAD TO A FOREIGN TAKEOVER OF OUR COUNTRY WITHIN A FEW GENERATIONS . WE HAVE SEEN SOME EXAMPLES ON HOW THEY CAPITALISE ON THEIR CUSTOMARY ELECTION TACTICS ONCE DESCRIBED BY A JUDGE INVESTIGATING ELECTION FRAUD IN A LABOUR CONSTITUENCY IN BIRMINGHAM AND WOULD FIT EVENTS RECENTLY IN

TOWER+HAMLETS

AS AN EXAMPLE OF A

BANANA REPUBLIC.  

*

No ISLAMIC STATE would allow millions of Christians or Unbelievers to settle in their countries unless they converted to ISLAM. The PENALTY for not doing so in an ISLAMIC STATE is DEATH. It has been the GREAT WEALTH of SAUDI ARABIA brought about by their OIL DEPOSITS - a legacy of the FIRST WORLD WAR and the BRITISH-FRENCH-USA foreign policy, and the closeness of Cameron and his predecessors to the brutal regime and permitting the sales of large quantities of ARMS used to further the SAUDI HARD FUNDAMENTALIST DOCTRINE worldwide which has caused great suffering in Middle East countries and even subversion in ENGLAND itself. The results of the CHAOS now set to EXPLODE at any time ,which hopefully , will change OUR WORLD into a more EQUITABLE and FAIRER SOCIETY.]

FEBRUARY 17-2016

 

IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS

H.F.676/3

THERESA MAY'S SURRENDER

 TO

HITLER'S LAIR

IN

SEPTEMBER 2017

 IS REMINISCENT

OF

PRIME MINISTER NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN'S

LACK OF GRIT

IN

1938

WHICH LED TO WORLD WAR 11 IN SEPTEMBER 1939

AS THEN WE HAVE THE PHONEY WAR AND THE

BATTLE FOR BRITAIN.

What would those who died protecting our skies in 1940 think of the GREAT BETRAYAL by fellow citizens to their FOE of TWO WORLD WARS-

GERMANY

IN SEPTEMBER 2017 WE haven't  even had our Dunkirk as we haven't in reality even crossed the Channel to claim our FREEDOM after 28 months since a majority voted for the return of THEIR COUNTRY- LAW-CUSTOM- given away by TRAITORS in 1972.

 

BEING IN THE UNDERBELLY OF EUROPE WON'T HELP ONE IOTA!-GERMANY IS ADJUDICATOR!

WE HAVE STALEMATE!

THE ANSWER IS TO BOYCOTT GOODS FROM FRANCE AND GERMANY WHO ARE THE DRIVER AND FIREMAN OF THE EU EXPRESS.

WE BUY MORE FROM EUROPE THAN THEY BUY FROM US!

BUSINESSES IN THE MAIN  SUPPORT THE EU

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A WAR OF SORTS!

REMEMBER!

WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A DEMOCRATIC BODY BUT WITH THE HITLERITE -AUTOCRATIC EU

*

 

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS ALMOST BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/****     REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****     THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****      FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/****     A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER****     A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES?/****     THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/ ****  WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND/****    50 YEARS OF SURRENDER/ **** BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENT SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL.****NAZI PENETRATION OF GERMANY'S POST WAR STRUCTURES****WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED?****AN ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENT BILL? PART2****Former Nazi Bank Bank of International Settlements To Rule The Global Economy

 

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

DAVID CAMERON'S PLAN TO CLAW BACK POWERS FROM EU ARE DOOMED SAYS EU CHIEF IN OCTOBER-2013

***

TREASON

 

 

 

 

In November 2005 we put the following bulletin on our EDP WEBSITE

 

H.F1321 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLAN FOR EUROPE

BRITAIN AND EUROPE

The Culture of Deceit

by

Christopher Booker

 

*

PART  3

HEATH and 1970

[The Great Conspiracy]

 By the time Mr Heath came to launch his own, successful application to 'enter Europe' in 1970, he was already well versed in how to pretend that it was something other than what it was. Over the next five years, up to the time of the referendum in 1975, Parliament and the British people were incessantly assured that entry into the Common Market was simply a matter of trade and jobs, in no way would the British way of life be changed or Britain's right to srun her own affairs curtailed.

[At the referendum  In 1975 we voted NO!]

An oft-quoted line from Mr Heath's White Paper circulated to every household in the country in June 1971 promised

'there is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty".

This from the same man who before his death in 2005 admitted to the British people that he had lied because he believed it was what should happen .He failed to let them know that he  Rippon and others were Nazi-spys since 1938-detailed HERE!

In a television broadcast to mark Britain's entry in January 1973, Heath said:

"there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty.  These fears, I need hardly say, are completely injustified"

YET SHORTLY AFTER Parliament had approved British entry, word came from Paris that President Pompidou was proposing that member states should make a solemn commitment to

"move irrevocably to economic and monetary union by 1980".

This made a complete mockery of all the assurances given to Parliament that any plans for monetary union had been dropped.  In a BBC documentary series The Poisoned Chalice in 1996, Sir Douglas-Home looking askance at the news. He said to Heath

"the House isn't going to like this"."But that" Denman recalled Heath replying, "is what it's all about". When Heath himself was asked by the BBC whether he could really have said such a thing, his only response, after an unsmiling pause, was

 "well, that's what it was about"..

Another revealing measure of how deeply the

CULTURE OF DECEIT

had now set in was the curious story of the common fisheries policy, and the Heath Government's response to the crude ambush set up by the Six to ensure that, as part of 

THE PRICE OF ENTRY

the four applicant countries Britain, Iceland, Denmark and Norway, would have to hand over to the community their fishing waters, the richest in the world. (all documents cited on the CFP are from PRO files in FO [FOREIGN OFFICE] 30/656-9)

On the very day the applications went in, June 30 1970, the Six hastily approved the principle that member-states should be given "equal access" to each other's fishing waters, under Brussels control. The point was that, because this had now become part of the acquis communautairte, the body of existing Community law, ythe applicant countries would have to accept a fait accompli. Within a few years, as everyone knew, national fishing waters were due to be extended out under international law to 200 miles. Because the waters belonging to the four applicants states would then contain most of the fish in European waters, this would give the SIX an astonishing prize.

In fact the Six knew that their new fisheries policy

WAS NOT LEGAL.

Among Foreign Office papers released in 2001 was an internal Council of Ministers document, dating from June 1970, which shows how desperate the Brussels lawyers had been to find some article in the

TREATY of ROME

 which could be used to authorise such a policy.

THERE WERE NONE.

The policy therefore had

NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION,

and other papers show that the

'FOREIGN OFFICE'

KNEW THIS TOO.

[Since the sixties under Macmillan and Heath and since with the late exception of Margaret Thatcher who paid for her late conversion with 'NO!-NO!-NO! to closer union the so-called British Foreign Office was and still is with David Cameron in reality under the control of  BRUSSELS.]

But so determined was Mr Heath not to offend his prospective new partners that he decided

NOT TO CHALLENGE [THE LEGALITY OF] THEM.

Britain would simply accept the

ILLEGAL NEW FISHERIES POLICY

even though this would mean handing over

ONE OF THE GREATEST RENEWABLE ASSETS AND WOULD SPELL DISASTER FOR A LARGE PART OF HER FISHING FLEET.

Gradually the British fishermen got the idea that they were about to be

SACRIFICED

and in the closing months of 1970 various MPs for fishing constituences wrote to ministers asking what on earth was going on. They were fobbed off with evasive replies. In deed, as the recently released papers show

[ In 2001 under the 30 year rule-Public Records Office-Kew- re Heath's application to join the supposed Common Market but really a

politically based Super-state

 to be known as the

 European Union.

civil servants eventually worked out a careful form of words

[As they will  in February 2016]

intended to to reassure the fishermen that

'" proper account would be taken of their interests".

BUT

behind the scenes,

as a Scottish Office memo put it on November 9-1970

ministers were being told how important it was -not to get drawn into detailed explanations of just what problems might lie ahead for the fishermen because,

"in a wider UK context, they must be regarded as expendable."

 

The following year the White Paper promised that Britain would not sign an ACCESSION TREATY until the Common Market's fisheries policy was changed. Geoffrey Ribbon [a Nazi Spy  with Edward Heath and Roy Jenkins recruited by German (Nazi) intelligence part of of a spy cell in Balliol College in 1938-reported to MI5 by the MASTER

A. D. LINDSAY]

Rippon repeated this PROMISE to PARLIAMENT and to the TORY PARTY Conference.

But in November Mr Heath realised that time was running out.  Unless he accepted the fishing policy as it stood, his plans for Britain's entry in January 1973 would have to be abandoned.

He instructed Rippon to give way, and when Rippon was questioned about this in the House of Commons on December 13, 1972

HE ANSWERED WITH A STRAIGHT LIE.

He claimed Britain had retained complete control over the waters round her coastline, knowing that this was simply

NOT TRUE.

So barefaced was this

DECEIT

over fishing rights that successive government and fisheries ministers would continue to obfuscate the truth.

[TELL DAMN LIES]

of what had been done for the next

THREE DECADES

In June 1975, the month when inflation hit 27 percent,

ITS HIGHEST LEVEL IN HISTORY

came the

REFERENDUM

Surrounded by all the evidence of a

MAJOR ECONOMIC CRISIS,

[THE GREATLY MISLED AND LIED TO]

BRITISH PEOPLE

VOTED BY 2 to 1

TO REMAIN IN A

[SUPPOSED]

"COMMON MARKET"

which the vast majority believed was intended to be no more than a free-trading area arrangement'

The supporters of the YES! campaign, including the leaderships of all  three political parties [AS again in 2016] did little to disillusion them.  The message was that a 'YES' vote was all about protecting jobs [As yet again in 2016] and Prosperity', offering the lifeline Britain's ailing economy required.  As for any fears that there might be moves towards "an Economic andn Monetary Union" and "fixed exchange rates for the pound", the Wilson Government's own leaflet to every household promised categorically

" this threat has been removed".

END

 

 

*  *  *

 

[WE VOTED IN 1975 TO LEAVE THE NAZI-PLANNED

SUPERSTATE

AND  WE ARE STILL FIGHTING THIS NAZI ABOMINATION TODAY IN FEBRUARY 2016.

[Unfortunately even after 41 years we are still hearing the pathetic plea that we cannot LEAVE THE EU because that is where the business is. The last individual we spoke to a few days ago a technician with a mind to match could not understand that we would NOT be leaving EUROPE-THEY NEED US- but the

COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-UNDEMOCRATIC-EUROPEAN UNION

[What you are hearing from the lips of pro-EU ministers today in 2016 are the same LIES and DECEIT of 1972/3 and 1975 and ever since. We have even heard yet again about the 3million job loses -an interview on Channel 4 on February 16 -a pro-EU  minister struggling to find any constructive facts to support his pitiful view. From what we hear about Robots taking over millions of jobs in the future. The Government should be encouraging as many people particularly those who have no intention in ever integrating into our society but hope to bring about a ISLAMIC STATE to return to their natural habitat as soon as possible. It  is because of the ineptness and stupidity of the present and past governments who infected by the now discredited politically-correct notion of

MULTICULTURALISM

 has left the greater part of our major towns and Cities as

FOREIGN ENCLAVES.

 

 

ENGLAND

'WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.'

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

[THE PROOF OF THIS STATEMENT IN 2015 IS SHOWN IN MANY TOWNS AND CITIES IN OUR ONCE FAMILIAR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND BEFORE THE EU AND MASS IMMIGRATION FROM

 

FOREIGN CULTURES LEADING TO FOREIGN ENCLAVES

WITH THEIR BIRTH-RATE OF 4-1 AND MORE IMMIGRATION FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES  AND FROM  ELSEWHERE WILL UNLESS FIRM DECISIVE ACTION IS TAKEN NOW! WILL LEAD TO A FOREIGN TAKEOVER OF OUR COUNTRY WITHIN A FEW GENERATIONS . WE HAVE SEEN SOME EXAMPLES ON HOW THEY CAPITALISE ON THEIR CUSTOMARY ELECTION TACTICS ONCE DESCRIBED BY A JUDGE INVESTIGATING ELECTION FRAUD IN A LABOUR CONSTITUENCY IN BIRMINGHAM AND WOULD FIT EVENTS RECENTLY IN

TOWER+HAMLETS

AS AN EXAMPLE OF A

BANANA REPUBLIC.  

*

No ISLAMIC STATE would allow millions of Christians or Unbelievers to settle in their countries unless they converted to ISLAM. The PENALTY for not doing so in an ISLAMIC STATE is DEATH. It has been the GREAT WEALTH of SAUDI ARABIA brought about by their OIL DEPOSITS - a legacy of the FIRST WORLD WAR and the BRITISH-FRENCH-USA foreign policy, and the closeness of Cameron and his predecessors to the brutal regime and permitting the sales of large quantities of ARMS used to further the SAUDI HARD FUNDAMENTALIST DOCTRINE worldwide which has caused great suffering in Middle East countries and even subversion in ENGLAND itself. The results of the CHAOS now set to EXPLODE at any time ,which hopefully , will change OUR WORLD into a more EQUITABLE and FAIRER SOCIETY.]

FEBRUARY 17-2016

 

IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS

H.F.676/3

PETER OBORNE

ON POLITICS AND POWER

 

 

 

IT'S TIME MRS MAY TOOK A LEAF OUT OF TRUMP'S BOOK

 

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump and Theresa May could hardly be further apart in their character as national leaders.

Whereas Trump is seen to be decisive, Theresa May dithers. Trump is flamboyant and May is dull. While the British Prime Minister tends to seek out compromise, a headstrong U.S. President wants everything on his own terms.

And recently these huge differences in personality and style have been more evident than ever.

While Mrs May has inched forward very carefully with Britain’s negotiations to leave the EU, Mr Trump has ripped up the rulebook by arranging a meeting with North Korean despot Kim Jong-un.

The move is pure Trump — a bombastic, boastful and arrogant man who conducts high-stakes diplomacy by Twitter and is contemptuous of the advice of the Washington establishment, which despises him and is determined to destroy him.

 

Donald Trump and Theresa May could hardly be further apart in their character as national leaders, says PETER OBORNE

Yes, it’s very early days, but the dramatic news that Trump is to meet Kim brings hope of an end to the threat of nuclear war which has hovered in that part of the globe for years and defied the best efforts of the world’s best diplomats.

If a deal is struck, it will be an extraordinary vindication of The Donald’s way of doing politics. His bravado, aggression and brinkmanship will have paid off.

Remember that when Barack Obama was in the White House, the liberal media applauded his judicious approach to North Korea. But it did absolutely nothing to stop the Pyongyang regime building missiles with the reported capability to reach California.

I’m not suggesting in any way that Mrs May copies Trump, but there are lessons from his leadership style.

Generally, the consensus has been that the Prime Minister’s calm and self-effacing approach has been the right one for a Government with a wafer-thin majority to handle historic negotiations.

Nevertheless, it’s time to ask whether in her dealings over the EU, Mrs May ought to take a leaf or two out of The Trump Book Of International Diplomacy. To date, she’s behaved in the opposite way to Trump.

She’s played by the rules. She’s been careful not to cause offence to Brussels. She’s always ready to offer compromise. She habitually does what Whitehall civil servants tell her.

In the early days of her premiership, Mrs May was tougher, saying about Brexit that no deal is better than a bad deal. She was right.

However, she has backtracked and there has been none of that resolute language recently. Quite the reverse, in fact.

True, her measured speech at London’s Mansion House eight days ago was pragmatic and sensible — setting out her government’s position while also handing out olive branches to Brussels.

So what was the result of being reasonable? The Prime Minister was put down by contemptuous EU leaders. They made clear that they have no intention of striking a deal with Britain except on their own terms.

The European Parliament’s Brexit chief, Guy Verhofstadt, with leaden sarcasm, insultingly spoke of Mrs May’s goals as ‘vague aspirations’ and said he hoped that ‘serious proposals have been put in the post’.

 

Donald Trump, right, speaks to Theresa May during in a working dinner meeting at the NATO headquarters

The preening Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, sneeringly said it was not in the EU’s interests to give way to what he called her ‘pick-and-mix’ approach.

And with his own bucket of cold water was the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, whose office lectured the British Government that it should not be allowed to ‘cherry-pick’ a bespoke Brexit deal. It’s easy to guess how Trump would respond to such pipsqueaks. This is the man, remember, who called the North Korean leader ‘Little Rocket Man’ and who tweets scathing ripostes to his critics at 5am.

Mrs May, of course, disdains Twitter — unlike her predecessor in No. 10, David Cameron, who was an oh-so trendy social media obsessive.

(Indeed, on the evening of the EU referendum he was foolishly busy tweeting: ‘Just 1 hour left to #VoteRemain — and keep Britain stronger, safer and better off in Europe.’)

Without resorting to such gimmicks, Mrs May could start tearing up the diplomatic textbook and making her own ultimatums.

For the truth is that Britain has aces to play. If the Brussels bully-boys try to pull up the drawbridge, we must retaliate.

A bankrupt Brussels is desperate for the billions we have offered as a divorce settlement. If they cut up rough, we should threaten to withdraw our offer.

These Eurocrats need to be forcefully reminded that German and French manufacturers would be severely damaged if there was no deal.

Certainly, an area where Mrs May ought to be more Trump-like is on UK fishing rights.

In recent days, two ministers — Philip Hammond and George Eustace — shamelessly signalled to EU negotiators that Britain might be happy to sell out this country’s fishermen and allow boats from the remaining 27 EU nations into our coastal waters if we can secure a better deal for some sectors of our economy such as the City.

 

It’s time for Theresa May to be bolder, put EU negotiators in their place — and win a really good deal for Britain

What a shabby betrayal of the democratic wishes of the 17 million who voted for Brexit (and, I wager, of many who voted Remain who also care for the protection of British fisheries).

Fishing rights are a deeply emotive issue, like immigration. Mrs May would be justified to do a Trump and threaten to walk away from the negotiating table if Brussels tries to con us on that issue.

She needs to make absolutely clear that any border arrangement between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic cannot be allowed to damage the constitutional integrity of the UK, and if she needs to use brinkmanship to secure this, so be it.

Let’s never forget that it was the unequivocal resolve of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan — another leader unconscionably sneered at by the liberal classes — who out-stared the Russian bear, resulting in the collapse of Communism.

Timidly and limply following the advice of diplomats never achieves much in the face of obdurate foes.

It’s time for Theresa May to be bolder, put EU negotiators in their place — and win a really good deal for Britain.

 
 

An over-ambitious liability 

As police continue to investigate the Salisbury poisonings, the Government is planning how to respond if it is proved that the Russian state was responsible.

In such circumstances, I wish I had more faith in our novice Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson. Since his appointment four months ago, he has shown poor judgment.

First, he appalled senior military figures by revealing sensitive information about the Russian threat in what looked like a cack-handed attempt to distract attention from embarrassing revelations that he became close to a female office colleague during the early years of his marriage.

Then he self-aggrandisingly announced that he planned to challenge China by sending a British warship through the South China Sea — which must have had the Chinese quaking in their boots!

Most worryingly, I understand that Mr Williamson’s relations with his military chiefs of staff are poor.

I’m told he has taken to summoning them to his office and berating them in front of junior colleagues. Apparently, senior generals are so alarmed that they may raise their concerns with No. 10.

Mr Williamson makes little secret of his ambition to be prime minister one day. Let me tell him, if he continues alienating so many people, he’ll be lucky to stay in his present job, let alone make it to Downing Street.

As the storm clouds gather, Britain needs a wise head as Defence Secretary. Not an inexperienced lightweight who is consumed by his own vaulting ambitions.

 
 

Despite winning four of the five general elections he fought, Harold Wilson’s reputation was abysmally low when he died 23 years ago.

However, there are signs that it is being rehabilitated.

One reason, I believe, is because his skill in keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War contrasts with Tony Blair’s calamitous decision to take this country to war in Iraq.

The latter choice resulted in the wider region becoming a bloodbath that continues to this day.

An insight into Wilson’s mind was offered last week when his chief policy adviser, Bernard Donoughue, 83, delivered a speech in Westminster.

He said the Labour PM ‘never entered a room without first establishing the best exit’.

Donoughue added: ‘That was a metaphor for Wilson’s political tactics.’

Donoughue also said that Wilson warned his speechwriters: ‘Remember that I don’t want too many of these Guardianisms, Environmentalism, Genderism etc.

‘I want my speeches always to include what working people are concerned with: jobs, pay, prices, pensions.’

Sound advice for any prime minister. 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5484335/PETER-OBORNE-time-Mrs-took-leaf-Trumps-book.html#ixzz59Qv1fdRl
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

MARCH 10,2018

 

*  *  *

PATRIOTISM

'Of the whole sum of human life no small part is that which consists of a man's relations to his country, and his feelings concerning it.'-   GLADSTONE

*

'Love of country is one of the loftiest virtues; and so treason against it has been considered among the most damning sins.'

E.A.Storrs

*

[A MESSAGE TO PRIME MINISTER MAY:

'Be just and fear not; let all the ends thou aimest at, be your country's thy God's, and TRUTH'S.

Shakespeare.

WE look to Mrs May to 'RIGHT THE WRONG' OF A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT IN 1972 AND LET 'RIGHT BE DONE! ]

*

H.F.1500 -BREXIT MEANS BREXIT-PRIME MINISTER MAY-JUNE 23-2016

THERESA MAY'S SURRENDER

 TO

HITLER'S LAIR

IN

SEPTEMBER 2017

 IS REMINISCENT

OF

PRIME MINISTER NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN'S

LACK OF GRIT

IN

1938

WHICH LED TO WORLD WAR 11 IN SEPTEMBER 1939

AS THEN WE HAVE THE PHONEY WAR AND THE

BATTLE FOR BRITAIN.

What would those who died protecting our skies in 1940 think of the GREAT BETRAYAL by fellow citizens to their FOE of TWO WORLD WARS-

GERMANY

IN 2017 WE haven't  even had our Dunkirk as we haven't in reality even crossed the Channel to claim our FREEDOM after 15 months since a majority voted for the return of THEIR COUNTRY LAW-CUSTOM- given away by TRAITORS in 1972.

 

BEING IN THE UNDERBELLY OF EUROPE WON'T HELP ONE IOTA!-GERMANY IS ADJUDICATOR!

WE HAVE STALEMATE!

THE ANSWER IS TO BOYCOTT GOODS FROM FRANCE AND GERMANY WHO ARE THE DRIVER AND FIREMAN OF THE EU EXPRESS.

WE BUY MORE FROM EUROPE THAN THEY BUY FROM US!

BUSINESSES IN THE MAIN  SUPPORT THE EU

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A WAR OF SORTS!

REMEMBER!

WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A DEMOCRATIC BODY BUT WITH THE HITLERITE -AUTOCRATIC EU

*

 

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS ALMOST BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/****     REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****     THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****      FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/****     A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER****     A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES?/****     THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/ ****  WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND/****    50 YEARS OF SURRENDER/ **** BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENT SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL.****NAZI PENETRATION OF GERMANY'S POST WAR STRUCTURES****WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED?****AN ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENT BILL? PART2****Former Nazi Bank Bank of International Settlements To Rule The Global Economy

 

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

DAVID CAMERON'S PLAN TO CLAW BACK POWERS FROM EU ARE DOOMED SAYS EU CHIEF IN OCTOBER-2013

***

TREASON

 

 

 

 

In November 2005 we put the following bulletin on our EDP WEBSITE

 

H.F1321 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLAN FOR EUROPE

BRITAIN AND EUROPE

The Culture of Deceit

by

Christopher Booker

 

*

PART  3

HEATH and 1970

[The Great Conspiracy]

 By the time Mr Heath came to launch his own, successful application to 'enter Europe' in 1970, he was already well versed in how to pretend that it was something other than what it was. Over the next five years, up to the time of the referendum in 1975, Parliament and the British people were incessantly assured that entry into the Common Market was simply a matter of trade and jobs, in no way would the British way of life be changed or Britain's right to srun her own affairs curtailed.

[At the referendum  In 1975 we voted NO!]

An oft-quoted line from Mr Heath's White Paper circulated to every household in the country in June 1971 promised

'there is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty".

This from the same man who before his death in 2005 admitted to the British people that he had lied because he believed it was what should happen .He failed to let them know that he  Rippon and others were Nazi-spys since 1938-detailed HERE!

In a television broadcast to mark Britain's entry in January 1973, Heath said:

"there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty.  These fears, I need hardly say, are completely injustified"

YET SHORTLY AFTER Parliament had approved British entry, word came from Paris that President Pompidou was proposing that member states should make a solemn commitment to

"move irrevocably to economic and monetary union by 1980".

This made a complete mockery of all the assurances given to Parliament that any plans for monetary union had been dropped.  In a BBC documentary series The Poisoned Chalice in 1996, Sir Douglas-Home looking askance at the news. He said to Heath

"the House isn't going to like this"."But that" Denman recalled Heath replying, "is what it's all about". When Heath himself was asked by the BBC whether he could really have said such a thing, his only response, after an unsmiling pause, was

 "well, that's what it was about"..

Another revealing measure of how deeply the

CULTURE OF DECEIT

had now set in was the curious story of the common fisheries policy, and the Heath Government's response to the crude ambush set up by the Six to ensure that, as part of 

THE PRICE OF ENTRY

the four applicant countries Britain, Iceland, Denmark and Norway, would have to hand over to the community their fishing waters, the richest in the world. (all documents cited on the CFP are from PRO files in FO [FOREIGN OFFICE] 30/656-9)

On the very day the applications went in, June 30 1970, the Six hastily approved the principle that member-states should be given "equal access" to each other's fishing waters, under Brussels control. The point was that, because this had now become part of the acquis communautairte, the body of existing Community law, ythe applicant countries would have to accept a fait accompli. Within a few years, as everyone knew, national fishing waters were due to be extended out under international law to 200 miles. Because the waters belonging to the four applicants states would then contain most of the fish in European waters, this would give the SIX an astonishing prize.

In fact the Six knew that their new fisheries policy

WAS NOT LEGAL.

Among Foreign Office papers released in 2001 was an internal Council of Ministers document, dating from June 1970, which shows how desperate the Brussels lawyers had been to find some article in the

TREATY of ROME

 which could be used to authorise such a policy.

THERE WERE NONE.

The policy therefore had

NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION,

and other papers show that the

'FOREIGN OFFICE'

KNEW THIS TOO.

[Since the sixties under Macmillan and Heath and since with the late exception of Margaret Thatcher who paid for her late conversion with 'NO!-NO!-NO! to closer union the so-called British Foreign Office was and still is with David Cameron in reality under the control of  BRUSSELS.]

But so determined was Mr Heath not to offend his prospective new partners that he decided

NOT TO CHALLENGE [THE LEGALITY OF] THEM.

Britain would simply accept the

ILLEGAL NEW FISHERIES POLICY

even though this would mean handing over

ONE OF THE GREATEST RENEWABLE ASSETS AND WOULD SPELL DISASTER FOR A LARGE PART OF HER FISHING FLEET.

Gradually the British fishermen got the idea that they were about to be

SACRIFICED

and in the closing months of 1970 various MPs for fishing constituences wrote to ministers asking what on earth was going on. They were fobbed off with evasive replies. In deed, as the recently released papers show

[ In 2001 under the 30 year rule-Public Records Office-Kew- re Heath's application to join the supposed Common Market but really a

politically based Super-state

 to be known as the

 European Union.

civil servants eventually worked out a careful form of words

[As they will  in February 2016]

intended to to reassure the fishermen that

'" proper account would be taken of their interests".

BUT

behind the scenes,

as a Scottish Office memo put it on November 9-1970

ministers were being told how important it was -not to get drawn into detailed explanations of just what problems might lie ahead for the fishermen because,

"in a wider UK context, they must be regarded as expendable."

 

The following year the White Paper promised that Britain would not sign an ACCESSION TREATY until the Common Market's fisheries policy was changed. Geoffrey Ribbon [a Nazi Spy  with Edward Heath and Roy Jenkins recruited by German (Nazi) intelligence part of of a spy cell in Balliol College in 1938-reported to MI5 by the MASTER

A. D. LINDSAY]

Rippon repeated this PROMISE to PARLIAMENT and to the TORY PARTY Conference.

But in November Mr Heath realised that time was running out.  Unless he accepted the fishing policy as it stood, his plans for Britain's entry in January 1973 would have to be abandoned.

He instructed Rippon to give way, and when Rippon was questioned about this in the House of Commons on December 13, 1972

HE ANSWERED WITH A STRAIGHT LIE.

He claimed Britain had retained complete control over the waters round her coastline, knowing that this was simply

NOT TRUE.

So barefaced was this

DECEIT

over fishing rights that successive government and fisheries ministers would continue to obfuscate the truth.

[TELL DAMN LIES]

of what had been done for the next

THREE DECADES

In June 1975, the month when inflation hit 27 percent,

ITS HIGHEST LEVEL IN HISTORY

came the

REFERENDUM

Surropunded by all the evidence of a

MAJOR ECONOMIC CRISIS,

[THE GREATLY MISLED AND LIED TO]

BRITISH PEOPLE

VOTED BY 2 to 1

TO REMAIN IN A

[SUPPOSED]

"COMMON MARKET"

which the vast majority believed was intended to be no more than a free-trading area arrangement'

The supporters of the YES! campaign, including the leaderships of all  three political parties [AS again in 2016] did little to disillusion them.  The message was that a 'YES' vote was all about protecting jobs [As yet again in 2016] and Prosperity', offering the lifeline Britain's ailing economy required.  As for any fears that there might be moves towards "an Economic andn Monetary Union" and "fixed exchange rates for the pound", the Wilson Government's own leaflet to every household promised categorically

" this threat has been removed".

END

 

 

*  *  *

 

[WE VOTED IN 1975 TO LEAVE THE NAZI-PLANNED

SUPERSTATE

AND  WE ARE STILL FIGHTING THIS NAZI ABOMINATION TODAY IN FEBRUARY 2016.

[Unfortunately even after 41 years we are still hearing the pathetic plea that we cannot LEAVE THE EU because that is where the business is. The last individual we spoke to a few days ago a technician with a mind to match could not understand that we would NOT be leaving EUROPE-THEY NEED US- but the

COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-UNDEMOCRATIC-EUROPEAN UNION

[What you are hearing from the lips of pro-EU ministers today in 2016 are the same LIES and DECEIT of 1972/3 and 1975 and ever since. We have even heard yet again about the 3million job loses -an interview on Channel 4 on February 16 -a pro-EU  minister struggling to find any constructive facts to support his pitiful view. From what we hear about Robots taking over millions of jobs in the future. The Government should be encouraging as many people particularly those who have no intention in ever integrating into our society but hope to bring about a ISLAMIC STATE to return to their natural habitat as soon as possible. It  is because of the ineptness and stupidity of the present and past governments who infected by the now discredited politically-correct notion of

MULTICULTURALISM

 has left the greater part of our major towns and Cities as

FOREIGN ENCLAVES.

 

 

ENGLAND

'WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.'

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

[THE PROOF OF THIS STATEMENT IN 2015 IS SHOWN IN MANY TOWNS AND CITIES IN OUR ONCE FAMILIAR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND BEFORE THE EU AND MASS IMMIGRATION FROM

 

FOREIGN CULTURES LEADING TO FOREIGN ENCLAVES

WITH THEIR BIRTH-RATE OF 4-1 AND MORE IMMIGRATION FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES  AND FROM  ELSEWHERE WILL UNLESS FIRM DECISIVE ACTION IS TAKEN NOW! WILL LEAD TO A FOREIGN TAKEOVER OF OUR COUNTRY WITHIN A FEW GENERATIONS . WE HAVE SEEN SOME EXAMPLES ON HOW THEY CAPITALISE ON THEIR CUSTOMARY ELECTION TACTICS ONCE DESCRIBED BY A JUDGE INVESTIGATING ELECTION FRAUD IN A LABOUR CONSTITUENCY IN BIRMINGHAM AND WOULD FIT EVENTS RECENTLY IN

TOWER+HAMLETS

AS AN EXAMPLE OF A

BANANA REPUBLIC.  

*

ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUCCESIVE GOVERNMENTS HAVE FAILED TO TO ACT EVEN THOUGH MODERATE MUSLIM CLERICS HAVE PLEADED FOR ACTION FOR DECADES.

 

No ISLAMIC STATE would allow millions of Christians or Unbelievers to settle in their countries unless they converted to ISLAM. The PENALTY for not doing so in an ISLAMIC STATE is DEATH. It has been the GREAT WEALTH of SAUDI ARABIA brought about by their OIL DEPOSITS - a legacy of the FIRST WORLD WAR and the BRITISH-FRENCH-USA foreign policy, and the closeness of Cameron and his predecessors to the brutal regime and permitting the sales of large quantities of ARMS used to further the SAUDI HARD FUNDAMENTALIST DOCTRINE worldwide which has caused great suffering in Middle East countries and even subversion in ENGLAND itself. The results of the CHAOS now set to EXPLODE at any time ,which hopefully , will change OUR WORLD into a more EQUITABLE and FAIRER SOCIETY.]

FEBRUARY 17-2016

H.F.676/3

 

 

KILLERS
BETRAY ISLAM AND ALL MUSLIMS

COMMENTARY by Dr Taj Hargey

DIRECTOR OF THE MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL CENTRE OF OXFORD

*

DAILY MAIL, Friday, January 9, 2015

 

 

THERE has understandably been revulsion and outrage across the world at the massacre in Paris, one of the darkest atrocities perpetuated in France for decades. All right-minded people will join  unequivocally in condemnation of this barbarous pitiless act

Our response must be one of resolution in defence of liberty and freedom of expression, two of the central foundations of our democratic society. There can be no compromise with the twisted extremist ideology that inspired this slaughter.

LikLike all Islamic fanatics, the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo killings loathe the liberal values of open ,pluralistic societies.  Driven by their wilfully perverted misinterpretation of the MUSLIM FAITH, they want to establish theocratic, authoritarian rule across WESTERN EUROPE, complete with all the instruments of dogmatic oppression, including the compulsory wearing of the face veil for Muslin women.

European authorities must not give in to this blackmail, imposed through the barrel of a Kalashnikov or the shell of a suicide bomb. The principles of freedom must be upheld for all citizens including Muslims.

For the truth is that there is nothing remotely Islamic about all this murderous fundermentalism. The true tradition of the Muslim religion is one of

TOLERANCE and RESPECT for OTHERS.

 When the Prophet Mohammed moved from Mecca in 622AD to establish the first Islamic State, he did not set up a sectarian Caliphate like today's violent thugs in Al Qaeda and ISIS demand. On the contrary, in the Charter of Medina he created a multicultural, multifaith society where the rights of everyone, Muslims , Jews, Christians or pagans were upheld.

So the idea, so popular among the zealots, of Islamic supremacy under

SHARIA LAW

has absolutely no basis in either the Koran or the earliest biography of the Prophet.

Just as false is the belief that the Koran provides some sort of justification for the Charlie Hebdo murders, on the grounds that the satiracal magazine has consistently published derogatory images about Islam.

THIS IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE

As a devote Muslim, I have been deeply offended by some of the vulgar material in Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, it has often seemed the magazine went bout of its way to be gratuitously childishly provocative. But I would defend without reservation the magazine's right to publish such stuff.

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

MUSLIMS who want to avoid being offended don't have to buy the magazine or read it. In our open society, we cannot allow one group to impose censorship in the name of protecting

THEIR FAITH

from any ridicule, mockery or even criticism.

As they left the scene of the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo office on Wednesday, the assailants shouted

'Allahu Akabar'

(God is the greatest.)

and 'the Prophet Mohammed has been avenged'. But this is another warping of theology.

NOWHERE does the KORAN sanction taking any human life in the name of defending the Prophet's reputation.  A host of verses, like Chapter 109, verse 6, or chapter 10, verse 99, actually set out the need to defend

FREEDOM of RELIGION.

According to the Muslim scripture, no one has the right to deny other people-whether they are Christian, humani9st or even atheist-their beliefs. Similarly, the

CHARTER of MEDINA

lays down the right of all citizens to be

FREE and EQUAL.

So, contrary to all the vicious despotic propaganda from ISIS and Al Qaeda, respect for essential liberties is at the crux of

ISLAM.

The supposed 'crimes' of blasphemy and apostasy have  been invented by the

RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS

to justify their jihadism and have no basis in

TRUE ISLAM.

That is highlighted by two key incidents in the life of the Prophet, who called on his followers to ignore the ridicule and contempt on him.  In Chapter 74, verse 11, responding to complaints that he had been labelled 'crazy' and 'a sorcerer' the Koran reveals that God will ultimately deal with all those who mock him. It is not for us on Earth to decide their fate.

In the same vein , when Mohammed first put forward the revelations he received from God that would constitute the

KORAN

one of the renowned poets of the time, Musaylimah, became vexed at Mohammed's growing power.  He therefore claimed that his own poems had been inspired by divine revelations and that he and Mohammed should work together to rule the nascent Muslim community.

Mohammed's followers were appalled at this effrontery and urged the Prophet to take action.  But Mohammed merely said:

'Let him be. He is just a liar. Ignore him.'

So,' Musaylimah, the Liar'  is the name history remembers him by -profound theological proof that the Prophet felt distain, not blood-soaked vengeance, was the correct response to mockery.

 That should have been the reaction of all Muslims to even the most provocative Charlie Hebdo cartoons.  The Prophet does not need to be protected by self-proclaimed zealots.

 God will protect his reputation.

Indeed, it is an offence against Islam to assume the role of religious defender, with the arbitrary power of life and death against declared enemies of the faith.

There is not the slightest theological vindication for that kind of savagely arrogant conduct in Islam, all life is sacred and no one has the right to end it in the name of the deity or to take the

LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.

 Filled with HATRED, the Charlie Hebdo KILLERS took it on themselves to act as

JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONERS

IN doing so, they were real heretics . They not only betrayed Islam but also shamed Muslims...

  When Muslims are finally able to move away from clerically-manipulated theocracy and return to the uncorrupted divine text of the religion, they will clearly see through all the horrific posturing of the jihadi militants

Muslims will then be able  to embrace the Koran's pristine vision, with its emphasis on

INCLUSIVENESS -PLURALISM- PEACEFUL

co-existence and mutual respect.

This  is the message that will be preached at our mosque in Oxford. And it presents a far more appealing world that the terrifying, macho sectarianism the crazed zealots want to inflict upon us all,

*  *  *

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

 

 

 

WE ARE TOLD THAT ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF PROFESSED MUSLIMS ARE UNTRUE TO THE TEACHING OF THE PROPHET SO WHY HAVEN'T THE GREATER NUMBER OF  TRUE MUSLIMS NOT TAKEN EFFECTIVE ACTION TO DESTROY THE IMPOSTORS OF THE MUSLIM FAITH. 

 AS GANDHI SHOWED MOST EFFECTIVELY THAT NON-VIOLENT ACTION CAN BE MOST SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING AN OBJECTIVE SUCH AS FREEDOM>  SO WHY DO TRUE MUSLIMS NOT ARISE AND COVER THE COMMUNITIES THEY LIVE IN FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE IMPOSTORS OF THEIR TRUE RELIGION>

OVER THE YEARS MANY CLERICS SUCH AS DR TAJ HARGEY HAVE VOICED THEIR CONCERNS AT THE LACK OF ACTION BY TRUE MUSLIMS AND IT IS THAT VERY FAILURE WHICH IS BAFFLING THE ONCE SETTLED PEOPLES OF THOSE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES>

TO MANY PEOPLE IT IS AS IF THEY ARE MORE INTERESTED TO ACHIEVE AN ISLAMIC STATE RATHER THAN INTEGRATE INTO THEIR NEW ONCE SETTLED LANDS.

TO STAND BY AND ALLOW  THE  NAME OF ISLAM TO BE USED IN THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS  MUST SURELY BE UNWORTHY OF ANY TRUE RELIGION .

JANUARY  20-2018

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS-CAPS ARE OURS!]

DAILY MAIL, Friday, January 9, 2015

H.F.1445

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

H.F. 1325.

Why Merkel's humiliation could be just

the

BREXIT BOAST

we

NEED.

Why Angela Merkel's humiliation is Brexit boost we need | Daily Mail ..

 

November 21,2017

 

by

 Mark Almond.

 

Angela Merkel's 12-year dominance of Europe would appear to be wobbling towards a humiliating end.

With it comes great uncertainty for the Continent — but also, I would argue, an opportunity not to be missed for Britain in its Brexit negotiations.

On Sunday night, the German Chancellor's two-month-long effort to stitch together a coalition following her party's poor showing in September's election collapsed. Immigration policy was the main point dividing the parties.

Now Germany faces another election in the New Year, or its first post-war minority government. Either way, there is a big question mark over Mrs Merkel's future. 

Crisis

It is possible that her party, the Christian Democratic Union, will want a new leader to fight the next election. Many Germans  see her now as a vote-losing 'albatross' who attracted the smallest share of the party's vote since 1949. 

 

On Sunday night, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's two-month-long effort to stitch together a coalition following her party's poor showing in September's election collapsed. Now Germany faces another election in the New Year, or its first post-war minority government. Either way, there is a big question mark over Mrs Merkel's future, writes Mark Almond 

 

At least Theresa May (pictured) has Ulster's Democratic Unionist Party to carry her to a slim majority. Mrs Merkel is left well short of one, writes Mark Almond 

Many Germans see her now as a vote-losing 'albatross' who attracted the smallest share of the party's vote since 1949.

Alternatively, as leader of a minority government, she would be far weaker than our own somewhat beleaguered Prime Minister. 

At least Theresa May has Ulster's Democratic Unionist Party to carry her to a slim majority. Mrs Merkel is left well short of one.

The unfolding political crisis in Germany is hitting Brussels where it hurts. Berlin has always been the engine-room of the Euro-supertanker.

Without that impetus, it is clear the EU project has not just stalled — it is sinking. The crew are pulling in all directions. 

Some calling for even greater integration, others for letting everyone set their own course.

In essence, Germany's problems can be summed up as the Three Ms: Migration, Money and Merkel.

Since 2005, when she became Chancellor, Angela Merkel has largely ridden roughshod over her political colleagues at home and in the rest of EU. 

Then she made two highly personal decisions that are key to her problems now.

 

Mrs Merkel is pictured leaving a meeting with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier 

In 2016, she reversed her policy on immigration overnight to welcome in more than a million asylum-seekers from the Muslim world.

It was a widely unpopular move and certainly unsettling for many Germans. (In part, her coalition talks with the Left-wing Greens and the pro-business Free Democrats floundered over limits on the number of refugees accepted into Germany, and family reunions for asylum-seekers.)

Also, there was Mrs Merkel's decision to impose a bailout of the Euro-zone, despite the single currency's rules forbidding it, and the German courts ruling that it was not permissible.

In doing so she added a huge burden to the German public purse — asylum-seekers, like bailouts, have to be paid for — at a time when so many Germans were feeling the pinch of below-inflation pay-rises and high taxes.

Just as Remainers in the UK were often oblivious to the rational economic and social concerns about mass migration that animated the Leave vote, German Euro-enthusiasts failed to register that migration wasn't just an issue for unrepentant, bigoted neo-Nazis.

It was an issue for ordinary people, too — many of them members of ethnic minorities — who had reasonable concerns about pressure on wages, housing and health.

 

Germany's problems can be summed up as the Three Ms: Migration, Money and Merkel, writes Mark Almond. She is pictured looking exhausted after negotiations broke down yesterday 

German wages are held down by the inflow of cheap labour, so it is hardly surprising that the most depressed parts of the country, especially the old East Germany, deserted Mrs Merkel's party and voted so strongly for the far-Right nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) or the ex-Communist Left Party in September.

Of course, Brussels tried to help Angela Merkel by dictating quotas for migrant re-settlement from Germany to neighbouring EU states. 

But in the last few weeks we have seen what Austrian and Czech voters thought of that, backing anti-Europe, anti-immigration parties.

 

In 2016, the Chancellor (pictured) reversed her policy on immigration overnight to welcome in more than a million asylum-seekers from the Muslim world. It was a widely unpopular move and unsettling for many Germans, writes Mark Almond

It is, however, cash that cuts to the quick of German doubts about the EU's future and its place in it.

With Britain leaving the EU, the German taxpayer was obviously going to be asked to pick up much of our tab. 

They saw what was coming and didn't like it, voting for parties such as the AfD that vociferously objected to paying more into the EU or carrying on bailing out the Euro's lame-ducks.

In her search for coalition partners, Mrs Merkel's overtures to the anti-business Greens, who wanted to push up energy costs for Germany's car industry and other exporting firms, proved the final straw for her usual supporters.

Disease. 

It is no coincidence that this weekend, influential German business leaders launched a campaign called New Deal For Britain to keep Britain in the EU, lobbying for concessions, especially on immigration.

I doubt if Brussels will listen and make the UK an offer it can't refuse. But we should not heed the siren voices saying that Mrs Merkel's difficulties will make Brexit more complicated.

The reality is that Germany's political crisis is a symptom of the disease at the heart of the EU. Across Europe, voters are registering their discontent with the status quo.

Even France's new president, Emmanuel Macron, was elected as an outsider, crushing established parties of Left and Right.

Well before the end of March 2019, the incorrigible complacency of the Brussels establishment could spur a lethal crack across the edifice of EU.

What Britain must do now is make the most of the opportunity presented by the mess that Mrs Merkel finds herself in — to seize the initiative and fulfil what every person who voted for Brexit wanted.

THAT IS A COUNTRY THAT DETERMINES ITS OWN FATE.

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has failed to reach an agreement with the Free Democrat Party and the German Greens. Her Christian Democrat Union alliance with the Christian Social Union is trying to reach out to the other two parties to make a four-party coalition. She is pictured with Volker Kauder, leader of CDU/CSU faction 

Paralysis

Waiting for the European elite to offer a good deal is like waiting for Godot with a taxi-meter running. 

There is, I believe, every chance that business sense will predominate — as we are already seeing with the New Deal For Britain.

German carmakers and a host of others know that good trade relations benefit both sides. 

Brussels might want to punish the UK but BMW still wants to make money out of us and with us.

By emphasising a pro-growth agenda, Britain can rally Europeans to accepting a mutually beneficial Brexit. 

 

Chairman of the Free Democrat Party Christian Lindner (pictured) is concerned what Green Party plans to end coal use would do the country's economy. He also wants a cap on the number of refugees allowed into Germany, something Merkel has been battling with 

But that also means making it clear that this country has a strategy to get on with making our people wealthier come what may — cliff-face or not.

The ups-and-downs of the exchange rate will matter much less than giving incentives to our people and companies to get on with the job of making the future work.

Britain needs to set out its own agenda, fitting in EU rules where they make sense and scrapping them if not. 

Paralysis in Europe should stimulate action here, not a damaging wait-and-see attitude.

Ironically, a Britain that gets moving on Brexit could spark much-needed reform across the EU and so get it working for its citizens and companies, and no longer just for the bureaucrats of Brussels.

Full article


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5102319/Why-Angela-Merkel-s-humiliation-Brexit-boost-need.html#ixzz4zAtW46kP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*  *  *

[AS WE HAVE STATED ON SO MANY OCCASIONS OVER THE PAST  DECADES THE LOSS OF THE UK CONTRIBUTION AMONGST OTHER LATER MATTERS SUCH AS MASS  IMMIGRATION AND FEARS OF A SUPER-STATE WILL HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD THE EARLY DEMISE OF THE MONSTROUS UNDEMOCRATIC-COLLECTIVIST AND GODLESS BEAST OF BRUSSELS.

 THE CALL FOR FREEDOM HAS FINALLY ARISEN FROM THE GRASS-ROOTS PEOPLE OF EUROPE AND IT IS GROWING BY THE DAY-NOTHING CAN STOP IT!  FREEDOM IS THE NATURAL ASPIRATION OF MANKIND AND IT WILL RETURN TO OVERTHROW TYRANNY, WHEREVER IT MAY BE  - AS LONG AS IT TAKES!-THERE CAN BE NO SURRENDER!]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

NOVEMBER 21-2017

 

H.F.1389

 

 

The EU's imploding as nation after nation turns to the ugly Far Right. But Brussels and Remainers just won't talk about it.

 

News for DAILY MAIL-The EU's imploding as nation after nation turns to the ugly far Right. But Brussels and Remainers just won't talk about it.

 

The three young men waiting for a bus outside the Hungarian town of Perbal a few days ago so alarmed one local resident that he called the police.

Surely these were illegal migrants. However, they were anything but. They were students from Sri Lanka, working as volunteers at a home for the mentally disabled.

A minor misunderstanding, perhaps. Except that it is part of a familiar pattern. 

 

Viktor Orban, Hungary's Right-wing leader who has been accused of xenophobia and anti-anti-semitism over  his country's fight against EU migrant quotas

A few weeks earlier, death threats were sent to a man and his car tyres slashed after villagers complained that he was offering a family of migrants a free break at his motel.

International condemnation of this incident in Ocseny in southern Hungary was swift but the country’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, assured the villagers that they had his sympathy. 

But then, the Right-wing leader himself has been accused of xenophobia — and even anti-semitism — as a result of his government’s campaign against EU-imposed migrant quotas.

Such is the reality of life on the other side of the EU.

The EU leadership and the European Commission are far too preoccupied with political chaos in Germany and with Brexit to deal with a much greater threat to their grand European dream.

In Britain, bitter Remoaners are fighting a forlorn rearguard battle to try to stop Brexit and sneer at Leavers for their stupidity, seemingly oblivious to the convulsions in the east of the EU. 

Instead of a serene and harmonious Europe of Tuscan villas, Provencal markets, German opera and Bavarian beer halls, we are witnessing rancorous divisions over migration, economic stagnation and incipient independence movements.

And the bitter truth is that in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, there is now a stridently anti-Brussels, anti-migrant and anti-Establishment movement with the increasingly angry peoples of these nations convinced they are being treated as second-class citizens. 

   

More from Robert Hardman for the Daily Mail...

This is a different Europe, too, which has never known multiculturalism and is in no mood to start embracing it now. 

Hence this month’s Independence Day celebrations in Warsaw featured a torch-lit procession by tens of thousands celebrating their ancient Christian heritage. They chanted ‘We want God’ and waved banners with messages such as ‘White Europe’.

Commentators less attuned to Polish traditions and history were quick to accuse these protesters of ‘fascism’. Here in Central Europe, though, the response has been different. According to Poland’s robustly nationalist government, it was ‘a great celebration of Poles’.

The same mood was reflected in the recent elections in Austria and the Czech Republic. Both countries have elected Right-wing Eurosceptic governments — in the wake of the sudden rise of the hard-Right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Indeed, AfD emerged as the third-largest party in September’s elections — meaning Angela Merkel has been unable to form a government and is fighting for her political life.

Even in France, where this summer’s shock election victory by Emmanuel Macron’s centre-Left En Marche movement grabbed the headlines, the fact that the far-Right National Front gained ground while the grand old political party machines collapsed was all but ignored.

The ineluctable fact is that Europe is shifting to the Right. Which is why I am in Hungary, because it is the next EU nation to go to the polls and is emblematic of the new anti-Brussels mood in Central and Eastern Europe.

There is no chance of a lurch to the Right here, come April’s vote, because Hungary lurched that way long ago. Its leader is hated by liberal commentators — not least for the Trump-style border fence he has built to keep out migrants. 

But Orban, like Trump, couldn’t care less. He has no problem with being called ‘populist’, though he prefers the term ‘plebeian’. Even his friends call him ‘The Viktator’.

And he is well on course for victory in next spring’s election which will carry profound implications for Brussels.

Few doubt that Orban will be returned to power with anything less than an overall majority. Indeed, he is fast becoming the de facto leader of the alternative EU.

Predictably, just as the Brussels establishment belittled Brexiteers ahead of last summer’s EU referendum, it is now dismissing the Hungarian leader as an authoritarian Right-wing fruitcake. 

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has called him a ‘dictator’ and gave him a half-joking slap on the cheek at an EU summit in 2015. 

The thirsty arch-Eurocrat has never forgotten that it was Orban and David Cameron who were the only EU leaders who dared to oppose his appointment.

 

Polish independence day celebrations were marred after far-Right supporters turned out in their hundreds in the capital Warsaw

 

While many in western Europe denounced the marchers as Fascists, at home the event was praised as 'a great celebration of Poles'

But you do not last as long as Orban (he’s already been PM for a total of 11 years) without shrewd political instincts. This former professional footballer — a God-fearing father of five who makes sausages by slaughtering his own pigs — had his first stint as prime minister as long ago as 1998.

He made his name as a young firebrand bravely demanding multi-party elections in Hungary while the Iron Curtain was still standing. Those who like to paint Central Europe’s dramatic turn to the Right as a dark reprise of Germany in the Thirties are missing the point.

No, what goes to the core of Orban’s political DNA — and the current shift across the whole East European region — is a hatred of communism. These are people who remember living under a totalitarian empire less than 30 years ago. Many now regard Brussels and its unelected Commission and unaccountable courts as the new Moscow.

John O’Sullivan, former speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher and now president of the Budapest-based think tank the Danube Institute, says that outsiders fail to understand how deep the scars of communism go.

His biography of Orban recounts how, significantly, the politician was arrested in 1988 as he tried to create his movement. He says Orban’s experience of life under Communist rule has made him ‘much more critical of elites the higher he has risen.’

Indeed, Orban’s great modern heroes are those who brought about the pulling down of the Berlin Wall in 1989 — notably German chancellor Helmut Kohl, US president Ronald Reagan and Thatcher. It is a popular sentiment around here, as I discover in Budapest’s Liberty Square where Orban has erected a bronze statue of Reagan.

Looking closely, I see it is in need of repair. A crack has now turned into a hole in Reagan’s outstretched hand — because so many people come here to shake it. 

If Orban and his Fidesz party win a fourth term, as everyone expects, the old European elite can no longer dismiss what is happening here as mere ‘populism’. A clear dividing line now runs from the Baltic to the Danube and the Black Sea.

On one side are the EU’s wealthier, liberal, multicultural nations such as France and Germany (where, in 2015, Merkel controversially — and to her bitter cost — invited more than a million refugees).

On the other are those whose democracies are, in most cases, virtually brand new — the so-called Borscht Belt, the Goulash Gang, call them what you will — whose social outlook on everything from gay rights to immigration is very different.

In last month’s Czech elections, an Islamophobic party which urged voters to walk pigs past a mosque to protect what it called the country’s ‘democratic way of life and the heritage of our ancestors from Islam’ won 10.7 per cent of the vote. (That is a great deal more than the 7.4 per cent achieved by the Lib Dems in Britain four months earlier.)

The default response in the Western half of Europe is to demand that these ghastly people become better Europeans. But the fact is that these ghastly people are no longer afraid of squaring up to Brussels.

Barely noticed, thanks to the general obsession with Brexit and Catalonia’s bid for independence, has been a recent summit of Central European leaders in the Slovakian capital, Bratislava. 

 

Germany's Angela Merkel is on the brink after coalition talks stalled following a general election which saw her party lose vote share

 

Merkel is being hounded by the AfD, a party founded by neo-Nazis which returned an historic share of the vote amid concerns over migration

It had been convened to tackle a festering cause of anger and injured pride. The specific indignity was the discovery that sub-standard foods had been exported to the former Eastern Bloc which had not been sold in Western Europe.

Orban’s government has described it as the ‘biggest scandal of the recent past’. Just imagine the protests and smashed windows in Scotland if Sainsbury’s was flogging sub-standard food north of the border but not in Surrey. The Bulgarian prime minister calls this ‘food apartheid’.

Although this controversy was about food, it symbolised to East Europeans how they were being abused by Brussels. 

Stung in to action, Brussels has promised to introduce a new food testing regime from next year. Too late. The damage has been done.

It is just yet another example of why Brussels-bashing is so prevalent to the east of the Alps, particularly here in Hungary.

For when Orban started building his razor wire fence along Hungary’s southern border during the migration crisis of 2015, he was roundly attacked.

Hundreds of thousands who had crossed from Turkey into Greece were heading West via Serbia and Hungary. Some were fleeing the Syrian civil war. But many were economic migrants.

Mrs Merkel was hailed as the ‘angel of Europe’ for saying that Germany would welcome the lot. For his part, Orban was branded the villain for closing the door. 

Today, the memory of the chaos of 2015 and subsequent terrorist incidents by Muslim extremists across Europe mean few here question Orban’s decision.

‘Migration is the big issue here, and the EU is now following Orban on migration,’ says Zsolt Jesenszky, a well-known Hungarian entrepreneur. ‘The Left were totally against the fence when it went up saying: “It won’t work”. And guess what? It works.’

Jesenszky, 45, says that the younger generations want leaders who stand up to Brussels, not people who go on bended knee.

‘Hungary likes a guy who stands up to the big bully,’ he says. ‘They’d never vote for a guy like Macron who spends a fortune on make-up.’ 

(Many here remember that the image-conscious French president, who spent £24,000 on a make-up artist in his first three months in office, has been a stern critic of Hungary and Poland.) 

But Orban is more than happy to be attacked by the ‘old’ nations of the EU because they are playing into his hands.

He has now consolidated his position by outflanking the notorious Hungarian nationalist movement Jobbik, infamous for its fascist uniforms and its anti-semitic, anti-gyspy rhetoric.

Jobbik has just performed a U-turn in search of votes from the Left. It is Orban and his Fidesz movement who are now playing the xenophobia card. 

Even some of his supporters think he has gone too far by leafletting eight million households and erecting posters as part of a campaign against Budapest-born billionaire George Soros.

They claim the 87-year-old gave Brussels a plan to flood Hungary with migrants in order to meet labour market needs and bolster the voter base of Left-wing groups.

Orban has ordered Hungary’s security services to investigate a so-called ‘Soros network’ which it is claimed is pulling strings in Brussels. As a result, Orban has been accused of anti-semitism for his demonisation of the great philanthropist.

Born into a Hungarian Jewish family shortly before the war, Soros only survived the German occupation of Budapest with the use of forged papers.

Though now based in America, Soros has been a very generous benefactor to countless Hungarians, having built the Central European University in Budapest. There, I met students and staff appalled to find themselves at the centre of political controversy.

Earlier this year, in a very disturbing development, Orban’s government introduced laws effectively forcing the university to re-apply for its licence to operate. That approval has still not been granted.

It is a bewildering situation. But the new mood in Central and East Europe has its roots in a proud nationalism that Brussels, for years, has tried to marginalise with its vision of a European super-state.

There’s a message for Britain, too. Perhaps all those Remoaners accusing the Brexiteers of being blinkered little Englanders should open their eyes and look at just how rotten much of the EU is now.

 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5106147/EU-implodes-nation-nation-turns-far-Right.html#ixzz4zFdkhhrD
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Full article

H.F.1390 ONLY A STEADFAST AND UNYIELDING APPROACH TO THE BEAST IN BRUSSELS WILL WIN OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY WITH OUR ASSUSTOMED HONOUR AND DIGNITY IN PLACE.

 

DAILY  MAIL
comment
 

a decade on, has the city learned

nothing?

 

 

TEN years ago tonight, the BBC's Robert Preston broke the news that the Bank of England had been forced to step in to rescue Northern Rock from collapse, prompting endless queues to withdraw savings over the following days.

Though the authorities were slow to realise it, this was the first outward sign of

GREED-FED CANCER

infecting the entire financial system.

Indeed, it marked the start of an epic crisis whose consequences we all suffer today.

With businesses driven to the wall and taxpayers stung for massive bailouts, the

PUBLIC FINANCES

were laid to waste.

Borrowing soared to terrifying heights- and

DEBT

is still rising in

2017

Towards an unimaginable

£2 TRILLION

£2TRILLION.

Meanwhile, household incomes have been painfully squeezed, while savers and pension funds have been hammered by a decade of historically low interest rates.

Yet ten years on, no banker has been jailed for the sharp practice that brought this contry to the brink of ruin.

Extraordinary, nor has there been a

FULL ENQUIRY.

to establish

the lessons of the

 CRISIS.

(though after the comparatively footling scandal of voicemail hacking by rogue redtops, the Coalition had no hesitation in ordering one into the conduct sand ethics of the newspaper industry.

What is  so deeply worrying is that, even now, none of those lessons appears to have been learned. Indeed, there are abundant signs that the cancer is back.

As greedily as ever , bankers are inflating a DEBT BUBBLE-handing out excessive mortgages, cheep car loans and credit cards with

ZERO INTEREST

rates fixed for months.

Meanwhile, the old racket of trading bundles of sub-prime debt continues as if nothing untoward happened in 2007.

Now , as then, the banks have far too little capital in reserve to weather a

 STORM .

The difference is that in 2017, with taxpayers milked dry, the Government will be unable to mount anything like a similar bailout

[We prefer the word RESCUE. It is obvious that the BANKSTERS know something that the rest of the population do not know. A history of the City of London goes some way in explaining their unpatriotic and selfish and arrogant behaviour. They are not ENGLAND they are a financial DESPOT installed over 300 years ago by a SECRET SOCIETY - the cause and curse of much suffering here and of people's the world over. It is THE GREED CAPITAL of the WORLD -It is ALL for ITSELF  and NOTHING else MATTERS. IT IS A MAJOR DESTABILIZING BLOT ON THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.  THEY CONTRIBUTE TO OUR ECONOMY AND AT THE SAME TIME THEY UNDERMINE IT AT GREAT COST TO THE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.  THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SHOULD AMEND THEIR CHARTER TO ENSURE THAT ONLY ETHICAL PRACTISES ARE PERMITTED.  IT IS A LOOSE CANNON WHICH MUST BE NEUTERED WITHOUT DELAY.]

]

The City must act now to shore up its defences. Otherwise, there can be no telling how the next crisis will end.

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

SEPTEMBER 13-2017

H.F.1310

 

VANDALISM!

 

 

The Lake District's

greatest champion says plans to cross this glorious valley with zip wires are

AN ABOMINATION

By Melvyn Bragg

Plans to criss-cross reservoir with wires abomination | Daily Mail .

says plans to
criss-cross this glorious valley with zip wires is an abomination .... From that
feeling grew an understanding which spread around the world, that we could
feed off nature not only for our daily bread, but for other inner riches.

 

Vandalism! The Lake District's greatest champion MELVYN BRAGG says plans to criss-cross this glorious valley with zip wires is an abomination

Short of striding over the fells yourself, the best way to experience and understand the joy of the Lake District is through the writing of Alfred Wainwright, a man who knew the area better than anybody.

In his final book before his death in 1991, he wrote about the redevelopment of Thirlmere reservoir 130 years ago: ‘Manchester Corporation and the Forestry Commission have been the greatest predators in Lakeland over the past century.

‘They were not welcome intruders, both being strongly opposed by conservationists and lovers of the district. They have done much to destroy the original character of the scenery, and done little to enhance its natural charm.

 

Short of striding over the fells yourself, the best way to experience and understand the joy of the Lake District is through the writing of Alfred Wainwright, a man who knew the area better than anybody 

‘Enough has been more than enough. But it must be conceded that a hundred years of maturity have added a new attractiveness to the Thirlmere valley, best appreciated when viewed from a distance. In the case of Thirlmere, all is forgiven.’

In this characteristically blunt assessment, Wainwright is conveying two things: first, that as it stands the Thirlmere reservoir is just about perfect; and second, that he was profoundly suspicious of those who sought to ‘improve’ his beloved Lakes by importing new ideas into an ancient landscape.

 

What on earth, then, would he make of the latest proposals to criss-cross Thirlmere reservoir with eight zip wire rides? 

What on earth, then, would he make of the latest proposals to criss-cross the lake with eight zip wire rides? I’d wager he wouldn’t be at the front of the queue to have the first aerial ride across.

My view is that the developers behind the plan must be stopped from turning this idyllic corner of England into a funfair. Whatever next, a merry-go-round on the top of Helvellyn, dodgems between Buttermere and Crummock Water, and a coconut shy on top of the highest mountain in England?

If they manage to force on us the idea that the Lake District is in need of flashy ‘attractions’, then we will lose the area as it has been treasured, nurtured and used for over two centuries.

The biggest threat comes from Treetop Trek. This is the outdoors adventure company behind efforts to build eight of the longest zip wire rides in the UK right across the majestic Thirlmere reservoir. Thankfully, a last-minute objection lodged by Natural England citing the ‘significant adverse effect’ on the area may yet save us from this monstrosity.

We can only hope something similar happens at Honister Slate Mine. There, the owners have lodged a third bid to build a zip wire after being rejected by the Lake District National Park Authority in 2011 and 2013.

 

My view is that the developers behind the plan must be stopped from turning this idyllic corner of England into a funfair (above, Thirlmere reservoir) 

Why this obsession with trying to enhance the appeal of the Lake District? It is already the second greatest visitor attraction in England. It is garlanded with international awards for its beauty and its natural values. Above all, it is a place where tranquillity of mind and body can be sought and found.

Equally for young people, rock-climbing, kayaking and other sports have been, and continue to be, a magnetic attraction without benefit of any funfair intrusions.

It is not too strong to say that the Lake District is facing an act of vandalism. We have been quite good at vandalism in this country. 

Henry VIII vandalised what were thought of as some of the most beautiful and extraordinary monasteries in Europe. 

 

Whatever next, a merry-go-round on the top of Helvellyn, dodgems between Buttermere and Crummock Water, and a coconut shy on top of the highest mountain in England?

 

We can only hope something similar happens at Honister Slate Mine (above). There, the owners have lodged a third bid to build a zip wire after being rejected by the Lake District National Park Authority in 2011 and 2013 

Councillors in the 20th century vandalised town and city centres — such as Newcastle, hugely praised by John Betjeman — which showed the magnificence of Victorian civic architecture and if left alone would themselves have become world attractions by now.

If you take all that matters out of the Lake District, then it ceases to be the quietly spectacular place which gives it such lustre and satisfaction to so many people of all ages. We do not need to be teased into the Lake District by methods more suitable to seaside resorts. I loved going to the seaside as a child, especially to Blackpool and Morecambe just down the road from the Lakes.

It is not too strong to say that the Lake District is facing an act of vandalism 

But there’s a sort of madness in saying that the Lake District has to take on their nature. It has its own nature.

Tranquillity is more valued now than ever. Millions of us over the years have found deep and resonating satisfaction among the 300 fells (or hills); the majesty of Derwentwater, Windermere and Ullswater; the countless meres and tarns; the stunning waterfalls, just one of the Lake District’s endless geological marvels.

As Coleridge said over 200 years ago, to walk up any fell is to see a new prospect every few yards.

 
 

If you take all that matters out of the Lake District, then it ceases to be the quietly spectacular place which gives it such lustre and satisfaction to so many people of all ages

It is here that we see the work of farmers over centuries with their great network of stone walls. They, together with generous landowners, have put a human shape on what was thought 300 years ago to be a savage wilderness.

And yet it is not by any means the bustling Toytown these developers want to make it. I have been on walks on bank holidays and met no more than two or three other ramblers.

I can look over valleys which stretch towards the sea and seem empty, save for a few cottages and perhaps a church which indicate the life which has so long sustained this place.

Over 200 years ago, thanks largely to Wordsworth, it came into the drawing rooms of Bath and London, and into the imagination of poets in other parts of Europe as a place which stood for a new idea, a radical fresh understanding of who we were.

It was in the Lake District —alongside one or two other places in Europe — that the idea was developed that nature was not an enemy to be fought or something like a slave to be worked to death, but a force that we could feel if we listened closely enough.

From that feeling grew an understanding which spread around the world, that we could feed off nature not only for our daily bread, but for other inner riches.

In four short lines, Wordsworth put forward this new philosophy:

One impulse from a vernal wood

May teach you more of man

Of moral evil and of good

Than all the sages can.

In short, to be in accord with nature was a way towards a better, finer life.

And when I’m up there roaming around, I see kids clambering over rocks or chattering their way down the streets of little villages, or rowing across lakes.

Zip wires and all the fun of the fair might bring to some a bit of temporary excitement, but it would absolutely destroy for most of us the unique peacefulness of this place.

It is full of infinite small charms, pathways, scarcely trodden valleys. And it also has an undoubted magnificence which anyone with a heart thrills to.

I remember cycling to the Lake District from nearby Wigton, where I grew up, with a couple of pals when I was about 14, and being taken with it immediately. We swam in the freezing Bassenthwaite Lake and tried to make a fire with damp sticks.

 

I can look over valleys which stretch towards the sea and seem empty, save for a few cottages and perhaps a church which indicate the life which has so long sustained this place

We were unaware that three poets laureate had been guests in a modest house in the woods beside that lake. We had no idea the vikings had come here and that there had been the cell of a miracle-making hermit called Bega, whose presence long ago is marked by a small Church.

We did not know that once that lake had been linked with Derwentwater a few miles down the valley to make one vast lakeland holding. And that nearby the idea of rambling for pleasure had developed among factory workers, intellectuals and poets who saw it as an inspiration and a sanctuary.

Why on earth should we let commercial wreckers spoil it? 

Soon afterwards, we started going round the youth hostels, tried to climb in the spot where the sport of mountaineering was invented and got to know this English masterpiece of freedom.

It had its own language once. I have a dictionary of Cumbrian words which is full and fat. Many of them have drifted into disuse, but still you can hear the dialect in the core of the Lake District

One more thing. Wherever you walk in the Lakes people say ‘Hello’. They are pleased to be there. They are pleased that other people are there. They feel it is theirs to go through at the natural pace of human kind — on foot.

Above all, they feel safe in the undisturbed peace of it all. A sense of quietness and dignity which reaches back tens of thousands of years. They come in their millions and love the Lake District as it is.

Why on earth should we let commercial wreckers spoil it?

 

 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5282113/Pans-criss-cross-reservoir-wires-abomination.html#ixzz55DmEcBJi
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter |
DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

'Not rural sights alone, but rural sounds, exhilarate the spirit, and restore the tone of languid nature.'-

Cowper

'God  made the country, and man made the town.- What wonder, then, that health and virtue should most abound, and least be threatened in the fields and groves.'-

Cowper

In those vernal seasons of the year when the air is calm and pleasant, it were an injury and sullenness against nature not to go out and see her riches, and partake in her rejoicing with heaven and earth.-

MILTON

*  *  *

 

H.F.1455

 

[AT LONG! LONG! LAST!

- WE LEAVE

THE

CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC-GODLESS EU

 IN MARCH 2019.]

*

DAILY MAIL

-At last, Hammond's on board with

BREXIT

and the

REMOANERS are DEAD and BURIED

LEAVING THE EU

 IN

MARCH,2019

 

 

THE

DOMINIC

LAWSON

Column

 

 

Finally, it’s sorted. Until yesterday, the anti-Brexiteers known as Remoaners had high hopes of Philip Hammond, the Chancellor.

But yesterday he appeared as joint author of a newspaper article with the most adamantine Brexiteer in the Cabinet, the International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox. The two supposed foes declared that in March 2019, Britain would not just be leaving the EU but also ‘we will leave the Customs Union and be free to negotiate the best trade deals around the world as an independent, open, trading nation’.

Although the Cabinet Brexiteers were content with Hammond’s proposal that there should be a transition period after March 2019, pending a final settlement of the country’s arrangements with the EU, the Chancellor had given the impression he was bending to the demands of the CBI that Britain remain within the Customs Union during that unspecified period.

Blunder

This they regarded as a fatal blunder — and not just because they suspected the CBI (which had campaigned for Britain to give up sterling for the euro) of seeking to keep the UK in the EU ‘by the back door’.

As Shanker Singham, chairman of the special trade commission of the Legatum Institute (a group consulted regularly by the Government), warned last week: ‘The UK must be able to provide the clarity of being outside the Customs Union on Day 1 of Brexit.

If such clarity does not exist, then other countries will not think the UK is serious about executing an independent trade policy and they will quickly lose patience and move on.’...

...In any case, the nation has not changed its collective mind since the referendum in June 2016. If anything, views have hardened in the direction set by the result. A survey of 3,293 people published on Friday by the London School of Economics showed that even those who had voted ‘Remain’ would prefer the sort of Brexit deal the LSE’s team described as ‘hard’.

A total of 51.3 per cent of Remain voters backed a Brexit deal which delivered ‘full control’ over immigration and led to lower numbers of migrants from the EU. No fewer than 54.7 per cent of Remainers said that the UK should ‘pay nothing’ to the EU by means of a ‘divorce bill’.

And 52.2 per cent of Remainers told the LSE researchers that we should entirely free British law from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Unsurprisingly, a still higher proportion of self-identifying ‘Leave’ voters supported what the LSE termed

His statement on The Andrew Marr Show last month that failure to reach an amicable deal with the EU ‘would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain’ was seen as an attack on his Brexiteer colleagues in the Cabinet (and, indeed, on the Prime Minister).

hard Brexit’.

Monstrous

This clearly disappointed the most voluble critic of the Brexiteers on the Tory parliamentary benches, Anna Soubry. In her own newspaper article yesterday, she lamented ‘a sense of resignation among most people who voted Remain that we have to “man up” and make the most of what we know will be a rotten Brexit’...

Full article


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4787508/At-Hammond-s-board-Brexit.html#ixzz4pkbL1fqi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

[12 MONTHS

TO REGAIN OUR ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

AUGUST 14, 2017

 

 

  H.F.1281 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 

 

[IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

-'WE ARE AFTER ALL AN INSULAR  ISLAND PEOPLE']

 

*

 

Even Remainers now back a

'hard' Brexit:

 Most Brits ... - Daily Mail

 

. Even Remainers now back a 'hard' Brexit: Most Brits want to regain full control ...
By Claire Ellicott for the Daily Mail and Kate Ferguson For Mailonline ... a straight
choice between that and no deal, with 58 per cent backing it.

 

Most Brits want to regain full control of our borders and to become free of meddling EU judges, survey reveals

  • Most polled want the UK to become free of EU judges and full border control 

  • Two thirds said they would prefer 'no deal' rather than a soft Brexit, poll found

  • Findings boost for Theresa May who says no deal is better than a bad deal

Most Remain voters now back a Brexit that gives Britain a clean break from the EU and control back of our borders, a major study has found.

Many of those who voted to stay in the European Union also now believe the country should only pay a small ‘divorce bill’ and stop EU judges ruling over the UK.

The results are a major boost for Theresa May’s Brexit stategy - and suggest diehard Remainers, such as Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable and former prime minister Tony Blair, have overestimated support for backtracking on Brexit. 

Full artical


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782712/Most-Brits-hard-Brexit-new-survey-finds.html#ixzz4pXWhGZDU
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

 

 FREEDOM!

 

.'..We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree of the fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates.  The language in which they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the imposition; your speech would betray you

'An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth, to argue another Englishman into slavery'.

*

EDMUND BURKE

 

Conciliation with America-speech House of Commons

March 22,1775

 

*

1+2+3

+4+5+6+7+8+9+10

Soul of England

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 12-2017

H.F.1277 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 

 

KILLERS
BETRAY ISLAM AND ALL MUSLIMS

COMMENTARY by Dr Taj Hargey

DIRECTOR OF THE MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL CENTRE OF OXFORD

*

DAILY MAIL, Friday, January 9, 2015

 

 

THERE has understandably been revulsion and outrage across the world at the massacre in Paris, one of the darkest atrocities perpetuated in France for decades. All right-minded people will join  unequivocally in condemnation of this barbarous pitiless act

Our response must be one of resolution in defence of liberty and freedom of expression, two of the central foundations of our democratic society. There can be no compromise with the twisted extremist ideology that inspired this slaughter.

LikLike all Islamic fanatics, the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo killings loathe the liberal values of open ,pluralistic societies.  Driven by their wilfully perverted misinterpretation of the MUSLIM FAITH, they want to establish theocratic, authoritarian rule across WESTERN EUROPE, complete with all the instruments of dogmatic oppression, including the compulsory wearing of the face veil for Muslin women.

European authorities must not give in to this blackmail, imposed through the barrel of a Kalashnikov or the shell of a suicide bomb. The principles of freedom must be upheld for all cituizens including Muslims.

For thre truth is that there is nothing remotely Islamic about all this murderous fundermentalism. The true tradion of the Muslim religion is one of

TOLERANCE and RESPECT for OTHERS.

 When the Prophet Mohammed moved from Mecca in 622AD to establish the first Islamic State, he did not set up a sectarian Caliphate like today's violent thugs in Al Qaeda and ISIS demand. On the contrary, in the Charter of Medina he created a multicultural, multifath society where the rights of everyone, Muslims , Jews, Christians or pagans were upheld.

So the idea, so popular among the zealots, of Islamic supremacy under

SHARIA LAW

has absolutely no basis in either the Koran or the earliest biography of the Prophet.

Just as false is the belief that the Koran provides some sort of justification for the Charlie Hebdo murders, on the grounds that the satiracal magazine has consistently published derogatory images about Islam.

THIS IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE

As a devote Muslim, I have been deeply offended by some of the vulgar marterial in Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, it has often seemed the magazine went bout of its way to be gratuitously childishly provocative. But I would defend without reservation the magazine's right to publish such stuff.

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS-CAPS ARE OURS!]

DAILY MAIL, Friday, January 9, 2015

H.F.1445

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

H.F. 1325.

DAILY MAIL

 

 

 

I rejoice that this toxic preacher is in jail. But why didn't more Muslims stand up to him.

 

 by Dr Taj Hargey

 EXTRACT

...Barbarous

Heavy funding from the Saudi regime ensures Wahhabism is now the most powerful force in most British mosques, faith schools, Muslim organisations and pressure groups like the Muslim Council of Britain.

The outward symbols 0f this primitive doctrine, like the burka and the niqab and bushy beards are increasingly seen as integral to British Islam, though they stem from archaic Arab life and have no theological basis in the Koran.

Yet tragically, it is the stranglehold of Wahhabism that has enabled figures like Choudary to flourish in our midst.

While most  Muslims are decent and peace-loving, characters like Choudary long went unchallenged by Muslim organisations because so many of them shared a similairly doctrinaire outlook, reflected in dress codes, the need for Sharia courts, the rejection of woman's equality, and distain for liberal values.

Groups like the Muslim Council of Britain do not do nearly enough to root out extreme versions of ISLAM here because they too have come under the influence of Wahhabism, whose logical progression is to end up with a

BARBAROUS THEOCRACY

 not dissimilar to that of

ISIS

Rather  than doing more to confront extremists, the

Muslim Council of Britain

acts defensively whenever the all-too-valid link between

TERRORISM and ISLAM

IS

MADE

 

*

[It has been the complicity of prime ministers since Tony Blair to put the wealth of Saudi Arabia as more important -with profitable Arms deals...rather than preventing their insidious religious doctrine from taking a firm hold in our accustomed

 FREE SOCIETY.

 Dr Taj Hargey comments on the English Defence League and Britain First parties using the over worn term 'Racists' which when one considers the extremism of those Muslims who left our shores for jihadism and the recent research that showed well over 60 % could be significantly  more ,  of the

 3,000,000

 Muslims in our country have no intention whatsoever in

INTEGRATING INTO OUR  SOCIETY

, then the above members of those English parties are in comparison choir boys and without a doubt

 PATRIOTS!

As we have stated over the past decades  only a limited number of Muslims should have been permitted to live in our FREE SOCIETY to ensure that they INTEGRATE before allowing others to follow knowing that the Muslim puts their religion before anything else and that they would bring their CUSTOM-SHARIA LAW, and work to create a ISLAMIC STATE within ENGLAND which they have certainly made a major beginning-and with a favourable birth-rate of 4 to 1 their population will give them the voting power to create just this...

Because of the British government connection with Saudi-Arabia the flood -gates were opened and NOW we have SHARIA COURTS in 86 Centres in ENGLAND and many of our towns and cities are now reminiscent of a

ISLAMIC COUNTRY.

It is stated that there are 300,000 Jews in our country and others of different faiths who have successfully integrated into our society and are no threat to our

CUSTOM-CONSTITUTION-COUNTRY.

The gross stupidity of our so-called leaders over the past decades has turned many of our once familiar towns and cities of our country into

FOREIGN ENCLAVES

and there is a need to rectify the situation while there is still time to do so and that means that strict measures should be implemented by parliament to prevent the present inevitable future society of a foreign power in our country by passing laws to counteract the expressed intentions of the majority of Muslims-to turn

ENGLAND

into a

ISLAMIC STATE

 

If being a PATRIOT is seen as being a RACIST so be it-it is a small price to pay- for wishing to prevent your own

ENGLISH-CUSTOM-CONSTITUTION-COUNTRY

of over a 1000 years in the making

from being taken from you.

*  *  *

TOLERATION

'Toleration is a good thing in its place; but you cannot tolerate what will not tolerate you, and is trying to cut your throat.'-Froude.

*

'Religious liberty, according to both Locke and Montesquieu, may and does require intolerance of an intolerant religion; and the very spirit of peace and gentleness may require war to be waged by the state against an aggressive religion.- Connelly

 

*

 Full article

 

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

AUGUST 18, 2018

 

H.F.946 FREEDOM NOW

 

The number of Muslims in Europe reaches

44 MILLION

 

 

[MUSLIM POPULATION

 WITHIN EACH PARTICULAR

ONCE FREE NATION STATE

 WITHIN THE EU]

 

WHERE THEY LIVE
 

 Germany---       4,760,000--------------5.8per cent

 France--------     4,710,000-------------7.5 per cent

 Britain--------      2,960,000-------------4.6per cent

Italy--------------2,220,000-------------7per cent   

 Bulgaria-----------1,020,000-----------13.7per cent

 Netherlands------1,000,000-------------6.0percent

 Spain--------------980,000--------------2.3percent

 Belgium-----------630,000-------------5.9 percent

 Greece-------------610,000--------------5.3percent

 Austria------------450,000--------------5.4percent

by

Ian Drury- 

Daily Mail

Home Affairs Correspondent

*  *  *

 

   [ The above figures are no doubt an estimate of each nation 's Muslim population therefore there could be millions more at any one time. Our own government has admitted it does not know the full number, as  those who should have left the country are still here, and others over the years have melted into the population. We also know from experience over the years from those at No 10 are not very good at simple Arithmetic!- when it suits them!]

[WITH THE BIRTH-RATE OF 4-1 THE MUSLIM POPULATION IN ENGLAND WILL GROW TO SURPASS THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION IN A MATTER OF A FEW GENERATIONS AND THEN THEY WILL HAVE THEIR ISLAMIC STATE WITH ITS STRICT SHARIA LAW AND SEEING HOW THE MAJORITY OF THE MUSLIMS IN OUR COUNTRY HAVE REACTED TO THE MASSACRE IN FRANCE THERE WILL BE NO TOLERANCE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHICH WE HAVE GIVEN THEM. OF COURSE THERE ARE MANY MUSLIMS WHO DECRY THE SILENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS BUT UNTIL THE GREATER MAJORITY BECOME THE NORM THERE WILL BE NO LIKELIHOOD OF THEIR INTEGRATION INTO OUR SOCIETY.

THE MAJOR FAULT FOR THE SITUATION WE SEE BEFORE US IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS BECAUSE OF THE WEST'S-[USA-UK-FRANCE] HISTORY OF EXPLOITATION IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES IN REGARD TO OIL SUPPLIES OVER THE PAST 97 YEARS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE AFFAIRS OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHICH HAS BROUGHT MANY ILLEGAL WARS WITH GREAT SLAUGHTER AND DEVASTATION TO THEIR POPULATIONS.

THE IRISH QUESTION IS A YARD STICK TO SEE HOW LONG INJUSTICE TO A PEOPLE CAN HAVE DIRE CONSEQUENCES EVEN TODAY IN NOVEMBER 2015. IRONICALLY IT WAS THE WAR MONGER TONY BLAIR WHO FOUND THE SOLUTION WHICH BROUGHT PEACE HOWEVER FRAGILE.  BUT HE FAILED TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ABOUT THE INTERFERENCE IN THE MATTERS OF OTHER NATION STATES -PARTICULARLY MUSLIM-A PEOPLE DEDICATED TO THEIR RELIGION ISLAM-THOUGH THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SECTS OF FOLLOWERS ,WHO HAVE YEARNED TO BE THEMSELVES!

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWER TO THE FLOOD OF REFUGEES  FROM ITS OUTSET SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO KEEP THE REFUGEES IN THE MIDDLE EAST -SAUDI ARABIA-HAS TENTED AREA TO ACCEPT 3,000,000 -EGYPT-JORDON...WITH MASSIVE FINANCIAL  HELP AND SHELTER ETC OFFERED TO THOSE COUNTRIES UNSTINTINGLY BUT ALLOW A CONTROLLED FLOW OF WAR REFUGEES TO THOSE COUNTRIES WILLING TO TAKE THEM-_BUT NO COMPULSION SHOULD BE MADE. IN THIS WAY THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED THE CATASTROPHE WE SEE BEFORE US IN EUROPE.

 

*

 

  1. The number of Muslims in Europe reaches

     

    44million -

     

     

    Daily Mail

    13 hours ago ... The number of Muslims in Europe reaches 44m: Serious concerns raised about
    the ... By Ian Drury Home Affairs Correspondent For The Daily Mail ... By contrast,
    the UK has about 2.9million Muslims – the third largest number.

     

     

     
     

     

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS.]

NOVEMBER 16-2015

 

 

H F 550

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM APRIL-2007

 

WHEN WILL WE LEARN TO STOP APPEASING TERROR

*

COMMENTARY

by

Melanie Phillips

[Daily Mail -April-2007]

 

The ending of the Al Qaeda fertiliser bomb plot trial has posed crucial questions about the competence of

MI5

In particular, the assurances we were given after the 7/7 bombings, that the perpetrators had been unknown to the

SECURITY SERVICE

-have been shown to be utterly false.

 

Disturbingly as that is by itself, the case also raises yet more pressing questions about whether Britain is even now acting effectively enough against the threat to this country from

ISLAMIST TERRORISM.

The fact is that Al Qaeda now sees Britain as both its principal target and its principal recruiting ground. By its own admission, MI5 is monitoring no fewer than 200 terrorist networks, 1,600 identified individual terrorists and 30 known terrorist plots. It says British Muslims are being indoctrinated with horrifying speed, and more terrorists are being recruited every day.

IN TRUTH, as our leading counter-terrorist police officer, Peter Clarke, said last night, this country is facing  a terrorist threat of a nature and scale it has simply

NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

This terrorism is part of a

GLOBAL HOLY WAR

-and the dreadful thing is that it is recruiting British -born boys as its foot-soldiers against their own fellow citizens.

 

When my book

LONDONISTAN

was published a year ago, my claim that we were in a state of denial about the unprecedented emergency we were facing from home-grown terrorism and extremism was dismissed in some quarters as unwarranted alarmism.

SINCE THEN

-public opinion has shifted. Many have realized that what I wrote was if anything, an understatement of the

TRUE POSITION.

BUT

-our official class is still failing to

TAKE ACTION

-that was necessary to

DEFEAT THIS THREAT

to our

WHOLE WAY OF LIFE

Certainly, it is now aware of the enormous scale of the

TERROR THREAT

But it is still fighting with

BOTH HANDS

tied behind its back. In particular, the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-continues to make effective anti-terror policy almost

IMPOSSIBLE.

 

ONLY last week , the Government was prevented from deporting two Libyan terrorist suspects, even though they came here illegally are deemed to pose a serious threat to our lives, because our judges have said no one can be sent anywhere that might not uphold their

HUMAN RIGHTS.

The Government was originally begged by our

SECURITY SERVICES

-not to pass the 1998 Human Rights Act precisely because of the danger it would pose to

NATIONAL SECURITY

-by tying us in such knots. Ministers merely dismissed their concerns.

NOW

-the same

SECURITY SERVICES

-face the nightmare that Islamist terrorists will obtain a nuclear or other dirty bomb to use against

BRITAIN

-with a

HUNAN RIGHTS LAW

-that makes it more difficult to thwart such a terrible

OUTCOME

*

 

[The solution lies with the Government who must repeal the

1998 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

and articles in the British led -

1951 Human Convention of Human Rights

they will of course prevaricate and laud the advantages of the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-until they were under attack for their illegal war in Iraq.

Any articles which a Government wished to retain could be legislated for in Parliament.]

 

Even worse than this, ministers seem to have no idea about the need to attack the ideology driving all this.

It is simply not enough to flush out the terrorist cells, vital though that clearly is. We have to defeat the ideas driving some British Muslims to commit these acts in the first place.

The Government has started paying lip-service to this. It has spoken against extremism of the

Muslim Council of  Britain

-and is encouraging a wider range of truly moderate Muslims to speak up. And a few more extremists are being arrested.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS STILL APPEASING RADICALISM.

*

[It reminds one of the typical duo police investigators of the past where one was the softy and the other the hard man. So long as they achieved their objective it had a purpose. The moderate Muslims of course as their more militant brothers and sisters provided they balance their approach will achieve their aim of a future

MUSLIM STATE RELIGION

in

ENGLAND

And their greatest helper is the Blair Government with their illegal war in Iraq which has allowed the discontented Muslim youth who have enjoyed the benefits of the diversity and human rights agenda to put their faith to the test in combating the invaders of a Muslim State.]

 It has become a cliché to say that  most British Muslims are

MODERATE

-Certainly, most of them undoubtedly would have no truck with terrorism or violence and encouragingly a growing number are speaking out against

ISLAMIST EXTREMISM.

But extremist views are not confined to a few rogue elements. Opinion polls suggest that more than

 100,000

-of our Muslim citizens think the July 2005 attacks in London were justified.

A report by the Policy Exchange think-tank revealed that around one third of British Muslims thought that if Muslims left the FAITH, they should be killed; and 37 per cent of 16-to-24-year olds wanted to live in

BRITAIN

UNDER

SHARIA rather than ENGLISH LAW

[Well as we have explained before the fault is down to those who allowed the immigration in such large numbers from Muslim countries. Were they so naive not to realise that Muslims take their FAITH most seriously and they do not compromise -why should they. They were accepted into Britain and that included their right to worship in their own way.  A knowledge of the history of the Islamic World should have given governments caution about extending citizenship to their peoples in such large numbers. But they are here and we can only hope that a firm but just policy will lead to integration and tolerance of the faiths of all who share our island home. BUT it should be understood that our past and future are coupled with our

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.

THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS MUST FIND THEIR HOME ELSEWHERE. ]

 

*

These numbers subscribing to such extremist views are deeply disturbing. They swell the sea in which terrorism swims.

If this tide is to be held back Islamist extremism in Britain must be stopped and British values reasserted and stoutly upheld. To defeat such extremism, we have to make it abundantly clear that we will not give an inch to those who want to

DESTROY OUR VALUES.

But we appear instead to be doing nothing to stop the spread of radical Islamism. Indeed, in a myriad different ways we are giving out the lethal message that we have nether the will nor the courage to

DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE.

British Muslims are being recruited in large numbers to terror because next to nothing is being done

TO STOP IT

[Well!- an immediate pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan may stem the flow because that is why the recruiting sergeants are so successful but unless this happens immediately then the flow becomes a flood.]

Last January, a Channel Four television Dispatches programme revealed that at certain mosques which were assumed to be more

moderate and which were even prominent in talking to other faiths, material was being preached and disseminated advocating such horrors as the murder of homosexuals, the beating of women and hatred of

CHRISTIANS and JEWS.

Despite the Prime Minister's promise to outlaw the radical group Hizb ut Tahrir (which believes Britain should be an Islamic State), the Government refuses to do so.

YET, Ed Husain, an extremely brave former radical who has recanted, chillingly documents in his new book

THE ISLAMIST

-the enormous influence of this group in telling countless British Muslims its duty to wage holy war, and that Muslims have a corresponding duty

TO BE PREPARED.

-to launch attacks on Britain

FROM WITHIN

 

Not only are we failing to halt the spread of such lethal extremist views, we are also failing to hold the line for

OUR OWN VALUES.

Above all else, we should absolutely refuse to countenance the spread of

SHARIA LAW

-which is not only inimical to our own deepest principles but aims to

SUPPLANT OUR OWN LAWS.

Yet we are turning a blind-eye to the steady Sharia-isation

SHARIA-ISATION

OF

OUR COUNTRY.

We have ignored the development of informal parallel SHARIA jurisdictions, enforced by SHARIA courts, in areas heavily populated by Muslims.

We have turned a blind eye to the polygamous marriages they sanction in Britain but now give extra welfare benefits to husbands settling here with

MULTIPLE WIVES

-even though bigamy is a

CRIME

Despite the fact that thousands of Muslim women are terrorised by the threat of

'Honour killings'

only a few of these horrific cases result in prosecutions - because our police are terrified of being accused of

'racism'

IF THEY PURSUE THEM.

 

Now Gordon Brown has said Britain should become the centre of global Islamic banking. But this is heavily backed by Saudi Arabia which will use it to further its objective of Islamising

THE WEST.

- and may even provide a cover for the financing of further terror.

This craven appeasement of extremism gives Islamists the unmistakable message

THAT BRITAIN IS THEIRS

-for the taking.

Thus truly moderate Muslims

ARE BETRAYED

-and all of us are put in infinitely

GREATER DANGER

-not just from

TERRORISM

-but from a

CULTURE

that still seems to be

SLEEPWALKING TO OBLIVION.

*          *          *

 

[As we have intimated in the past the mistakes were made from the very beginning by our politicians not noting the  different religious  customs which would make full

INTEGRATION IMPOSSIBLE

As a nation which had one of the largest

EMPIRES

-the world has ever seen - with a population of a quarter of the globe under our guidance.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE

that such ignorance could have been shown to the difficulties in which large scale immigration from certain places would bring us to our present day problems and dangers.

IMMIGRATION

should be controlled with the realisation that certain immigrants are by their inability to

INTEGRATE and comply with our LAWS

-be asked to accept their responsibility of citizenship before being allowed to settle here.

For the people who from all corners of the world who have decided to make our country their home and integrate and obey our laws it is imperative that those who have no intention to comply should be refused citizenship -there can be no exceptions as in our country everyone who ever they are under the same

RULE OF LAW

to have it any other way lies the path to disorder and anarchy.]

*

LONDONISTAN

published by

Gibson Square

£8.99

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

 

*

 

All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

[Daily Mail -April-2007]

 

H.F.1246

Ours might be a stronger and happier Society if Christians were readier to defend their values.

 

In the Daily Mail on Tuesday the 21st December 2004 an article by their columnist Stephen Glover has shown a Solomon touch in his case for Free Speech and Sensitivity in the Religious aspect of many of our citizen’s lives.

*

'Most people will be shocked that hundreds of Sikhs should have laid siege to a Birmingham theatre on Saturday and brought the performance of a controversial play to an early end.  Windows were smashed, missiles thrown and three police officers were injured.

 Now the management of the Birmingham Rep has abandoned the production of Behzti after failing to reach an agreement with Sikh leaders.  With the prospect of further riots, it could not guarantee the safety of theatre-goers.

The play, deeply provocative to many Sikhs, depicted rape and murder in a Sikh temple.  Written by the Sikh female writer Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, it is the story of a mother and daughter who visit a temple where murder and abuse take place.

 After Saturday’s riots, Sikh leaders had made the apparently preposterous claim that the setting of the play should be changed from a temple to a community centre.

On the face of it, these activities amount to an outrageous suppression of free speech.   The threat of brute force has led to the abandonment of the play that broke no laws, and which law-abiding citizens had paid good money to see.  To force closure challenges the Values of an Open Society which most of us hold dear.

Precious

Without a doubt, the incident will be used by those on the far-Right such as the BNP They will say it shows that immigrants such as Sikhs with their own religious beliefs cannot be expected to respect British customs.  Others more liberal disposition will limit themselves to the observation that free speech is a precious thing that must be defended at all costs.

Right and Left will agree that the behaviour of the Sikh leaders shows how they have not signed up to the post-enlightenment values that prevail in the host society.   Most of us accept the proposition that we fight ideas with other ideas-not with violence and censorship.

Of course, much of this is true.  I deplore censorship.  And yet part of me is unable to share in the general outrage.  This bit of me even feels a degree of sympathy for the Sikhs.  They were protecting something precious about their religion.  No one can condone violence, but it is difficult not to admire their- to us- very unfashionable defence of religious beliefs.

In fact, the very idea that anything goes in the theatre or literature was not born fully –formed in the Enlightenment 250 years ago.

Until quite recently most people, including many who thought themselves as liberals, believed that there should be limits on free expression, particularly in matters of religion and sex.  In the theatre the Lord Chamberlain ensured that there were few, if any profanities.

 

In the history of this country-even its democratic history-the belief that free speech should be completely untrammelled is a very recent one.  Over the past 40 years, there has been a string of films and plays mocking Christ, not withstanding the blasphemy laws, which are largely ignored.

Monty Python’s Life of Brian showed one of the thieves crucified with Christ singing to him on the cross, Always look on the Bright Side Of Life.  In the film the Last Temptation Of Christ, the saviour was depicted making love to Mary Magdalen.

Such films have caused enormous upsets, and some complaints, though we have seen nothing to rival the Sikhs rioting in Birmingham.  A recent production in St Andrews in Scotland of Terry Mac Nally’s play Corpus Christi- that depicts Christ and his disciples as homosexuals-did attracts a small peaceful protest by Christian fundamentalists.

This Christmas Madame Tussaud’s  exhibited sacrilegious waxworks of ‘Posh and Becks’ as Mary, mother of Jesus, Joseph, with no regard for the feelings of Christians.  A current Channel 4 brochure carries a photographic spread of the Gallaghers from the ‘current hit show, Shameless’.

It shows them in the attitude of the apostles at the Last Supper.  The figure playing Christ leans forward drunkenly. Beer can in one hand, a cigarette in the other.

 

Notoriety

 

What is striking about all these examples is how poor they are as works of art.  Their notoriety derives from the ability to shock.  I dare say the same can be said of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play in Birmingham.  But even third-rate works can cause offence if the ideas they contain are sufficiently provocative.

 

Indeed, it is the mark of an inferior playwright that he should set out simply to provoke rather than to enlighten.  If Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s object was to suggest that Sikhs in temples could behave improperly-as we know Roman Catholic priests can in their own world-she could have made her point more subtly without inflaming the very Sikhs whom she would presumably like to influence.

 

Having chosen a holy temple as her setting, she could have hardly been expected to change it in order to please her critics.  But she would have been wiser to have found a less contentious venue in the first place.

 

I am not advocating suppression of free speech.  It would have been better if the play had been allowed to proceed as written.  But I do feel a degree of respect for the way in which Sikhs are prepared to defend their religious values in the face of merciless assaults from their enemies.  They show robustness which most ordinary Christians-excepting a few fundamentalists-are too timid to express.

 

Family

And perhaps this explains why Sikhs, one of the most successful of immigrant groups observe their religion to an extent that is barely intelligible to most white Britons.  For them religion is not something which may happen just at Christmas or Easter, if at all.  It is part of the daily routine of their lives, and informs their belief in the importance of the family and their social group.

 

Many will say that the religious intolerance shown by Sikhs in Birmingham shows how dangerous diverse Britain is becoming as a society.  Here are people who put their religious beliefs before the notion of free speech.  The same point is often made in relation to British Muslims, whose supposedly primitive beliefs are also pronounced to be pre-Enlightened.

 

Certainly the intolerance is worrying, but the main lesson I draw from events in Birmingham is that Sikhs comprise a group in our society, which retains a laudably strong religious conviction, as well as a firm belief in the family.

They are not prepared to see their beliefs mocked and degraded as many Christians have been.

 

If these Values could be expressed peacefully and in a way that did not threaten free speech, would they not be an inspiration, rather than a threat to Christian Britain?

 

Ours might be a stronger and happier society if Christians were readier to defend their values, and if third-rate playwrights thought twice before attacking them.

*          *          *

[Font altered-bolding used-comments in brackets]

 

[For details of a peaceful Christian fellowship, which travels the country to protest at blasphemy and insult to Christ –contact ‘Christian Voice’

  www.christian-voice.org.uk                            

Patron: The Lord Ashbourne.]

DECEMBER 21-2004

 

 

 

 

 CHRISTIANITY AND MARRIAGE AND THE STATE**** GAMBLING AND ETHICS****CHRISTIANITY,THE PEOPLE, AND ETHICS****IMMIGRATION POLICY**** CHRISTIANITY IS MORE THAN A RELIGION_IT IS THE MAIN CULTURAL FORCE_WHICH MAKES US WHAT WE ARE****CHRISTIAN BELIEFS UNDER ATTACK BY EU'S PARLIAMENT IS INTELLECTUAL NAZISM**** A DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY BY A ONCE AGNOSTIC****WHO CARES ABOUT MORALITY****DEMOCRACY WITHOUT MORALITY AND RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUALITY IS DESPOTISM****THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO MANY RELIGIOUS CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE****THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE BACKBONE OF CHRISTIANITY****CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN SPEAKS ON TAX BILLS-FOREIGN POLICY-PEACE-AND THE POWER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS****OURS MIGHT BE A STRONGER AND HAPPIER SOCIETY IF CHRISTIANS WERE READIER TO DEFEND THEIR VALUES****SUNDAY SCHOOL CAN SAVE CHILDREN FROM DELINQUENCY-SAYS BISHOP****OUR CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL OF EASTER WHICH MANY KNOW SO LITTLE AND SOME NONE****

AN AGE WHEN ALL FAITHS ARE EQUAL-EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY****

LET the CHRISTMAS MESSAGE ring out WHILE you still CAN-by -MICHAEL NAZIR ALI-BISHOP OF ROCHESTER-DEC-2006****

 

 

WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

 

 

O COME ALL YE FAITHFUL…

EXCEPT CHRISTIANS.

[WHETHER ONE IS A CHRISTIAN OR NOT ENGLAND HAS A CHRISTIAN HERITAGE AND IF THE SUPPORT FOR THAT PRICELESS INHERITANCE IS LOST THEN IT WILL BE FILLED BY OTHERS OF WHOM SOME HAVE A MORE AGGRESSIVE AND UNFORGIVING NATURE WHICH WOULD TAKE US BACK TO THE DARK AGES.]

 

 

  A MESSAGE FROM 1938 AS TRUE TODAY IN SEPTEMBER 2017

ENGLAND

EPILOGUE

WILLIAM RALPH INGE - DEAN of ST PAULS

1938

Christianity is the generic name of a number of different religions, some of which have only an adventitious connexion with the Gospel of Christ.  Genuine religious revivals occur from time to time, and have a starting, but short-lived, popular success. They are difficult to predict, and they seem more congenial to the so-called Celtic temperament, for example in Wales, than  to the more stolid character of the English. There are no signs at all that any outburst of religious enthusiasm is likely to occur in England in the twentieth century.  Superficially, the organized religious  bodies seem to be slowly losing ground.  The emancipation of women, and the education which they now receive, have assimilated their mental outlook to that of men, and this has been injurious to the interests of institutional religion, much more in the north of Europe than in the Latin countries, where the position of women has changed less.  These tendencies have led many  to expect a gradual disappearance of religion from its age-long position as one of the most potent factors in social life.  In much of our most modern literature it is simply left out of account.  But a serious thinker, whatever his personal convictions, will be slow to believe in such a rapid and subversive change in human nature.   He may even doubt whether the decay of Christianity has not been much more apparent than real.  The essence of Christianity is, as Nietzsche said, a "transvaluation of all values," a conviction about the position of man in relation to the unseen Divine Power who made and governs the universe.  It is essentially a religious idealism, which traces its origins to a historical revelation. It appeals very strongly to those who are susceptible to such a call, but, as its Founder repeatedly warned his disciples, it is never likely to be acceptable to the majority.   The Believers were to be the salt of the earth, or like leaven hid in three measures of meal.

 "The Spirit of Truth" is a Spirit whom "the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not neither knoweth him."

The Church, however, was not long content to appeal to the anima naturaliter Christiana, or to the penitent sinner who often has the makings of a saint.   It issued irreligious appeals, in the form of lurid threats and gorgeous promises, to the irreligious, and by a means of unholy alliances with the secular arm became, at least nominally, the creed of everybody.   But it is the law that a religion which gains power by non-religious methods [ As do Muslim Fundamentalists in Mosques in England in 2017 with their aim of a ISLAMIC STATE] invariably uses it for non-religious ends.  Church history in the so-called ages of faith presents a most unedifying spectacle.  What  has happened in our day (1938)  is  that these non-religious appeals have lost their cogency.   Partly from discoveries in natural science, but still more from the growth of the scientific attitude in weighing evidence, the materialistic pictures of bliss and torment, which once produced a certain effect, are now either rejected or interpreted in a very symbolical sense.   Deprived of these weapons, the Church has proceeded to secularize itself, and to present the Gospel as ca prophecy of " a good time coming" in this world. 

 But this is quite obviously not Christianity, and the laity do not like  the priest in politics.

So the Churches against their will, are thrown back upon their real message and their own business.

There  is no reason to think that the strictly religious appeal of

CHRISTIANITY

is less powerful than it ever was; but , as always, it is an appeal which does not attract the majority.

The proper attitude of the Church is frankly to accept this position, which is that of the Founder himself, and to find its usefulness in steadily holding before the nation a heroic and noble ideal of belief and conduct, in contrast with the secularity, greed, and hypocrisy of society in general.  So purified from extraneous accretions, Christianity may in the future exercise an incalculably beneficent influence upon the life of the nation, and may win the allegiance of many who at present stand aloof from it.

(Pages 299/300.)

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

Brought-forward from:

 

DECEMBER 21-2004

 

H.F.1306

 
 

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

BREXIT

BUT NOT OUT OF THE EU FOR 2/3 YEARS. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. ALL EU TREATIES WERE OBTAINED BY BRIBERY AND TREASON  AND FRAUD WHICH

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW PART 1-2016SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW-2016

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW

 

PLEASE  NOTE: WE HAVE IN ADVANCE GIVEN BELOW THE BULLETIN FOR EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS WHICH YOU CAN ENTER-IT WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER MONTHS FROM THE PAST AND THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME.  WE ARE MAKING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN EXIT DATE FROM THE EU. AS YOU ARE AWARE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE IN OCTOBER 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BRING THE EXIT FROM THE EU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOW THAT BREXIT IS SOON TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT THE DAY OF OUR DELIVERANCE WILL SOON BE AT HAND AND THE RETURN OF OUR INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND TOGETHER WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES OF WALES-SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN ISLAND.

MAY GOD GRANT US A SPEEDY EXIT FROM THE SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -MAMMOTH MONSTROSITY OF THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

 

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 

 

 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

     9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA

LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND

SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND

100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

MOST EVERYTHING WHICH IS PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT NATION STATES

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

A NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

ON the momentous day Theresa May said Britain WILL quit the single market, she put Cameron's feeble negotiations to shame with an ultimatum to Brussels that the UK will 'walk away from a bad deal-and make the EU pay' 

  • STEEL OF THE NEW
  • IRON LADY
  • The PM is hopeful of an EU-UK trade deal because of mutual economic interests 
  • She said Europe not making a deal with Britian would be 'calamitous self-harm'
  • It was confirmed that we will be leaving the single market and customs union
  • But the EU's chief negotiator called her show of defiance counter-productive
  • Her speech was criticised by the Lib Dems as Labour fought on how to respond 
  • Sterling rose 2.8 per cent against the Dollar and 1.8 per cent against the Euro


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130034/Theresa-s-Brexit-speech-puts-Cameron-shame.html#ixzz4W7pxZPm9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Europe split over May's ...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170118/281625305003771
Europe split over May's vision – but even Tusk calls it 'realistic'. Daily ... News -
From Mario Ledwith in Brussels and John Stevens in London.

 

*

POINT BY POINT, HER BLUEPRINT TO FREE BRITAIN FROM BRUSSELS
THERESA May delighted Eurosceptics yesterday with an ambitious road map for BREXIT. The PM extended the hand of friendship to the EU but threatened to walk away if BRUSSELS tried to impose a punitive deal. Jack DOYLE sets out her 12 objectives and analyses her chances of success.

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will provide certainty where we can. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after BREXIT, as they did before. And the Government will put the final deal to a vote in both houses of Parliament.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By keeping in place-at least initially-all EU laws, Mrs May will provide a degree of continuity and confidence for business. However, as she freely admits she cannot control the outcome of the negotiations. Parliament is highly likely to approve any deal because the alternative will be a chaotic BREXIT.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Because we will not truly left the EU if we are not in control of our own laws

CAN SHE DELIVER

 Adopting the 'take back control' slogan of the Leave campaign, Mrs May repeated her promise to end rule by EU rule and judges in Luxembourg and restore power to Parliament and domestic courts. Without this there is no Brexit. A firm red line

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

 WHAT SHE SAID

A stronger Britain demands that we strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the UK.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By consulting devolved administrations, Mrs May is seeking to reassure voters in the nations of the UK which didn't vote for Brexit that she is listening to their concerns, and avoid Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second independence vote.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration system.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Both countries want to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without opening a back door into Britain. Likely to mean UK border checks at Irish ports and airports.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: BREXIT must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver

CAN SHE DELIVER

Ending free movement is a  RED LINE, but Mrs May left open when it will end, what system will replace it and details of any transition deal. The PM wants highly skilled EU migrants, doctors and nurses, but will she compromise on unskilled migrants to get a better trade deal

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

 

WHAT SHE SAID

We  want to guarantee the right of EU citizens who are already living here in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Likely to agreed early on, as long as the EU doesn't want to haggle. Last year Mrs May offered to settle on the rights of three million EU nationals in the UK, and 1.2million Brits on the continent in advance of formals talks- but Angela Merkel refused.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*
7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

Not only will the government protect the rights of workers' set out in European legislation, we will build on them.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May is determined to at least preserve protections for workers on low and middle incomes-many of whom voted for BREXIT. Could come under threat if there is no deal., and Britain slashes taxes and regulation to attract business.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. This should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. But I want to make it clear. It cannot mean membership of the single market

CAN SHE DELIVER

The crux of the negotiation. Britain will leave the single market, and with it EU laws and free movement. Instead Mrs May wants a tariff-free trade and customs agreement to stop goods being held up at ports. She ruled out ' vast contributions' to the EU budget, and the only money going to Brussels will be for particular programmes and agencies like Europol. Her huge gamble is to threaten to walk away if the EU attempts to punish Britain

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries outside the EU too. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants deals with non-EU countries including the US. That would be impossible from inside the customs union, which imposes a uniform tariff on all non-EU countries. It would also make trade Secretary Liam Fox's job redundant.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting -edge research and innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Unlikely to be an obstacle to any deal. Much collaboration between academics takes place outside formal EU structures and will continue unimpeded.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

 WHAT SHE SAID

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states.  All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Security and intelligence cooperation and defence cooperation cannot be a formal bargaining chip, but without making it one, Mrs May reminds EU allies of Britain's importance as an ally in fighting terrorism and important status as a military power.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

 WHAT SHE SAID

It is in no one's interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the European Union.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants tranitional arrangements to smooth the process of leaving the EU with specific deals on budget contributions, immigration, trade and customs lasting different periods of time. Securing this as well as securing a final deal within two years is a huge task.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

[THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT OTHER EU MEMBER STATES WILL BE GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY BREXIT TO LEAVE THAT SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHICH SHOULD MAKE A NUMBER OF EU STATES TO CO-OPERATE FULLY WITH THE UK OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE AT A LATER DATE.

AS THE GREAT PRIME MINISTER - WILLIAM PITT -  (1759-1806) ANNOUNCED IN NOVEMBER 9-1805 SHORTLY AFTER  NELSON'S VICTORY OVER THE FRENCH AND SPANISH FLEETS AT TRAFALGAR.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

The blueprint of a Free and Prosperous United Kingdom should be the blueprint of a future Free Europe and the world at large. Our past still lives in the hearts of FREE PEOPLES everywhere and soon we will rejoin that sacred past which we left over 43 years ago because of traitorous politicians and others who couldn't see the dangers ,for the gross lies and deceit in their path.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW

 
 

 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

 

AT LAST, IT IS ALL CLEAR FOR

 BREXIT'S

LIFT-OFF

 

YESTERDAY  was a HISTORIC DAY for OUR COUNTRY. BY a RESOUNDING MAJORITY of 384, the COMMONS swept away [our  past 45 years of tutelage within an undemocratic-unaccountable-unbearable-corrupt-expensive- strait-jacket Europe.]

 

THIS was a historic day for our country. At 7.30pm yesterday by a resounding majority of 384, the Commons swept away the last serious obstacle to freeing Britain from the chains that have bound us to an unelected, unaccountable Brussels for 45 YEARS.

True, we can still expect dirty tricks from the 114 who, to their shame, voted  against implementing the

PEOPLE'S WILL.

Of these , this newspaper will not waste ink on cursing SNP members, whose fantasies of SCOTLAND as an independent EU nation state gave them a spurious excuse for defying the UK majority.

AS for the rest, no criticism is too harsh for those Labour MPs who represent solidly Brexiteer constituencies, but voted to

REMAIN.

They deserve everything coming to them at the next election.

So, too, do the creeps who in 2015 backed the call for a binding referendum, but voted last night against implementing its result.

Among these, none can beat the monstrous hypocrisy of

NICK CLEGG

-that flip-flopping representative of the moneyed elite, suckled on the [thirsty] breast of Brussels.

IN 2008, it was he who led demands for an in/out referendum on Europe (as we demonstrate on the opposite page-

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H F 1101-AT LONG LAST-FREEDOM AWAITS! 

 

Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCE.]

Faced with the possible imposition (illegally) of a E. U. Constitution this  article contemplating our own U.K. Constitution (English Constitution), is especially topical.

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to the people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused.

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that,

THE LAW IS SUPREME

The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral with this, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

[In 2016 one can see how successive governments have by gradualism watered down these rights with even attempts to replace jury trial by trial by judge only on the grounds of speed and saving resources. The people in the main have been, amiss in not being vigilant to the protection of THEIR CONSTITUTION. In just a few weeks on the 23 June,2016 they have a choice whether to vote to leave the EU and regain THEIR LAW-THEIR CONSTITUTION-THEIR FREE COUNTRY. or REMAIN in an ALIEN COLLECTIVIST AND CORRUPT UNDEMOCRATIC EU with NO PROTECTION of MAGNA CARTA of 1215 and BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688 and NO ENGLISHMAN'S ' RIGHTS and LIBERTIES' to be passed on to FUTURE GENERATIONS.]

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 which declares that  the oath is taken for the purpose of

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the CROWN, and the CROWN in both GOVERNMENT and PARLIAMENT.

This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the STATUTE, COMMON LAW, and the CUSTOM and to 'CAUSE LAW and JUSTICE with MERCY to be used in all JUDGEMENTS'.

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for ROYAL ASSENT.

A BILL is not ENACTED until it has been authorised by the SOVEREIGN POWER.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted ONLY TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance  [such as Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's NEW LABOUR and since DAVE'S PARTY]

 It was used  to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs.  The OATH ascertains the SUPREMACY of the LAW, not the supremacy of CROWN or of PARLIAMENT.

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the Crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The PEOPLE give ALLEGIANCE to the CROWN.

Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence.

The MAGNA CARTA

made provision for the PEOPLE to use ANY MEANS including FORCE if the CROWN is found to be in BREACH.

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power.  The Monarch may do no wrong, but should she refuse by her negative power( the right to withhold assent) to

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

[Millions of patriots have been waiting over four decades for:-

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

Brought -forward from APRIL-2009
 

 

LEARNING PRIDE in NATIONAL IDENTITY

 

 

St George's Day 23 April

 

by

 

John Boyd

 


The 23rd April is taken to celebrate both St George’s day, patron saint of England, and birthday of the great English bard, William Shakespeare. In fact not much is known about either the knight or the playwright. St George was probably not English and hardly stepped on English soil and certainly did not kill a dragon.

Without doubt it is now commonly accepted in sports, athletic circles and events that the English Cross represents England. The incorrect waving of the Union Flag, or Jack, for England is fast disappearing. Painting of faces with the English cross at recent world cup events was an expression of national sentiment, English national sentiment, by ordinary and working class people. The Scots, Welsh and Irish have no qualms about who they are and what nation they belong to and what flag they fly they certainly do not consider themselves British except some Unionists in the six counties of Northern Ireland. Although it is becoming clearer, we the English, are still a little mixed up about whether we are English or just "British". This is because England was the apex of the British Empire which in fact was an English Empire where fag ends persist today in Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Falkland Isles and several other spots around the world.

The term "British" was highlighted in the days of imperialism to rub out the idea of nations and nationalities. The apt and current parallel form of imperialism is now being consolidated by European Union. Wales and Scotland are to be merely regions and not nations. England is divided into several regions like the rest of the EU. Some Euro-regions straddle national boundaries. According to the Treaty on European Union we are all supposed to become "European Citizens" with duties and rights as yet unspecified. Apart from one or two exceptions, according to international law, you cannot be a citizen of two states at the same time. This means we are intended to be citizens of a superstate and lose our national identity as part of the process of taking away the powers of nation states and national governments, thereby national democracy and all forms of democracy.

To progress democracy into the economic and other fields requires real socialism. The prerequisites of socialism are therefore national independence and national democracy. Hence the thrust to European Union is the antithesis of democracy, national independence and socialism.

A nation state and national government is strongest when the nation is the strongest. In the case of Britain this entails several nations and peoples whatever class they come from. A current example of the strength of a nation irrespective of class is that of the Serb nation who have united against the illegal and barbaric NATO bombing.

Socialism and nationalism are not comparable just as flour and electricity are not comparable. Socialism is an economic system where production and appropriation proceed together in common but where personal consumption is related to personal contribution. Nationalism or patriotism does not define a system of society but can define a sentiment, doctrine or movement. In the context of today’s political situation, nationalism or patriotism has the aim of securing national independence, an aim which is democratic but not inherently socialist. Therefore it is the duty of all socialists to be the best democrats and the best nationalists or patriots.

The action of NATO in the Balkans and intense rivalries between the imperialist powers involved is to shred the UN Charter and international law, especially the right to self determination of nation states. The object of European Union with a single currency and single army is to completely take away the right of EU member states to their own self determination. European Union is being consolidated as a capitalist corporatist super-state to suit transnational capital. It is big capital which is opposed to nationalism, nation states, national democracy and all forms of democracy. The anti-thesis of transnational capital is therefore the nation state, nationalism or patriotism and democracy.

Some of the factors which bind a nation together include a common language, history, geographical area, economic system, culture and democracy. Democracy requires the minority to accept majority decisions and can only happen within a nation state and not between nation states. Britain is a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-nation state comprises three predominant nations and part of the Irish nation. This mini-Common Market is dominated by England. Britain in turn is now subjugate over vast areas of economic, political and military life to the European Union superstate. This is done through common policies, laws, directives and regulations on foreign policy and a European Army, a single currency even though we have not joined the last stage of economic and monetary union, agriculture, steel , shipbuilding, coal production, fishing grounds, trans-European roads, judicial system, taxation via VAT and so on.

A full understanding of the importance of what is called the "National Question" is required to broaden the anti-EU movement in Britain where all classes take part, especially the working class and the organisations of the labour movement who normally represent them.

[The Irish, Scots, Welsh and ethnic minorities in Britain are mostly clear who they are and proud of their nationality. It is the English who have to learn further their nationality and that is why the English cross and the English national day of St George are important. There should b a national holiday on 23rd April in addition to May Day and alongside St Andrew’s Day, St David’s Day and St Patrick’s Day. The peasants in their 1381 revolt had no problem in flying the English cross in their irregular army and we today should not be afraid to do so either, whether this be an expression of our utter disgust and opposition to Britain’s part in NATO or in the struggle to extricate ourselves from the prison of European Union. ]

 


First published in the Morning Star on 23 April 1999 - a paper opposed to Britain's membership of European Union, opposed the undeclared war and NATO bombing in the Balkans and is a daily paper of the left.

Partly based on a CAEF discussion pamphlet by John Boyd - "European Union, National Independence and Democracy"
Available for £1.27 (or 5x27p stamps) post free from CAEF, 57 Green Lane, Merseyside CH45 8JQ


----------
Democrat contents page
CAEF details page
Home page

*

[Font Altered-Bolding & underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

*

APRIL-2009
 

Brought -forward from APRIL-2009
 

H.F.1440

 

 

 

How and Why Was WWI Planned and Prolonged

Mujahid Kamran

August 1, 2017

The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic.”

Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

The Planners and the Plan

The First World War did not just happen. There is undeniable evidence that the war was planned by the international-banker controlled British oligarchy almost two decades before it broke out (see e.g. [1-3]). In their outstanding book Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor have established beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the First World War was planned by a tiny group of members of the British oligarchy including Nathaniel Rothschild [1].

King Edward VII

While building upon what was first revealed by the late Professor Carrol Quigley, they have not only provided detailed evidence in favor of this thesis, but have also revealed the astonishing role of the British monarch, King Edward VII, in secretly building alliances against Germany. They have provided ample evidence that the playboy King, much disliked by his mother Queen Victoria, went along with the secret group that had, in the first place, planned this horrific war.

The secret group of people, whose existence was first revealed by Professor Carrol Quigley, thus putting his own life in danger, decided to work behind the scenes with the utmost secrecy. The revelations of Professor Quigley were based on documents provided by the Secret Elite, as they are referred to sometimes. The documents were provided for the purpose of writing a sanitized history.

The goal of the Secret Elite was the expansion of the British empire to the total exclusion of other powers.

This cabal was extremely wealthy. Cecil Rhodes, who, with Rothschild help, had amassed a huge fortune in South Africa, first discussed his plans with Nathaniel Rothschild in February 1890 in the presence of a few members of the British oligarchy.

In 1891 a five-member secret group comprising Cecil Rhodes, Nathaniel Rothschild, William Stead, Lord Esher and Alfred Milner became, unknown to anyone else, the core group that decided to steer the world towards a war aimed at the destruction of Germany. They called themselves the Society of the Elect. Around themselves they built, as if in a concentric circle, The Association of Helpers, eminent men, who did not know of the Society of the Elect. Other men were gradually involved in the plan but they were not aware of the separate existence of the five-member core. Together, these men steered and controlled the course of British foreign policy, unknown to the Parliament, the people, the Cabinet, and others who were constitutionally relevant.

These men represented a new phenomenon on the world stage – the money kings, who held no office and yet had real power to decide the fate of nations. When Rhodes died at age 48, he left all his money to these men for the sole purpose of extending the British empire over the entire globe. Secrecy was of utmost importance to this group.

The destruction of Germany, the Secret Elite knew, would entail enormous bloodshed. They also knew that Britain could not do it alone. It needed the strength of the Russian and French armies to achieve that end.

Russian soldiers WW1

And maybe the Secret Elite wanted Russia and France to shed their own and German blood for them. But France had been a traditional enemy of the British and vice versa whereas Russia and Britain had vied for the control of the Black Sea and the annexation of Constantinople i.e. Istanbul. There was rivalry between Russia and Britain regarding the Russian urge southwards and eastwards to warm waters, seaports that could function round the year. In the south lay the “jewel” of the British empire – India.

Despite these rivalries the Secret Elite was determined to befriend and woo both France and Russia because it considered Germany the most potent threat to the existence of the British empire. Germany was not fully aware of this heinous plan aimed at its utter destruction. And Russia and France, both were trapped by the Secret Elite. In fact, the Secret Elite succeeded not only in destroying Germany, they also destroyed Russia, and by prolonging the war, destroyed the Ottoman as well as the Austro-Hungarian empires. Britain, in the end, did not really benefit. The Zionists did – the Illuminati Zionist bankers emerged as the real force on the world stage. The Milners and the Eshers and Balfours, and all others became powerless eventually and faded away.

The Rothschilds have continued into the 21st century enhancing their power and wealth with every major bloodshed. They and their illuminati banking brethren were the real beneficiaries. The Christian West was the real loser. And so were the Muslims.

It is well known among historians that Queen Victoria disapproved of her son’s womanizing and kept his royal stipend at a minimum while she was in power. The expenses of the womanizing of King Edward VII, when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were borne by the Rothschilds and by Sir Ernest Cassel, both bankers of German-Jewish extraction. When he came to power Edward VII was keen to oblige his patrons who, apparently, wanted to destroy the emerging German nation. And, in any case he was under the impression that the destruction of Germany would pave the way for a global British Empire – it was to be his empire.

The Zionist/Illuminati international bankers had other plans. King Edward VII was the architect of the Entente Cordiale of 1904. His image as a playboy concealed the fact that he was traveling all over Europe to build alliances against Germany, while Germany never suspected that traditional enemies like England and France could or would become friends.

Docherty and Macgregor also describe the infiltration of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office of Great Britain by agents of the group that had planned the First World War. They were able to control the officers of both government departments. They also controlled the War Office as well as the highly important and secret Committee of Imperial Defense. The Group had influence in both parties. Their policy of destroying Germany not only transcended party politics, it also went beyond which party was in power – it transcended governments.

The Parliaments and the prime ministers came and went without knowing that a tiny cabal was planning and relentlessly driving Britain to total war with Germany.

*

Cover up and Fabricated History

Docherty and Macgregor have further revealed that (p 5, ref. [1]):

The Secret Elite dictated the writing and teaching of history, from the ivory towers of the academia down to the smallest of schools. They carefully controlled the publication of official government papers, the selection of documents for inclusion in the official version of the history of the First World War, and refused access to any evidence that might betray their covert existence. Incriminating documents were burned, removed from official records, shredded, falsified, or deliberately rewritten, so that what remained for historians was carefully selected material.”

Docherty and Macgregor point out (their book was published in 2013) that even “To this day researchers are denied access to certain First World War documents because the Secret Elite had much to fear from the truth, as do those who have succeeded them.” Why such a vehement cover up that even a century later the British authorities do not grant access to certain documents pertaining to the first World War? They want to maintain the myth of German culpability and their innocence, whereas the reality is the reverse of what establishment history portrays. The truth will shift the onus of responsibility to the shoulders of the Secret Elite and of every other consequence that followed: the Second World War, Bank of International Settlements, IMF, World Bank, the U.N., Israel, the Korean and Vietnam wars, continuing wars in the Middle East, right up to the dangerous situation today. They have lied to generations and rather than let the truth be known they have chosen and attempted to perpetuate the lie worldwide and for all times.

They can do so because the international illuminati-Zionist bankers are all powerful and control the American and British governments. Israel is a Rothschild fiefdom, a source of perpetual war and a possible eventual Armageddon. The academia is, by and large, part of this cover up and that is very sad, to say the least. Any historian in a university who challenges the establishment version will be ostracized, if not thrown out of his job. Nick Kollerstrom had to lose his job despite the fact that he is an outstanding academic. One of his colleagues, whom he had known for years, was so angry that he told Kollerstrom that he wanted to hit him with his racket!

Guido Preparata was ostracized for his outstanding book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Built the Third Reich, and had to quit his job, leave the U.S., and even give up his research career for some time. It is therefore significant that Docherty and Macgregor, though British (both are Scottish) do not work for any British university. They, therefore, cannot be thrown out of their jobs.

On the surface of it, the strategic aim behind the instigated and covertly planned World War I was to destroy both Germany and Russia and thereby kill the possibility of emergence of a dominant Eurasian power, or a powerful coalition of Eurasian countries, that could threaten the British Empire. The initial group, the Circle of the Elect, appeared to have, as its aim, the establishment of a worldwide British Empire. It only included one banker, Nathaniel Rothschild. With hindsight, the evolution of global affairs indicates without any doubt that the Zionists (Communism and Zionism sprouted from the same Illuminati “tribe” and had a common origin) were the real beneficiaries and the deeper instigators of this war.

The world today is headed towards a global slave state controlled by the Illuminati cum Zionist international bankers. The Bolshevik Revolution was led and controlled by “atheistic Jews” (to use Churchill’s phrase) most of whom came from outside Russia and both Lloyd David George and President Wilson were stooges of the Zionists. Today both, the U.S. and the U.K., are completely controlled by the Zionist cum Illuminati international bankers.

However, other deeper aims of the international bankers were to weaken Christianity through widespread death and destruction of Christian life and property, to weaken European governments by exhaustively bleeding them and bringing them under deep debt bondage, to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution, to facilitate the creation of Israel and the establishment of a supra-national organization through which to set up a One World Government under their ruthless and absolute control (The New World Order). The international bankers were simultaneously Zionists and Freemasons/Illuminati.

A photo of the 1914 Christmas Truce illustrates how the British and Germans had no antipathy until it was created by propaganda and the war itself

*

Building Japan, Bruising and then Wooing Russia after Sabotaging a Russo German Treaty

It was the Secret Elite that was behind the strategy to build Japan’s navy that was then used to destroy the Russian fleet that traveled around the world to confront the Japanese navy. The Russian fleet was utterly destroyed in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 and the small island nation managed to inflict a humiliating defeat on a giant. This was part of the strategy of the Secret Elite to curtail Russia’s ambitions in the Far East and to bruise and weaken her. Ships for the Japanese navy were quietly built in the shipyards of Britain. On the one hand, the Rothschilds in London secretly provided loans to Japan, while on the other the Rothschilds in France provided loans worth 400 million francs to the Russian government to build the 6365 miles long trans-Siberian railway (p 86, ref. [1]). The Russians had expressed their gratitude to the Rothschilds when the czar decorated Alfonso de Rothschild of Paris with Grand Cross. The London Rothschilds made double profits because the armament industry which manufactured battleships for the Japanese navy were partly owned by the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds had the greatest shares in Vickers armament. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 92, 93 ref [1]):

Manipulators at the heart of the Secret Elite, like Esher, facilitated meetings held on Rothschild premises to help the Japanese financial envoy, Takahashi Korekiyo, raise their war chest. While banks with strong links to the Rothschilds were prepared to raise funds for Japan quite openly, the Rothschilds had to tread carefully because of their immense Russian investments, not least in the Baku oilfields. They were also very aware of the political repercussions that might ensue for Russian Jews who bore the harsh brunt of czarist anti-Semitism. That changed once the war was over. The London and Paris Rothschilds negotiated a further £48 million issue to help Japanese recovery. At every turn the war profits flowed back to the Secret Elite.”

It was Japan that attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, a Chinese port that was functional all year round and had been leased to Russia. Although Japan issued a declaration of war on Feb 8, 1904, its navy attacked the Russian fleet three hours before the ultimatum was delivered to the Russian government.

In order to go to war with Germany the Secret Elite took four decisions. These are summarized by Docherty and Macgregor in the following words (pp 73,74, ref. [1]):

Foreign policy had to be sustained no matter what political party was in office; the British Army needed a complete overhaul to make it fit for the purpose; the Royal Navy had to maintain all its historic advantages; the general public had to be turned against Germany.”

The British public did not want to go to war with Germany and therefore a secretly driven but powerful propaganda campaign against Germany was launched in order to poison the minds of the public. The Belgian ambassador apparently noticed by 1903 that jingoism was on the rise in Britain and people were turning against Germany. He wrote to his government that this was merely because of jealousy. Docherty and Macgregor point out that the ambassador did not know that secret manipulation behind the scenes had resulted in this attitude.

The Secret Elite worked relentlessly using the vast Rhodes fortune at its disposal to buy politicians and men of influence in all countries that were relevant. One of the men in their pocket was Alexander Islovsky, who served them loyally to the immense detriment of Russia, Europe and the Christian West. Kaiser Wilhelm had made a brilliant move in 1905 – he wanted to have an agreement between Russia and Germany that would have averted the war by forming a defensive alliance.

The Kaiser and the Czar secretly met and signed an agreement on July 24, 1905 at Bjorko Finland, whereby if any one of the countries was attacked by a European power the other shall come to its aid. However, when the czar returned to Russia the agents of the Secret Elite as well as a bribed press opposed the ratification of the treaty. Actually no one knew of the contents of the treaty until the Czar confided in is his foreign minister Count Lansdorff who betrayed the secret to King Edward VII.

The Czar was in need of money after the Russo-Japanese war in which Russia suffered heavy material and human losses. He therefore needed loans and the Rothschilds in Paris were far richer than any Berlin banks. The Secret Elite threatened to block the much needed loans. This was crucial and the Czar backed off despite having signed the proposed treaty. This treaty, had it gone through, would have averted the planned world war. This caused the Kaiser immense pain and he wrote to the Czar (p 95 ref. [1]): “We joined hands and signed before God who heard our vows.” This mistake by the Czar was to cost Russia and Germany dearly during World War I.

Having sabotaged the Russo-German alliance the Secret Elite then used King Edward VII to woo Russia. The King invited the Russian navy to Britain and the British public was softened towards Russia through a media campaign. The Secret Elite managed to lure and trap Russia by a false promise of allowing Russia to control Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Black Sea Straits. A Russia that had been mauled militarily, that was in dire financial straits, and that was presented with a dangling Constantinople carrot succumbed and fell in the trap. An Anglo-Russian Convention was signed on 31 August 1907. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 95,96 ref. [1]):

The Secret Elite was prepared to use any nation as cat’s-paw and Russia became the victim of British trickery, manipulated into a different treaty that was designed not to protect her or the peace of Europe but to enable the Secret Elite to destroy Germany. . . It was yet another secret deal hidden from Parliament and the people. . .

By such deceptions, lies, bribery and manipulations, the brutal and absolutely ruthless and utterly shameless Secret Elite proceeded to steer and goad nations to a path of unprecedented bloodshed in which Christian, and to a lesser extent Muslim blood was shed. The beneficiaries were the satanic illuminati international bankers and their brethren. Their determination to destroy Germany masked a deep and malevolent desire for a conflagration that would burn Christian Europe to ashes with tens of millions of casualties. That was their goal and they drew the deepest delight and satisfaction by turning men into savage animals.

The Myth of Belgian Neutrality

When World War I began the British public had been exposed to false propaganda for a long time. Two issues on which their mind had been falsely influenced were Belgian neutrality and German militarism. Facts were the opposite of what people were led to believe. As for Belgian neutrality, it was utterly untrue. Belgium was not only not neutral it had had close military links with Britain since 1905 when Britain offered to send “4 cavalry brigades, 2 armored corps, and a division of mounted infantry” to Belgium (p 106, ref. [1]). At that time nobody outside the close knit Secret Elite know of, or suspected, possible war with Germany.

Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 106, 107ref. [1]): “Britain’s military link with Belgium was one of the closes guarded secrets, even within privileged circles.” General Grierson, who was director of military operations was present at a secret 1905 meeting along with Lord Roberts, PM Balfour, Admiral Fisher and the head of naval intelligence, where a decision to take forward joint military planning with France and Belgium was taken. This was so secret that it was agreed that “the minutes would not be printed or circulated without special permission from the prime minister.” Docherty and MacGregor write further (p 107, ref. [1]):

Documents found in the Belgian secret archives by the Germans after they had occupied Brussels disclosed that the chief of the Belgian general staff, Major General Ducarne, held a series of meetings with the British military attache’ over action to be taken by British, French and Belgian armies against Germany in event of war. A fully elaborated plan detailed the landing and transportation of British forces, which were actually called ‘allied armies’, and in a series of meetings they discussed the allocation of Belgian officers and interpreters to the British Army and crucial details on the care and ‘accommodation of the wounded of the allied armies.’”

The British allowed Belgium to annex Congo Free State in return for a “secret agreement that was in everything but name an alliance. King Leopold II sold Belgian neutrality for African rubber and minerals.” Thus Belgium bargained away her neutral status and in return entered into a deep and hidden relationship with Britain against Germany. Docherty and Macgregor point out that here too King Edward VII played a hidden but important role because the King of Belgium was a cousin of Queen Victoria and was very fond of her. So much for Belgian neutrality that became a rallying cry to war for the misled and deliberately misinformed British public. The technique of using the media to control the public mindset continues to date and entails an incredible cost in terms of loss of human life and property.

The Myth of German Militarism

As for German militarism, Docherty and Macgregor have provided irrefutable data that clearly establishes that Britain was spending far more secretly on arming itself compared to Germany. In reality it was British militarism but the cunning and, in a sense, deep characterlessness of the Secret Elite, which hoodwinked everyone and which worked outside and in contradiction with the constitution, and which lied to and shamelessly deceived everyone, created the opposite impression. When the Liberal leader Campbell-Bannerman won a landslide victory in 1906, the Liberals were committed to peace.

Edward Grey and Haldane were committed to war and along with other members of the Secret Elite, steering the country towards war. Cabinet was never informed of this, nor was the prime minister. The crafted biographies of men like Haldane contain lies and are unreliable. And if one reads Docherty and Macgregor they have exposed the lies in Haldane’s biography and private notes. In fact, there is evidence that Campbell-Bannerman was kept in the dark about the military contacts with other countries. His untimely death in 1908 relieved the Secret Elite of the pressure for a peaceful world! In fact, the Secret Elite were very worried soon afterwards, because in 1910, their key patron King Edward VII died at age 68, while the Liberals were still in power.

False propaganda about German military preparations was carried out at the behest of the Secret Elite in the British media. As Docherty and Macgregor put it (pp 134, 135, ref. [1])

From the beginning of the twentieth century, the Secret Elite indulged in a frenzy of rumor and half-truths, of raw propaganda and lies, to create the myth of a great naval race. The story widely accepted, even by many anti-war Liberals, was that Germany was preparing a massive fleet of warships to attack and destroy the British navy before unleashing a military invasion on the east coast of England or the Firth of Forth in Scotland. It was the stuff of conspiracy novels. But it worked. The British people swallowed the lie that militarism had run amok in Germany and the ‘fact’ that it was seeking world domination through military superiority. Militarism in the United Kingdom was of God, but in Germany of the Devil, and had to be crushed before it crushed them.”

These authors are quick to point out that when Germany was defeated and all their prewar records became available to the Allies, not a shred of evidence in favor of such secret plans to invade Britain were discovered. They point out that the statistics were thoroughly abused by an “almighty alliance of armaments manufacturers, political rhetoric, and newspaper propaganda” that conjured a frightening image of a German naval armada and the German will to dominate the world.

Rothschild and Ernest Cassel, who paid for the lechery of King Edward VII when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were major owners of the largest armament factory Vickers. They point out that in the decade prior to war the British naval expenditure was £351.9 million whereas the German naval expenditure was £185.2 million, i.e. almost half of the British expenditure. Similarly, the Allies, i.e., the Triple Entente spent £675.88 million on warships in that same decade whereas Germany and Austro-Hungary spent £235.9 million, almost a third of what the Entente had spent, on their navies in the same period.

Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff (R) lead Germany as virtual military dictators from mid-1916 to the end of the war

The German army was 7,61000 strong, the French and Russian armies had, respectively, 794,000 and 1.845 million personnel. So, where is the evidence of German militarism running amok? Who was running amok? Who was spending far more than the Germans? This lie of German military buildup has been perpetuated by establishment historians when the numbers speak out for themselves. The establishment historians should be ashamed at propagating lies and holding the so-called nonexistent German militarism responsible for the war. They have lied to, and continue to lie to their own people as well as the whole world. What a shame! The Germans should stand up with their heads high. They did not lie or deceive.

The sanitized history taught worldwide seems to hold Germany as the aggressor. This is utterly untrue as established by Docherty and Macgregor. Preparata also states in his fascinating book (published 2005) (p 14 of ref [3]):

“From the beginning Britain was the aggressor, not Germany.”

The Russian ambassador to France Isvolsky, who was an agent of the Secret Elite, sent a telegram to Moscow on August 1, 1914 (p 320, ref. [1]):

The French War Minister informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the Government have firmly decided on war, and begged me to endorse the hope of the French General Staff that all efforts will be directed against Germany…”

Germany did not order mobilization until 24 hours later! The Kaiser had sent a message to the Russian czar asking that Russia stop her military movements on her borders. The Kaiser waited for 24 hours without any reply before ordering mobilization. Docherty and Macgregor correctly observe that Germany was the last of the European powers to order mobilization. Does that indicate that Germany wanted war? It only indicates that Germany did her best to avoid war.

A detailed study of the interactions between the British leaders and the Germans and others during July and the first days of August reveals clearly that the British leaders were shamelessly lying to the Germans and deceiving them. Their conduct had descended to the level of common criminals and crooks.

The Germans conducted themselves with integrity and a degree of innocence. The Secret Elite had also advised the Russians and the French to mobilize to attack, but not actually attack Germany, because the British public would never support the aggressor in a European war. They wanted Germany, as Docherty and Macgregor put it, to “swallow the bait.” Britain had trapped Germany into a war, in collusion with Russia and France. Docherty and Macgregor write (p 321, ref. [1]):

What else could Germany have done? She was provoked into a struggle for life and death. It was a stark choice: await certain destruction or strike out to defend herself. Kaiser Wilhelm had exposed his country to grave danger and almost lost one precious advantage Germany had by delaying countermeasures to Russian mobilization in the forlorn hope of peace.”

When Germany declared war against France on August 3, 1914, the French Under-Secretary of State, Abel Ferry, noted in his diary (ref. [3], p 24):

The web was spun and Germany entered it like a great buzzing fly.”

The Illuminati international bankers and other secret society members of the British oligarchy had colluded together for a destruction of Christian Europe. Only the Zionist international bankers and their fellow “tribesmen” saw this outcome clearly – they had planned for it and the non-banking oligarchy was used. The lie parroted in standard history books that Germany bore the responsibility of the war is an utter and shameful lie. The responsibility of the war rested with the Secret Elite controlled British leadership.

Western Front WW1 British soldier

Zionism and the American Involvement

Almost two months before war broke out, on May 29, 1914, the Rothschild agent Col. House, who handled and controlled President Wilson, had written to him:

Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany.”

It is well known that Col. Edward Mandel House was a Rothschild agent as was his father. Col. House played a diabolical role in prolonging World War I, and in dragging the U.S. into the World War. It is important to understand how influential he was with President Wilson. President Wilson had once referred to him as his alter ego. In his seminal book, that has sold over five million copies since it was first published, Gary Allen states [4]:

“Colonel” House was front man for the international banking fraternity. He manipulated President Wilson like a puppet. Wilson called him “my alter ego.” House played a major role in creating the Federal Reserve System, passing the graduated income tax and getting America into WWI. House’s influence over Wilson is an example that in the world of super-politics the real rulers are not always the ones the public sees.

Col. House represents a new phenomenon – the emergence of “advisors” to the U.S. President who do not hold any formal office, are unelected, and are intimately tied to the international banking families, apart from being members of secret societies. These advisors hold the president of the United States “captive.” In his profound book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed, a Times (London) correspondent in Central Europe right up to the beginning of WW II, mentions that four men held President Wilson captive – Col. House, Rabi Stephen Wise, Justice Brandeis and Bernard Baruch. Reed states [5]:

Thus three out of the four men around President Wilson were Jews and all three, at one time or the other, played leading parts in the re-segregation of the Jews through Zionism and its Palestinian ambition ….

Such was the grouping around a captive president as the American Republic moved towards involvement in the First World War, and such was the cause which was to be pursued through him and his country’s involvement. After his election Mr. House took over his correspondence, arranged whom he should see or not receive, told cabinet officers what they were to say or not to say, and so on.

In order to understand how and why the preplanned WWI was prolonged it is important to know who influenced or controlled the elected leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. and what were the aims of these controllers. It is also important to know that Justice Louis Brandeis had founded a secret society by the name Parushim, for promoting Zionism in U.S.A. The initiate was asked to accept the following oath at a secret initiation ceremony [6] :

You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life – dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation… It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.

Rabi Stephen Wise was on board regarding Parushim and, almost certainly, Bernard Baruch was also on board. Bernard Baruch’s connection with the international bankers is well known. It is also important to point out that the international bankers had planned World War I to, among other things, promote the Zionist cause. As Douglas Reed, using information provided in Chaim Weizmann’s book Trial and Error, stated in his book Far and Wide [7]:

The First World War began in 1914; long-memoried readers may recall that it appeared to be concerned with such matters as the rape of Belgium, ending Prussian militarism, and making the world safe for democracy. At its start Baron Edmond de Rothschild told Dr. Weizmann that it would spread to the Middle East, where things of great significance to Political Zionism would occur.

How did Edmond de Rothschild know right at the beginning of the war that the war would spread to the Middle East where things will work out to the great advantage of Political Zionism? He could only know this if it was planned that way and if he was one of the planners. And, as we will see, this was one of the reasons why World War I was deliberately prolonged.

Prolonging the War

The war was prolonged through several tactics. Firstly, all overtures of peace from the side of the Germans, and later the Ottomans, were defeated by agents of the international bankers. Secondly when Germans ran short of food, the deception named Belgian Relief Commission was set up by the international bankers through their front men, by which food was supplied to Germany and the German army, under guise of food supplies to Belgium, so that the German army could keep on fighting. Thirdly Germans were supplied with vital chemicals, metals, and other war materials by Allied Big Business, to enable them to keep fighting. Finally, wherever the Allied rulers seemed to resist the expansion of the war into the Middle East, they were eliminated politically, and if need be physically. They were then replaced by agents of the international banking cabal.

Sabotage of German Peace Offers of February 1915 and December 1916

A lone French soldier in a wet trench

Early in the war, on November 3, 1914, Britain declared the North Sea a theater of war. It blockaded ports of neutral countries illegally. On February 3, 1915, i.e. three months later, the Germans announced a counter blockade. They announced that with effect from February 18, 1915, the entire English channel along with territorial waters of Britain and Ireland would be considered a war zone. One must appreciate the fact that the Germans waited for three months before announcing a counter blockade. They were within their rights to do so.

However simultaneously, in February 1915, the Germans approached James W. Gerard, the U.S. ambassador in Germany, and expressed their desire to end the war. The German authorities wanted the ambassador to convey their desire for peace to President Wilson. They were however utterly unaware that President Wilson was a captive of the “advisors” installed around him by the international bankers. This German overture for peace is not something that is mentioned in textbooks but it has been mentioned by James W. Gerard in autobiography My First Eighty Three Years in America.

The response from Washington was most astonishing. Instead of commenting on the German proposal for peace, the White House directed the ambassador to communicate with Col. House instead of the President of U.S.A.! Dr. Stanley Montieth quotes from ambassador Gerard’s biography [8]:

In addition to the cable which I had already received informing me that Colonel House was “fully commissioned to act” he himself reminded me of my duty in his February 16 postscript. In his own handwriting these were the words from House. “The President has just repeated to me your cablegram to him and says he has asked you to communicate directly with me in future . . .” All authority, therefore had been vested in Colonel House direct, the President ceased to be even a conduit of communications. . . . He, who had never been appointed to any position, and who had never been passed by the Senate, was “fully instructed and commissioned” to act in the most grave situation. I have never ceased to wonder how he had managed to attain such power and influence.

One may notice that the German counter blockade was to begin on February 18, and the Germans communicated their desire for peace before that date as Colonel House’s handwritten postscript was dated February 16th. So it appears that the Germans expected that since the counter blockade represented an increased and new level of hostility, the Americans would be concerned to defuse the situation. They had no idea that Wilson was a stooge, a puppet in the hands of those who had planned a long war.

And one may recall that although the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated as late as June 28, 1914, Col. House had, a month earlier, on May 29th, communicated to Wilson the arrangement that as soon as England indicated, France and Russia would pounce on Germany. So Colonel House wanted a long war, and destruction of both Germany and Russia, in accordance with the desire of the Zionist international bankers. Therefore, the ambassador never heard anything from Col. House about the peace proposal of February 1915. The peace proposal was sabotaged by Col. House.

Realizing that Col. House was in control of Wilson the Germans made another overture of peace in December 1916. This has been revealed by historian Leon Degrelle [9]. He mentions that on December 12, 1916, German officials expressed a desire for peace and talks with their adversaries. He also writes that Germans expressed the hope that Col. House would persuade the Allies. The freemason Col. House ruled out peace and thus helped sabotage the second peace initiative within the same year. The Germans did not know that Col. House had played an important role in precipitating the First World War by secretly entering into a secret agreement with Britain, well before Wilson’s re-election, that the U.S. would join the war, on the side of the Allies. Degrelle further writes [9]:

On December 18, 1916, U.S. ambassador to Britain, Walter H. Page, relayed a peace offer to the Allies from Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. On January 9, 1917, Prime Minister Lloyd George quickly repudiated the offering and declared that Britain would fight to the victory, which possibly prompted the Germans to re-initiate submarine warfare. Ambassador Page, in touch with President Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing, defended British policies. This was William Jenning Bryan’s resignation, after he described Britain’s collapsing financial situation and the need for America’s neutrality.

If the war had ended in 1916 million of lives could have been saved and destruction and devastation of numerous cities avoided. But the international bankers had planned a long war. It is important to note that, according to writer Juri Lina, who had access to records of numerous important Masonic lodges, Lloyd George was a Freemason, a Masonic Grand Master, and a Jew, whose real name was David Levi-Lowitt [10]. His connections with international bankers are very well known and he was installed in power as a result of an intrigue with the object of promoting the Zionist cause, as will be described later.

The picture of dead men among trees is a censored photo that was banned from publication by the French government. Those are dead Frenchmen mowed down by German guns during the Battle of the Frontiers in August/September 1914.

*

“Belgian Relief”

The next betrayal perpetrated by the international bankers took place in the form of the deception called Belgian Relief Commission. One finds many eulogized discussions about the work of this Commission. On the face of it this Commission was set up to supply food to the Belgian population. We quote below the typical version of the Belgian Relief Commission. It has been taken from an article by Elena S. Danielson that appeared in The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, (edited by Anne Cipriano Venzon) [11]:

Herbert Hoover founded the Commission for Relief in Belgium (CRB) in London in October 1914 as a private organization to provide food for German-occupied Belgium. Belgium’s attempts at resistance to German military demands at the outbreak of the Great War had aroused much popular sympathy in England and the United States. A densely populated, industrialized country, Belgium depended on imports for three-quarters of its normal food supply. When the German Army began to requisition local foodstuffs and the British blockade cut off imported sources, 7 million Belgians faced severe hunger as the winter of 1914-1915 approached. When the American ambassador in London, Walter Hines Page, met with Belgian representatives, they concluded that Herbert Hoover was the best choice to administer some emergency relief action. The comprehensiveness of the program, however, was the result of Hoover’s personal determination to feed the entire nation.

But the real function, to which the Belgian Relief Commission was diverted, was hideous. Once Britain blockaded Germany, and the Germans were starved for food, the Belgian Relief Commission became a cover for sending food supplies to the German Army so that the German Army could keep on fighting. It may be useful to remember that Walter Hines Page was in the pay of Rothschilds. In his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve Eustace Mullins writes [12]:

The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Walter Hines Page, complained that he could not afford the position, and was given twenty-five thousand dollars a year spending money by Cleveland H. Dodge, president of the National City Bank. H.L. Mencken openly accused Page in 1916 of being a British agent, which was unfair. Page was merely a bankers’ agent.

The “City” banks were always owned by the Rothschilds. Mullins writes [13]:

The Belgian Relief Commission was organized by Emile Francqui, director of a large Belgian bank, Societe Generale, and a London mining promoter, an American named Herbert Hoover, who had been associated with Francqui in a number of scandals which had become celebrated court cases, notably the Kaiping Coal Company scandal in China, said to have set off the Boxer Rebellion, which had as its goal the expulsion of all foreign businessmen from China. Hoover had been barred from dealing on the London Stock Exchange because of one judgment against him, and his associate, Stanley Rowe, had been sent to prison for ten years. With this background, Hoover was called an ideal choice for a career in humanitarian work.

Further the truth about Hoover is given in the following words [14]:

Hoover had also carried out a number of mining operations in various parts of the world as a secret agent for the Rothschilds, and had been rewarded with a directorship on one of the principal Rothschild enterprises, the Rio Tinto Mines in Spain and Bolivia.

It may also be useful to remember that [15]:

Wilson’s academic career was financed by gifts from Cleveland H. Dodge, director of National City bank and Moses Taylor Payne, grandson and heir of the founder of the National City Bank. Wilson then signed an agreement not to go to any other college.

Please note that the same Cleveland Dodge was the financier of both, Ambassador Walter Hines Page, and President Wilson. Dodge was working for the Rothschilds. The first person to expose the hideous reality about the Belgian Relief Commission was a British nurse named Edith Cavell who was running a hospital in Belgium at the time. In his book Secrets of the Federal Reserve, first published in 1951, Eustace Mullins wrote about this [16]:

Franqui and Hoover threw themselves into the seemingly impossible task of provisioning Germany during World War I. Their success was noted in Nordeutsche Allegmeine Zeitung, March 13, 1915, which noted that large quantities of food were now arriving from Belgium by rail. Schmoller’s Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and Political Economy for 1916 shows that one billion pounds of meat, one and a half billion pounds of bread, and one hundred and twenty one million pounds of butter had been shipped from Belgium to Germany in that year.

Mullins then narrates the story of Edith Cavell (Ibid pp 72, 73):

A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915, complaining that “Belgian Relief” supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army. The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but the British intelligence service in London was appalled by Miss Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy. Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of Kuhn Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of war was at stake, and secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be executed. The Germans reluctantly arrested her and charged her with aiding prisoners of war to escape. The usual penalty for this offence was three months imprisonment, but the Germans bowed to Sir William Wiseman’s demands, and shot Edith Cavell, thus creating one of the principal martyrs of the First World War.

It is to be noted that after the war Sir William Wiseman settled in the United States and became one of the directors of the Kuhn Loeb & Co. This was his reward for having helped prolong the war. It may be noted that the head of the German secret service was Max Warburg, another international banker, whose brother Paul Warburg had emigrated to the U.S. in 1902 and was instrumental, in 1913, in having the Federal Reserve Act passed. Paul Warburg was a partner in Kuhn Loeb & Co. The deeply hidden international banking connections are fairly obvious to anyone who cares to find out.

Thus the “Belgian Relief” was used to prolong the war. Had the war ended in February 1915 there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution (instigated and bankrolled by the international bankers) and the war would not have been extended to the Middle East. But the plan of the bankers who instigated the war was to prolong the war as long as possible and to fulfill, as far as possible, their targets (as revealed at the outset of the war by Edmond de Rothschild to Weizmann).

Zionists Sabotage a Separate Peace Possibility with the Ottomans

The Zionists defeated another opportunity of securing peace with the Ottoman Empire in May 1917. It was in May 1917 that the U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing received a report that the Ottomans were tired of war and a separate peace with Britain could be secured thereby isolating Germany. But the Zionists did not want to keep the Ottoman Empire intact – they wanted its complete destruction so that they could secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine from the rubble of the Ottoman Empire. The Zionists got wind of the plan when President Wilson assigned Henry J. Morgenthau the duty of contacting the Ottomans. Henry J. Morgenthau had once been the U.S. ambassador in Turkey. Morgenthau was himself Jewish and he therefore decided to take Felix Frankfurter with him.

As Alison Weir writes in her book [17], Felix Frankfurter was a “paid political lobbyist and lieutenant” of Justice Louis Brandeis. Now Justice Brandeis was a highly unscrupulous individual when it came to his political purposes – he could go to any length to achieve these. It is the same Justice Brandeis who had set up the secret society Parushim for promoting Zionism in U.S. clandestinely, as mentioned previously. He was also one of the four men who held President Wilson captive.

If the Ottomans had made a separate peace with Britain, the Ottoman Empire would have survived intact and there would be no room for Israel. Alison Weir states [18]:

Felix Frankfurter became part of the delegation and ultimately persuaded the delegation’s leader, former Ambassador Henry J. Morgenthau, to abandon the effort. U.S. State Department officials considered that Zionists had worked to scuttle this potentially peace-making mission and were unhappy about it. Zionists often construed such displeasure at their actions as evidence of American diplomats’ ‘anti-Semitism’.

Thus the Zionists, controlled by the international bankers, “killed” still another opportunity for peace which could have saved millions of lives.

Two Russian soldiers stand in front of a ruined building in NE Turkey and look at the remains of Armenians killed by the Turks, part of the 1.5 million Armenians killed during WW1 by the Turks.

*

Intrigue in Britain to Open Up a Front in Palestine

In his deep book, Douglas Reed, narrates [19]:

Opposition to Zionism developed from another source. In the highest places still stood men who thought only of national duty and winning the war. They would not condone “hatred” of a military ally or espouse a wasteful “sideshow” in Palestine. These men were Mr. Herbert Asquith (Prime Minister), Lord Kitchener (Secretary for War), Sir Douglas Haig (who became Commander-in-Chief in France), and Sir William Robertson (Chief-of-Staff in France, later of Chief of the Imperial Staff).

How did the Zionists get rid of this highest level opposition to opening up a front in Palestine? They decided to get rid of the Prime Minister and Lord Kitchener. It is almost unknown to the world that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually a Zionist coup in which the funding and support came from international bankers. The Zionist international bankers were mortal enemies of Russia because of the allegiance of the royal family to Christianity. Researchers have dug out this little known aspect of World War I. This aspect reveals the profound, utterly ruthless and absolutely single-minded pursuit of the goal of world domination by the international bankers. Reed describes how the Zionists were able to eliminate Lord Kitchener. He writes [20]:

Lord Kitchener was sent to Russia by Mr. Asquith in June 1916. The cruiser Hampshire, and Lord Kitchener in it, vanished. Good authorities concur that he was one man who might have sustained Russia. A formidable obstacle, both to the world-revolution there and to the Zionist enterprise, disappeared. Probably Zionism could not have been foisted upon the West, had he lived.

The silent and sinister physical elimination of Lord Kitchener has also been consigned to oblivion through controlled history writing. Had Kitchener managed to salvage Russia the Zionist enterprise would have been almost permanently thwarted. That is why he had to be eliminated. In an overall view of things the elimination of Lord Kitchener was vital for the survival of the Zionist enterprise and fits a pattern of intrigue in which assassinations and installation of puppet politicians was crucial. World War I was triggered by an assassination and prolonged by various tactics including the elimination of Lord Kitchener.

The elimination of Prime Minister Asquith has been looked into by Cornelius. He writes [21]:

Herbert Asquith, who had been prime minister since 1908, had begun, reluctantly, to consider a negotiated peace, but negotiations with the Zionists, through Weizmann and Balfour, provided another option for Britain, although not for Asquith. That option was the possibility of a formal, but secret, alliance between the Zionists and the Monarchy, whereby the British Monarchy would undertake to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and the Zionists would undertake to help bring America into the war on the side of the Allies, this assuring an Allied victory. An agreement with a British government would certainly be necessary, but British governments come and go, and a commitment from something less ephemeral than a British government would have been required by the Zionists. It is proposed that such an agreement took place. There seems to be no way to date it accurately but it seems likely to have occurred sometime around in October 1916.

Cornelius writes further:

In early December 1916, a political crisis, probably engineered, occurred in Britain, and Herbert Asquith, was forced to resign. The denouement came on Dec. 6, 1916. That afternoon King George V summoned several prominent political figures, including Balfour and Lloyd David, to a conference at Buckingham Palace. Later that same evening, Balfour received a small political delegation, which proposed that the difficult situation could be resolved with Lloyd George as prime minister, provided Balfour would agree to accept the position of foreign minister, which he did.

The Zionists thus eliminated Asquith, who did not wish to open a front in the Middle East for furtherance of the Zionist ambitions there. In his place they installed Lloyd David George, a Zionist, a Freemason and a man who worked for the international bankers. This was an odd situation – Balfour, who had been a Prime Minister from 1902 – 1905, had agreed to work as Foreign Minister of a far junior politician.

What concerns were so pressing that made Lord Balfour accept a junior position? Lord Balfour had long been inducted in the larger Secret Elite circle and was simply carrying out what the Secret Elite wanted him to do as part of their plans. It could only be the pressure of the Zionist international bankers with reference to the opening up of a military front in the Middle East and establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Lest anyone has any doubts about who steered the policy when Lloyd David George became Prime Minister, it would be sufficient to look at the following statement in A.N. Field’s 1936 book, All These Things, in which he quotes a passage from the French book La Mystification des Peuples Allies authored by Andre Cheradame [22]:

For some years a group of financiers whose families, for the most part, are of German-Jewish origin, has assumed control of political power and exerts a predominant influence over Mr. Lloyd George. The Monds, the Sassoons, Rufus Isaacs those known as the representatives of the international banking interests, dominate Old England, own its newspapers, and control its elections. The close solidarity existing between Mr. Lloyd George and Jewish high finance is easily shown by the brief biographical sketches of some of the influential personages by whom he is surrounded . . . Each of the names represents not only an individual, but also a veritable tribe and head of immense financial interests.

So the international bankers assumed control of the British government at the highest level by eliminating Prime Minister Asquith and Lord Kitchener, the former politically and the latter physically. Docherty and Macgregor have pointed out that the Secret Elite “identified and nurtured malleable politicians” across Europe and at home. They write (p 170, ref. [1]):

Lloyd George’s love of good life and his insatiable sexual appetite rendered him vulnerable. His career could have ended several times over had the Secret Elite chosen to destroy him. Instead, they protected his reputation, defending him against damaging allegations and saved his career.”

Since 1910 Lloyd George had been in the “pocket of the Secret Elite.” What happened when Lloyd George became Prime Minister? This is best described by Douglas Reed who has rendered an invaluable service to mankind by writing his last book. He writes [23]:

The simultaneous triumph of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events. The identity of the original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: “Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations”; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West.

Reed further narrates that after the assumption of power by Lloyd David George the cabinet began pressing the army for opening up a front in the Middle East. The armed forces resisted this strategically senseless pressure. But the change of government had been wrought by the international bankers, the Rothschilds, only for one purpose, the purpose of promoting the cause of political Zionism, as revealed at the outset of war by Edmond de Rothschild to Weizmann. John Reed quotes Sir William Robertson (emphasis in original) [24]:

Up to December 1916, operations beyond the Suez Canal were purely defensive in principle, the government and General Staff alike . . . recognizing the paramount importance of the struggle in Europe in need of give the armies there the utmost support. This unanimity between ministers and the soldiers did not obtain after the premiership changed hands . . . The fundamental difference of opinion was particularly obtrusive in the case of Palestine . . . The General Staff put the requirements at three additional divisions and these could only be obtained from the armies on the Western Front . . . The General Staff said the project would prove a great source of embarrassment and injure our prospects of success in France . . . These conclusions were disappointing to Ministers, who wished to see Palestine occupied at once, but they could not be refuted . . .

This clearly shows that there was a difference of opinion between the government and the General Staff regarding the issue of sending British troops to occupy Palestine. Sir William Robertson was one of the four men, mentioned previously by Reed, who held British interests supreme and stood in the way of the expansion of war into Palestine.

Shipment of War- and Food-materials to Germany Despite Blockade

The international bankers, who also controlled Big Business, were able to prolong the war by supplying much needed materials, such as chemicals, copper, zinc, etc., as well as food to Germany through neutral countries, thereby helping Germany to fight longer. The major neutral countries were Denmark, Norway Sweden, and Netherlands. Finland was also part of the chain of nations supplying materials to the Germans. This is another little known aspect of World War I (and also World War II). This policy of trading with the enemy to make profits and to prolong the war was also utilized in the Second World War.

It is not that sentient and patriotic journalists and analysts were unable to fathom the international-bankers’ intrigue at that time – rather it was the overall control of media, and of book publishing, that has made it possible for the international bankers to deceive generations with controlled information and sanitized history which omits their hideous role. The story was brought out by journalists and analysts in England during the course of World War I, and subsequently by Admiral M.W.W.P. Consett, who was posted as naval attaché in Denmark during the war. Scandinavia was, of course, a traditional “listening post for warring nations.” In the year 1923 Consett wrote a book with a very interesting title, The Triumph of Unarmed Forces (1914-1918). Consett writes [25]:

Our trade with Scandinavia was conducted and justified on the accepted security of guarantees that Germany should not benefit by it: here it is sufficient to say that the security was worthless.

As he writes in a previous paragraph (p x):

But from the very beginning goods poured into Germany from Scandinavia, and for over two years Scandinavia received from the British Empire and the Allied countries, stocks which, together with those from neutral countries, exceeded all previous quantities and literally saved Germany from starvation.

Consett has given several tables that indicate that the amount of various items that were imported into Germany during the period 1913-1917. Please note that war broke out in August 1914. The total food imported into Germany from Sweden in the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 was, respectively (in metric tons): 252 128, 262376, 561,234, 620,756, and 315,205 (Appendix VI, p 298). Please note that food imports from Sweden in 1917 were more than food imports from that country in 1913. The food items covered in these figures are “meat of all sorts, fish, dairy produce, eggs, lard, margarine.” The food items do not include “vegetable oils, beer, fish, oil, bone fat, coffee, tea, cocoa, horses, syrup and glucose, fruit, vegetables.” This was despite the naval blockade imposed by Britain. The corresponding figures for Denmark follow a similar pattern. No wonder a Danish naval officer wrote (p 295 of Consett’s book) to his British counterparts:

I cannot help saying to you how much we Danish naval officers sympathize with you in having to live as you do amongst these people who are making fortunes in supplying your enemies with food when the officers and men of the Navy to which you belong are risking their lives in trying to blockade your enemies.

The story of Germany acquiring other items – much needed coal, vital lubricants, metals such as zinc, copper, nickel, etc. arrived at German ports through Scandinavian countries. The details have been provided by Consett in various chapters of his book. For instance on p 180 of his book, Consett quotes the U.S. ambassador James W. Gerard as having recorded the following his diary [26]:

Probably the greatest need of Germany is lubricating oil for machines.”

And yet lubricating oil did reach Germany from Scandinavian countries, as described by Consett. In fact Consett mentions that Ludendorff admitted:

Lubricants provided us with some of our greatest problems . . .

Similarly, other materials needed for explosives also arrived in Germany from Denmark and Holland despite the blockade. That the laxity in the blockade was intentional will become evident shortly. Consett states [27]:

These oils and fats, both vegetable and animal, are used in normal times principally for food, soap, candles, lubricants and fuel; but in war time their importance is much enhanced on account of the glycerin which they contain.

Glycerin is used in explosives and in 1915 Germany had discovered a process for extracting glycerin from sugar. This secret process was revealed only after the war. So important is glycerin that during the war the British Army collected all scraps of meat carefully in the British war zone, so that the fat could be used for extraction of glycerin.

That the British government was complicit in allowing vital materials to be shipped to Germany is evident from the following, which was revealed by Arnold White, a British journalist. In a packed meeting held at the Queen’s Hall London on March 4, 1917, Arnold White was speaker. According to A.N. Field, Arnold White [28]:

. . . referred at length to the mysterious way in which Britain had allowed an extension of Norwegian territorial waters from the customary three miles accepted internationally to a four-mile limit. This extra mile allowed great American ships to slip through immune Norwegian waters with 10,000-ton cargoes of ore to Germany. He had enquired into this matter and he found that the political heads understood nothing of significance of the extension of Norwegian territorial waters to which Britain had consented. Those who instigated it, in Mr. White’s opinion, knew exactly what it meant. But for that extension he added, “it would have been impossible for the great American ships to have carried 100,000 tons of ores last year into Germany.

What is difficult to understand about such matters that the politicians could not understand? One is reminded of the famous line by Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to make a man understand when his salary depends upon not understanding it.

It is quite clear that the British government allowed the extension of Norwegian territorial waters deliberately. The politicians were working for the international bankers, led by the Rothschilds. The government of David Lloyd George had been installed in power by them through intrigue, and possibly murder of Lord Kitchener that may have been made to look like drowning or disappearance of the cruiser Hampshire, to further their own Zionist interests. According to A.N. Field:

. . . Mr. Lloyd George had been among other things solicitor to the Zionist organization in England. In December 1916, Mr. Lloyd George succeeded Mr. Asquith as Prime Minister, holding office until October 1922. Throughout the greater part of his career Mr. Lloyd George had close Jewish associations, and the pronounced Jewish complexion of the Lloyd George Ministries was more than once subject of Press comment in Britain.

Nine days later, on March 13, 1917, questions were asked in the House of Commons regarding the extension of territorial waters of Norway. The answer was that the government would do nothing about it.

The March 4, 1917 meeting had been organized by Dr. Ellis Powell, editor of the London Financial News. In this meeting Dr. Powell pointed out to the mysterious continuation of the activities of international bankers in Britain. This meeting was one of a series of meetings addressed by Dr. Powell and others, who had been agitating for exposing the “Hidden Hand” that was in control of Britain, and was betraying British interests. In fact, in 1917, Arnold White had written a book with title The Hidden Hand. The “Hidden Hand” was none other than the international bankers. The banks being run by bankers of German-Jewish origin in Britain were involved in activities that needed investigation. A resolution was passed at the March 4, 1917 meeting by all those present, numbering several thousand. They unanimously demanded closure of German banks in London. Field writes further [29]:

In seconding the resolution Dr. Ellis Powell, while seconding the resolution declared that German banks in the city were part of a vast organization of betrayal. The great outstanding fact of the war-time Hidden Hand agitation is that whenever it came to mention names and specific instances the names were mainly Jewish.

The Russian revolution is relevant to WW1 – this 1919 poster was printed by the White Russians and depicts Trotsky as an evil Jew. Bottom right are Asiatic soldiers of the Red army executing a European Russian

In his speeches Dr. Powell had attacked Jacob Schiff by name as being behind activities that went against British interests. Schiff was the owner of the Kuhn Loeb & Co, who had also bankrolled the Bolshevik movement. Jacob Schiff was born in the same house where the founder of the Rothschild family was born. Dr. Powell also mentioned Schroder, a naturalized British citizen, a banker of German-Jewish extraction, as well as others.

It is therefore quite clear that the international bankers were behind all major attempts at prolonging the war. They not only surrounded the British Prime Minister and the U.S. President, but all surrounded the German Chancellor. They were all Zionists and Freemasons.

It is important to keep track of the dates because this enables a better overall comprehension of what was going on. The German peace proposals of February 1915 and December 1916 were sabotaged.

It was in December 1916 that Asquith was toppled, it was in February 1917 that the Russian Czar abdicated, it was in April 1917 that the U.S.A. entered the war, it was during, and soon after May 1917, that the Ottoman peace possibility was destroyed by the Zionists, it was in October 1917, that the agents of the international bankers, the Bolsheviks, took over Russia and it was in November 1917, that the Balfour Declaration, addressed to Baron Rothschild, was formally issued.

All these events were manipulated by Zionist international bankers and their Illuminati controlled freemasonic brethren who had planned and intrigued on a global scale for a very long time. These epochal victories of the Illuminati Zionist international bankers have since dictated the course of history right up to today.

The global turmoil is a continuation of the Zionist thrust for seizing world power and they have come very close to their target with the destruction of U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the ongoing destruction of Syria, and with clouds over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan. “Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations”! The United States of America and the United Kingdom are the biggest tools in the hands of international bankers. Despite their profound strengths these two countries have, on account of their control by Zionist and Illuminati international bankers, become the greatest threat to the very survival of the human species at this point in time.

Henry Makow Ph.D., himself Jewish, and full of anger at the anti-mankind policies of the Zionist international bankers, sums up World War I [30]:

As mysteriously as it began, the war ended. In Dec. 1918, the German Empire suddenly “collapsed.” You can guess what happened. The banksters had achieved their aims and shut off the spigot. (Hence, the natural sense of betrayal felt in Germany, exacerbated by the onerous reparations dictated by the banksters at Versailles.)

What were the banksters’ aims? The Old Order was destroyed. Four empires (Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman) lay in ruins.

The banksters had set up their Bolshevik go-fers in Russia. (They sponsor many “revolutionary” movements as a way to eventually control all property themselves.) They ensured that Palestine would become a “Jewish” state under their control. Israel would be a perennial source of new conflict.

But more important, thanks to bloodbaths such as Verdun (800,000 dead), the optimistic spirit of Christian Western Civilization, Faith in Man and God, were dealt a mortal blow. The flower of the new generation was slaughtered. (See “The Testament of Youth” by Vera Brittain for a moving first-hand account.)”

Almost forty million humans died in World War I [31].

REFERENCES and NOTES

[1] Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor: Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War; Mainstream Publishers, 2013

[2] Carol White: The New Dark Ages Conspiracy: Britain’s Plot to Destroy Civilization; The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Co, 1980

[3] Guido G. Preparata: Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich, Pluto Press 2005, p 24.

[4] Gary Allen: None Dare Call It Conspiracy, first published 1971; 2013 edition published by Dauphin Publications Inc., p 52.

[5] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, Bridger House Publishers Inc. 2012, p 242; emphasis added.

The story of Douglas Reed illustrates how the international bankers and their agents suppress truth and promote a sanitized history. In a book Far and Wide, Douglas Reed had dared to put the American History in its true European context. Ivor Benson writes in the Preface to The Controversy of Zion:

In Europe during the war years immediately before and after World War II the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone’s lips; his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of readers and admirers. Former London Times correspondent in Central Europe, he won great fame with books like Insanity Fair, Disgrace Abounding, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide, and several others, each amplifying a hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the world’s leading foreign correspondents.

The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of the times found some confirmation after what happened to him at the height of his powers.

After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers’ doors closed to him, and those books already published liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and “lost”, never to be replaced.”

This is how knowledge of history is controlled, distorted and even fabricated by the One World cabal of international bankers.

[6] Sarah SchmidtThe Parushim: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History;

American Jewish Historical Quarterly, Sep 1975-Jun 1976; 65. l – 4; AJHS Journal pg. 121.

[7] Douglas Reed: Far and Wide; first printed 1951; Angriff Pr June 1, 1981; part 2, chapter 2.

[8] Dr. Stanley Montieth: Brotherhood of Darkness, Bible Belt Publishing, Oklahoma City, U.S.A., 2000, p 65.

[9] Leon Degrelle: Hitler: Born at Versailles, Vol I, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, California, 1992, p 255 – 259; cited by Deanna Spingola: The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power, Trafford Publishing 2012, pp 622, 923

[10] Juri Lina: Architects of Deception, Referent Publishing 2004, chapter 7.

[11] See http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=commission-for-relief-in-belgium-1914-1930-cr.xml

[12] Eustace Mullins: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection; first published 1951; the 1991 edition by Bridger House publishing, p 83.

[13] Ibid, pp 69, 70.

[14] Ibid p 72.

[15] Eustace Mullins: The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism, published by Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, 1985

[16] Ref 11, p 72

[17] Alison Weir: Against Our Better Judgment: the hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel; 2014, p 9.

[18] Ibid p 22.

[19] Ref. 5, p 247.

[20] Ibid p 248.

[21] John Cornelius: The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration; Washington Report on Middle East Affairs;

http://www.wrmea.org/2005-november/special-report-the-hidden-history-of-the-balfour-declaration.html

[22] A.N. Field: All These Things, 1936, p 82.

[23] Ref 5, p 272

[24] Ref 5, p 252

[25] M.W.W.P. Consett: Triumph of Unarmed Forces (1914-1918), Williams and Norgate, London, 1923; p xi.

[26] Ibid p 180.

[27] Ibid p 167.

[28] Ref. 22, p 42.

[29] Ref. 22, p 42.

[30] Henry Makow : Bankers Extended WWI By Three Years; revised and reposted December 1, 2007, http://www.henrymakow.com/001583.html

[31] Ref. 15.

*

Related Posts:



 
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

 
Posted by on August 1, 2017, With 1863 Reads Filed under Of Interest, World War I (1914-1918). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
 

 
 

aceBook Comments

8 Responses to "How and Why WWI Was Planned and Prolonged

AUGUST 1-2017

H.F.1269

 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 

 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 

THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

H.F. 1325.

Judge:

Free Press is our birthright.

By  Rebecca Camber

 DAILY MAIL - Crime correspondent

 

A FORMER Lord Chief Justice described the Press as a 'constitutional necessity' yesterday as he warned about the erosion of court reporting.

Igor Judge, head of the judiciary from 2008 to 2013, said liberty of the Press was a

'birthright of every citizen'

but warned newspapers will not survive on

'charity and goodwill'.

Expressing his 'unequivocal and wholehearted support for the industry, he said action must be taken to

Safeguard the future of the Press.

Lord Judge spoke at a seminar hosted by the Society of Editors into the state of court reporting which has declined nationally by around

40 per cent in recent years

He said:

'In a country governed by the

RULE OF LAW

the independence of the Press is a constitutional necessity.

The peer added; 

"The liberty of the Press is the birthright of the Briton, and is justly esteemed the firmest bulwark of the liberties of this country."

- so said John Wilks in 1762

and the statement still carries an echoing resonance.

'The liberty of the Press is the birthright of every citizen, that is the community as a whole... I am not sure this principle is sufficiently understood. The better it is understood the more every citizen would be dedicated to upholding it.'

Lord Judge spoke out as MPs are due to vote in the next couple of months on tighter media controls which the Prime Minister has warned will undermine a

FREE PRESS .

He said: 'If we do not buy our newspapers, we cannot expect them to survive on

GOOD WILL and CHARITY...

It looks as though something of a crunch is coming.

'The print media is no longer prosperous...that is to the detriment of the community they serve.'

Former culture secretary John Whittingdale suggested social media giants should subsidise court recording as thre already use content from local newspapers.

The Tory Mp said Google and Facebook' are the bigest providers of news yet they don't employ a single reporter-what they do is take content which is produced by journalists working across the media... so my view it is very much in the interests of Google and Facebook to support local journalism.'

*  *  *

'Let it be impressed upon your minds, let it be instilled into your children, that the liberty of the press is the palladium of all the civil., political, and religious rights.'-

Junius. (Unknown political writer.)

The press is not only free, it is powerful. That power is ours. It is the proudest that man can enjoy. It was not granted by monarchs; it was not gained for us by aristocracies; but it sprang from the people, and, with an immortal instinct, it has always worked for the people.-

DISRAELI, Benjamin.

An enslaved press is doubly fatal; it not only takes away the true light, for in that case we might stand still, but it sets up a false one that decoys us to our destruction.-

COLTON, Calab

*

[IT is no surprise that so many members of Parliament wish to destroy our FREE PRESS or even CONTROL IT! when one considers how many members have been exposed as LIARS and CHEATS ,and THIEVES of the PUBLIC PURSE-No wonder they want their REVENGE because the FREE PRESS was TOO FREE for their liking.']

*  *  *

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

JANUARY 19,2018

H.F.1453

LITTLEJOHN

 

Let's have another referendum - on scrapping the House of Lords:

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN says he reckons a lot more than

 17.4 million would vote

 to kill off the Upper House

Freedom of speech is under renewed attack, this time from unelected members of the House of Lords. They have hijacked a bill designed to update Britain's data protection laws to launch an outrageous attempt to shackle the Press.

By a slim majority, peers voted this week to compel newspapers who refuse to sign up for state regulation to pay the legal costs of anyone who brings a complaint against them, regardless of merit.

If they succeed, the financial implications could force some smaller, local papers out of business. It would give carte blanche to crooks and fraudsters to bring actions seeking to gag national newspaper investigations into their nefarious activities, secure in the knowledge that even if they lost it wouldn't cost them a penny.

This is precisely the clause which Parliament threw out last year in relation to vexatious libel claims. Now the Lords are trying to smuggle it in under the guise of data protection.

They are also looking to resurrect the second stage of the ludicrous Leveson Inquiry into the Press, which everyone thought was dead and buried.

The last one was little more than a show trial and most of the parallel criminal cases brought against innocent journalists collapsed ignominiously when they came before a jury.

 

The House of Lords has hijacked a bill designed to update Britain's data protection laws to launch an outrageous attempt to shackle the Press

None of that has deterred their Lordships from straining to get the circus back on the road. For once, the chamber was packed to the gunnels. Normally, the Lords resembles the bridge of the Mary Celeste, save for a few old sweats slumbering away on the well-upholstered leather benches.

Like many of their colleagues in the Commons, some peers are still smarting from newspaper exposures of wrongdoing by members of the Upper Chamber — everything from expenses fiddling, to coke-snorting and consorting with whores.

So they have seized their chance for revenge by using the Data Protection Bill to punish the Press — a purpose for which it was never designed.

Matthew Hancock, the new Culture Secretary, has promised to resist the Lords and overturn the amendments when the Bill comes back to the Commons.

But with the Government's wafer-thin, DUP-bolstered majority, there is a danger some Tory Brexit saboteurs — who have had a well-deserved hammering in newspapers including the Mail — may vote with Labour and the Lib Dems, who are both committed to stifling free speech.

I'm always wary of writing about the Press, because it can appear to be special pleading. But this isn't newspaper navel-gazing, it goes to the heart of what passes for our democracy.

Unelected peers, along with the opposition parties, are trying to bring the Press under the control of a new state regulator, bankrolled by ex-Formula 1 boss Max Mosley — who has been seeking his revenge on Fleet Street ever since the now-defunct News of the World exposed him for taking part in military-themed S&M orgies with prostitutes.

The regulator, called Impress, is stuffed with embittered failed journalists, Left-wing lobbyists and professional Press-haters.

This is the rabble that a majority of peers and a significant number of MPs think should have the final say in what you read in your daily newspapers.

 

Unelected peers, along with the opposition parties, are trying to bring the Press under the control of a new state regulator

No self-respecting publication of note has signed up for Impress, preferring to submit voluntarily to an independent regulatory body called IPSO, chaired by a distinguished and scrupulously impartial former Appeal Court judge, who has the power to order front-page corrections and impose fines of up to £1 million.

That clearly isn't good enough for some politicians, who want to control what appears in the Press, largely to spare themselves embarrassment.

Many of them in the Remain camp, especially, blame the Daily Mail and other publications for 'poisoning' the minds of gullible readers and tricking them into voting Leave. Their contempt for the newspaper-buying public knows no bounds.

Freedom of the Press is under unprecedented pressure, not just from politicians, but from self-appointed bigots trying to bully companies into withdrawing advertising from publications of which they disapprove. Virgin Trains' decision to stop selling the Mail is just the latest pathetic piece of politically motivated posturing aimed at appeasing those who want to silence every single opinion they disagree with.

But there's a much bigger picture here.

This isn't just about Press freedom, it's about the way in which we are governed. What the political class still haven't grasped properly about the Brexit vote is that it wasn't just a rejection of the EU, it was a vote of no confidence in the whole rotten shower of them.

It's bad enough when MPs seek to thwart the will of the people. But when unelected peers try to do the same, it's a coup against democracy.

Remoaners in the House of Lords are pledging to stop

Brexit

by any means possible. Where do these pampered, pompous poltroons get the idea that they have a divine right to sabotage

 a clear decision taken by 17.4 million people — the largest number ever to vote for anything in Britain?

Remoaners in the House of Lords are pledging to stop Brexit by any means possible, writes Richard Littlejohn 

We voted to free ourselves from an unelected, unaccountable government in Europe. Why should we now have our future decided by an unelected, unaccountable second chamber at home?

The effrontery of peers such as the absurd Andrew Adonis, a self-important quangocrat who has never been elected to anything in his life, is staggering.

So, too, Cheerful Charlie Falconer, one of the architects of this week's Lords offensive against the Press. He owes his entire political career to the fact that he was once Tony Blair's flatmate.

In 1999, when Blair got rid of the hereditaries, there were 610 members of the Lords. Today, there are 800 of them. The crusty old aristos have been replaced by a pretty unsavoury collection of political placemen, has-beens, never-wases, PR spivs and party donors.

An ermine robe is a reward for failure. The Lib Dems may have only 12 MPs (just eight in England) as a result of being roundly rejected at the ballot box. But they've got more than 100 peers in the Lords — all of whom are pledged to overturn the Brexit vote.

They can claim £300 a day tax free simply for turning up, which is about all most of them can be bothered to do.

There are plenty of well-documented examples of noble lords clocking in, claiming their allowance, and then clocking straight out again.

Two of them served jail time for fraud as a result of the expenses scandal. No wonder the Lords want to punish the newspapers which exposed them.

Brexit, when we finally get round to it, has given us the opportunity to forge a brand-new future, to liberate the way this country is governed, to make politicians properly accountable to the people who pay their wages.

Maybe we should begin with a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords once and for all.

If that were to happen, I'd wager that many more than 17.4 million would vote to kill it off. And not before time. It is an anachronism which no longer serves any useful purpose.

Until now, reform of the Lords has always been hampered by the fact that no one seems to be able to decide what should replace it.

Who cares?

Why replace it with anything, especially as these days the courts seem to have assumed the function of the second chamber?

With any luck, in attempting to defy the will of the people over Brexit and cynically seeking to shackle freedom of speech,

these arrogant Lords might just have signed their own death warrant.

*  *  *
 

I love, I love, I love my little calendar girls 

Call me male, pale and stale, but that picture of Theresa May and her new female whips at No 10 reminded me of the cast of the movie Calendar Girls, starring Celia Imrie, about the Rylstone and District branch of the Women's Institute.

I can't wait for the calendar, girls.

*Call me male, pale and stale, but that picture of Theresa May and her new female whips at No 10 reminded me of the cast of the movie Calendar Girls

 

Actress Celia Imrie (pictured) posing in her famous scene from the 2003 film Calendar Girls

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5260945/Lets-referendum-scrapping-House-Lords.html#ixzz5441IEpiC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

 

'Let it be impressed upon your minds, let it be instilled into your children that the liberty of the press is the palladium of all civil, political, and religious rights.'-

Junius

*

The press is not only free, it is powerful. That power is ours. It is the proudest that man can enjoy.  It was not granted by monarchs; it was not gained for us by aristocracies; but it sprang from the people

[YOU!]

and with an immortal instinct, it has always worked for the people.-Disraeli.

[DON'T LET THE  UNREPRESENTATIVE   HOUSE OF LORDS GET THEIR WAY.]

ITS YOUR FREE PRESS

DON'T LOSE IT!]

The Labour man Party manifesto of 1935 called for the abolition of the House of Lords but in 1945 no such proposal was evident.

[The answer as many have voiced over the years is for a representative House of Lords selected for their already proven ability in other spheres of life and not those who's only interest is the need of a daily cash machine to encourage them  to

SERVE THEIR COUNTRY.]

[COMMENTS ARE OURS!]

 

JANUARY 12,2018

 

H.F.1436

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 

 

Merry Christmas:  The 13 “Illuminati” bloodline families sue for peace

Peace on earth and goodwill to all (and not just men, but all life forms) is looking like a realistic goal for 2018 now that the 13 “Illuminati” * bloodline families, seeing their ancient rule of planet Earth collapsing, are suing for peace.  Last week a representative of the G7 (Germany, the U.K., the corporate U.S., Japan, Italy, France, and Canada) met with a representative of the White Dragon Society (WDS) to discuss peace terms, according to a WDS member who was present at the meeting.  The G7, of course, is the political front for the 13 bloodline families.  There can be no doubt that this meeting was made possible by people inside the military-industrial complex acting in the spirit of Jesus Christ, and for this we wish them all “a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.”

The bloodline offer to negotiate peace is directly connected to the state of emergency that was declared last week by USA President Donald Trump.  If you have not seen it yet, please read the historic document in the link below.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/text-letter-president-congress-united-states-6/

“After Hanukkah, Trump declared a state of emergency and signed an executive order on December 20th freezing the assets of those accused of human rights abuses and corruption, a catch-all to bankrupt the Bushes, Clintons, Soros, Obama, the Cabal, and the global Jewish mafia,” was how a Pentagon source summed up the situation.

“The national emergency allows Trump to seize assets and unleash the military to carry out mass arrests and adjudicate via military tribunals, effectively imposing martial law,” the source continues.

The Pentagon source also sent a copy of this photograph with the explanation, “Trump wears purple when unveiling his national security strategy on December 18th in a victory lap over the Soros/Hillary purple revolution, and drinks water with both hands to simulate handcuffs.”

Clearly reacting to this situation, the representative of the bloodlines set the meeting for December 23rd, the birthday of the Japanese Emperor, and claimed to be a representative of the Imperial family as well as the G7.  The representative, who acted as if he was negotiating a surrender, said the bloodlines want to keep existing nation-states and institutions as they are, but…
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

Letter to the Editor – Experimental Quantum Anti-Gravity Successfully Replicated

I would like to let you know that my anti-gravity experiments have been successfully replicated by the Aerospace Engineering Department at the New Sciences & Technologies Faculty of the University of Tehran in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have developed complete quantum anti-gravity hypothesis with direct testable predictions that are simple, clear, easy, and inexpensive.

As you know, present-day quantum gravity theories suffer from too many mathematical space dimensions, and from too few conclusive experimental results.

My hypothesis is simple, clear, and subject to easy empirical verification.  I offer clear explanation of the principles of quantum gravity, and also precisely describe how to perform simple and inexpensive experiments to verify it.

In order to clearly understand quantum anti-gravity, please follow these 8 steps:

  1. Start from this brief overview — Quantum Gravity in a Nutshell
  2. The theoretical basis for quantum gravity are the Abraham’s equations of the Abraham-Minkowski controversy, and their empirical counterpart — the Abraham force
  3. To understand how the Biefeld-Brown effect works, you need to be clear where B-B vectors point — “up” or “down”
  4. The Biefeld-Brown effect is an instance of the Abraham force.
  5. Study the section about gyroscope’s anomalous effect.
  6. Please, study all the material on THE BOYD BUSHMAN EFFECT page in order to appreciate the potential complex magnetic fields have for shaping quantum gravity interactions.
  7. Now, you are ready to read the short introduction to quantum gravity.
  8. Perform two simple experiments for empirical verification.

The following are the 10 “mysteries” that my hypothesis sheds new light upon:

  1. The main prediction of my hypothesis (2016) is that anti-hydrogen will anti-gravitate.
  2. Gravitational waves mystery.
  3. EmDrive mystery.
  4. Solar mystery.
  5. Mass mystery.
  6. Bicycle mystery.
  7. Propeller  mystery.
  8. Cloud mystery.
  9. Pioneer mystery.
  10. Missing mystery.

I have designed 4 progressively more complex experiments, and we have successfully performed one of them, the one of medium difficulty, which constitutes:

The empirical discovery of hitherto unknown physical interaction between angular momentum of a spinning gyroscope and Earth’s magnetic and electric fields.

To perform this experiment, we need a gyroscope with a vertical support, and magnetic and electric shielding cages.

According to my hypothesis, there will be a measurable time difference between a freely spinning gyroscope inside, and outside the cages.  A gyroscope freely spinning inside both cages will come to rest in less time than when spinning outside them.

The experiment was performed successfully and was recorded in the following two videos:

To have a clear idea what is involved in the experiment, please take a closer look at the above two videos first.

For the experiment, we used the following small and light gyroscope at 10,000 rpm:

It would be much better to use a heavier gyro, because the heavier the gyro, the stronger the effect, at the same rate of rpm.

The value of angular velocity (rpm) is important only insofar as to generate sufficient angular momentum to allow the gyro to spin freely for a longer time before it comes to rest.

The objective of the experiment was to obtain two values of the gyro’s run time:

  • Outside the shielding;
  • Inside the shielding.

In my experiment, the two sample values are, respectively:

  • 55.54 seconds
  • 51.87 seconds

There was a 3.67 second difference, which amounts to 6.6%.  The time difference is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of electrostatic shielding of the Faraday cage. Applying the magnetic shielding in addition to the electric one would further increase the time difference.

As you can see in the video, it is important that the gyro is elevated by means of a vertical support.  Ideally, gyro should start spinning as close to a vertical position as possible, and also be able to pass lower, while still spinning, than its horizontal position.

The reason for this effect is that the gyroscope inside the cages will be spinning in reduced strength of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields, which in turn reduces the strength of the Biefeld-Brown effect acting upon it.

The gyroscope outside the cages, spinning in the undiminished strength of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields, is subject to the full influence of the Biefeld-Brown effect that causes the gyroscope to resist Earth’s gravity pull, which happens to be none other than pure natural antigravity effect.

OBJECTIONS

  • All conductors, like the brass gyro, exhibit an effective diamagnetism when they experience a changing magnetic field.  The Lorentz force on electrons causes them to circulate around forming eddy currents.  The eddy currents then produce an induced magnetic field that opposes the applied field and resist the conductor’s motion.

—  That is true for both, the gyro spinning inside and outside the Faraday cage in Earth’s magnetic field.  It does not make any difference.

  • But the gyro’s induced magnetic field will generate eddy currents in the Faraday cage and the resultant magnetic field will slow down gyro’s spin (magnetic breaking), and hence the whole effect.  It is like dropping a magnet down a copper pipe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFFL8TDt2Q

—   The analogy in the video applies, but only in principle.  Spinning brass gyro is not a strong neodymium magnet, and if, in principle, it generates any magnetic field, it is so weak that it will not even affect a needle of a compass.  As opposed to the copper pipe in the video, the enamel-coated copper mesh Faraday cage has much larger diameter (the inverse-square law), so it is enough to drop a strong neodymium magnet down the Faraday cage to see how much it would slow down, if at all.  As you can see in the above video, even few empty slits in the copper pipe greatly weaken the eddy currents, this being the reason for using enamel-coated copper mesh.  Diamagnetic materials, like brass, or copper, have a relative magnetic permeability that is less than or equal to 1, and therefore a magnetic susceptibility less than or equal to 0, since susceptibility is defined as χv=μv−1.  This means that diamagnetic materials, in principle, are repelled by magnetic fields.  However, since diamagnetism is such a weak property, its effects are not observable in everyday life.  Moreover, there is a big difference between Faraday cage made of solid copper, and one made of enamel-coated copper mesh.  The magnetic field induced in the gyro is weak, because Earth’s magnetic field is weak, so whatever little eddy currents could be induced by the gyro in solid copper Faraday cage will become irrelevant in the enamel-coated copper mesh Faraday cage, as you can see in the following two videos:

Even though it is true that the experiment, in principle, is open to influences from various phenomena, including the Carnegie curve, the overall result is clearly well beyond being attributed exclusively to these other phenomena.

To completely eliminate above objections, magnetic shielding needs to be applied in addition to the Faraday cage, and the gyro should be custom-made from a material which does not allow for eddy currents to flow in it.

Naturally,  I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me regarding the theoretical foundations as well as replication of the experiment.

With respect and much gratitude,  I am
Sincerely yours,

U.S. troops deploy worldwide with 10,000 sealed indictments to take down Khazarian mob

U.S. President Donald Trump spent the weekend at Camp David with his top generals to map out the exact strategy for decapitating the Khazarian mafia worldwide, say Pentagon sources.  “The Atlanta airport was shut down, while the Department of Defense refused to disclose the locations of 44,000 U.S. troops who may be involved in terminating the cabal worldwide,” a senior Pentagon source said.  There are now close to 10,000 sealed indictments as more and more of the Khazarian criminals give up evidence on their colleagues, the sources say.

There are also many extra-judicial killings going on.  “The liberal sanctuary city mayor of San Francisco, Edwin Lee, dropped dead after an illegal alien was found not guilty in the murder of Kate Steinle even after his confession,” one source notes.  “Lee’s death is a message to the Democrats and sanctuary city mayors like Rahm Emmanuel of Chicago and Bill De Blasio of New York City,” the source warns.

The Khazarian mob is also killing off lots of people.  In Japan, two former executives of Toshiba, Atsutoshi Nishida and Taizo Nishimura, suddenly died in the past two months because they were about to provide evidence about the March 11, 2011 Fukushima tsunami and nuclear terror attack against Japan, according to sources close to the royal family.

This attack was carried out by henchmen of the Rockefeller family, whose members include Hillary and Bill Clinton, the sources say.  The Rockefellers, in turn, were taking orders from the fascist P2 Freemason lodge, they say.  The Rockefeller family, by the way, has elected Mel Rockefeller, the son of Nelson Rockefeller, as the new family head, these sources added.

In Canada, Barry Sherman, owner of the Canadian pharmaceutical giant Apotex, was found hanging dead alongside his wife Honey by the family’s indoor pool.  According to CIA sources, Sherman was …
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

Message to the People Who Censor My Hotmail Account

I saw the one about people being used as collateral for financial instruments around the world before you deleted it. To the person who sent it, please phone me at +81-90-3439-5558 so that we can talk without the idiots (who will soon be in jail) censoring us. FYI a friend of mine has also seen bonds in Singapore that were backed by US prison slave labour. We will not be free until we end the system of Babylonian debt slavery run by the privately owned central banks.
 

2017-12-25

 

H.F.1427

 
STATEMENT!

FROM

APRIL,2012

 

A GOVERNMENT WHICH DOES NOT TRUST ITS PEOPLE WITH SUCH A MOMENTOUS PAST IN THE STRUGGLE AND SECURING OF ITS FREEDOM-AN INHERITANCE OF THE GERMANIC TRIBES AND LATER CONFIRMED BY THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS NOT WORTHY TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.

 

A PEOPLE MUST BE FREE BECAUSE ONLY IN THIS WAY WILL THEY UNDERSTAND AND EXPERIENCE THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT IT ENTAILS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL SO THAT THEY WILL NOT SUBMIT TO DESPOTISM AS AN EXCUSE FOR SECURITY WHICH IS MORE SECURE IN A SOCIETY OF A FREE PEOPLE.

 

FEW ARE NOW UNAWARE THAT THE GREATEST THREAT TO A FREE PEOPLE IS FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT WHO ARE LED BY A SECRET SOCIETY-THE BILDERBERGERS WHO ARE SERVANTS OF THE ILLUMINATI WHO ARE CLOSE TO ACHIEVING THEIR CENTURIES LONG AGENDA OF A SATANIC ONE WORLD-CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT THROUGH THEIR PUPPETS IN THE UN AND NATO AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL BODIES IN PLACE TO ACHIEVE THE CULLING OF THE GREATER PART OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION AND A WORLD WAR 3 TO BRING THEIR DASTARDLY AND EVIL PLAN INTO FRUITION.

 

IT IS VITAL TO THEIR PLANS THAT THE SNOOPERS CHARTER IS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT DELAY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ACHIEVE THEIR PLANS WITHIN AN OPEN AND FREE SOCIETY.

 

FEW ARE NOT UNAWARE THAT THE GREATEST THREAT TO A FREE PEOPLE IS THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND SECURITY SERVICES OF WHICH THERE IS UNLIMITED INFORMATION WITH A CLICK OF A BUTTON_9/11-7/7........

 

RON PAUL-THE LIBERTY PARTY

9/11

+(1) +(1)

+(1)

GLOBAL

WARMING SCAM

USA

IRAQ/

AFGHAN

WAR

LONDON BOMBINGS

+(1) +(1)

COMMON PURPOSE CONSPIRACY  

+(1)

CENTRAL BANKS +(1) 

 &    GLOBALISATION

IMMIGRATION

ARCHIVE

 MAIN BULLETINS

E U

 ENGLAND

+(1)

BILDERBERGERS

+(1)  +(1) +(1).+(1)

ILLUMINATI

+(1)  +(1)  +(1) +(1) +(1)

NEW WORLD ORDER +(1) +(1) +(1) +(1) +(1) +(1) +(1)

 

Brought forward from April,2012

H.F1452

 
A MEETING PLACE  - THERE ARE HUNDREDS  OF ALTERNATIVE WEBSITES ON OUR wEBSITE- SINCE 2003CLICK HERE
realzionistnews. TruetorahJews CONSPIRACYPLANET

.COM/

Fagan-Sounded-Alarm-of -the ILLUMINATI-in-1967  DAVID ICKE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP

 

YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH
BENJAMIN FULFORD.NET

 

THE WORLD OF TRUTH NEWWORLDORDER

INFO.COM

 

SITSSHOW.BLOGSPOT.COM
(Jeff )RENCE.COM  TRUTHCONTROL.COM/  

WHATDOESIT MEAN.COM

 

 

HUMANS ARE FREE

CLIMATE CHANGE A HOAX-TRUMP KNOWS IT-NOW YOU KNOW IT!

The Rothschilds.
 

LANDDESTROYER.

BLOGSPOT

.COM

HENRY MAKOW  CORBETTREPORT) LIFE IN THE MIX 2

 

UK COLUMN.ORG. JEW WATCH

ACTIVISTPOST.

COM

TARPLEY.NET

 

 
 
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 

- (1994 -Official Website - APRIL-PT1-2018 )--

 

APRIL FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018   

APRIL FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018 

APRILFREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018      

    APRILFREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018         

    APRILFREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

    APRILFREEDOM NOW- NEW-PART 6-2018   

 APRIL-FREEDOM NOW-NEW- HOME PAGE 2018

THIS IS:

 

APRIL FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

APRIL-FREEDOM NOW-2018