FEB-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018-(1994 -Official Website-FEB-PT4-2018)-FEB-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018-

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018        FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018      FEBRUARY-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

st.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links- IMMIGRATION-ARCHIVE- EU 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

 

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018
LITTLEJOHN

 

Don't tell 'em Pike! RICHARD LITTLEJOHN says the 2021 census will be just another excuse by the Government to invade our privacy, fine and tax us more

By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail

 January 16, 2018

The justification for having a census every ten years is that it furnishes the Government with valuable information to improve public services and plan for future demand.

That's the theory, anyway. The last one was held in 2011 and was the most extensive, intrusive ever. The census form ran to 32 pages, delving into the most intimate areas of our lives.

They even had the impertinence to ask about sexual preference, as if that's any of their damn business.

Next time they are determined to find out how many transsexuals there are. Failure to comply could land you with a fine of up to £1,000. But, we're told, it's for our own good.

 

The last census in 2011 was the most extensive ever with a form that ran to 32 pages and delving into the most intimate areas of our lives

The Government insists it must know everything about us in order to provide the 'world-class' public services which politicians are always boasting about.

So how's that working out, then? They've had seven years to sift through all the data from the 2011 census and react accordingly. But can anyone, hand on heart, honestly say that things have got better?

Are the roads and trains less crowded, as a result of ministers learning that more people would be travelling?

Is it easier to see your doctor? Have hospital waiting lists been slashed as more beds have been provided to cope with our growing, ageing population?

Can you get your children into the local school of your choice? Are there more coppers on the beat? Are your dustbins emptied more frequently?

Has the third runway at Heathrow been built yet? Have we opened a few more nuclear power stations to meet our insatiable demand for electricity, to power all the fancy gizmos we rely upon today?

Er, not exactly. Road space has actually been reduced, thanks to the faddish obsession with building cycle lanes. The NHS appears to be in permanent crisis, and it can take weeks to see a GP, that's if you can find one still registering new patients.

School places are under more pressure than ever, largely as a result of uncontrolled immigration. The police have withdrawn from the streets to concentrate on scouring the internet for 'hate crime'.

In some areas, you're lucky if you see the dustmen once every three weeks. No wonder fly-tipping is endemic. We'll put a man on Mars before the third runway at Heathrow opens. And it's only a matter of time until the iPhones will be going out all over Britain, as coal-fired power stations shut arbitrarily, to meet made-up 'climate change' targets, and we are forced to rely on useless windmills.

The 2021 census, will for the first time since the Domesday Book, pictured, ask for details about all our income, investments and other assets

One area where we do now lead the world is in snooping on and gathering irrelevant information about the population.

We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files.

Plans for the 2021 census have just been released and, next time, it won't be just the now-predictable demands for ethnicity, sexual predilection and gender identity.

For the first time since William the Conqueror's Domesday Book, in 1086, the Government is planning to gather details of all our income, investments and other assets. That early census was so thorough that it was said 'there was no single hide nor yard of land, nor indeed one ox or cow nor one pig which was left out'.

In 2021, hiding a pig in your shed will be easier than concealing the contents of your piggy bank from the authorities. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) plans to use new legal powers, slipped through Parliament last year, to trawl income tax and social security records and compile profiles of everyone's worth.
   

More from Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail...

The ONS claims it needs to build up a database of prosperous postcodes, so that services can be concentrated on 'vulnerable' areas. Cobblers. This is the first step towards introducing a wealth tax and a local income tax, so that the 'rich' pay more.

The census is not about serving the common good. It's about divide and rule, carving up the country into different and competing victim and special interest groups. They are also planning to tap into mobile phone records to track our movements, in an outrageous expansion of state surveillance. Already, Britain has more CCTV cameras than any other country on earth.

None of this is about providing better public services, it's about control. Knowledge is power, knowledge is valuable and can be sold to the highest bidder.

The tech giants already harvest our online habits, which they can then parlay into commercial gain by bombarding us with advertising. Naturally, the Government wants a piece of the action.

Of course, they pay lip service to security. But would you trust any Government official with a shred of evidence which isn't essential?

Never mind individual civil servants and rogue coppers using sensitive information to spy on and discredit others.

Look at the way local councils misuse anti-terrorism legislation to monitor parents attempting to circumvent school catchment areas to get their kids a decent education.

How many times have we heard of Government staff downloading 'secure' records and then leaving them on a train somewhere?

We know that the DVLA sells our vehicle information to private parking companies. Only yesterday, it was revealed that the Department of Health is handing over the medical records of British cancer patients to American lawyers acting for Big Tobacco.

Always work on the basis that no information you supply to the Government — or anyone else for that matter — is confidential or secure, and you won't go far wrong.

The next census, as usual, will be produced in dozens of different languages, many of them scribble. But we still won't know how many people are living here, legal or otherwise.

MPs admitted last week that they haven't got a clue about the number of foreign nationals living under the radar in Britain, because no such information exists and there's no reliable method of measuring it.

Richard Littlejohn argues that the census is not about serving the common good or providing better public services but about control

Best guess is somewhere between two and three million. But don't expect the census to clarify that.

Illegal immigrants aren't going to fill in a census form. Nor are transients, or many of those living in overcrowded inner-cities, where English is rarely spoken.

So, once again, the law will only apply to those who agree to abide by it and the 2021 census will be just another excuse by the Government to invade our privacy, fine and tax us more.

As for all this information leading to better provision of public services, well, last time out more than 400,000 people identified their religion as 'Jedi', but I haven't noticed state-funded Jedi community centres springing up everywhere. Have you?

At least not all the information they gather is wasted, which is why they're so keen on asking about gender identity.

The good news is that, while the rest of our public services are falling apart, we now also lead the world in transgender toilet provision, and the NHS is offering free cervical smear tests to men who define as women, even though they haven't got a cervix.

Makes you proud to be British. 
 

Here's another one of those stories I don't know whether to file under Mind How You Go or You Couldn't Make It Up.

A policewoman has been awarded £15,000 compensation because she couldn't carry an Alsatian up a hill. No, I can't believe I've just written that sentence, either.

PC Kim-Louise Carter applied to join the Gloucestershire canine unit. One of the tests involves carrying a dog up a 70-yard gradient. When she failed to carry a 5½st Alsatian called Hulk up the hill, she was given another chance with a lighter dog called Fizz.

But she dropped Fizz, too, complaining that her legs had 'turned to jelly'. It didn't help that during the exam her dog got into a fight with another one and bit a police officer.

Maybe she's just not cut out to be a dog handler. Yet despite the fact that three other women candidates did pass the test, Kim-Louise cried 'sex discrimination'.

And, with depressing predictability, a tribunal agreed with her, ruling that the test must be made easier and ordering instructors to undergo 'equality training'.

Perhaps the police should get rid of all their Alsatians and in future use something smaller like a dachshund, chihuahua, or some other miniature breed that PC Carter can keep in her handbag.
 

Had to laugh at the man who blew himself up trying to rob a Glasgow ATM. Police are still looking for his accomplice. Last night they issued a photo of the two men they believe were responsible, possibly under the influence of bevvy

 
 

Nick Clegg, rejected by his former constituents in Sheffield, is claiming £115,000 a year in allowances previously only given to ex-Prime Ministers. Why should taxpayers have to subsidise Calamity Clegg, when he devotes all his time attempting to overturn the democratic decision of the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5273227/Dont-tell-em-Pike-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-2021-census.html#ixzz54NH3P6Ff
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 January 16, 2018

H.F.1442

H.F.730
 

 

How Britain is ruled by patronising

 

 

B*#*@:rds

 by QUENTIN LETTS

Quentin Letts for the Daily Mail's recent articles

How Britain is ruled by patronising b*#*@rds: QUENTIN LETTS names the worst offenders among the People Who Know Best who never tire of telling us what to do and think

06/10/17 22:24

The government machine was used remorselessly to help

REMAIN

We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised. His friend George Osborne (top left) was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election. From comedians to bishops (hard to say which of those two groups is funnier), fund managers to charity-sector tsars, Brexit was as pongy as a bad sardine. They did not just oppose it. They recoiled from it - including (also top to bottom, left to right): Amanda Abbington, Kwasi Kwarteng, Gary Lineker, Chris Martin, J, K, Rowling, James Corden and Keira Knightley

 

A rebellion has taken place in this country of ours, an uprising, a new Peasants’ Revolt. A real kick in the kidneys for Britain’s ruling elite.

Before the EU referendum in 2016, the electorate was told firmly what to do. A vote for Remain would be safe and strong, and woe betide the country if you were stupid enough to back Brexit. You know your duty, little ones, said the elite. Sod that, said the people.

In the greatest citadel-storming since the French Revolution, they chose to leave the obtrusive European Union.

But it was not a result that happened by accident. It was born of a weary truculence — a yeoman impatience with those who make up our smug, self-perpetuating, invisible Brahmin caste.

Before the EU referendum in 2016, the electorate was told firmly what to do. A vote for Remain would be safe and strong, and woe betide the country if you were stupid enough to back Brexit. You know your duty, little ones, said the elite. Sod that, said the people

The government machine was used remorselessly to help Remain. We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised. His friend George Osborne was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election

For decades, Britons have been bossed about by a cadre of administrators and managers and pose-striking know-alls.

The old aristocracy having faded, in came a more furtive elite, driven by the desire to own minds, not acres, determined to control opinion and dictate our attitudes.

It was done on the sly, of course. They posed as liberals, and crouched behind ‘enlightened’ attitudes while imposing their views on a populace they claimed to esteem but more truthfully disdained.

 

Politicians, civil servants and lawyers used a language few could understand, while government was farmed out to agencies and quangos and privatised supply companies.

Cheap labour was imported, suppressing workers’ wages, because that was what globalised boss-cats at the international forums said was necessary.

Could we criticise immigration? Only if we wanted to be called racists and fruitcakes. The elite’s media munchkins had placed it on the top shelf, somewhere safe where it could not be touched.
 

At the gates to the Palace of Westminster I bumped into pro-Leave Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a great bear of a man. ‘This is bigger than any general election result,’ he boomed

Against our will, children were exposed to sex education by schools more interested in dogma than declension. Sex crimes rocketed.

Sociologists said murderers must be released into the community. Re-offending rates rose.

Smokers were made to feel like criminals. Criminals were encouraged to sue their victims.

From every side came instruction as to what we must think: about diet, gender, sexuality, race, even the weather, with the TV forecasters telling us to put on sun cream and giving silly names to every incoming squall.

The entire System was at it, badgering us, belittling us, patting us on the head, putting us in our place.

Think this. Don’t think that. Inappropriate! Hate-crime!

From the Chief Medical Officer and her strictures about alcohol limits to railway announcements saying ‘do not become a victim of crime’, they treat us like toddlers.

Even the most docile beach donkey, by nature placid and reliable, if repeatedly kicked, will eventually refuse to co-operate. It will bare its teeth and walk in the other direction, pulling its tethers out of the sand.

So it has proved with the British voters.

Get off our backs, they said. Stop goading us. Stop being such patronising bastards.

The morning we discovered we’d break free from Europe was that unforgettable Friday, June 24, 2016.

Everywhere, celebrity luvvies hyperventilated. Actress Amanda Abbington (she was Dr Watson’s wife in Sherlock on the telly) messaged: ‘Watch the collapse begin. Dark days . . . Where can I move me and my children too (sic)? Where’s nice? Italy? Canada?’ They might have better grammar there, certainly. Keira Knightley was foul-mouthed. ‘Stop others f***ing with your future,’ she bleated in a message to yoof

I was in a pokey hotel bedroom in London’s Bloomsbury and awoke at daybreak as the television relayed the referendum results from around the country.

I’d expected the technocracy was going to win. It always did, didn’t it? The experts had said defeat for Remain was unthinkable. Treasury officials, opinion pollsters and almost the entire diplomatic corps idly presumed Remain would win.

But it hadn’t.

Our dominating elite of parliamentarians, lobbyists, bankers, artists, political theorists, clergy, academics and sterile aesthetes was about to take a massive custard pie smack in the face.

So many well-connected people had scoffed at Brexit. They had belittled anyone who suggested it could occur.

But there it was, happening before our eyes as the BBC’s presenter, David Dimbleby, announced: ‘The British people have spoken and the answer is “we’re out!”.’

The cold print of the referendum ballot papers had merely asked voters if they wanted to stay in the EU. This result was the crystallisation of something bigger.

It was the eruption of a long-building resentment at being bossed around by an opaque snootocracy, by affluent fixers and the People Who Know Best.
 

James Corden, who left Britain to present a TV show in California, transmitted from across the water: ‘I’m so sorry to the youth of Britain. I feel you’ve been let down today. x’

In my hotel room on that Independence Dawn last year, I felt a giddying rush of patriotic pride. The apple-cart had been overturned.

This was not just a public rejection of the EU. It was an act of thrilling dissent. Our arrogant elite, after years of self-enriching condescension, had been whupped.

More than a year on, I still can’t get out of my head how unrelenting the campaign was for Remain to win the popular vote.

For months before the referendum, the System did its best to engineer things in favour of the EU.

Cabinet Brexiteers were silenced. Civil servants were told to hide sensitive EU material from Eurosceptic ministers.

The government machine was used remorselessly to help Remain. We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised.

His friend George Osborne was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election.

Carney, a Canadian but bound to the status quo here by instinct and career, predicted Brexit would cause sterling to collapse, growth to stall and unemployment to rise.

From comedians to bishops (hard to say which of those two groups is funnier), fund managers to charity-sector tsars, Brexit was as pongy as a bad sardine. They did not just oppose it. They recoiled from it.

The reaction was not simply intellectual or even political. It was rooted in taste, aesth- etics, manners.

Let your future son-in-law have tombstone teeth, the clothes sense of Ken Dodd and a string of shoplifting offences to his name, but pray God Almighty he be not a Brexiteer.

We no longer have widowed duchesses who clutch their dewlaps in horror when they hear the word ‘serviette’, but Brexit had the same effect on managerial and technocratic types.

My wife, a sweet and liberal-minded soul, casually mentioned to a princeling of the Church of England that she intended to vote Leave. He gasped: ‘How could you?’ He might have been less aghast had she admitted to witchcraft.
 

From J. K. Rowling came: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted magic more’

Fashionable ‘opinion leaders’ and pliable industrialists were pressed to the Remain cause to build the idea that superior people — good people — were of one accord. They crouched down beside the voters, looked them very gravely in the eye and told the boys and girls that Mummy and Daddy would be really, really sad if Remain did not win the referendum.

Opinion pollsters said Remain would win, and in the last week of the campaign the Cameroons started to strut.

Two days before the referendum, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, la-di-dah Leftist and one-time owner of the most perfect villa in Italy, opined that the result was in the bag. The headline over her article read: ‘On Friday I’ll get my country back. Britain will vote Remain’.

But the voters came to a different conclusion. They decided that those prominent Remain supporters were only in it for themselves, chasing either business contracts or honours.

The Leavers were the ones who reclaimed their country. On the morning after the referendum, I headed from my hotel to work in a taxi whose driver was cock-a-hoop at the Leave vote. At the gates to the Palace of Westminster I bumped into pro-Leave Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a great bear of a man. ‘This is bigger than any general election result,’ he boomed. He was right. General elections are elections for Parliament. The referendum was an election against Parliament, in spite of Parliament.

Abraham Lincoln once spoke of ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’. We had drifted towards ‘government of the people, by the Parliament, for the Parliament and its fleas’.

The Establishment reacted with petulant disbelief.

Tony Blair called it ‘a foolish excursion into populism’. The then Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, 46, normally a sunny fellow, was ‘angry that today we wake to a deeply divided country’. Would he have said the same if the scores had gone the other way?

Everywhere, celebrity luvvies hyperventilated.

Actress Amanda Abbington (she was Dr Watson’s wife in Sherlock on the telly) messaged: ‘Watch the collapse begin. Dark days . . . Where can I move me and my children too (sic)? Where’s nice? Italy? Canada?’ They might have better grammar there, certainly. 

Keira Knightley was foul-mouthed. ‘Stop others f***ing with your future,’ she bleated in a message to yoof. James Corden, who left Britain to present a TV show in California, transmitted from across the water: ‘I’m so sorry to the youth of Britain. I feel you’ve been let down today. x.’

From J. K. Rowling came: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted magic more.’ TV presenter and sometime footballer Gary Lineker asked: ‘What have we gone and done?’

The mood at Glastonbury pop festival was funereal. Coldplay’s Chris Martin saw ‘the collapse of a country’. Damon Albarn wore a black armband.

Marianne Faithfull, famous because decades earlier she was supposed to have done something filthy with a Mars Bar and Mick Jagger, said: ‘We are back to where it used to be, the Right-wing racist Little England. Those dreadful people, they’ve always been there.’

TV presenter and sometime footballer Gary Lineker asked: ‘What have we gone and done?’ The mood at Glastonbury pop festival was funereal. Coldplay’s Chris Martin saw ‘the collapse of a country’

Emma Thompson, mother, director, writer, actress, intellectual, citizen, was, naturally, appalled by Brexit. She said she felt more European than English and she regarded Ukip’s Nigel Farage as a ‘white nationalist’.

Where that left the many non-white Leave voters and non-white Ukip supporters, it was hard to say.

The Remain camp united atheists and the modern Church of England, with former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and arch-atheist Richard Dawkins deploring the result. Science bod Dawkins, who has made a study of natural selection, raged that the voters had been ‘ill-informed’ and ‘ignorant’. Personally, I blame evolution.

Another secularist, A. C. Grayling, wrote to MPs demanding that they reject the will of the people who, said Grayling, had voted on the basis of ‘demagoguery and sentiment’.

Too many voters were merely ‘System One’ thinkers, he argued — i.e. they acted chiefly on impulse and could be ‘captured by slogans’, unlike ‘System Two’ thinkers who made more considered, logical judgments.

Shades here, of the Greek philosopher Plato, who regarded democracy as rule by the rabble and proposed the creation of elite ‘Guardians’ or ‘Philosopher Kings’ who could be selected in youth and trained to rule.

Plato’s thinking is most clearly seen today in the French grandes écoles that train the cadre of Brussels Eurocrats who propose and draft EU treaties.

Tony Blair made a speech calling on people to ‘rise up against’ ... er, themselves, basically.

Time and again it was argued by anti-Brexiteers that Leave voters did not understand the vastness of their decision.

The elite was indignant and fearful — and that only made many Leave voters all the more certain they had made the right decision.

In their appalling condescension, what all these furious anti-Brexiteers ignored were people such as a Derbyshire factory worker called Stuart Carrington and the other 17,410,741 men and women who had voted to Leave.

Stuart had also been on my mind that anxious night as we waited for the referendum result. He was my brother-in-law. (Well, as good as. He and my wife’s sister Nicky were not formally married but they had been together years.)

Fifty-four-year-old Stuart’s health had become a worry in recent months. Out of character, he took time off work. Stuart’s machine, capable of the most intricate measurements, checked parts for aircraft jet engines.

He was proud of his work, just as he was proud of Nicky, her two sons and their flat. But he knew all that was coming to an end.

The doctors initially told him he had a low-threat cancer but they changed their prognosis. That week we were told he was dying.

Yet on referendum day morning, moving with difficulty, he had managed to get himself to his local polling station in the Spital district of Chesterfield, to vote for the last time.

A gaunt figure, he leaned heavily on the stubby pencil while casting his vote. Job done, he carefully dropped his ballot into the box, thanked the officials, winced a little and made slowly for the door.

A keen supporter of Leave — and normally a Labour man, his dad having been a miner — Stuart had been determined to vote and he had bloody well managed it.

I kept thinking of stoical, taciturn Stuart.

Those northern men don’t always say much but by God they make their mark. Stuart was not a showy person. He did not consider himself important, not in the way we normally use that term.

Not back then. Maybe things are a little different now. Maybe, with Brexit, the balance of power has shifted a little.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t bank on it.

As I will show in the rest of this series based on my new book, the patronising bastards are everywhere, lording it over the plebs, putting us in our place, waving their entitlement in our face, telling us what to think and what to do.

And not just over Brexit but on every issue under the sun.

And the biggest ‘bastard’ of them all, at the very top of my list of patricians treating the rest of us with contempt? I’ll reveal his identity on Monday.

Adapted from Patronising Bastards: How The Elites Betrayed Britain, by Quentin Letts, published by Constable on October 12 at £16.99. © Quentin Letts 2017. To order a copy for £13.59 (offer valid to October 14, 2017) visit www.mailshop.co.uk/books or call 0844 571 0640. P&P is free on orders over £15.


 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4957180/Britain-s-ruled-patronising-b-rds-says-QUENTIN-LETTS.html#ixzz4uqBaZlGZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on

 

6/10/17

 

 

H.F.1338 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT A SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU.

 

A STORY OF SACRIFICE-THE SPITFIRE -ITS DESIGNER R. J. MITCHELL-A SAVIOUR OF THE SKIES OVER ENGLAND.

Its exactly 70 years since the first Spitfire took to the air. But the plane that won the war almost didn’t make it. Its remarkable designer was fighting a tragic personal battle -and time was running out.

*

RACE FOR

THE SKIES

*

Daily Mail

Saturday, March 4-2006

by

 Tony Rennell

FOR THE many men in her life, it was love at first sight. ‘I was captivated by her sheer beauty,’ declared one of her eminent lovers, a government minister.

‘She was slimly built with a beautifully proportioned body and graceful curves just where they should be. She was every young man’s dream.

 

‘Mind you, she was what mother called a fast girl. I was advised to approach her gently. But once safely embraced in her arms, I found myself reaching heights of delight I had never before experienced.

 

IT WAS NOT A WOMEN that Captain Harold Balfour Under-Secretary of State in the pre-war Ministry of Air, was drooling over back in the thirties [The Gathering Storm years] after his first meeting with HER. It was the British fighter plane that would change the course of history -the

 

Spitfire

 

But for all his passion, even he could not have predicted what a battle-winner she would prove to be. Not that she would come to be the very icon of British guts and defiance. Nor that decades later -into the 21st century in fact-the sight of her flying over London on special anniversaries would bring tears to the eyes of grown men and women.

   

The promise of a Spitfire in the skies can still lure thousands to an Air Show, just for a glimpse of those elegant lines, the purr of that Rolls-Royce engine and all the history and glamour, death and glory, packed into her 31ft fuselage and 37ft wing-span.

 

TOMORROW

Sunday the 5th March 2006 is another historic anniversary.

It is 70 years [In March 2018-it will be 82 years ] to the day since the very first

 

Spitfire

  

Prototype climbed into the skies at

  

Eastleigh in Hampshire

 

-half its fuselage covered in a dirty yellowish-green wash, the rest rough and unpainted.

 

Captain ‘Mutt’ Summers, the Test Pilot, took her up to 3,000 ft and had her back on the ground in 8 minutes later. But in that short time in the air, the prototype won him over.

 

“the handling qualities of this machine are remarkably good “,

 

he wrote in the Test-Flight Log.

 

Destiny awaited. Two days later, on March 7-1936, the troops of a resurgent Germany under Chancellor Adolf Hitler marched over the border to reclaim the Rhineland it had been forced to give up after losing the World War I.

 

The first steps had been taken towards the conflict for which, in every sense, the SPITFIRE was made.

 

It is difficult to overstate her impact on events. The Spitfire’s revolutionary design with its extra edge of speed and manoeuvrability stopped the German Messerschmitts in 1940 that until then had had no match in the skies over Europe.

 

But what these brave men -and many among the generations who had followed -never realised was that the Spitfire so nearly didn’t make it to the drawing board. In a desperate race against time, its brilliant creator Reg. Mitchell was fighting cancer as he put the finishing touches to his design for the aircraft.

 

He lived to see his creation make it into the skies -but died in 1937, two years before the outbreak of the war and never having seen the leanest, meanest fighting machine of its age in combat.

 

He was just 42 years old.

 

Reg Mitchell, or ‘R J’ as he was known is a name generally lost on all but air aficionados these days. So who was he?

 

A new book by his son, Gordon Mitchell, gives a glimpse into the life of this little-known engineering genius.

 

He was a son of a headmaster in Stoke and from his earliest days delighted in making things. He even built his own lathe. He left school at 16, became an apprentice in a railway engineering works and soon graduated to the drawing office.

 

Here his outstanding inventiveness quickly became apparent. Wanting to spread his wings, as it were, he applied for a job at the Supermarine Aviation in Southampton, a firm setting out in the infant business of seaplanes and flying boats.

 

RJ had stumbled on his life’s work and the outlet for his considerable talent.

He shot up the hierarchy until, just 25; he was Chief Designer and Chief Engineer with the job of creating the fastest seaplanes in the world.

 Time and again Mitchell’s planes were entered for the Schneider Trophy, an International Flying Contest over water. His success rate was remarkable as he learned how to streamline an aircraft to get every last knot of speed out of her.

 

In between the wars, with the help of the expert team he built at Supermarine, he designed no fewer than 24 different aircraft. A shy man with a slight stammer, he never pushed himself forward for the headlines his Schneider successes were increasingly grabbing.

 

He gave that glory to the pilots whom he admired for their courage, the more so when two died in accidents in his experimental planes.

 

But if reserved in public, he was a martinet in the office, typically standing staring at his drawing board for hours puffing on his pipe as he worked out complex problems. It was a foolish employee who interrupted him deep in thought.

 

At home, son Gordon remembered flashes of temper, followed by long moody silences. ‘He had no time for anyone he considered a fool and could be rude if the individual concerned did not quickly get the message.

 

Then again, he had great charm, his son recalled, and a sense of fun. When not preoccupied with work, his blue eyes shone and his smile was warm.

 

Mitchell was a very British genius, quiet, retiring, never personally pushy. Nor would he ever be rich, for all his exceptional talent and success.

 

At Supermarine (later part of Vickers), his pay as Chief Designer began at £1,200 a year rising by £100 every December until it reached £2,500.a handsome enough sum for those days and equivalent to £76,000 today.

 

Even after being appointed a Director, he would remain essentially a well-paid employee, in an era when results were not rewarded with share options and ‘fat cat’ bonuses. The patents for his inventions stayed with the company.

 

He brought a large detached house with peaceful gardens and a live in maid in the suburbs, played tennis and golf

And took family holidays at Bournemouth.

 

He was never one for the high life, despite the fast and wealthy international aviation set he sometimes dealt with. He preferred the company of his fellow workers, for whom he had great admiration. His best night out was with the lads at the drawing -room party.

 

His one indulgence was a Rolls Royce car, but since Sir Henry Royce was a fellow engineer and collaborator, that was not surprising.

But by 1933 Mitchell was harbouring a grim secret: He had been diagnosed with bowel cancer. He had a major operation and was fitted with a colostomy bag. Inventive man that he was, he even designed a better bag to conceal his disability.

 

A lesser man would have stopped work, but Mitchell was driven. By the mid-thirties, the world of peaceful international flying competitions began to change to one of more deadly and warlike rivalries. As a result, the Air Ministry in London sought tenders for a fast ‘killer’ fighter plane.

 

Mitchell’s first attempt was a flop. It had an open cockpit and a fixed undercarriage and could reach only 230 mph, 20mph short of the Ministry’s specification and a long way off his 400mph seaplanes.

 

Despite the terrible pain and distress of his illness, he stayed at his design desk as he smoothed out the Spitfire’s problems ahead of her first Test Flight.

 

In the next design, he retained just the name-

 

Spitfire

 

-suggested by the company’s chairman Sir Robert Mclean. It was what he called his feisty daughter, Ann.

 

Everything else changed. The shape of the wings went straight to elliptical. Against all conventional thinking, he also made the wings thin rather than thick. A sliding cockpit canopy gave the pilot al-round vision while reducing drag.

 

A Rolls Royce Merlin engine completed the transformation, and it was the prototype -K5054 - that flew that day 70 years ago.

 

Twelve weeks later, the RAF had its first go in the new fighter; Flight Lieutenant Humphrey Edwardes-Jones took her up at Martlesham Heath, the test aerodrome in Suffolk. He almost crashed her.

A revolutionary aspect of the

 Spitfire

-were wheels that retracted into the wings when in flight to make her more aerodynamic. As he came in to land he almost forgot to drop the undercarriage, and only just recovered in time.

His verdict, telephoned to the Air Ministry was that the Spitfire was

 

‘delightful to handle’

 

-and would be easy for the pilots to learn to fly-as long as they remembered to put the wheels down! Eight days later, the Ministry ordered 310 at a cost of £1.25 million (£38m at today’s prices.)

 

It was Mitchell’s triumph - and with that over, he turned his attention for designing a better, faster bomber for the RAF.

But he ran out of time. In February 1937, in exasperation, he told a visitor:

 

‘I who have so much to do, have only until June.’

 

The next month he finally stopped work.

 

Characteristically, he worried that he was letting people down by not being able to finish the job he had started. Letters from colleagues high and low assured him

 

he had done far more than most.

 

He made one last effort to live, flying by private plane to a cutting edge cancer clinic in Vienna. The treatment did not work.

 

After five weeks the doctors sent him home to die. He sat in his garden, often with the local vicar, and in June, the month he predicted, he died.

 

‘I just felt numb,’ his son, then aged 16, recalled, ‘but I could comprehend that at least he was no longer in pain’

 

Meanwhile, the Spitfire, one of the greatest single-seater fighters of all time was on its way into mass production. The first of more than 20,000 rolled of the production lines in 1938.

 

It would be another two years before it’s

 

FINEST HOUR

 

With Hawker Hurricanes, the other British fighter plane, Spitfires soared over Southern England.

 

In the summer of 1940

as

CHURCHILL’S

Acclaimed

‘FEW’

-fought and won that crucial confrontation with the Luftwaffe.

 The Spitfires took on the enemy Messerschmitt fighters that protected the German bomber formations. The slower Hurricanes then moved in to down the defenceless bombers.

It was a joint victory, but in truth, it was the

 

SPITFIRE

 

-that made the crucial difference and for which

Reg Mitchell

 -remains a largely forgotten hero.

His son, now 85, feels certain his father’s death robbed Britain of yet more world-beating inventions. That bomber, the project he never finished was one example. He was designing it to fly at top speed of 360mph, 25 per cent faster than the Lancaster and the Wellington.

 

How much quicker might Bomber Command have got on top of the Luftwaffe, if its crews had been flying Reg Mitchell’s creation?

 

How much sooner might the war have been won?

 The greatest tragedy of Reg Mitchell’s death at such a sadly early age was that thousands of other lives that given the chance, he might also have saved.

* *

‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’

 

Speech on the Battle of Britain-

August 1940

by

Winston Churchill.

* * *

 

ADAPTED from:

R. J. Mitchell:

Schooldays to Spitfire

by

Gordon Mitchell

 

Published by Tempus at £12.99

 

To order a copy, telephone 01453 883300.

 

Tony Rennell is a military historian-His latest book is

'Tail -End Charlies'

* * *

 

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

MARCH/06

 

*

 

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

H.F.1376

 
 

[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

 

By DOMINIC LAWSON

 

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

*

[14 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 AT HEART A STUBBORN FREEDOM-LOVING  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!
 
 

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

JULY 30-2016

*

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!
WHERE'S THEIR SENSE OF DUTY?

 

NNot since WW2 has there been a greater need for politicians to pull together. Fat chance when they're so lacking in PUBLIC SPIRIT says

Daily Mail: 2017-07-11 - WHERE'S THEIR SENSE OF DUTY?

 
 

WHATEVER you think of our vote to leave the EU there is no doubt that we face some of the most critical months in our nation's modern history.

Most observers, whether Leavers or Remainers, agree that extricating ourselves from

BRUSSELS

and charting a newly

INDEPENDENT COURSE

will be

A COLOSSAL CHALLENGE,

YOU MAY HAVE  HOPED, THEREFORE , THAT OUR NATION'S POLITICIANS WOULD HAVE RISEN TO THE MOMENT, PUTTING ASIDE PETTY DIFFERENCES AND COMING TOGETHER IN THE

NATIONAL INTEREST.

What better sign that we are all

PATRIOTS.

and that, like our forefathers,

WE STAND OR FALL AS ONE

UNITED KINGDOM?...

 

 

Bickering

 Then , after Mrs May invited rival parties yesterday to 'come forward with your own views and ideas about how we can tackle these challenges as a country', the Labour leadership reacted with precisely the seriousness and maturity we have come to expect from Mr Corbyn and his cronies-which is to say, none at all...

Patriot

Under Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, the Labour Party has given itself over completely to an increasingly strident politics of moral posturing, its litany of hysterical complaints leavened only with the ruinously expensive bribery of voters too young to remember the

CHAOS OF THE SEVENTIES

It says a great deal about the historical illiteracy of Mr Corbyn's supporters that they like to present their hero as Clement Attlee's heir. In fact, they could not be more different.

Attlee

was above all a

PATRIOT,

a man who put country ahead of party. He would have regarded Mr Corbyn and his allies with with

UTTER CONTEMPT.

Like so many men of his generation, Atlee had worn his country's uniform and seen action at first hand, in his case, on the hellish desert front of Mesopotamia in World War I.

And like Churchill, his great rival and colleague, he knew national solidarity meant far more than petty partisanship.

  But there was something even deeper than the shared

SACRIFICE OF WAR

Neither MacDonald nor Baldwin had seen action, but both saw POLITICS as a kind of

NATIONAL SERVICE.

They had grown up in an era when collective duty meant more than

 INDIVIDUAL AMBITION

and when there was no greater honour than to devote yourself to

KING AND COUNTRY.

One anecdote says it all.

In 1921, horrified at the huge rise in Britain's debt during the World War I, Baldwin secretly donated a fifth of his fortune-a staggering £150,000, worth £6  million today-to the Treasury.

He wrote a letter anonymously to The Times, appealing to the wealthy classes

to tax themselves  and help reduce the

WAR DEBT

saying he wanted to show

' love of country than love of money'

he volunteered 20% of the value of his estate. It was only many years  later that the correspondent was identified as Baldwin.

 

*

Sneer

And he took that attitude into Westminster. Love of country mattered more than love of office, the lust for power or even the ties of party.

Could you imagine many of today's politicians doing that? Can you imagine, say ,George Osborne, donating his inherited wallpaper millions to pay  towards our crippling annual deficit? No, me neither.

The irony is that almost the only modern frontline politician with Baldwin's sense of duty is our Prime Minister. And it says a great deal about our times that Mrs May's reticence and quiet decency are treated as handicaps, when previous generations would have seen them as virtues.

Not even Mrs May's greatest admirers would claim her past few months have been a triumph, and her time in Downing Street may now be numbered in weeks rather than years. Even so, I suspect history books will be kinder to the Prime Minister than the snobs, pygmies and hypocrites who love to sneer at her.

The tragedy, however, is that Britain is drifting towards a shambolic exit from the EU and a wretched beginning to our new journey as a

INDEPENDENT TRADING NATION.

Not since World War II has there been greater cause for our politicians to pull together an the

NATIONAL INTEREST.

The tragedy is that never in living memory have they fallen so depressingly short of the standards we deserve.

[COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY

UNITY INSTEAD OF CHAOS]

DECISION

Once in every man and nation comes the moment to decide'

In the strife of Truth with Falsehood for the good or evil side.

J. R. LOWELL, The present crisis.

*

 

OPPORTUNITY

There is a tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

SHAKESPEARE.

*

FREEDOM

All we have of freedom-all we use and know-

This our fathers bought for us, long long ago.

KIPLING

*

ENGLAND

All our past proclaims our future; Shakespeare's voice and Nelson's hand

Milton's faith and Wordsworth's trust in this our chosen and [soon] chainless land.

Bear us witness; come the world against her,

England yet shall stand.

SWINBURNE . England.

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED

JULY 11-2017

 

 

 

H.F.1252 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

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 BritAIN 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

By James Slack Political Editor For The Daily Mail



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

 

*

Brexit will let us rediscover role as trading power | Daily Mail Online

Theresa May's Brexit speech puts Cameron to shame | Daily Mail ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Commons and Lords get ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Full reports and analysis

 

A great nation is reborn: Quitting will let us rediscover our role as a ...

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! 

 

It's delicious to see the naysayers who predicted disaster after a Brexit vote face reality, writes ALEX BRUMMER
  • The economy's resilience since the Brexit vote has been evident for some time
  • But few Remainers have admitted the scare stories put about were inaccurate
  • Lord O'Neill was a Treasury minister under Project Fear's George Osborne
  • In a bold mea culpa, he has now said Britain's economy will reap the benefits

By Alex Brummer for the Daily Mail

 January 23, 2018

The extraordinary resilience of the British economy since the Brexit vote in June 2016 has been evident for some time.

Predictably, though, few Remain supporters and economists have admitted that the scare stories put about as part of Project Fear – such as a big downturn in output, the necessity of an emergency Budget and years (or decades) of hardship – were wildly inaccurate.

So we must heartily applaud the honesty of Lord O'Neill, a very vocal pro-EU businessman who was a Treasury minister under Project Fear's architect George Osborne.

In a bold mea culpa, the former chief economist at investment bank Goldman Sachs says Britain's economy will reap the benefits of a robust global expansion and this will 'easily dwarf' any damage caused by our departure from the EU.

Scroll down for video 

 

Few Remain supporters and economists have admitted that the scare stories put about as part of Project Fear were wildly inaccurate. So we must heartily applaud the honesty of Lord O'Neill (pictured second from right)

Lord O'Neill knows what he is talking about when it comes to the international economy.

He made his name 17 years ago by coining the acronym BRIC for the fast-developing countries Brazil, Russia, India and China, which he predicted would overtake the six strongest western nations in terms of economic might.

In the main, the BRIC nations are booming and, with other newly rich countries, account for 57 per cent of world output.

What the Brexit doom-mongers irresponsibly failed to anticipate was that the US economy would enjoy a spurt of growth and that there would be stirrings of recovery in the EU – both, in turn, helping Britain.

Experts say there has been a 'synchronised recovery', when the world's major economic blocs expand at the same time.

What is often forgotten is that the US is Britain's biggest trading partner – a market in which we have a trade surplus of almost £40billion a year.

Labour politicians such as London mayor Sadiq Khan may deplore Donald Trump, but they foolishly ignore how his big tax cuts for businesses will boost the US economy.
 

Labour politicians such as London mayor Sadiq Khan may deplore Donald Trump, but they foolishly ignore how his big tax cuts for businesses will boost the US economy

Yesterday, the International Monetary Fund said the cuts would turbo-charge American and global growth for years, adding up to 1.2 per cent a year to US output.

This will raise global expansion to 3.9 per cent this year and next year. The IMF said US growth would rise from a previously predicted 2.3 per cent for 2018 to 2.7pc, and raised its forecast for 2019 from 1.9 per cent to 2.5 per cent. 

Here, a more competitive exchange rate (following the devaluation of sterling in the aftermath of the Leave vote, which made UK goods and services cheaper overseas), and the impressive global strength of our services sector has helped Britain thrive.

How delicious it is for Brexiteers to see these doom-mongers forced to recognise a reality they tried to trash.

Prime among these was Christine Lagarde, the French head of the IMF, who shamefully signed up to Project Fear and warned that if Britain voted for Brexit, it would be 'pretty bad, to very, very bad' for the UK.
 

How delicious it is for Brexiteers to see these doom-mongers forced to recognise a reality they tried to trash. Prime among these was Christine Lagarde (pictured), the French head of the IMF, who shamefully signed up to Project Fear

Embarrassingly for Madame Lagarde, the IMF now suggests Britain's economy will grow by 1.5 per cent this year – faster than Japan's or Italy's.

Even though Lord O'Neill still thinks the Leave vote was a 'weird thing for the UK to impose upon itself', he now concedes our economy was more robust than he had thought. The jobs market has improved, with an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent of the workforce being the lowest for 42 years. Companies do not take on more workers unless they see strong economic prospects.

Productivity – the measure of workers' output – also jumped in December by its highest level for six years.

In general, British businesses are in a confident mood.

Carolyn Fairbairn, the strongly pro-EU boss of the employers' organisation the CBI, may be in despair about the Government's Brexit policy, but a recent survey of her members in the manufacturing sector found that orders for goods were at the highest level for three decades and exports orders at their best for two decades.
 

For too long, the British people have been forced to endure a cacophony of gloom from anti-Brexiteers

To his credit, Lord O'Neill (once minister for the Northern Powerhouse – Osborne's vision of an economic region to rival London and the South East) says parts of the UK, particularly the North West, are 'doing better than people realise'.

His is the rare voice of a Remainer who repents, admitting that the economy has bounced back from the financial crash of 2008 and is expanding despite the squeeze on household income caused by higher import prices.

For too long, the British people have been forced to endure a cacophony of gloom from anti-Brexiteers.

But the facts must be allowed to speak for themselves: Output and exports up, more jobs, and international experts predicting above-average growth.

There is still a long way to go until Brexit works itself out, but voters deserve honesty rather than the persistent dishonesty and apocalyptic warnings of the agents of Project Fear.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5300335/Its-delicious-Brexit-naysayers-face-reality.html#ixzz55mYNgUMe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 January 23, 2018

 

H.F.1458

 
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!

 

 

A MATTER OF TREASON

The behaviour of our politicians over the past thirty-five years has confirmed the dangers of one-party rule which was warned of over two millennium ago . The greatest danger we face is from within BY THE TREASONABLE ACTIONS of many of our politicians and judges who should know better and those close to our sovereign Queen Elizabeth II the PRIVY COUNSELLORS of the REALM.
 
Before we proceed we will state the oaths taken by our Privy Counsellors to the Queen and also to the European Union. We are at a loss to understand how it is possible to take the oath to Queen and Country and yet still take the oath to the EU.
 
CONFLICT OF DUTIES AND LOYALTIES
 
THE UNITED KINGDOM
 
 THE OATH OF A PRIVY COUNSELLOR
 
'You do swear by Almighty God to be true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person. Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be removed, treated, and debated in Council, faithly and truly declare your Mind and Opinion. According to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will in your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminence's, and Authorities, granted to her Majesty, annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. SO HELP ME GOD. '
 
 THE EUROPEAN UNION
 

The OATH SWORN BY COMMISSIONERS - BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
 
'I solemnly undertake to perform my duties in complete independence in the general interest of the Communities in carrying out my duties neither to seek nor to take instructions from my government or body, to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties. I formally note the undertaking of each member state to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their task. I further undertake to respect both during and after my term of office the obligations arising therefrom and in particular the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits. '
 
Our Constitution was only safe so long as our Representatives were persons of INTEGRITY unfortunately it is clear that any person owning allegiance to Her Majesty could not in all honesty sign the oath to the European Union. We have therefore in our midst many TRAITORS to her Majesty and to the people of these Islands. We hope one day to have these Traitors tried by a SUPREME Constitutional Court when England one day will return to being a FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of a Greater Britain. It is only a few decades ago when the last TRAITOR in England was" hanged by the neck until he was dead ". I t is our opinion that the actions of those who knowingly gave away the

 " Rights and Liberties "

of the English People

should suffer the maximum sentence prescribed by law, in memory of those millions of our people who gave their lives for their country, even in the last few weeks.
 
We will list every person that has had a hand in traitorously betraying this country in a TRAITORS GALLERY and see that these names are known by the people of this country. We ask anyone who is aware of anyone who has taken an Oath to let us know for inclusion in our list.
 
OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO THE FOLLOWING WORDS WERE SPOKEN BY A GREAT SENATOR OF ROME .
 
 " A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the TRAITOR moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the TRAITOR appears no TRAITOR; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A MURDERER IS LESS TO BE FEARED".
 
 CICERO , Marcus Tullius (106-43 B.C. ) Rom. Orator

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 
 

2018-02-26

Knights Templar admitted back to inner sanctum of monotheism after 711-year hiatus

By  Weekly Reports  61 Comments
 

For the first time since Friday, October 13th, 1307, the Knights Templar have been invited back into the inner sanctum of monotheism, according to Templar and P2 Freemason lodge sources.  So, a 711-year-old injustice, one that gave rise to the superstition of Friday the 13th being unlucky, is finally being addressed.  This is just another sign that we are experiencing events that can only be described as biblical.  Remember that in February of 2016, the Roman and Russian churches ended their thousand-year schism.  Will the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian schisms be next to end?  Maybe we will find out soon.

Anyway, now the Templars will be merging with the Knights of Malta, and this will “provide access for the Templars to the Vatican itself,” according to Andrew Heim, of the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, aka the Templars.  Furthermore, the Templars will be given “access to the inner sanctum of the Abrahamic religions, seen with the access afforded to the Vatican and to the Holy Land.  In addition, this inner sanctum will include access to the controversial Prieure de Sion made popular by Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code…” says Heim.
 http://www.chevaliersfideles.com/international-news-2018

This event is just the latest sign of a fundamental change of direction for Western civilization away from war and toward peace and development, according to these sources.  If all goes well, trillions of dollars will soon be made available to both pay off debt of the U.S. government and the private sector, as well as finance a massive campaign to end poverty, stop environmental destruction, and turn the planet earth into the paradise it is meant to be, the sources say.  This is now being talked about in public by Western leaders and reported on in the corporate media.  Remember, you read it here first.
 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/18/us-japan-india-australia-mull-alternative-to-chinas-belt-and-road.html

The earth alliance fighting to free humanity from Babylonian debt slavery is also winning on multiple fronts, with senior satanic cabalists dying, disappearing, or losing power at an accelerating pace.  CIA sources are now confirming, for example, that Jacob Rothschild …
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

 

2018-02-21

Any intel on Jared Rand?

By  Letters to the Editor  9 Comments
 

Ben:

Would you have any intel on Jared Rand?

He says there is a “bad RV” and a “good RV,” and that the bad RV is the cryptocurrency, which is the cabal’s new fiat currency.  They will assure everyone it is gold-backed and “rescue” us from all the others.  (The recent warnings from the BIS against cryptocurrency feel like a cabal deception.)

The good RV is the gold-backed new currency.

Jared Rand is new on the scene and has all the positive off-world helpers’ projections well organized, as well as the spiritual themes put out by the likes of Wilcock and Goode.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
–DS

DS,
All I can say is that we are tired of waiting for things to happen, so we are working on starting a gold-backed cryptocurrency.  And we like to think we are the good guys.
–BF

 
2018-02-21

Bad Guys into Good Guys?

 

By  Letters to the Editor  7 Comments

 

Dear Ben:

I heard in your talk with Robert David Steele that you think we should pay the bad guys off and change things to turn the bad guys (NWO mafia) into good guys.

I guess you don’t realize these bad guys are not Human–they have Human bodies and a Reptilian soul.  I’m sure of this although I can’t prove it, but my work is at http://www.icheckyoursoul.com.

I have a God-given ability to read souls by the use of a pendulum, and almost everyone that has used my services agrees with my findings.

These Bad Guys are polarized evil and their souls come from the Draconian Reptilians, so they almost can’t change!  If we were to pay them off and take them out of power, so to speak, what’s to stop them from continuing funding their evil corporations and keep up chemtrails, GMOs, vaccines, Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030, wars, and many other evil activities.

These Reptilian-soul people will not stop, and they intend to have just them in the ruling class and everyone else be a worker/slave.  We must take these evil people out of our society while we still can.  What say you?

A Long Time Subscriber

My view is that the true criminals will face justice, but the ones who went along because it was a choice of “either go along or die” should be allowed truth and reconciliation.
–BF

 

 

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 Schmidt: The 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 MATTER OF FACT!

On October 11-2017 15 months after the PEOPLE had voted to LEAVE the EU  the Daily Mail in its COMMENT column stated the FOLLOWING:

'YES, the Mail would have preferred a quicker and cleaner BREXIT but how foolish of Eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss about the planned TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD. After 45 years of subjection to EUROPEAN JUDGES, another couple will be a mere blink in HISTORY'S EYE. The great thing is that BREXIT is GOING AHEAD and barring REMOANER'S TREACHERY, SEPARATION WILL BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.'

STATEMENT!

[We and no doubt the majority who voted to LEAVE the EU, knowing the following true facts will no doubt NOT AGREE! with that COMMENT.

 What is FORGOTTEN is the MANNER in which the PEOPLE were DECEIVED by the TORY GOVERNMENT in 1972 and the LEGAL consequences of THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS as clearly indicated in numerous BULLETINS on our EDP website over the past 12 years.

Below we have shown details of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other relevant information which will clearly show that the UK could EXIT THE EU in MONTHS NOT YEARS. Obviously, there has been a COVER-UP of MAJOR PROPORTIONS by the POLITICAL CLASS in GENERAL because how can one explain the SILENCE! even FROM our FREE PRESS the FOURTH ESTATE in the land which we look too to PROTECT OUR  over a thousand year ENGLISH LIBERTIES and COUNTRY.

 Added OCTOBER 11-2017

 

 

IN JULY 2016 AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL BREXIT VOTE WE ARE TOLD BY OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER MRS MAY THAT IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE ARE FREE OF THE CORRUPT-_COLLECTIVIST- UNDEMOCRATIC EU WHICH DEVOURS MILLIONS OF OUR NEEDED POUNDS EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 

OUR MESSAGE TO FRAU MERKEL AND HER ROBBER BAND

IS

'GO TO HELL'

BUT

MRS MAY APPEARS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MESSAGE EVEN THOUGH HER OWN WORDS WERE

"BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.

The following article was put on our website in October,2005 shortly after we received this most revealing information from

CHRISTOPHER STORY

 WHO GAVE HIS LIFE

FOR TRUTH AND PATRIOTISM

 

FROM

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY REVIEW-

SEPTEMBER-2005

*

 

EUROPEAN PAYROLA SYSTEM

 

THE BUDGET FOR THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION WAS $5.0 BILLION

 

An account held by Credit Suisse in Zurich, labelled the ‘SBC’ Charchol Account, held a total of some $470 billion when last reviewed by sources.  These funds were originally derived from Nazi funds and assets, are routinely used to pay top politicians and officials to sign successive European Collective treaties- the latest being the so-called ‘European Constitution’.

The budget set aside from the ‘SBC’Charcol Account and to be distributed from the Credit Suisse disbursement account for the latest ‘update’ of the ‘rolling  European Collective Treaty’ was $5.0billion- $2.5 billion being payable in Euros to the participants from the 25 EU countries.

On the finalisation of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which framed the text of the Treaty, and a further $2.5 billion payable in Euros on ratification.  This tranche is currently the subject of much dissension.

For each national cadre of key negotiator, therefore, the total set aside  was $100 million per tranche.  The chief negotiators of each EU country, plus selected officials were each to be paid from the national pot of $ 100 million, whish equates to roughly $75 million per corrupted European Union country.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was allegedly initially offered $50 million.  being an extremely wealthy man, he departed for the weekend in question in July 2004, following conclusion of the IGC, having indicated to those concerned that he was insulted by such a figure, and that $100million would be nearer the mark.  In the event, following an allowance for his wife, he was allegedly paid $75 million, according to sources.

Tony Blair allegedly received $75 million, which was paid into an offshore bank account held in Belize, the former British Honduras.  There, official eyebrows were naturally raised at the Central bank of Belize, where we notice that all of a sudden, the official reserves of foreign exchange jumped from $49.72 million in February 2005, to $164.53 million in March [2005]

Since the corrupt payment ‘due’ at the completion of the IGC will have been remitted in or about July 2004, this may suggest that the funds have subsequently (in March 2005) been taken into the foreign exchange reserves of the local central bank, so that their actual ownership can be disguised, a ‘new form’ of money-laundering: through a central bank!

 

WE ARE RELIABLY ADVISED THAT THIS CORRUPT PAYOLA SYSTEM IS THE NORM.

 

This means that the European Union’s Treaties

 are null and void,

as they have been obtained by fraud. 

 

That applies to the original EU Accession Treaty signed on behalf of the UK Government by [Nazi] agents Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon, agents of German intelligence, who were both recruited at Balliol College Oxford as discussed in this analysis.

 

It applies also to the Maastricht Treaty, signed by

 

John Major

 

Who allegedly received at least one corrupt payment for his services.  And it applies to the latest fiasco of the EU Collective.

 

THESE CORRUPT PAYOLA PAYMENTS

ARE ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’.

 

The second tranches of  $100 Million per country for the [New European Constitution] new treaty are payable on ratification, but following their referenda, the Netherlands and France cannot ratify.

 

*          *

International Currency Review

 

(Vol 30- No 4)

*

 

 

www.worldreports.org

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments

in brackets]

 

OCT/05

 

 

THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties

there are two key provisions which authorize a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice:

Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the

TREATY

in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation.

AS the next section will show, 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.

2. Where there has been a material change of circumstances.

 

A material change of circumstances has surfaced into daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath. It has been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt payments for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by hid 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

As even more disturbing material change of circumstances has arisen as a consequence of the bombing of the London Underground and a bus , which took place on 7th July 2005, and the attempted explosions perpetuated two weeks later. We understand that the situation is so serious that the Civil Contingencies Secretariat has been in the process of drafting, or has drafted, legislation providing for the British Government to abrogate its putative international treaty [sic] 'obligations' towards the European Union.

ARE YOU STILL THERE MR HAGUE?

This development reflects the knowledge in certain UK intelligence circles that the attacks amounted to an

ACT of WAR

against the United Kingdom, and that the foreign powers behind this activity are ultimately controlled by the DVD from Dachau -( the same area of the World War II notorious concentration camp) which is the successor organization to the Abwehr, Nazi Germany's main external intelligence administration.

It was the Abwehr that first established , as a means of undermining British influence in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, from which ALL subsequent Islamic terror groups, without exception, originate. Al Qaeda, a descendant ultimately of the German-founded

Muslim Brotherhood,

is a controlled cut-out operation of international intelligence.

The Nazi regime and its Stalinist dialectical counterpart, were both Black Illuminati regimes. The Al Qaeda operation is an extension of the Black tradition, and is ultimately controlled, like the IRA (until very recently) by the DVD out of Dachau.

near Munich

For confirmation of the above and further information consult our bulletin board or contact

E-mail: cstory@ worldreports.org

Website:

www.worldreports.org

*

 

[PDF] 

The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States

OCTOBER-2005

 

H.F.937 FREEDOM NOW

 

 

EU

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS ALMOST BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/****  HOW HITLER'S ENABLING ACT OF 1933 WAS PASSED THROUGH YOUR WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT BY 8 VOTES****   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

*

Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

 

*

 

A further article from the ONLY sole INDEPENDENT world-wide respected International Currency Review under the heading:

 

*

 

*

CAN BRITAIN WITHHOLD ITS EC CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

PERTINENT LEGAL ADVICE BY LEOLIN PRICE, QUEEN’S COUNCEL

 

The following Legal Opinion was provided by the distinguished veteran constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, in response to a request to consider the following questions:

1. )  Can ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of UK taxpayers’ money (i.e., of UK Government funds) by the European Commission and/or European Union; and

2. ) Can Britain withhold its contributions to the EC budget on the ground that UK taxpayers’ funds are being misused (embezzled, defrauded, misappropriated, misallocated, misrepresented, etc)? But in reality, these questions are themselves superfluous since, as exposed in this issue [of International Currency Review-Vol 30,4 dated October 10-2005, cstory@worldreports.org

 

  Britain’s EU membership was procured fraudulently, so that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Britain has every right to leave the EU unilaterally and to cease payment.

 

1.    I preface this Opinion by acknowledging that I am not aware of any precedent for the sort of proceedings in court against Ministers of the Crown, whether civil or criminal, which I am asked to consider.

2.                  But there are two relevant principles of English law to be borne firmly in mind: first, that the King (or Queen) can do no wrong [We must make it clear at the outset that this does not include King Tony-whatever he may think]; secondly, that every subject of the Queen is subject to the RULE OF LAW and equal before the law.  There is no special privilege or status for Ministers or other officers of the Crown.

 

They are vulnerable and ought to be answerable in our courts if something which they have done is not properly authorised by law, infringes the rights of individuals and causes damage.

3.There is also learning about when an officer of the Crown can plead, as a defence to a claim by someone who has suffered from some act of that officer, that what was done was an ‘Act of State’.  A British subject cannot sue the Queen (because the ‘Queen can do no wrong’); and if an act, of which a British subject complains of, is in civil law, a tort, the officer cannot assert that the act complained of was an act, which had been authorised by the Crown (in reality the Government).

 

The Act of State is not available to the officer in that situation.  He must, if he can, show that what was done was a lawful exercise of some power lawfully conferred by

Act of Parliament

Or

Otherwise:

 

See, for example, Johnson v Peglar [1921] 2AC 262.

 

4.)             But a somewhat different line of modern authority R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Smedley [1985] AC657 recognises that a person – in ex p Smedley, a British taxpayer and elector – may have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring judicial review proceedings against Government authorities and Ministers.

 

·    Can Ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of taxpayers’ money (i.e. of UK Government funds) by the European union?

5.)             This is the first – and primary – question on which I am asked to advise [Leolin Price, Queen’s Counsel]

6.)             My answer is that our Courts will not recognise that any direct responsibility is imposed by Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the subsequent application, by the Commission of the European Communities Act or the EU, of our taxpayers’ money which is paid over in accordance with the established legal procedures for making our contributions to the European Union.

7.)             But the history and circumstances of fraud, at the centre of the European Union and in ‘Member States’, and the conspicuous failure of the Commission or the European Union to establish any proper (and obviously necessary) accountancy controls over what happens to the money which is provided by ‘Member States’, has produced a situation in which the British elector and taxpayer may reasonably consider that it is a failure of duty for the Government, Chancellor of the Chequer and treasury to go on handing over our money to what he may reasonably consider is an organisation which is incapable of doing and unwilling to do, anything effective about the corrupt and fraudulent diversion of EU funds.  The history of incapacity and unwillingness includes the following:

(1)    The resignation of the whole Commission upon its acknowledgement of collective responsibility for corruption and fraud.

(2)    In spite of that admission of collective responsibility, the continuation in office of all but one of the resigned Commissioners.

(3)    A continuing failure to establish a minimum of accounting controls over the Commission’s expenditure of money at the centre or within ‘Member States’

(4)    Failure by the Commission, in response to acknowledged and massive misuse of EU money, to establish any regime with a minimum of efficiency and designed in accordance with modern accountancy standards to monitor the expenditure of EU money and to minimise its misuse.

(5)    The apparent inability of the Commission to prevent, or reasonably to combat and control, the corrupt and fraudulent misuse of EU money, including contributions from the United Kingdom.

 

8.           Faced with that history, a UK elector and taxpayer could reasonably expect his Government to suspend, wholly or partly, the further contribution of money from the United Kingdom to the European Union in the continuing absence of proper EU accountancy and controls to combat and contain fraud and corruption and other misuse of EU money; and could reasonably expect English Courts to support his claim for such suspension.

9.           In the circumstances, and before the next instalment of the UK contribution to the EU is to be paid, a UK taxpayer could apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the making of the payment on the ground that no responsible Minister of Department of OUR Government could regard it as appropriate to pay over money without any reasonable expectation or even hope that the recipient EU institutions have made any reasonable arrangements to avoid its being, with other EU money, misused.  Experience, especially experience since the collective resignation of the Commission [in 1999], indicates that the money so contributed will be at serious risk of not being used for the purposes for which our Treaty obligations and our law require it to be contributed [sic].

10.  Will such judicial review proceed -ings be successful? The practical and realistic answer is that the [English] Courts will be reluctant to permit the review; but there is a presentable argument, and although there is no previous reported case which provides a precise precedent, it represents a logical development of what has been recognised in reported cases; and the continuing scandal about misuse of EU money provides ground for seriously contending that judicial review ought to be, and is, available to stop exposing UK money to the obvious risk of EU failure to avoid misuse.

11.      The withholding of Treaty-required contributions, which are at serious risk of not being properly used for Treaty purposes, is not-or arguably, is not- a breach of Treaty obligations. [Editor; However as is shown in this issue – of International Currency Review Vol 30,4 the treaty obligations themselves are not applicable,

since the

British Accession Treaty, and collective treaties, were signed for corrupt reward by agents of a Foreign Power.]

12.  The argument will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Crown servant, is a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it is a breach of the duties involved in that guardianship to pay over money which, in the hands of the recipient Commission and the EU, will be at such serious risk of misuse.  The First defence will be that the payment is required by our Treaty obligations and by Acts of Parliament; but the answer to that is that the Treaty obligations and Parliament provide authority for payment to support Treaty purposes and NOT to expose the money to established and substantial risk of misuse.

13.   An alternative form of proceedings might be criminal proceedings against the Chancellor for misuse of public money under his control.  The argument for this is that the payment is a serious breach of public duty:  it condones and encourages and facilitates the misuse, and the misuse is foreseeable.  Those instructing me may consider it worthwhile attempting such a criminal case; and it may be that the launching of such a criminal case will achieve judicial discussion of the public duty and its breach.  It is, nevertheless, my opinion that such criminal proceedings will not be successful.

14.      , The better choice of proceedings is judicial review.

 

19th October 2004.

Leolin Price CBE QC,

10 Old Square,

Lincoln’s Inn,

London.

 

 

[Font altered-bolding & underling used-comments in brackets]

 

*         *          *

NOV/05

 

For more details of Corruption and Skulduggery and Treachery in the EU and in the United Kingdom before and since the Second World War.

 

www.worldreports.org.

E-mail cstory@worldreports.org

 

And on the EDP bulletin board

 

Bulletins 308 & 309 which are consistently among our top essays with viewers since their launch on October 10-2005 in line with the release of the details in the publication by the respected and Only INDEPENDENT International Currency Review journal which has been in existence since 1969 during which time it has acquired a World-Wide reputation for uncovering Conspiracies which have blossomed

with their dangerous fruit for well over 60 years, which has infected many of our supposed politicians in the arts of Treachery-Corruption and Deceit - still to this day.

 

Many will say we have heard this all before but what they fail to realise is that the media –particularly the Press are owned in the main by individuals who have acquired great power of influence world-wide and are able to direct events their way.

 

So when there are attempts to demolish a conspiracy theory you can bet that the major players in the press and media are no doubt involved.  What you have to ask yourself is which side of the argument is most likely to be believed taking into account what has happened in Europe and America over the past 60 years.

 

We are involved in a catastrophic war in Iraq which we now all know was illegal and that our King Tony was only too pleased to follow his buddy George Bush and exclaim that they had now given Democracy to Iraq when in reality a civil war is now in progress which will lead to the fragmentation of Iraq into three separate nation States which will go against the grain with our federalist King Tony so keen on a United States of Europe who now appears to have trouble with his own rebels –which we are delighted to witness in a country once the home of the Mother of Parliaments until New Labour had other ideas.

 

*           *          *

NOV/05

H.F.937

 

 DAILY MAIL

 

 

 

 

I DESPAIR OF BRITISH MUSLIMs

 

WHO CHOOSE TO LIVE UNDER

 

VIRTUAL APATHEID

 

 

 

 

 

by Dr Taj Hargey

 

is director of the MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL CENTRE of OXFORD and IMAM of the OXFORD ISLAMIC CONGREGATION

 

+

 

DECEMBER 6-2016

 
 EXTRACT

AT LONG LAST, a senior government official has the gumption to warn about the devastating effect of MASS IMMIGRATION on LOCAL COMMUNITIES, highlighting the SEGREGATION, DIVISION and TENSION it causes in SOCIETY.

Such is the scale of the problem that in a report into our increasingly fractured communities, Dame Louise Casey, the Social Cohesion tsar, has called for all migrants to

SWEAR AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO BRITAIN

Currently, immigrants do not have to make any formal commitment to integrating with the

REST OF SOCIETY

Unless they are actually applying for

UK CITIZENSHIP

Even then it is a facade.

To live here, no newcomer need make any promises at all to be productive stakeholders in BRITISH SOCIETY

Dame Louise's suggestion of an

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

is a step in the right direction.

 BUT IT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH.

Every single person who comes

HERE

to live should be obliged to sign up, in writing to the

BRITISH WAY OF LIFE.

Think of the UNITED KINGDOM as a prestigious golf club, the kind where membership is keenly sought after.

Anyone who wants to join will be expected  to

OBEY THE RULES

-all of them, not just the one's that confer

BENEFITS.

Applicants who refuse to sign to this will be turned away at the door, and members who f

FAIL TO HONOUR THE PLEDGE

will be swiftly

EXPELLED.

 No one forces the new members to apply to join in the first place - it's entirely their free choice. But there    should be no option other than abide by the rules, and no pussyfooting around with anyone who transgresses them. Otherwise, the club will fall apart and a

GREAT INSTITUTION WILL BE DESTROYED

...Supremacist

*

...Segregated

*

 

... Irrational

 

Above all, we must accept it is not racist to face up to the nightmare of the failure of

MULTICULTURALISM

To claim that some immigrants, because of their origins should be exempt from the common duties of

INTEGRATION

-THAT'S RACIST.

It is idiotic to champion the view that all cultures are equal when some endorse misogyny,  homophobia, honour killing and so forth

To say that some people because of their  religion or the colour of the skin, can ignore BRITISH VALUES of -RESPECT-PATRIOTISM DEMOCRACY-TOLERANCE and EQUALITY-THAT'S RACIST and IRRATIONAL.

 

We need to be FORTHRIGHT and ROBUST about THIS. If IMMIGRANTS are NOT prepared to FULLY INTEGRATE into BRITISH SOCIETY, arguing that it means sacrificing their religious identity, they can head to places such as

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Sudan.

In other words, if newcomers and other immigrants are NOT HAPPY in the UNITED KINGDOM and DO NOT WISH TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART of this VIBRANT DEMOCRACY,

THEY SHOULD LEAVE.

 

*  *  *

[A BRILLIANT CONSTRUCTIVE AND COURAGEOUS AND NECESSARILY BLUNT ANALYSIS GETTING TO THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM BUT HAD THIS ARTICLE BEEN IN PLACE DECADES AGO IT WOULD HAVE FORCED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY TO PUT IT IN PLACE. UNFORTUNATELY ,TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE AND THERE IS LITTLE ENTHUSIASM BY GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT SUCH  A DARING BOLD AND MOST NECESSARY  NATION STATE SAVING AGENDA.   WE HOPE WE ARE PROVED WRONG ,BUT ,UNLESS WE ACHIEVE A PARLIAMENT OF PATRIOTIC -HONEST-MEMBERS  IN THE SHORTLY COMING GENERAL ELECTION THERE WILL BE NO EFFECTIVE CHANGE POSSIBLE AND THE SETTLED PEOPLE OF ENGLAND WILL PAY THE ULTIMATE HEAVY PRICE! OF A TOO DREADFUL TO CONTEMPLATE

 FAILURE.]

 

*

 

 

Full article

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS!]

DECEMBER 6-2016

H.F.1048 BREXIT NOW
 
July 19, 2016

5 facts about the Muslim population in Europe

By 509 comments

Recent killings in Paris as well as the arrival of hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees in Europe have drawn renewed attention to the continent’s Muslim population. In many European countries, including France, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, concerns about growing Muslim communities have led to calls for restrictions on immigration. But just how large is Europe’s Muslim population, and how fast is it growing?

Muslim population in EuropeUsing the Pew Research Center’s most recent population estimates, here are five facts about the size and makeup of the Muslim population in Europe:

1Germany and France have the largest Muslim populations among European Union member countries. As of 2010, there were 4.8 million Muslims in Germany (5.8% of the country’s population) and 4.7 million Muslims in France (7.5%). In Europe overall, however, Russia’s population of 14 million Muslims (10%) is the largest on the continent.

2The Muslim share of Europe’s total population has been increasing steadily. In recent decades, the Muslim share of the population throughout Europe grew about 1 percentage point a decade, from 4% in 1990 to 6% in 2010. This pattern is expected to continue through 2030, when Muslims are projected to make up 8% of Europe’s population.

3Muslims are younger than other Europeans. In 2010, the median age of Muslims throughout Europe was 32, eight years younger than the median for all Europeans (40). By contrast, the median age of religiously unaffiliated people in Europe, including atheists, agnostics and those with no religion in particular, was 37. The median age of European Christians was 42.

4Views of Muslims vary widely across European countries. A Pew Research Center survey conducted this spring in 10 nations found that in eastern and southern Europe, negative views prevailed. However, the majority of respondents in the UK, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands gave Muslims a favorable rating. Views about Muslims are tied to ideology. While 47% of Germans on the political right give Muslims an unfavorable rating, just 17% on the left do so. The gap between left and right is also roughly 30 percentage points in Italy and Greece. 

5As of 2010, the European Union was home to about 13 million Muslim immigrants. The foreign-born Muslim population in Germany is primarily made up of Turkish immigrants, but also includes many born in Kosovo, Iraq, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Morocco. The roughly 3 million foreign-born Muslims in France are largely from France’s former colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 15, 2015. 

Category: 5 Facts

Topics: Europe, Muslims and Islam

  1. Photo of Conrad Hackett
    is a demographer focusing on religion at Pew Research Center.

509 Comments

 

H.F.1027 BREXIT NOW

 
 

 DAILY MAIL

-7 in 10 migrants crossing Med are not refugees- UN

 

 

Ian Drury

-Home Affairs Editor

UNHCR says 84830 migrants and refugees reached Italy this year from Libya, a
19-percent ... UN admits 7 out of ten migrants crossing the Mediterranean from
Libya are NOT ... The UN has said that seven in 10 people crossing the .....
female athletes - while LeBron James takes the top honor for the men.

 

Full article

*

[It has been suspected for some time that the greater number of migrants have been economic migrants. Brussels has known this but ignores the reality which is systematic of the EU with its origin planned in NAZI GERMANY during World War Two.]

*

 

July 5,2017

 

H.F.1245 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

 
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.

 

 

 

HOME

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM? THAT IS YOUR CHOICE

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail-June 27,2008]

DEMOCRACY and freedom. It is a fine sounding phrase-rarely off the lips of President Bush as he blunders around the Middle East.

Why do we readily accept that democracy and freedom are natural partners? There is scant historical evidence for it. Often it is a case of

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM: even DEMOCRACY versus FREEDOM.

Consider two examples.  the United States is the only country to have banned alcohol by public demand. Contrast this with Hong Kong. Until shortly before being handed back by

BRITAIN to BEIJING

 it had

NO DEMOCRACY

at all: It was ruled by a colonial governor. Yet enjoyed enviable freedom with one of the least intrusive governments -and flourished wonderfully.

Our own experience also has much to tell us.

BEING A DEMOCRACY HAS NOT PROMOTED PERSONAL LIBERTY.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

More than

3000

 NEW OFFENCES

have been created since 1997, and officialdom revels in nearly

300 POWERS OF ENTRY.

Much of this is due to the

EUROPEAN UNION

whose

DIRECTIVES

are rarely scrutinised, let alone debated , by our supposedly democratic representatives.

WHAT we may SAY, WRITE or DO, or whom WE EMPLOY has been increasingly limited. The Government has passed legislation which can make assisting your son's football team

AN OFFENCE.

Another side of our

'democracy'

demonstrates painfully how the public will is constantly flouted. Take the brazen example of voters being

PROMISED REFERENDUM

on

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

resulting from the

LISBON TREATY

The unscrupulous machinery of government has been deployed to

FRUSTRATE THE PUBLIC WILL.

I am not making a party point.

FOR OVER 40 YEARS, GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN RESISTING AN OVERWHELMING PUBLIC DEMAND FOR CURBS ON

IMMIGRATION.

especially from the

NEW COMMONWEALTH.

 While successive governments have made a show of meeting public demand, they have, quite consciously

REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT

throwing occasional tit-bits to the voters in the hope

THAT THIS WILL KEEP THEM QUIET.

Consider, also, the strong public demand for

CRIMINALS TO BE PROPERLY PUNISHED.

Successive governments, including Mrs Thatcher's have come under the sway of the

'PRISON REFORM'

people -with the result that

CRIMINALS RECEIVE VERY MODEST SENTENCES.

What is more, if they serve a sentence at all, it is in the softest conditions.

IF LYING ON YOUR BED AND WATCHING TV FOR A FEW MONTHS IS THE WORST THAT THE LAW WILL INFLICT

(and that's if you are even caught)

then

CRIME IS WORTH THE RISK

AND

PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS IGNORED.

The explanation is quite logical. Politicians are typically driven by

TWO THINGS.

THE FIRST is the PURSUIT OF POWER

the most exciting thing in the world, or even some say, the first.  If this urge is not there when they start their political careers

THEN IT SOON TAKES OVER.

THEIR SECOND MOTIVATION -to give our politicians their due - is the DESIRE FOR REFORM, IMPROVE the condition of the PEOPLE.

But the catch here is that most politicians

 THINK THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE FAR BETTER THAN THEMSELVES.

THEY FORM AN ELITE

WHICH LISTENS TO

OTHER ELITES

Or perhaps, since the word elite sounds flattering, we should say

THEY FORM A CASTE.

 

Politicians do not wake each morning wondering whether they are meeting the public will.  They turn to the media to learn what is said about them in newspapers and on the radio by other members of the

NATIONAL ELITE

- the selectorate, the clattering classes, the scribblers, the intellectually fashionable, call them what you will.

 

For elites to be out of touch is not unusual, even inevitable. The desire to be 'in' with the 'right' people is common with politicians; their weakness is for approval (and fame).

Of course, there is one moment when public opinion cannot be ignored -and that is at an

ELECTION

As Rousseau observed, voters are truly free

ONLY

 ON

ELECTION DAY.

But , by then, all the issues are jumbled up, and the voter finds himself choosing between

TWO COMPLEX and CONFUSING MENUS.

And while it is clearly advantageous for a party to offer the public

WHAT IT WANTS, the fact that both main parties say MUCH THE SAME THING..

-and make similar insincere

PROMISES

makes a mockery of any claim to be driven by

PUBLIC WILL.

 

BUT  the ALTERNATIVE to our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM politicians say in horror, would be GOVERNMENT by REFERENDUMS. With 'horror' because it would take power from THEM and give it to THE PEOPLE.

BUT WHY NOT?

The Swiss have made a suburb success of it. Referendums are required on national and local issues if enough voters petition for them and they often do. As a result, the Federal Government, like  the local CANTON administrations, proceeds with CAUTION in case its plans are overturned by a PUBLIC VOTE. . .

To acknowledge that our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, which has developed over the centuries, NO LONGER WORKS -MAY BE PAINFUL. But if you put that to a REFERENDUM,

MOST VOTERS WOULD HEARTILY AGREE.

 

*

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

 

Ten EU truths we must tell the public
 

 *

HOME

[brought forward from June-2008

AUGUST-2008

*

[ 'IN JANUARY 2018 we can look back over 10 years and see that the situation with regard to many matters mentioned above has got progressively WORSE! Whether it is IMMIGRATION-POLICING-LAWS...The only GOOD NEWS is that we are only just over a year away from leaving the monstrous soon to be containment camp know as the EU SUPER-STATE a plan of ADOLF-HITLER in 1940 for GERMANY to dominate Europe in the PEACE .]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

[brought forward from June-2008

 
 

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.
 
 

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

     

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../

     

    The-Paris-attacks-drawn-renewed-attention-Europe-s-

    growing-Muslim-population.html

    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

Brexit and Jewish Oligarchy

By Gilad Atzmon on June 26, 2016

Goldman Sachs, George Soros are not part of the Brussels Government

 
 

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday Britain voted to leave the EU. The causes of this result have been known for a while. More than half of the Brits are dismayed by the level of immigration, multiculturalism, lack of job opportunities, global capitalism, evaporation of manufacturing and a housing bubble that leaves most young Brits without the prospect of a decent future.

The Brexit was an outlet for these legitimate frustrations. Yet the problematic symptoms listed above have little to do with the EU or Brussels. Their root cause lies elsewhere.

Immigration and multiculturalism (that is; the ideology designed to suppress expression of chauvinism) are integral to cultural Marxist ideology. Britain, like the rest of the West, has been subject to an invasive and brutal paradigm designed to vitiate the working class.

Flooding Britain with immigration was a conscious political act pushed by the Jewish left and the Jewish lobby. This is explainable. Jews have good reason to be fearful of the working classes. Historically, it has been the working classes that turned against the Jews. Breaking society into fragmented and diverse segments is transparently a Jewish left interest. When a society is broken into a manifold of tribes and identities, the Jews become merely one tribe amongst many.

I am an immigrant myself and not an anti immigration campaigner. However, at a certain stage in the early 2000s my eight piece Orient House Ensemble consisted of seven immigrants and one native Brit. We were Israelis, a Palestinian, a Romanian and a Moldovan. At the time our ensemble won every British musical award. We were a favourite of the BBC and the Guardian’s album of the year. We were heroes of multiculturalism and the symbol of a new ‘tolerant’ British society. The British Council sent us around the globe to promote those ideals. This didn’t last long. I quickly grasped the underlying agenda. As those who know me may expect, I didn’t keep my mouth shut.

Yesterday the Brits voted against immigration. But leaving the EU may not be the answer for their plight. Looking into the elements and ideologies that planted pro-immigration policies and multiculturalism may be the ultimate way forward.

brexit

 

The demography of the referendum suggests that it is primarily the British working people who want to leave the EU. In the last four decades they have watched manufacturing dying out. They saw an economic bubble that left many of them impoverished and off the property ladder. But it wasn’t really the EU that caused all of it and leaving the EU may not improve things. Milton Friedman, who taught ‘free market’ philosophy to Margaret Thatcher, never lived in Brussels. Friedman believed in the service economy. He also believed that capitalism wasn’t just a great idea, it was also

very good for the Jews.  Goldman Sachs, George Soros and others who fecklessly destroy one country after another are also not part of the Brussels Government. The British vote was actually a vote against Goldman Sachs, Soros, Friedman and cultural Marxism, but most of them do not know it yet.

Yesterday the Brits proved, once again, that they are a brave people. They made a decision that they understood could inflict some serious difficulties on their society. Knowing that, they marched into the Brexit with pride and I admire their courage.  The Brits voted against immigration, banksters, the global economy, the City and the two parties that have facilitated this disaster for decades.  However, the Brits failed to attack the root cause of the problem.  Leaving the EU is not going to emancipate them. For Jewish oligarchy, the Brexit is a red alert. ‘Hands off’ would be the most clever strategy. Can they follow this humble advice? I doubt it.

Most British Jews have little to do with it. Liam Fox and Michael Gove who were amongst the leaders of the call to leave, are notorious for being dedicated servants of the Jewish lobbies. The Jewish press was pretty quiet on the Brexit.

And

crucially, if British Jews had identified that the call to leave the EU was somehow related to Jewish power, Jewish Banking or Jewish Left pro immigration we would have seen the rapid formation of a

“Jews for Brexit campaign.”

This is what Jews do when they detect dissent to their political power, they immediately form the bodies that control the opposition.

 

#Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

 

Related Posts:

*

[HIGHLIGHTING-CAPS ETC- ARE OURS]

JULY 23-2016

 

H.F.932 FREEDOM NOW
 
[A REMINDER FROM 2010 TO THOSE REMAINERS WHO PUT PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE THAT OF LOYALTY TO CONSTITUTION AND COUNTRY]

*

 

WHAT FREDERICK FORSYTH STATED:

 

ONCE WE ARE FREE OF THE EU THE WORLD IS OUR OYSTER

 

 

It HAD to come sooner or later and now it has happened. A major national newspaper, the Daily Express, has called for Britain to end its full membership of the European Union.

  Let us get two points clear.

 

1.   this does not mean severing our 1,000-year trading relationship with that continent.   trade is what we live by, always have.  Trade is what we were told 38 years ago was what would be freed and enhanced by joining the [EEC] European Economic Area.    Trade without tariffs, duties, taxes, protectionism and bureaucracy.

 

And we said YES.

 

We were lied to. 

HEATH

 lied to us.  They still do.  The EU of today and tomorrow

 

is not about trade

 

It is about the end of a nation state, replaced by a vast central governed empire.

For years this has been denied

 

Now it is very clearly out in the open.  But the huge majority of our people are deeply wedded to Old Blighty and refuse to abolish her by tricks and threat to become a devolved regional territory.

 

2.  Inside the European Economic Area like mega-rich Norway, we could trade and trade again with the EU and keep

our country, our laws, our justice system and our sovereignty.

 

And there are vast opportunities out there if only we had the nerve to face outwards not inwards.  Fifty-two nations of the Commonwealth want to increase trade, so does the Anglo-sphere: Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.  New giants are emerging: Brazil, India, China that make the EU look pathetic.

 

We must turn back to the open oceans whence our properity came. 

That world is growing, the Brussels world is shrinking slowly dying

 

But the [intended] EEA would suit us fine.

 

David Cameron complains about us "banging on about Europe"

You're wrong David.

 

We're banging on about Britain.

So should you.

 

Too many millions of us are sick and tired of endless capitulation.  We do not feel we are a free people any more

 

So listen to us. We want to be free of the thralldom of Brussels.

 

-DAILY EXPRESS-NOV26-2010

 

 

[Since the 'This England ' PETITION of 900,000 signatues increased to a million, to the Queen in 2004 by those indomitable PATRIOTS:   RON and NIGEL MCWHIRTER and JOHN GOURIET who died at their posts fighting to the end for OUR FREEDOM-OUR CONSTITUTION -OUR COUNTRY. We were priviledged to be in their company at the rear of Buckingham Palace when the PETITION was delivered.]

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

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

NOVEMBER 26,2010

 H.F.1438/1
 

 BROUGHT-FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER-2005

Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

 

SO WHY DIDN'T WE?

*

 

A further article from the ONLY sole INDEPENDENT world-wide respected International Currency Review under the heading:

 

*

 

*

CAN BRITAIN WITHHOLD ITS EC CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

PERTINENT LEGAL ADVICE BY LEOLIN PRICE, QUEEN’S COUNSEL

 

The following Legal Opinion was provided by the distinguished veteran constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, in response to a request to consider the following questions:

1. )  Can ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of UK taxpayers’ money (i.e., of UK Government funds) by the European Commission and/or European Union; and

2. ) Can Britain withhold its contributions to the EC budget on the ground that UK taxpayers’ funds are being misused (embezzled, defrauded, misappropriated, misallocated, misrepresented, etc)? But in reality, these questions are themselves superfluous since, as exposed in this issue [of International Currency Review-Vol 30,4 dated October 10-2005, cstory@worldreports.org

 

  Britain’s EU membership was procured fraudulently, so that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Britain has every right to leave the EU unilaterally and to cease payment.

 

1.    I preface this Opinion by acknowledging that I am not aware of any precedent for the sort of proceedings in court against Ministers of the Crown, whether civil or criminal, which I am asked to consider.

2.                  But there are two relevant principles of English law to be borne firmly in mind: first, that the King (or Queen) can do no wrong [We must make it clear at the outset that this does not include King Tony-whatever he may think]; secondly, that every subject of the Queen is subject to the RULE OF LAW and equal before the law.  There is no special privilege or status for Ministers or other officers of the Crown.

 

They are vulnerable and ought to be answerable in our courts if something which they have done is not properly authorised by law, infringes the rights of individuals and causes damage.

3.There is also learning about when an officer of the Crown can plead, as a defence to a claim by someone who has suffered from some act of that officer, that what was done was an ‘Act of State’.  A British subject cannot sue the Queen (because the ‘Queen can do no wrong’); and if an act, of which a British subject complains of, is in civil law, a tort, the officer cannot assert that the act complained of was an act, which had been authorised by the Crown (in reality the Government).

 

The Act of State is not available to the officer in that situation.  He must, if he can, show that what was done was a lawful exercise of some power lawfully conferred by

Act of Parliament

Or

Otherwise:

 

See, for example, Johnson v Peglar [1921] 2AC 262.

 

4.)             But a somewhat different line of modern authority R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Smedley [1985] AC657 recognises that a person – in ex p Smedley, a British taxpayer and elector – may have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring judicial review proceedings against Government authorities and Ministers.

 

·    Can Ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of taxpayers’ money (i.e. of UK Government funds) by the European union?

5.)             This is the first – and primary – question on which I am asked to advise [Leolin Price, Queen’s Counsel]

6.)             My answer is that our Courts will not recognise that any direct responsibility is imposed by Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the subsequent application, by the Commission of the European Communities Act or the EU, of our taxpayers’ money which is paid over in accordance with the established legal procedures for making our contributions to the European Union.

7.)             But the history and circumstances of fraud, at the centre of the European Union and in ‘Member States’, and the conspicuous failure of the Commission or the European Union to establish any proper (and obviously necessary) accountancy controls over what happens to the money which is provided by ‘Member States’, has produced a situation in which the British elector and taxpayer may reasonably consider that it is a failure of duty for the Government, Chancellor of the Chequer and treasury to go on handing over our money to what he may reasonably consider is an organisation which is incapable of doing and unwilling to do, anything effective about the corrupt and fraudulent diversion of EU funds.  The history of incapacity and unwillingness includes the following:

(1)    The resignation of the whole Commission upon its acknowledgement of collective responsibility for corruption and fraud.

(2)    In spite of that admission of collective responsibility, the continuation in office of all but one of the resigned Commissioners.

(3)    A continuing failure to establish a minimum of accounting controls over the Commission’s expenditure of money at the centre or within ‘Member States’

(4)    Failure by the Commission, in response to acknowledged and massive misuse of EU money, to establish any regime with a minimum of efficiency and designed in accordance with modern accountancy standards to monitor the expenditure of EU money and to minimise its misuse.

(5)    The apparent inability of the Commission to prevent, or reasonably to combat and control, the corrupt and fraudulent misuse of EU money, including contributions from the United Kingdom.

 

8.           Faced with that history, a UK elector and taxpayer could reasonably expect his Government to suspend, wholly or partly, the further contribution of money from the United Kingdom to the European Union in the continuing absence of proper EU accountancy and controls to combat and contain fraud and corruption and other misuse of EU money; and could reasonably expect English Courts to support his claim for such suspension.

9.           In the circumstances, and before the next instalment of the UK contribution to the EU is to be paid, a UK taxpayer could apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the making of the payment on the ground that no responsible Minister of Department of OUR Government could regard it as appropriate to pay over money without any reasonable expectation or even hope that the recipient EU institutions have made any reasonable arrangements to avoid its being, with other EU money, misused.  Experience, especially experience since the collective resignation of the Commission [in 1999], indicates that the money so contributed will be at serious risk of not being used for the purposes for which our Treaty obligations and our law require it to be contributed [sic].

10.  Will such judicial review proceed -ings be successful? The practical and realistic answer is that the [English] Courts will be reluctant to permit the review; but there is a presentable argument, and although there is no previous reported case which provides a precise precedent, it represents a logical development of what has been recognised in reported cases; and the continuing scandal about misuse of EU money provides ground for seriously contending that judicial review ought to be, and is, available to stop exposing UK money to the obvious risk of EU failure to avoid misuse.

11.      The withholding of Treaty-required contributions, which are at serious risk of not being properly used for Treaty purposes, is not-or arguably, is not- a breach of Treaty obligations. [Editor; However as is shown in this issue – of International Currency Review Vol 30,4 the treaty obligations themselves are not applicable,

since the

British Accession Treaty, and collective treaties, were signed for corrupt reward by agents of a Foreign Power.]

12.  The argument will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Crown servant, is a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it is a breach of the duties involved in that guardianship to pay over money which, in the hands of the recipient Commission and the EU, will be at such serious risk of misuse.  The First defence will be that the payment is required by our Treaty obligations and by Acts of Parliament; but the answer to that is that the Treaty obligations and Parliament provide authority for payment to support Treaty purposes and NOT to expose the money to established and substantial risk of misuse.

13.   An alternative form of proceedings might be criminal proceedings against the Chancellor for misuse of public money under his control.  The argument for this is that the payment is a serious breach of public duty:  it condones and encourages and facilitates the misuse, and the misuse is foreseeable.  Those instructing me may consider it worthwhile attempting such a criminal case; and it may be that the launching of such a criminal case will achieve judicial discussion of the public duty and its breach.  It is, nevertheless, my opinion that such criminal proceedings will not be successful.

14.      , The better choice of proceedings is judicial review.

 

19th October 2004.

Leolin Price CBE QC,

10 Old Square,

Lincoln’s Inn,

London.

  [Font altered-bolding & underling used-comments in brackets]

 

*         *          *

NOV/05

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

 

 

  [BROUGHT FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER 2005.]

 

H.F.1295-FREEDOM IS OUR RIGHT!
 
 

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

     

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../

     

    The-Paris-attacks-drawn-renewed-attention-Europe-s-

    growing-Muslim-population.html

    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
HOW+THEY+WASTE+

YOUR+MONEY+

by+Margaret+Hodge

EXTRACTED from Called to Account: How Corporate Bad Behaviour And Government Waste Combine To Cost Us Millions by Margaret Hodge, published by Little Brown tomorrow at £18.99.

To order a cpy for £15.19 (P&Pfree, offer valid to September 23), vist mailbookshop.co.uk or call

0844 571 0640.

Margaret Hodge will be speaking at the Henley Literary Festival on OCTOBER 1,#

http://henleyliteraryfestival.co.uk

[WE FULLY SUPPORT MARGARET HODGE IN HER EXEMPLARY WORK OVER MANY YEARS ON BEHALF OFF THE TAX PAYERS OF BRITAIN]

Wednesday, September 14,2016

H.F.973 BREXIT NOW
[URGENT NOTICE!]

Energy giants 'bully their customers into getting smart meters': Firms accused of flouting trading laws by telling families devices are a legal requirement

[AND SAVING IS EXPECTED TO BE ONLY  £11 A YEAR
  • Households have been bombarded with texts, emails, letters and phone calls 
  • Citizens Advice reports a stream of complaints from harassed customers 
  • Letter from one supplier said: ‘We have legal requirement to change your meter’

[BUT THEY DON'T]

By Victoria Bischoff Money Mail Deputy Editor For The Daily Mail

January 29,2018

Energy giants were last night accused of flouting trading laws by pressuring homeowners into getting smart meters.

Families are being told the digital devices are a legal requirement when they are not. Trading standards chiefs have told power firms that misleading customers in this way is a breach of consumer laws.

Households have been bombarded with texts, emails, letters and phone calls telling them they need a smart meter.
 

Families are being told the digital devices are a legal requirement when they are not

Citizens Advice reports a stream of complaints from harassed customers. One said: ‘These are obviously bullying tactics. You’d think you have no choice.’

A letter sent out by one supplier said: ‘We have a legal requirement to change your meter.’ In other cases engineers are dispatched even when the householder has repeatedly declined.

The £11billion cost for the roll-out is being passed on to customers through bills – at a cost of around £300 for every UK household. Yet those who have them installed are expected to save only £11 a year.

They're not telling families the truth 

Alfred Kaelin says he was bullied for months to get a smart meter. 

The 79-year-old retired chemist said he received three or four letters – two of them just days apart – prompting him to have one installed.

One letter to him was titled: ‘Reminder: we need to change your meter.’

It then read: ‘Your electricity meter is an old model that we need to replace with our free self-reading smart meter.’ 

Another said: ‘Reminder: your meter is being phased out.’

None of the letters explained that customers did not have to agree. 

Mr Kaelin, who lives with his wife Patricia in Pinner, north-west London, said: ‘I’m just ignoring the letters as I don’t want a smart meter.

‘But these are obviously bullying tactics. They are not letting customers have the true facts by failing to make it clear you don’t have to have one. 

If you didn’t know they were optional you’d think you have no choice.’

Michael Coote, from Norfolk, said he received a similar letter last year, even though his meter was only four months old. 

‘The letter was frightening and bullying,’ said the 74-year-old retired electrical engineer.

 

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has written to Energy UK, which represents big suppliers, to raise concerns about the way firms are marketing the meters.

It warns they may be breaking regulations drawn up in 2008 to protect consumers from unfair trading if they create the false impression that customers have no choice but to switch.

‘Firms are getting more and more aggressive in the way they are marketing smart meters to customers,’ said the institute’s Steve Playle. ‘This letter is a shot across the bows. We will take further action if complaints continue to come in.’
 

Alfred Kaelin who lives with his wife Patricia in Pinner, north-west London, says he was bullied for months to get a smart meter

Baroness Altmann, former pensions minister, said it was unacceptable for energy firms to mislead people and inflict ‘unnecessary hassle’. She added: ‘There should be proper penalties in place for firms which behave aggressively and break the rules.’

Victoria MacGregor, director of energy at Citizens Advice, said: ‘Smart meters are not compulsory and customers shouldn’t feel pressured to have one installed.

‘We appreciate suppliers are under pressure to install more meters but they have a responsibility to act reasonably toward their customers and not to use misleading or aggressive sales practices.’

Smart meters are controversial because their internet connectivity may make them vulnerable to being hacked by criminals or even foreign powers. There have also been reports that they interfere with other household devices such as baby monitors, while some studies suggest they make little difference to energy efficiency.

Why gadgets' critics aren't convinced 
  • Privacy campaigners warn smart meters give firms access to a ‘honeypot’ of data that tells them when customers are at home and where and how they use power.
  • Experts fear suppliers could use this information to introduce surge pricing at peak times, hiking bills for families and making it harder to shop around.
  • Others fear the meter data could be used by hackers, burglars and even marketing companies.
  • Nearly a third of householders may not be able get a smart meter because they live in a rural area with poor mobile phone signal or have the wrong type of property.
  • There are also claims that the meters are a fire hazard when they have been poorly fitted by engineers.

Power firms said the devices would help customers cut bills by showing them how much they were using – in terms of pounds and pence. They were supposed to reduce the average household’s gas and electricity costs by £26 a year.

But the Government has revised that down to just £11 because the cost of the nationwide installation of the devices has accelerated past £11billion. Eight million have been installed in homes and firms – under pressure from the Government. One in five homes has one fitted.

Mark Todd of the comparison site Energyhelpline said the Government had bungled the roll-out by doing it too quickly.

A spokesman for the energy watchdog Ofgem said: ‘It is not compulsory to have a smart meter installed – consumers have a right to decline them and suppliers must not mislead consumers.

‘Ofgem is working with suppliers offering smart meter installations to make sure their communications are transparent and accurate. They are allowed to use pre-booked appointments to install a meter, however customers can cancel or re-arrange these appointments.’ A spokesman for Energy UK said the body was in contact with trading standards chiefs.

He added: ‘Energy companies will be adopting various methods of communication with their customers to increase engagement and enable as many people as possible to experience the benefits smart meters bring.’

Robert Cheesewright, of Smart Energy GB, the independent group set up to oversee the smart meter programme, said: ‘The roll-out will benefit everyone by bringing down energy bills, upgrading our national grid and delivering savings of £6billion to the British economy by 2030.’ 

 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5323315/Energy-giants-bully-customers-getting-smart-meters.html#ixzz55aVSLId9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

JANUARY 29,2018

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!

 

H.F.1459
 
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

 

 

HEALTH SLOT!

 

Men with prostate cancer have access to fewer specialist nurses than patients with other cancers…despite it being a bigger killer than breast cancer
  • There are 166 new prostate cancer cases a year for every urological nurse
  • That is twice as many as the 86 new cases per breast cancer nurse every year
  • The PM has backed the Daily Mail's campaign to end needless prostate deaths

By Ben Spencer Medical Correspondent For The Daily Mail

February 5, 2018

e-mail

comments

Men with prostate cancer have access to fewer specialist nurses than patients with other major cancers, statistics show.

For every urological nurse in the NHS there are 166 new prostate cancer cases a year – twice as many as the 86 cases for every breast cancer nurse, according to charity Macmillan Cancer Support.

Theresa May last night backed the Daily Mail’s campaign to end needless prostate deaths through earlier diagnosis and higher research spending. Last week, figures revealed prostate cancer has become a bigger killer than breast cancer for the first time.

More than 11,800 men are killed by the disease a year, while 11,400 women die of breast cancer – yet over the last 15 years prostate cancer research has received less than half as much funding.
 

Men with prostate cancer have access to fewer specialist nurses than patients with other major cancers, statistics show

 

RELATED ARTICLES

 

 

Men STILL dying of embarrassment: Fears over 'masculinity'...

 

 

 

AMANDA PLATELL: We women should be angry about this cancer...

 

PM’s spokesman said: ‘We absolutely welcome the Daily Mail’s campaign – it is a hugely important issue. The more we can raise awareness of this issue, and the need for men to get checked out if they have any concerns at all, the better.’

There are 307 NHS urological nurses in England, compared with 560 breast cancer nurses, Macmillan’s census of specialist cancer nurses found. The 2014 figures show only 72 urological nurses work solely on prostate cancer.

Others also deal with kidney, bladder and testicular cancer. Prostate cancer nurses have the most patients of 11 major cancer types, with 166 new cases per specialist, compared with 127 for lung cancer, 110 for sarcoma, 96 for bowel cancer and 86 for breast cancer. Heather Blake, of Prostate Cancer UK, said: ‘Prostate cancer is on track to become the most common cancer overall by 2030 with over 330,000 men currently living with the disease in the UK. We know that men with prostate cancer have better outcomes if they are assigned a specialist nurse.

I hadn't even realised I was at risk
 

Thomas Kagezi (left) and Errol McKellar are survivors of prostate cancer

Fitness fanatic Thomas Kagezi had put his excessive need to use the toilet down to the fact that he drank a lot of water for his training.

But prostate cancer survivor Errol McKellar gave him a leaflet at a train station, and urged him to go for an examination. So the father-of-two decided to get tested.

The civil engineer, 57, said: ‘I had never thought about myself being a risk, but the fact was I was a black man in my fifties and at a high risk of getting the cancer. Plus I saw the urinating was actually a symptom.

‘I didn’t want to at first, but I thought I had better get tested.’

He was diagnosed in October 2016 and, after five weeks of radiotherapy, he was given the all-clear.

Mr McKellar, 60, gave a discount to customers at his garage in Hackney, East London, if they got tested – helping 48 men get diagnosed. He said men were too embarrassed, adding: ‘It’s mad and it needs to change.’ 

‘And the situation is set to get worse. With large numbers of the current workforce fast approaching retirement and far fewer nurses choosing urology as a specialism, the workforce simply isn’t being replenished at a time when we need it most.’

She said in some areas only half of men have access to a specialist nurse, who often act as the main point of contact for patients.

Karen Roberts, of Macmillan Cancer Support, said: ‘Prostate cancer patients often need really specific support dealing with the physical and emotional impact of the disease. While levels of need vary between cancer types, it is clear this is an area of specialist cancer care that is in desperate need of attention.’

Wendy Preston, of the Royal College of Nursing, said: ‘What is most worrying is that nurses generally only become specialists in fields like cancer once they’ve had many years of experience – but with one in three nurses set to retire in the next ten years, these shortages of specialists seem likely to get worse, not better.’ Cancer minister Steve Brine said the Government planned for every patient to have access to a cancer nurse specialist or support worker by 2021.
 
 

Men are more likely to get cancer than women because their immune system declines faster, research suggests. A study led by Dundee University, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said men’s 14 per cent higher chance of cancer could be explained by poorer quality T-cells, which hunt down the disease. 

 

READ MORE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5355953/Men-prostate-cancer-access-fewer-nurses.html#ixzz58JLFkzAr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

FEBRUARY 5,2018

 

 

 

H.F.1474
 
 

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2018

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018