- (1994 -Official Website -NOV-PT4-2018 )--

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018          NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

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

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018        NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2018

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY

*
 

Don't Give In To The E U

 

WHY A UK COMPROMISE WITH BRUSSELS WILL CONFINE THEIR CAPTIVE NATION STATES EVEN TIGHTER TO ENSURE THERE CAN BE NO MORE DEFECTORS. WHILE A FIRM RESPONSE FOR A JUST SETTLEMENT FROM THE UK WILL GIVE HEART AND ASSISTANCE TO THOSE FREEDOM LOVING PATRIOTS PRISONERS OF HITLER'S PLANNED EU TO BAND TOGETHER TO FIGHT FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES.

WE SAY NO! TO COMPROMISE.

It is forgotten that an individual country which makes a decision affecting itself or others has the opportunity to remedy the situation. Whereas, in the EU this is not possible, unless ALL or the permitted number agree to the change and knowing the belligerence of Hitler's brainchild this could have serious and dangerous consequences.

Remember, the responsibility of the UK to assist those captive people's who wish to be

FREE

because it was the blood of British troops in the past that assisted the birth of many of the

FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES in EUROPE.

BY STANDING FIRM FOR AN ORDERLY AND JUST EXIT FROM HITLER'S EU WE WILL RECOVER THAT RESPECT THAT OUR BROTHER NATIONS WHO SAW BRITAIN IN 1973 NEGLECT THEIR KIN AROUND THE WORLD FOR AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE WITH A COUNTRY

GERMANY

WHICH IN

TWO WORLD WARS

WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS  AND INJURIES OF MILLIONS AND VAST DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY...FOR WHICH THE LIKE THE WORLD WOULD NOT HAVE  PREVIOUSLY SEEN.

A FREE INDEPENDENT EUROPEAN UNION OF FREE PEOPLE'S WITHIN THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT NATION STATES.

YES!

THE PRESENT UNDEMOCRATIC-UNREPRESENTATIVE-BULLYING EU.

NO!

The fault of our present situation is because of TREASON within the Tory Government of

Edward Heath

 A Nazi spy since 1938 reported to MI5 in 1938 by the Master of Balliol College, Oxford.

 Who in the 70's  and with previous administrations secretly conspired to lead the British people blindfolded into the Nazi-planned EU . It is therefore incumbent on the present Tory Government of Mrs May to bring the situation back to what it was before January 1973. The evidence of Tory wrong-doing has been on our website since 2005.

*

Compromise.

Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another,-too often ending in the loss of both,

- Tryon Edwards

*

From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. The country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose. And repose can only be found in everlasting principles.-

Charles Sumner

*

A surrender to the Nazi-planned EU would not bring repose to the millions of patriots who wanted their country back. An unjust settlement instead of a Churchillian response will see the battle continue until victory is secured.

Victory

You ask, What is our aim?  I can answer in one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all the terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

- Winston Churchill.

FOR THE MILLIONS WHO HAVE DIED IN THE PAST FOR THEIR FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND THEIR CAN BE NO SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED UNDEMOCRATIC CAPTIVE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

*  *  *

THE END OF THE ENGLISH

INTRODUCTION

HOW IT ALL BEGAN 

 HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER

THE RESULTANT LUNACIES

HOW WE ARE CONTROLLED

 WHERE FREEDOM IS VANISHING

*

[THE MAJORITY OF YOU DID

NOTHING!]

 

 

 

 

The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States

OCTOBER-2005

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

2010

THIS COULD BE THE TIME FOR THOSE    MP'S in the SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVE PARTY  OR OTHERS TO FORM THEIR OWN PATRIOTIC PARTY OF THE CENTRE. TO ATTRACT ALL VOTERS WHO LOVE  THEIR COUNTRY AND UNIQUE -PRIZED CONSTITUTION. WHO WANT IT BACK AS IT STOOD BEFORE JANUARY,1973.

Rees-Mogg-Borris Johnson... TO LEAD THE WAY!

THE EDP WOULD OFFER ITS NAME AND WITHDRAW FROM THE POLITICAL SCENE TO SUCH PATRIOTIC INDIVIDUALS AND AT THE LEAST WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A PARTY.

IN PARLIAMENT WE FIND THERE ARE LOBBY GROUPS SUCH AS FRIENDS OF WHO EVER BUT THERE ARE NO FRIENDS OF ENGLAND .IT IS ABOUT TIME THERE IS A PATRIOTIC BLOCK TO STAND UP FOR ENGLAND AND ITS PAST AND FUTURE. WE HAVE BEEN WAITING TOO LONG FOR A RETURN OF OUR ENGLISH PARLIAMENT - IS LONG OVERDUE.

LETS DO IT!

*  *  *

NOVEMBER 14, 2018

H.F.1627

*

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

 

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

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

IMMIGRATION-BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE- EU FILE  IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS-_FOREIGN AID

 

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

 

LITTLEJOHN

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN imagines if Dad's Army did Brexit

Imagines if DaD's Army did  Brexit

 

News for daily mail richard littlejohn

 

 

OCTOBER 5,2018

AS DAD'S ARMY celebrates it's 50 anniversary, plans have been announced to remake three missing episodes of this sublime comedy classic

They were first broadcast in 1969 during the shows second series, but were assumed to have been either wiped or taped over.

Now  the estates of writers Jimmy Perry and David Croft have given their blessing to the original scripts being filmed for transmission next year

And The producers are hoping to attract some star names to play the members of the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard, including Sir David Jason as Captain Mainwaring and Hugh Laurie as Sergeant Wilson

The good news is that the shows are being made by the digital channel UK Gold, which has promised to stick faithfully to the scripts.

If the BBC, or indeed ITV, had been charged with remaking Dad's Army they wouldn't have been able to  resist updating everything to suit modern metropolitan sensibilities, as the original version would be considered too' male, pale and stale'.

The remake would have to feature a predominantly female, multiracial cast, with Keely Haws playing Mainwaring and Thandle Newton as Wilson.

Instead of unexploded bombs, or German submarines, the plot would inevitably centre on  a missing child, who would turn out to have been murdered by M15 on the orders of an evil, warmongering Conservative Prime Minister

*

Brexit?

We're all doomed.

Don't panic.

Even if the stuck to the original format, and all the actors were still with us, there would inevitably be an anti-Brexit subtext. It would probably go something like this...

MAINWARING:  Fall the platoon in, Wilson

WILSON:    Yes sir, right away. You chaps, would you mind awfully arranging yourself into a neat lineES

MAINWARING: Just get on with it, Wilson. There  is a war on, you know

WILSON:  So I believe , sir.

MAINWARING:  Now, pay attention men. I've received a letter from headquarters. They're sending a film unit to Walmington-on-sea to record our preparations  for the coming emergency.

WILSON:  The German invasion sir? is it imminent?

JONES:  The Jerries are coming , don't panic! Don't panic!    

MAINWARING:  Calm down, Corporal. No, no, no, Nothing like that. Far more serious, actually. Apparently, we're in grave danger of crashing out of Europe without a deal.

WILSON:  I thought we'd already done that, sir, at Dunkirk

PIKE: I saw that film at the Rialto, with Tom Hardy in the Spitfire and Harry Styles from One Direction playing a soldier. Some people say I look a bit like Harry Styles, Don't you think so, Uncle Arther?

WILSON:  Not now, Frank .I've absolutely no idea who you're talking about.

MAINWARING:   Stupid boy.

GODFREY:  If I'm honest I preferred the earlier version with dear Dickie Attenborough and Johnnie Mills

MAINWARING:  Will you all stop prattling on about the cinema, this is serious. According to the Home Service, the Prime Minister flew to Salzburg to try  to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the EU but was sent away with a flea in her ear.

JONES: You ca't trust those Jerries, Mr Mainwaring. Neville Chamberlain found that out the hard way. Cold steel that's all they understand. They don't like it up 'em.

MAINWARING:       That's as may be, Jones, but it's now our job to be prepared. Down here in Walmington, we are in the front line. I've had the Chief Constable on the telephone.   He's expecting widespread civil disobedience along the coast if we do crash out without a deal.

JONES:    I know what he's talking about, Mr Mainwaring. You should have seen the reaction in my shop when I ran out of Brawn during the last lot. I thought there was going to be a riot.

MAINWARING:   Precisely . And it won't be just be brawn this time, you mark my words.

There'll be a shortage of everything from medicines to flour.

GODFREY:  Does that mean my sister Dolly won't be  able to bake her upside-down cakes?

       MAINWARING:   I'm afraid so, Godfrey.

GODFREY:  If she'd known that , she'd never voted Leave.

MAINWARING:    Upside-down cakes are the least of our problems. They've already shipped in a consignment  of portable toilets for the lorry drivers who will be stranded on the by-pass because of the customs blockade.                       

WALKER:  Now , that's where I might  be able to help out, Mr Mainwaring. Petrol coupons? no problem.  And I've got a friend who knowns a man who has a warehouse in Eastbourne and can lay his hands on just about everything from nylons to hooky Viagre tablets.

WILSON:   Mrs Pike will be relieved.

WALKER:  Mind you, it don't come cheap.

MAINWARING: How much are we talking about?

WALKER:  Call it £39 billion for cash.

WILSON:   Couldn't we just give the Europeans everything they want? Or better still, just call the whole thing off and stay in the EU? This Brexit business is becoming such an awful bore.

MAINWARING:   That's enough of your defeatist talk, Wilson. We're got enough problems with Fifth Columnists as it is.

WILSON:    Fifth Columnists?

MAINWARING:      Saboteurs, enemies of the people, public school types. You'd know all about them, wouldn't you Wilson?

WILSON;   Who can you mean, sir?

MAINWARING:  Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson, that Old Etonion troublemaker who fancies himself as the new Churchill. You propably shared a dorm with his father.

WILSON:     Actually, come to mention it.

MAINWARING:   Anyway, Wilson, you must read the latest bulletin from the Treasury. If we crash out with no deal, the Bank will run out of money.

FRAZER:  What's that you say, nae money?

PIKE:   I heard a story on the wireless today claiming that because of the Tory cuts, after Brexit the dead will not be buried and millions of bodies will be piled in the streets and there will be zombies and werewolves everywhere, like that film staring Bela Lugosi.  Or was Lon Chaney Junior.

FRAZER: Nae burials, you say. Nae funerals. We're all doomed!

JONES:   Don't panic!

*

Full article at News for daily mail richard littlejohn

* * *

But as we have stated so often in the past- as our great war leader has stated:

"Keep Buggering On"

[As usual we found Richard Littlejohn's article most instructive and entertaining as will the viewer. It will keep us  all laughing, which as they say is good medicine. ]

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

 

OCTOBER 5,2018

H.F.1721

 

 

QUENTIN LETTS on Labour's Barry Sheerman Brexit bashing | Daily ...

 

Just when you thought Remainers couldn't get more patronising, up pops this snooty ninny! QUENTIN LETTS on Labour backbencher Barry Sheerman

At the age of 77, Huddersfield’s Labour MP Barry Sheerman may not plan to stand again for re-election to the House of Commons.

We must certainly assume so given that the old booby just let slip he thinks his constituents in West Yorkshire are ill-educated. As election-winning strategies go, it is at least novel. Vote for me, thickos!

Mr Sheerman, a blowy Europhile, made his outburst during a television discussion at the weekend. Maybe the heat of the studio got to him, or over-excitement at being asked to take part in a live discussion on BBC TV’s Sunday Politics (backbencher Barry is rarely considered important enough for such invitations these days).

Talk turned to our EU referendum and Mr Sheerman closed his eyes, tilted his head and said: ‘The truth is that when you look at who voted to remain, most of them were the better educated people in our country.’ 

Disdain

If that was not la-di-dah enough for an MP whose own constituency is in an area (Kirklees) that voted by 54 per cent to leave the EU, Mr Sheerman also took a swipe at people who were educated at polytechnics.

He was cross that Conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris has written to universities trying to find out what is being taught about Brexit.

‘This man who went to Wolverhampton Polytechnic,’ shuddered Mr Sheerman. ‘Who does he think he is? Trying to frighten my university in Huddersfield!’ The thrust of this was clear: poly-educated oiks such as Heaton-Harris have no place offering their opinion to us Varsity types.

That’s the Brexit vote and the Polytechnic vote slagged off in seconds. Good work, Barry. At this rate Theresa May will give you a knighthood for services to the Tory party.

Let us begin by trying to understand Mr Sheerman’s ‘snobbery’ — as one fellow guest in the studio put it. There is certainly data to show university graduates voted two to one in June 2016 to stay in the European Union.

Cambridge and Oxford, our best-known university strongholds, were hot for Remain. The British political, legal, media and academic elites were, and still are, markedly anti-Brexit. They clutch their necks with condescending disdain at those lower orders who voted for British independence.

It may seem unfair to pick on so slight a political figure as Barry Sheerman, a spongy middler who in the Blair years won the ‘Golden Pager Award’ for asking the most obsequious questions in Parliameny 

Mr Sheerman, it could be said, was merely stating facts when he hailed the intellectualism of the Remain camp. But it brings us up against the old truism that the longer someone has studied at university, the less clued up he or she may be. I say that as someone who attended three universities and who has often felt a hamfisted nincompoop alongside non-university friends.

Some of the quickest wits I know never went near a college campus, and many of our biggest idiots are those with fancy letters after their names.

It may seem unfair to pick on so slight a political figure as Barry Sheerman, a spongy middler who in the Blair years won the ‘Golden Pager Award’ for asking the most obsequious questions in Parliament.

In the past he has called for Buckingham Palace to be torn down (because it is one of Britain’s ugliest buildings), demanded that Britain join the Euro, and described a £7,000 pay rise for MPs as ‘pathetic’.

It probably tells you all you need to know about this sorry little man, but he’s again placed his head above the parapet, so here goes with the polemical mallet. His attitude stinks of entitlement, of patronising disdain, of a self-righteous sense of superiority over ‘the little people’. For a Labour MP — a Labour MP! — to express such views is dreadful; yet hardly surprising.

Mr Sheerman is typical of the illiberal Centre-Left which has done so much damage to this country in recent decades.

Labour sloganeering about ‘the many not the few’ is tommy-rot. They are vicious snobs and regard ‘the many’ as a herd of dumb cattle. There sits Mr Sheerman in the House of Commons, supposedly representing his constituents, yet plainly regards the majority of them as educationally inferior.

He studied at the London School of Economics, long a seed-bed of the worst sort of anti-popular, neo-elitist, pocket-filling Leftism. He has both a BSc and MSc in economics to his name. Bow down, ye voters of Huddersfield, to your twice mortar-boarded Member of Parliament.

Hail to your intellectual master, the chin-stroker, the brow-clutcher, that Erasmus de nos jours, Barry ‘the Brainbox’ Sheerman! You won’t be surprised to hear he opposes grammar schools (even though he went to one).

We don’t want the working-classes getting ideas above their stations, do we, Barry? This ninny, this snoot, this velvet-lined codpiece, Sheerman is typical of a Parliament which, with its allies in the Establishment, has gone on dirty protest about Brexit.

They kick, stamp, pout and blow bubbles about last year’s stonking, revolutionary referendum result. The Leave vote was a close but clear rejection not just of the European Union but also of the stooges and suck-ups who for years anti-democratically pushed Brussels down our throats.

Crucial

The Sheermans of this world argue that MPs are chosen by constituents to act and vote on various matters as they personally see fit. That an MP is entitled to take his or her view on, say, capital punishment, even though it may clash with majority opinion in the constituency. This, Burkean view of democracy — as argued by philosopher Edmund Burke — raises parliamentarians to the level of autonomous trustees, sent to the Commons to do as they see fit for the nation. Except, except, except . . . it is more complicated than that.

The EU referendum was not a parliamentary vote. The crucial thing was that it was beyond and above the House of Commons, and it was established as such by Parliament.

It trumped the Burkean ideal. If there was an element of trusteeship, it was that the Parliamentary class would obey the referendum’s verdict.

From Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer and Tory Dominic Grieve, to dimmer bulbs such as Mr Sheerman, Westminster’s Remainers put themselves above the majority — and pooh-pooh them as morons who ‘didn’t vote to become poorer’ or ‘didn’t vote to leave the Single Market’.

In his TV appearance, Mr Sheerman derided Conservatives for agreeing to respect the EU referendum result.

 

Theresa May will give Sheerman a knighthood for services to the Tory party if he keeps on offending voters at his current rate

Exquisite

The Tories were now ‘no longer the nasty party’ but ‘the stupid party’, he tweeted later.

Yes, how stupid of politicians to respect the will of the majority of voters in the biggest plebiscite held in our country.

The arrogance of these Remain extremists is sometimes matched only by the over-ripeness of their claims.

I recently heard Mr Sheerman claim, in the Commons, that he had met ‘not one person’ in the manufacturing or business sectors of Huddersfield or Leeds who wanted to leave the EU. He was either lying or picks acquaintances in pro-Brexit Yorkshire with exquisite hygiene.

Let us close by returning to the polling data from pro-EU areas. What exactly do those statistics from university towns tell us? Do they prove the intellectual superiority of the Remain case? Even if they did, the democratic will would surely have to prevail — unless you want riots on the street.

But might the statistics not just tell us our college populations like the world the way it is? University types, who tend to do better financially than non-degree holders, may not have wished their elitist privileges to be imperilled by change. Voting patterns may just be down to all-too human greed and protectionism.

Only a very stupid politician — such as Barry Sheerman — would fail to admit the possibility of that.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5033921/QUENTIN-LETTS-Labour-s-Barry-Sheerman-Brexit-bashing.html#ixzz4xSPznd8g
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

OCTOBER 31-2017

H.F.1365-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT- NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'SPLANNED EUDOMINATION OF EUROPE

 

News for DAILY MAIL

 

I'm not surprised

 

the absurd C of E says boys can wear tiaras to school. All common sense has been lost in the gender debate

 

 by A.N.Wilson

NOVEMBER 14,2017

The rolling tide of transgender

propaganda continues to gather force. Recently, the retail chain Topshop made clear its changing cubicles are now gender neutral, even though thousands of women feel more secure undressing in an all-female space.

How many people — really how many — feel deeply wounded by the fact there are female changing rooms which are separate from male changing rooms? Could they not, politely and kindly, be told to 'get over it'?

Meanwhile, it was reported on Sunday that drag queens are being brought into taxpayer-funded nursery schools in London to teach children about sexual and gender diversity.

Confusion

Nursery bosses believe it will be good for these very young children to meet people who 'defy rigid gender restrictions'. I would humbly suggest they should be learning to add up and spell words correctly, but there you are.

One could argue that those nurseries are only following the lead of the Scottish government, which recently issued guidance that would permit primary school pupils to change gender without their parents' permission.

Those of us who have a love-hate relationship with the Church of England, admiring its fundamental principles of Christian worship, but increasingly despairing at its innate absurdity and collective intellectual cowardice, knew it would not be long before it yielded to the current fad.

Sure enough, it has now ruled that in its 4,700 C of E schools new guidelines must be followed on cross-dressing and 'transgender' questions.

School uniform is seen to create potential difficulties for 'trans pupils' and should, if necessary, be abolished. Boys as young as five should be encouraged, if they wish, to come to school wearing tiaras, tutus and high heels.

There is so much emotional and mental confusion going on here, one really does not know where to begin unravelling it — but let it be said loud and clear that this ludicrous attempt to be kind has already led to unnecessary suffering.

Joshua Sutcliffe, a teacher aged 27, saluted a pair of pupils as 'girls'. One of them was 'identifying' as a boy, and the 'hurt' caused has led not merely to the teacher being reprimanded; he is in real danger of losing his job.

When I think of the severe way even the kindest teachers used to address us in the Fifties and Sixties, I do wonder what kind of schoolchildren we are breeding. Naturally, I rejoice in the new spirit of kindliness and tolerance which is abroad in the land, but this question of transgender has moved us all into a surreal inversion of common sense.

'Pupils need to be able to play with the many cloaks of identity and to explore the possibility of who they might be,' says the achingly solemn instruction from the Church.

'For example, a child might choose the tutu, the princess's tiara and heels and/or the fireman's helmet, tool belt and superhero cloak without expectation or comment.'

If you were planning a children's party in your own home, it might seem reasonable to suggest the guests could come in any costumes they chose. If girls wanted to turn up dressed as Harry Potter, or boys as nuns, only a puritan would wish to stop them.

Quite why they should be allowed to do so at school is, surely, a different matter — and why any little child, of whatever gender, should be encouraged to wear high-heeled shoes is a mystery probably only the Archbishop of Canterbury and his politically correct consultants could answer.

The C of E has now ruled that in its 4,700 C of E schools new guidelines must be followed on cross-dressing and 'transgender' questions (pictured, Justin Welby)

Apart from anything else, they are extremely bad for your feet, as any bishop would know if he or she had worn them.

Although the new C of E guidelines come in the guise of a campaign against bullying, they specifically single out 'homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying'. And it is really yet another bit of propaganda from the more strident members of the transgender lobby, who can behave with such intransigence and intolerance towards anyone who dares question their ideas.

To be kind to anyone, of whatever age, who is confused about their identity is surely a moral duty for all of us — parents, children and schools.

I have no doubt there are people who feel, when they have become adults, that they were born into the wrong body: they deserve our understanding and should be helped with appropriate treatment. But for a pressure group to lobby for children to question the gender into which they were born seems not merely unhelpful but positively wicked.

The Tavistock Clinic in London, which has a unit that specialises in children and gender transitioning, reports a roughly 20-fold increase in the numbers it sees since 2009.

At the unit, children are sometimes not only given therapy but helped to take steps towards physical sex-change through the use of hormone blockers.

Indulge

It is one thing for a mature person to reach the conclusion that they were really, all along, meant to be a different gender. It is quite another to indulge such confusing ideas in the mind of a child who has not yet finished the bewildering, transformative business of growing up.

No decent school tolerates bullying of any kind, whether it is name-calling, cyber-bullying or physical abuse.

Clearly, to persecute a child because he or she is confused about their gender is as cruel as teasing them for being a 'ginger', or on grounds of race, or whatever it may be.

I do not believe any school in the country does not keep a sharp lookout for this abuse, nor do I think there is any trained teacher who does not know it is their duty to protect children from bullying.

 

It was reported on Sunday that drag queens are being brought into taxpayer-funded nursery schools in London to teach children about sexual and gender diversity

Equally, many children go through phases when they do not particularly like identifying as their own sex. Think of Georgina, the 'tomboy', as they called them in those days, in Enid Blyton's The Famous Five, who cut her hair short, dressed like a boy and insisted on being called George.

Many a tomboy has groaned at having to wear a tunic or a skirt for their school uniform, and no doubt there are some boys who would like to wear girls' clothes, though we are surely at liberty to wonder how many. But there is the world of difference between a tomboy and a girl who is actively encouraged to think of herself as a male.

Derision

That's why I believe it is contemptible for the Church to kowtow to pressure from the transgender movement.

It is also completely illogical. Already, one of the Archbishop of Canterbury's advisers, Lorna Ashworth, a conservative evangelical, has resigned over the Church's desire to be so inclusive that it forgets its own teaching.

The C of E still officially teaches, as do all mainstream churches in the world, that God created the sexes to be distinct. It still condemns sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage as sinful, and forbids the homosexual marriage of its clergy.

Yet, while clinging to this severe and perhaps outmoded way of looking at sexual questions in its theological teachings, in its schools — where impressionable young people are most directly affected — it thinks it a good idea to proselytise about transgender rights.

It would be simply laughable were it not so troubling. This is a Church with an appalling record of covering up child abuse and sexual molestation by bishops and clergy.

Its teaching on sex and marriage is so muddled as to be beneath derision. And now it caves in to the transgender lobby in a move which, while trying to help the tiny number of children who want to 'identify' as a different gender, will surely serve only to confuse the great majority.

 

Full article


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5079597/The-absurd-Church-England-says-boys-wear-tiaras.html#ixzz4yUwVMn24
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

 

HOW IT SHOULD BE!

'Christianity everywhere gives dignity to labor, sanctity to marriage, and brotherhood to man-were it may not convince, it enlightens; where it does not convert it restrains; where it does not renew, it refines; where it does not sanctify, it subdues and elevates.-It is profitable alike for this world, and for the world that is to come.-Lord Lawrence

*

How A MAN FROM THE CITY OF LONDON COULD BE EXPECTED TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUE PRECEPTS OF CHRISTIANITY TO BE AN ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY WAS A MISNOMER.

 

NOVEMBER 14-2017

 

H.F.1379

*  *  *

[A MIND OF HIS OWN]

 

 

 

 

News for DAILY MAIL-Schoolboy 'given detention for backing Ukip'

 

A  15-YEAR OLD BOY was given detention after voicing his support for Ukip during a classroom debate, his father has claimed.

 

During a phone-in on radio station LBC yesterday a caller named Paul told host Nick Ferrari his son had been punished after declaring he would vote for the Right-wing party-but shouldn't be called racist.

 

 

 The caller said:'One boy said he'd vote for Ukip and the teacher said

all Ukip voters are racist", so my boy came in and said. 'I'd vote for Ukip and I'm not a racist."

 

He was given a detention, [with] the three boys that had said it, and when he came home and told me I didn't believe him.

 

 

It came after it was reported Alissa Cook-Gray,17, quit her college course after her tutor warned her she was 'Right-wing for supporting former EDL leader Tommy Robinson.

 

She claimed a teacher told her 'Get out, we don't want people of your views' during a political debate in Crewe.

 

 A Ukip spokesman said 'There is an increasing number of reports across the country of this behaviour

 by teachers against pupils who say they support Ukip.

 

 

*

 

 

[Since 1973 the young have been brainwashed by the BBC  the Brussels Broadcasting Contractor  but with Brexit now with us there is now at last steadfast resistance beginning to appear among the young -a sign of freeminds are beginning to appear. Any level-headed teacher would have welcomed an inquisitive mind  -not punish it. This tyranny is worthy of the name of the communist STASI not of the FREE WORLD.  But after over 45 years in the EU we should not be surprised that many teachers were themselves brainwashed in their early years in order to indoctrinate future generations.]

 

 

 

 

*

 

Individuality is everywhere to be spared and respected as the root of everything good.-

 

 Richter

 

*

'Don't despair of a student if he has one clear idea.'

Emmons

*

'Even a STUDENT will turn.'

Anon

*

Freedom 

 http://FreedomKeys.com


Keys
a collection of amusing, 
fascinating, insightful, or 
maybe even useful information

   

Professor R. J. Rummel, who keeps track of such things, now estimates that in the 20th century

262,000,000

people were murdered by their own governments.  And all these horrors were perpetrated by collectivist governments for the alleged sake of "the proletariat," the "master race," and especially, "the greater good."

None were done by countries based

on

individualism

 

See:  http://tinyurl.com/RJRummel

{COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS.]

 

OCTOBER 6,2018

 

H.F 1723

*  *  *

 

WHY WE SHOULD WALK AWAY FROM

EUROPE

News for DAILY MAIL-STEPHEN GLOVER: Why we should walk away from Europe.

SEPTEMBER 28,2017.

 

The more I see of the EU's rude (and unelected) bullies, the more I yearn for us to call their bluff and walk away.

NOT long ago I resigned from a club I had joined a quarter of a century  earlier. The Secretary thanked me politely for having been a member and wished me all the best in the future,

There were no threats or insults and certainly no demand to go on paying a share of the costs of the club-rent, rates and the pension obligations of staff-after I had gone.

Leaving the European Union is a different matter. Not only are we expected to continue paying our portion of the future pension liabilities (which may be as much as a ransom payment of untold billions, we are also being constantly lectured to and harried and abused by Brussels panjandrums.

I've no doubt millions of my fellow countrymen share my amazement at the tone of these admonishments which resembles that of a strident ill-tempered teach dressing down an incorrigibly disobedient pupil.

The extraordinary thing is that while our accusers are unremittingly rude and overbearing towards us, our own negotiators led by Brexit secretary David Davis are unfailingly well-mannered and accommodating.

 The most risible of the EU bovver boys is Jean-Claude Juncker  , President of the European Commission. Last March, he boasted that no other country would want to leave the EU having seen how harshly Britain had been punished.

From the more sinuous and intelligent Michael Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator, we have had multiple threats. Earlier this month, he said he wanted to use Brexit to 'teach the British people and others

WHAT LEAVING THE EU MEANS.

Only last week, in a characteristically terse and charmless intervention, he insisted that Britain produce its Brexit proposals 'as soon as this week'. I marvel that Mr Davis can keep his cool under such provocation.

Then there is the irascible Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament's man in the talks, who endlessly chides the Government. He declared its plan was 'not serious, fair or even possible given the negotiating time remaining'. British politicians needed 'to be more honest about the complexities Brexit creates'.

Another member of the gang is Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council. In an unusually constructive statement on Tuesday, he said he was 'cautiously optimistic' about the progress of talks. But he then spoilt it all by insisting there was 'not sufficient progress yet' to begin discussions over a trade deal.

By that he means the EU sets the agenda and timetable for talks, not us. Brussels high-handedly refuses to discuss post-Brexit trade arrangements until the Government has agreed to a ransom payment, and offered acceptable safeguards about the legal status of EU citizens in Britain and the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Let me observe in passing that, with the exception of Mr Verhofstadt, none of these gentlemen has been elected to their powerful jobs. And yet they treat our own elected representatives — from Theresa May downwards — with less grace than is due an incompetent parish councillor.

Isn't it a strange sort of negotiation when one side continually threatens or abuses the other while maintaining that it, and it alone, has the right to decide how talks between the two parties should proceed? Needless to say, I find it is highly offensive that a respectable, law-abiding and hardly negligible sovereign state should be intimidated in this way by a bunch of mostly unelected Eurocrats.

But even more than feeling anger, I am grieved by this aggression. Despite deciding to leave the EU — and what a peremptory and arrogant organisation it is in the hands of Barnier and his intemperate colleagues — we are part of Europe, and wish to remain friends with all its countries.

History seems to count for nothing in the minds of these bullies. Have they forgotten how, more than seven decades ago, Britain impoverished itself, and sacrificed hundreds of thousands, in helping to restore freedom to the European continent?

And throughout the Cold War, British troops in Germany played a leading role in defending Western Europe against the threat of a Soviet invasion.

There may be no such thing as abiding gratitude in the affairs of nations. Yet the absence of even a few tattered remnants of respect or affection in these supercilious bureaucrats is shocking.

I can understand that they may have been hurt and bewildered by our decision to leave, and they should feel that their plan for a united Europe has been imperilled.

But there is no justification — after the horrific history of the last century, when this country bled itself for the freedom of Europe in two world wars — for the constant rebukes, and the imprecations of punishment.

A punishment, moreover, which if delivered would damage EU countries at least as much as us, since they enjoy a considerable trade surplus with Britain, which post-Brexit will be the European Union's biggest trading partner.

The truth is that until this moment the Government has played the game entirely on the EU's terms — accepting their agenda instead of our own, and absorbing their brickbats without complaint or hint of retaliation.

But if the European Union continues to be stubbornly unreasonable after Mrs May's conciliatory speech in Florence last Friday, the Government should consider breaking off negotiations and, as the leading Eurosceptic Iain Duncan Smith puts it, 'call the EU's bluff on trade'.

In their infuriatingly schoolmasterly way, EU leaders will consider at their summit in just over three weeks whether 'sufficient progress' has been made on talks for them to allow all-important trade negotiations to go ahead.

If their answer is 'No', the Government should walk away for the time being in order to let the repercussions of the EU's domineering approach sink in. It may begin to dawn on them that they have at least as much, if not more, to lose.

According to an entirely plausible report by researchers at Belgium's University of Leuven which was published earlier this week, in the event of there being no agreement, and Britain reverting to World Trade Organisation tariffs, the EU would lose more than twice as many jobs as this country.

They reckon the return of tariffs to goods and services would cost just over half a million British jobs, and more than 1.2 million jobs in the remaining 27 EU states.


  I hope there will be a deal, but not at the expense of this country being humiliated at every turn, and forced to stump up an extortionate amount of money in return for access to the single market.

The more that I see of the EU and its institutions, the gladder I am that we are leaving this dysfunctional club. I'm sure the rudeness and bullying of overmighty EU bureaucrats will have confirmed most Leavers in their views, and converted not a few Remainers.

In a mammoth speech on Tuesday extolling the virtues of a united Europe — despite most Europeans not wanting such an eventuality — President Macron of France suggested that Britain might want to re-join a reinvigorated EU.

It's kind of him to think of us but, on the basis of the appalling record of Brussels satraps over the past few months, it is an offer we will just have to refuse.

Full article.



Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927738/STEPHEN-GLOVER-walk-away-Europe.html#ixzz4u4Y6RfYR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

SEPTEMBER 28,2017

 

H.F.1328 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO DEMANDS OF THE HITLERITE EU

 

*  *  *

 

ABOLISH

THE

TOOTHLESS WATCHDOGS

 

 

If the Tories want to DEFEND THE MARKETS they MUST REFORM the USELESS REGULATORS that let AIRLINES and UTILITY GIANTS

TREAT US LIKE DIRT.

 

City Editor

Abolish the toothless watchdogs: If the Tories want to defend free markets they must reform the useless regulators that let airlines and utility giants treat us like dirt, writes ALEX BRUMMER

Who is the greatest villain in the utter shambles that is the collapse of Monarch?

The answer should be straightforward: the carrier that mired 860,000 passengers in chaos and misery.

In fact, the real culprits are the people you and I pay to safeguard us from such disasters, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

Its manifest failure to do so speaks volumes about the pathetic weakness of those tasked with regulating the private companies we all depend on for needs such as travel, heating, electricity, water and broadband.

These watchdogs are there to protect us from the kinds of horrors facing Monarch’s passengers. But repeatedly, they have been shown to be toothless.

When Dame Deirdre Hutton, the CAA’s chairman, announced with self-satisfied aplomb this week that Monarch’s passengers would be ‘repatriated’, it appeared initially that the regulator was doing its job.

Who is the greatest villain in the utter shambles that is the collapse of Monarch? The real culprits are the people you and I pay to safeguard us from such disasters, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

It had chartered more than 30 planes from carriers such as Qatar Airways and easyJet to help bring back 110,000 passengers stranded overseas.

In fact, this blanket rescue package will last a mere two weeks. Many people on longer breaks, including retired and elderly passengers, will need to pay to get home themselves.

Other victims of the collapse include package holidaymakers already in hotels who have paid for their rooms in advance through Monarch.

They face being hit by bills which the airline failed to pay.

Then there are hundreds of thousands more who have paid cash or dipped into savings for future bookings and face long struggles with credit card companies, PayPal and others to recover their money.

Yesterday, shockingly, the airline’s administrators KPMG estimated that as few as one in ten passengers could be protected financially by the Air Travel Organiser’s Licence (ATOL) — even though the CAA has suggested that up to half of passengers would be.

The truth is that Dame Deirdre, known as ‘Queen of the Quangos’ because of the series of high-level public sector posts she has held, gave the appearance of solving victims’ problems — but what they really wanted was for her to enforce discipline on the airlines she actually polices.

Because Monarch is not the only carrier that has let down passengers. Just last month, Ryanair dropped thousands of flights from its schedule in a move that affected around 750,000 passengers, and was accused of effectively ‘cancelling Christmas’. What did the watchdog do? Failed passengers again. And when computers at BA crashed during a May bank holiday weekend this year, causing cancellations, delays and misery, the authority was largely invisible.

In all of these cases, the supposed guardian of British passengers failed to champion the real victims.

There is no doubt: this regulator is not fit for purpose. Nor can it escape the fact that it bears considerable responsibility for Monarch passengers’ plight in the first place.

For it was the CAA that judged the company that bought Monarch in 2014 — a rapacious investment firm called Greybull Capital, which specialises in ‘rescuing’ ailing businesses — to be a fit and proper owner of an airline deserving of an Air Travel Organiser’s Licence.

Yet the most cursory glance at Greybull’s history — which includes ‘rescuing’ a number of firms, only to see them go into administration shortly afterwards — should have given the CAA pause for thought before granting it the licence.

It’s now all but impossible for the public to have faith in the CAA as a regulator on the side of passengers and consumers.

It often looks to be part of a cosy cartel more concerned with preserving the interests of the airline industry and airports than customers.

It has been helped in this by the fact that passengers see themselves as powerless.

Airline users tend to accept miserable service from carriers. They put up with poor website and phone experiences, rising charges for services such as baggage, delayed flights, short-notice cancellations, intrusive security and, in the case of Monarch, a collapsed carrier, as if these were an inevitable part of air travel.

A perusal of the CAA’s board members tells us a great deal about why they appear so unconnected to ordinary people. Dame Deirdre has one of the longest entries in Who’s Who and, among other things, has served as chairman of the National Consumer Council and the Food Standards Agency and deputy chairman of the useless Financial Services Authority in the run-up to the banking crisis of 2007.

But the CAA is no worse than most of the other regulators of utility businesses that daily affect our lives.

At the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, the Chancellor Philip Hammond and Business Secretary Greg Clark both delivered stirring denunciations of the Marxist nationalisation policies of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

But even as ministers deliver their attacks on socialism, they seem to fail to understand the frustration of consumers treated like dirt by big utility companies. Consumers such as the commuters on strike-hit Southern Rail, and householders struggling with energy costs from privatised utilities that push up domestic bills even as wholesale prices fall.

More than three decades after Margaret Thatcher ushered in a free-market revolution by privatising British Gas, BT and the other former nationalised industries, consumers feel bitterly betrayed.

Yes, service is immeasurably better than it was all those decades ago, and there has been large-scale investment by the private sector which no government, struggling to keep public finances under control, could have afforded.

Then there are hundreds of thousands more who have paid cash or dipped into savings for future bookings and face long struggles with credit card companies, PayPal and others to recover their money

But these privatised companies today have increasingly little regard for their consumers. And this brings us back to the regulators.

Many are headed by quangocrats such as Dame Deirdre, remnants of the Blairite era, who do not have the muscle to stand up to the companies they police. The result is a loss of public confidence in capitalism to deliver the services people want at affordable prices.

Prime Minister Theresa May and her government have sought to deal with the perceived failures of the free market by fiddling with company boards — demanding more worker power, for instance, and more diversity, or by insisting on reining in excessive boardroom pay.

While this is laudable, it misses the point — because it concentrates its fire on the wrong kinds of company.

It is not the Tescos, Unilevers, Rolls-Royces, Vodafones, Glaxos and other listed companies that have alienated consumers, but the utilities.

Thames Water — where Dame Deirdre also happens to be a director — is one of the most despised companies in Britain, having flooded the nation’s rivers with raw sewage and failed to stem endless leaks.

Ofwat, the water regulator, has fined it millions of pounds, but this hardly registers against more than £1 billion it has sent overseas in shareholder cash dividends.

Likewise, the Rail Regulator has failed miserably to tackle Southern Rail’s disgusting performance in letting the unions interrupt commuter services, causing massive disruption and lost income.

If the Tories really want to defend free markets, they must show the willpower demonstrated by Margaret Thatcher in the Eighties when she took on the trade unions and won.

They could begin by replacing weak regulators with powerful industrialists willing to challenge the established order.

They must give regulators, including the CAA, greater powers to fine miscreants who overcharge or fail to deliver the right services. A toll of up to 10 per cent of a utility firm’s turnover would force bosses to mend their ways.

More muscular regulation would serve consumer and producer interests and demonstrate to voters that there is free-market alternative to the deadly hand of Marxism.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4946488/Abolish-toothless-watchdogs-writes-ALEX-BRUMMER.html#ixzz4uczQ8hay
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter
| DailyMail on Facebook

56

View
comments

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H.F.1333-[THE UNACCEPTABLE FACE OF CAPITALISM  REARS IT'S HEAD YET AGAIN!]

*  *  *

 

*  *  *

 

*  *  *

 

*  *  *

 
 

[AT LONG! LONG! LAST!

- WE LEAVE

THE

CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC-GODLESS EU

 IN MARCH 2019.]

*

DAILY MAIL

-At last, Hammond's on board with

BREXIT

and the

REMOANERS are DEAD and BURIED

LEAVING THE EU

 IN

MARCH,2019

 

 

THE

DOMINIC

LAWSON

Column

 

 

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

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

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

Blunder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hard Brexit’.

Monstrous

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

Full article


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

*

[7 MONTHS

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

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

AUGUST 14, 2017

H.F.1281 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 

 

[IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

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

 

*

 

Even Remainers now back a

'hard' Brexit:

 Most Brits ... - Daily Mail

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full artical


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

*

 

 FREEDOM!

 

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

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

*

EDMUND BURKE

 

Conciliation with America-speech House of Commons

March 22,1775

 

*

1+2+3

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

Soul of England

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 12-2017

H.F.1277 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 
 

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

BREXIT

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

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

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

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

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW

 

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

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

]

 

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

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 

 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

     9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA

LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND

SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND

100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

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

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

A NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

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

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


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

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

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

 

*

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

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

 

WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*
7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

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

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

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

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

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW

 

 

 

 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

 

AT LAST, IT IS ALL CLEAR FOR

 BREXIT'S

LIFT-OFF

 

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

 

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

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

PEOPLE'S WILL.

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

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

REMAIN.

They deserve everything coming to them at the next election.

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

Among these, none can beat the monstrous hypocrisy of

NICK CLEGG

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

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

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H F 1101-AT LONG LAST-FREEDOM AWAITS! 

 

Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCE.]

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

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

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

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

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

THE LAW IS SUPREME

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

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

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

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

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

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

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

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

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

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

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

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

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

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

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

The MAGNA CARTA

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

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

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

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

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

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 

How and Why Was WWI Planned and Prolonged

Mujahid Kamran

August 1, 2017

The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic.”

Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

The Planners and the Plan

The First World War did not just happen. There is undeniable evidence that the war was planned by the international-banker controlled British oligarchy almost two decades before it broke out (see e.g. [1-3]). In their outstanding book Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor have established beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the First World War was planned by a tiny group of members of the British oligarchy including Nathaniel Rothschild [1].

King Edward VII

While building upon what was first revealed by the late Professor Carrol Quigley, they have not only provided detailed evidence in favor of this thesis, but have also revealed the astonishing role of the British monarch, King Edward VII, in secretly building alliances against Germany. They have provided ample evidence that the playboy King, much disliked by his mother Queen Victoria, went along with the secret group that had, in the first place, planned this horrific war.

The secret group of people, whose existence was first revealed by Professor Carrol Quigley, thus putting his own life in danger, decided to work behind the scenes with the utmost secrecy. The revelations of Professor Quigley were based on documents provided by the Secret Elite, as they are referred to sometimes. The documents were provided for the purpose of writing a sanitized history.

The goal of the Secret Elite was the expansion of the British empire to the total exclusion of other powers.

This cabal was extremely wealthy. Cecil Rhodes, who, with Rothschild help, had amassed a huge fortune in South Africa, first discussed his plans with Nathaniel Rothschild in February 1890 in the presence of a few members of the British oligarchy.

In 1891 a five-member secret group comprising Cecil Rhodes, Nathaniel Rothschild, William Stead, Lord Esher and Alfred Milner became, unknown to anyone else, the core group that decided to steer the world towards a war aimed at the destruction of Germany. They called themselves the Society of the Elect. Around themselves they built, as if in a concentric circle, The Association of Helpers, eminent men, who did not know of the Society of the Elect. Other men were gradually involved in the plan but they were not aware of the separate existence of the five-member core. Together, these men steered and controlled the course of British foreign policy, unknown to the Parliament, the people, the Cabinet, and others who were constitutionally relevant.

These men represented a new phenomenon on the world stage – the money kings, who held no office and yet had real power to decide the fate of nations. When Rhodes died at age 48, he left all his money to these men for the sole purpose of extending the British empire over the entire globe. Secrecy was of utmost importance to this group.

The destruction of Germany, the Secret Elite knew, would entail enormous bloodshed. They also knew that Britain could not do it alone. It needed the strength of the Russian and French armies to achieve that end.

Russian soldiers WW1

And maybe the Secret Elite wanted Russia and France to shed their own and German blood for them. But France had been a traditional enemy of the British and vice versa whereas Russia and Britain had vied for the control of the Black Sea and the annexation of Constantinople i.e. Istanbul. There was rivalry between Russia and Britain regarding the Russian urge southwards and eastwards to warm waters, seaports that could function round the year. In the south lay the “jewel” of the British empire – India.

Despite these rivalries the Secret Elite was determined to befriend and woo both France and Russia because it considered Germany the most potent threat to the existence of the British empire. Germany was not fully aware of this heinous plan aimed at its utter destruction. And Russia and France, both were trapped by the Secret Elite. In fact, the Secret Elite succeeded not only in destroying Germany, they also destroyed Russia, and by prolonging the war, destroyed the Ottoman as well as the Austro-Hungarian empires. Britain, in the end, did not really benefit. The Zionists did – the Illuminati Zionist bankers emerged as the real force on the world stage. The Milners and the Eshers and Balfours, and all others became powerless eventually and faded away.

The Rothschilds have continued into the 21st century enhancing their power and wealth with every major bloodshed. They and their illuminati banking brethren were the real beneficiaries. The Christian West was the real loser. And so were the Muslims.

It is well known among historians that Queen Victoria disapproved of her son’s womanizing and kept his royal stipend at a minimum while she was in power. The expenses of the womanizing of King Edward VII, when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were borne by the Rothschilds and by Sir Ernest Cassel, both bankers of German-Jewish extraction. When he came to power Edward VII was keen to oblige his patrons who, apparently, wanted to destroy the emerging German nation. And, in any case he was under the impression that the destruction of Germany would pave the way for a global British Empire – it was to be his empire.

The Zionist/Illuminati international bankers had other plans. King Edward VII was the architect of the Entente Cordiale of 1904. His image as a playboy concealed the fact that he was traveling all over Europe to build alliances against Germany, while Germany never suspected that traditional enemies like England and France could or would become friends.

Docherty and Macgregor also describe the infiltration of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office of Great Britain by agents of the group that had planned the First World War. They were able to control the officers of both government departments. They also controlled the War Office as well as the highly important and secret Committee of Imperial Defense. The Group had influence in both parties. Their policy of destroying Germany not only transcended party politics, it also went beyond which party was in power – it transcended governments.

The Parliaments and the prime ministers came and went without knowing that a tiny cabal was planning and relentlessly driving Britain to total war with Germany.

*

Cover up and Fabricated History

Docherty and Macgregor have further revealed that (p 5, ref. [1]):

The Secret Elite dictated the writing and teaching of history, from the ivory towers of the academia down to the smallest of schools. They carefully controlled the publication of official government papers, the selection of documents for inclusion in the official version of the history of the First World War, and refused access to any evidence that might betray their covert existence. Incriminating documents were burned, removed from official records, shredded, falsified, or deliberately rewritten, so that what remained for historians was carefully selected material.”

Docherty and Macgregor point out (their book was published in 2013) that even “To this day researchers are denied access to certain First World War documents because the Secret Elite had much to fear from the truth, as do those who have succeeded them.” Why such a vehement cover up that even a century later the British authorities do not grant access to certain documents pertaining to the first World War? They want to maintain the myth of German culpability and their innocence, whereas the reality is the reverse of what establishment history portrays. The truth will shift the onus of responsibility to the shoulders of the Secret Elite and of every other consequence that followed: the Second World War, Bank of International Settlements, IMF, World Bank, the U.N., Israel, the Korean and Vietnam wars, continuing wars in the Middle East, right up to the dangerous situation today. They have lied to generations and rather than let the truth be known they have chosen and attempted to perpetuate the lie worldwide and for all times.

They can do so because the international illuminati-Zionist bankers are all powerful and control the American and British governments. Israel is a Rothschild fiefdom, a source of perpetual war and a possible eventual Armageddon. The academia is, by and large, part of this cover up and that is very sad, to say the least. Any historian in a university who challenges the establishment version will be ostracized, if not thrown out of his job. Nick Kollerstrom had to lose his job despite the fact that he is an outstanding academic. One of his colleagues, whom he had known for years, was so angry that he told Kollerstrom that he wanted to hit him with his racket!

Guido Preparata was ostracized for his outstanding book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Built the Third Reich, and had to quit his job, leave the U.S., and even give up his research career for some time. It is therefore significant that Docherty and Macgregor, though British (both are Scottish) do not work for any British university. They, therefore, cannot be thrown out of their jobs.

On the surface of it, the strategic aim behind the instigated and covertly planned World War I was to destroy both Germany and Russia and thereby kill the possibility of emergence of a dominant Eurasian power, or a powerful coalition of Eurasian countries, that could threaten the British Empire. The initial group, the Circle of the Elect, appeared to have, as its aim, the establishment of a worldwide British Empire. It only included one banker, Nathaniel Rothschild. With hindsight, the evolution of global affairs indicates without any doubt that the Zionists (Communism and Zionism sprouted from the same Illuminati “tribe” and had a common origin) were the real beneficiaries and the deeper instigators of this war.

The world today is headed towards a global slave state controlled by the Illuminati cum Zionist international bankers. The Bolshevik Revolution was led and controlled by “atheistic Jews” (to use Churchill’s phrase) most of whom came from outside Russia and both Lloyd David George and President Wilson were stooges of the Zionists. Today both, the U.S. and the U.K., are completely controlled by the Zionist cum Illuminati international bankers.

However, other deeper aims of the international bankers were to weaken Christianity through widespread death and destruction of Christian life and property, to weaken European governments by exhaustively bleeding them and bringing them under deep debt bondage, to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution, to facilitate the creation of Israel and the establishment of a supra-national organization through which to set up a One World Government under their ruthless and absolute control (The New World Order). The international bankers were simultaneously Zionists and Freemasons/Illuminati.

A photo of the 1914 Christmas Truce illustrates how the British and Germans had no antipathy until it was created by propaganda and the war itself

*

Building Japan, Bruising and then Wooing Russia after Sabotaging a Russo German Treaty

It was the Secret Elite that was behind the strategy to build Japan’s navy that was then used to destroy the Russian fleet that traveled around the world to confront the Japanese navy. The Russian fleet was utterly destroyed in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 and the small island nation managed to inflict a humiliating defeat on a giant. This was part of the strategy of the Secret Elite to curtail Russia’s ambitions in the Far East and to bruise and weaken her. Ships for the Japanese navy were quietly built in the shipyards of Britain. On the one hand, the Rothschilds in London secretly provided loans to Japan, while on the other the Rothschilds in France provided loans worth 400 million francs to the Russian government to build the 6365 miles long trans-Siberian railway (p 86, ref. [1]). The Russians had expressed their gratitude to the Rothschilds when the czar decorated Alfonso de Rothschild of Paris with Grand Cross. The London Rothschilds made double profits because the armament industry which manufactured battleships for the Japanese navy were partly owned by the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds had the greatest shares in Vickers armament. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 92, 93 ref [1]):

Manipulators at the heart of the Secret Elite, like Esher, facilitated meetings held on Rothschild premises to help the Japanese financial envoy, Takahashi Korekiyo, raise their war chest. While banks with strong links to the Rothschilds were prepared to raise funds for Japan quite openly, the Rothschilds had to tread carefully because of their immense Russian investments, not least in the Baku oilfields. They were also very aware of the political repercussions that might ensue for Russian Jews who bore the harsh brunt of czarist anti-Semitism. That changed once the war was over. The London and Paris Rothschilds negotiated a further £48 million issue to help Japanese recovery. At every turn the war profits flowed back to the Secret Elite.”

It was Japan that attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, a Chinese port that was functional all year round and had been leased to Russia. Although Japan issued a declaration of war on Feb 8, 1904, its navy attacked the Russian fleet three hours before the ultimatum was delivered to the Russian government.

In order to go to war with Germany the Secret Elite took four decisions. These are summarized by Docherty and Macgregor in the following words (pp 73,74, ref. [1]):

Foreign policy had to be sustained no matter what political party was in office; the British Army needed a complete overhaul to make it fit for the purpose; the Royal Navy had to maintain all its historic advantages; the general public had to be turned against Germany.”

The British public did not want to go to war with Germany and therefore a secretly driven but powerful propaganda campaign against Germany was launched in order to poison the minds of the public. The Belgian ambassador apparently noticed by 1903 that jingoism was on the rise in Britain and people were turning against Germany. He wrote to his government that this was merely because of jealousy. Docherty and Macgregor point out that the ambassador did not know that secret manipulation behind the scenes had resulted in this attitude.

The Secret Elite worked relentlessly using the vast Rhodes fortune at its disposal to buy politicians and men of influence in all countries that were relevant. One of the men in their pocket was Alexander Islovsky, who served them loyally to the immense detriment of Russia, Europe and the Christian West. Kaiser Wilhelm had made a brilliant move in 1905 – he wanted to have an agreement between Russia and Germany that would have averted the war by forming a defensive alliance.

The Kaiser and the Czar secretly met and signed an agreement on July 24, 1905 at Bjorko Finland, whereby if any one of the countries was attacked by a European power the other shall come to its aid. However, when the czar returned to Russia the agents of the Secret Elite as well as a bribed press opposed the ratification of the treaty. Actually no one knew of the contents of the treaty until the Czar confided in is his foreign minister Count Lansdorff who betrayed the secret to King Edward VII.

The Czar was in need of money after the Russo-Japanese war in which Russia suffered heavy material and human losses. He therefore needed loans and the Rothschilds in Paris were far richer than any Berlin banks. The Secret Elite threatened to block the much needed loans. This was crucial and the Czar backed off despite having signed the proposed treaty. This treaty, had it gone through, would have averted the planned world war. This caused the Kaiser immense pain and he wrote to the Czar (p 95 ref. [1]): “We joined hands and signed before God who heard our vows.” This mistake by the Czar was to cost Russia and Germany dearly during World War I.

Having sabotaged the Russo-German alliance the Secret Elite then used King Edward VII to woo Russia. The King invited the Russian navy to Britain and the British public was softened towards Russia through a media campaign. The Secret Elite managed to lure and trap Russia by a false promise of allowing Russia to control Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Black Sea Straits. A Russia that had been mauled militarily, that was in dire financial straits, and that was presented with a dangling Constantinople carrot succumbed and fell in the trap. An Anglo-Russian Convention was signed on 31 August 1907. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 95,96 ref. [1]):

The Secret Elite was prepared to use any nation as cat’s-paw and Russia became the victim of British trickery, manipulated into a different treaty that was designed not to protect her or the peace of Europe but to enable the Secret Elite to destroy Germany. . . It was yet another secret deal hidden from Parliament and the people. . .

By such deceptions, lies, bribery and manipulations, the brutal and absolutely ruthless and utterly shameless Secret Elite proceeded to steer and goad nations to a path of unprecedented bloodshed in which Christian, and to a lesser extent Muslim blood was shed. The beneficiaries were the satanic illuminati international bankers and their brethren. Their determination to destroy Germany masked a deep and malevolent desire for a conflagration that would burn Christian Europe to ashes with tens of millions of casualties. That was their goal and they drew the deepest delight and satisfaction by turning men into savage animals.

The Myth of Belgian Neutrality

When World War I began the British public had been exposed to false propaganda for a long time. Two issues on which their mind had been falsely influenced were Belgian neutrality and German militarism. Facts were the opposite of what people were led to believe. As for Belgian neutrality, it was utterly untrue. Belgium was not only not neutral it had had close military links with Britain since 1905 when Britain offered to send “4 cavalry brigades, 2 armored corps, and a division of mounted infantry” to Belgium (p 106, ref. [1]). At that time nobody outside the close knit Secret Elite know of, or suspected, possible war with Germany.

Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 106, 107ref. [1]): “Britain’s military link with Belgium was one of the closes guarded secrets, even within privileged circles.” General Grierson, who was director of military operations was present at a secret 1905 meeting along with Lord Roberts, PM Balfour, Admiral Fisher and the head of naval intelligence, where a decision to take forward joint military planning with France and Belgium was taken. This was so secret that it was agreed that “the minutes would not be printed or circulated without special permission from the prime minister.” Docherty and MacGregor write further (p 107, ref. [1]):

Documents found in the Belgian secret archives by the Germans after they had occupied Brussels disclosed that the chief of the Belgian general staff, Major General Ducarne, held a series of meetings with the British military attache’ over action to be taken by British, French and Belgian armies against Germany in event of war. A fully elaborated plan detailed the landing and transportation of British forces, which were actually called ‘allied armies’, and in a series of meetings they discussed the allocation of Belgian officers and interpreters to the British Army and crucial details on the care and ‘accommodation of the wounded of the allied armies.’”

The British allowed Belgium to annex Congo Free State in return for a “secret agreement that was in everything but name an alliance. King Leopold II sold Belgian neutrality for African rubber and minerals.” Thus Belgium bargained away her neutral status and in return entered into a deep and hidden relationship with Britain against Germany. Docherty and Macgregor point out that here too King Edward VII played a hidden but important role because the King of Belgium was a cousin of Queen Victoria and was very fond of her. So much for Belgian neutrality that became a rallying cry to war for the misled and deliberately misinformed British public. The technique of using the media to control the public mindset continues to date and entails an incredible cost in terms of loss of human life and property.

The Myth of German Militarism

As for German militarism, Docherty and Macgregor have provided irrefutable data that clearly establishes that Britain was spending far more secretly on arming itself compared to Germany. In reality it was British militarism but the cunning and, in a sense, deep characterlessness of the Secret Elite, which hoodwinked everyone and which worked outside and in contradiction with the constitution, and which lied to and shamelessly deceived everyone, created the opposite impression. When the Liberal leader Campbell-Bannerman won a landslide victory in 1906, the Liberals were committed to peace.

Edward Grey and Haldane were committed to war and along with other members of the Secret Elite, steering the country towards war. Cabinet was never informed of this, nor was the prime minister. The crafted biographies of men like Haldane contain lies and are unreliable. And if one reads Docherty and Macgregor they have exposed the lies in Haldane’s biography and private notes. In fact, there is evidence that Campbell-Bannerman was kept in the dark about the military contacts with other countries. His untimely death in 1908 relieved the Secret Elite of the pressure for a peaceful world! In fact, the Secret Elite were very worried soon afterwards, because in 1910, their key patron King Edward VII died at age 68, while the Liberals were still in power.

False propaganda about German military preparations was carried out at the behest of the Secret Elite in the British media. As Docherty and Macgregor put it (pp 134, 135, ref. [1])

From the beginning of the twentieth century, the Secret Elite indulged in a frenzy of rumor and half-truths, of raw propaganda and lies, to create the myth of a great naval race. The story widely accepted, even by many anti-war Liberals, was that Germany was preparing a massive fleet of warships to attack and destroy the British navy before unleashing a military invasion on the east coast of England or the Firth of Forth in Scotland. It was the stuff of conspiracy novels. But it worked. The British people swallowed the lie that militarism had run amok in Germany and the ‘fact’ that it was seeking world domination through military superiority. Militarism in the United Kingdom was of God, but in Germany of the Devil, and had to be crushed before it crushed them.”

These authors are quick to point out that when Germany was defeated and all their prewar records became available to the Allies, not a shred of evidence in favor of such secret plans to invade Britain were discovered. They point out that the statistics were thoroughly abused by an “almighty alliance of armaments manufacturers, political rhetoric, and newspaper propaganda” that conjured a frightening image of a German naval armada and the German will to dominate the world.

Rothschild and Ernest Cassel, who paid for the lechery of King Edward VII when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were major owners of the largest armament factory Vickers. They point out that in the decade prior to war the British naval expenditure was £351.9 million whereas the German naval expenditure was £185.2 million, i.e. almost half of the British expenditure. Similarly, the Allies, i.e., the Triple Entente spent £675.88 million on warships in that same decade whereas Germany and Austro-Hungary spent £235.9 million, almost a third of what the Entente had spent, on their navies in the same period.

Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff (R) lead Germany as virtual military dictators from mid-1916 to the end of the war

The German army was 7,61000 strong, the French and Russian armies had, respectively, 794,000 and 1.845 million personnel. So, where is the evidence of German militarism running amok? Who was running amok? Who was spending far more than the Germans? This lie of German military buildup has been perpetuated by establishment historians when the numbers speak out for themselves. The establishment historians should be ashamed at propagating lies and holding the so-called nonexistent German militarism responsible for the war. They have lied to, and continue to lie to their own people as well as the whole world. What a shame! The Germans should stand up with their heads high. They did not lie or deceive.

The sanitized history taught worldwide seems to hold Germany as the aggressor. This is utterly untrue as established by Docherty and Macgregor. Preparata also states in his fascinating book (published 2005) (p 14 of ref [3]):

“From the beginning Britain was the aggressor, not Germany.”

The Russian ambassador to France Isvolsky, who was an agent of the Secret Elite, sent a telegram to Moscow on August 1, 1914 (p 320, ref. [1]):

The French War Minister informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the Government have firmly decided on war, and begged me to endorse the hope of the French General Staff that all efforts will be directed against Germany…”

Germany did not order mobilization until 24 hours later! The Kaiser had sent a message to the Russian czar asking that Russia stop her military movements on her borders. The Kaiser waited for 24 hours without any reply before ordering mobilization. Docherty and Macgregor correctly observe that Germany was the last of the European powers to order mobilization. Does that indicate that Germany wanted war? It only indicates that Germany did her best to avoid war.

A detailed study of the interactions between the British leaders and the Germans and others during July and the first days of August reveals clearly that the British leaders were shamelessly lying to the Germans and deceiving them. Their conduct had descended to the level of common criminals and crooks.

The Germans conducted themselves with integrity and a degree of innocence. The Secret Elite had also advised the Russians and the French to mobilize to attack, but not actually attack Germany, because the British public would never support the aggressor in a European war. They wanted Germany, as Docherty and Macgregor put it, to “swallow the bait.” Britain had trapped Germany into a war, in collusion with Russia and France. Docherty and Macgregor write (p 321, ref. [1]):

What else could Germany have done? She was provoked into a struggle for life and death. It was a stark choice: await certain destruction or strike out to defend herself. Kaiser Wilhelm had exposed his country to grave danger and almost lost one precious advantage Germany had by delaying countermeasures to Russian mobilization in the forlorn hope of peace.”

When Germany declared war against France on August 3, 1914, the French Under-Secretary of State, Abel Ferry, noted in his diary (ref. [3], p 24):

The web was spun and Germany entered it like a great buzzing fly.”

The Illuminati international bankers and other secret society members of the British oligarchy had colluded together for a destruction of Christian Europe. Only the Zionist international bankers and their fellow “tribesmen” saw this outcome clearly – they had planned for it and the non-banking oligarchy was used. The lie parroted in standard history books that Germany bore the responsibility of the war is an utter and shameful lie. The responsibility of the war rested with the Secret Elite controlled British leadership.

Western Front WW1 British soldier

Zionism and the American Involvement

Almost two months before war broke out, on May 29, 1914, the Rothschild agent Col. House, who handled and controlled President Wilson, had written to him:

Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany.”

It is well known that Col. Edward Mandel House was a Rothschild agent as was his father. Col. House played a diabolical role in prolonging World War I, and in dragging the U.S. into the World War. It is important to understand how influential he was with President Wilson. President Wilson had once referred to him as his alter ego. In his seminal book, that has sold over five million copies since it was first published, Gary Allen states [4]:

“Colonel” House was front man for the international banking fraternity. He manipulated President Wilson like a puppet. Wilson called him “my alter ego.” House played a major role in creating the Federal Reserve System, passing the graduated income tax and getting America into WWI. House’s influence over Wilson is an example that in the world of super-politics the real rulers are not always the ones the public sees.

Col. House represents a new phenomenon – the emergence of “advisors” to the U.S. President who do not hold any formal office, are unelected, and are intimately tied to the international banking families, apart from being members of secret societies. These advisors hold the president of the United States “captive.” In his profound book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed, a Times (London) correspondent in Central Europe right up to the beginning of WW II, mentions that four men held President Wilson captive – Col. House, Rabi Stephen Wise, Justice Brandeis and Bernard Baruch. Reed states [5]:

Thus three out of the four men around President Wilson were Jews and all three, at one time or the other, played leading parts in the re-segregation of the Jews through Zionism and its Palestinian ambition ….

Such was the grouping around a captive president as the American Republic moved towards involvement in the First World War, and such was the cause which was to be pursued through him and his country’s involvement. After his election Mr. House took over his correspondence, arranged whom he should see or not receive, told cabinet officers what they were to say or not to say, and so on.

In order to understand how and why the preplanned WWI was prolonged it is important to know who influenced or controlled the elected leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. and what were the aims of these controllers. It is also important to know that Justice Louis Brandeis had founded a secret society by the name Parushim, for promoting Zionism in U.S.A. The initiate was asked to accept the following oath at a secret initiation ceremony [6] :

You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life – dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation… It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.

Rabi Stephen Wise was on board regarding Parushim and, almost certainly, Bernard Baruch was also on board. Bernard Baruch’s connection with the international bankers is well known. It is also important to point out that the international bankers had planned World War I to, among other things, promote the Zionist cause. As Douglas Reed, using information provided in Chaim Weizmann’s book Trial and Error, stated in his book Far and Wide [7]:

The First World War began in 1914; long-memoried readers may recall that it appeared to be concerned with such matters as the rape of Belgium, ending Prussian militarism, and making the world safe for democracy. At its start Baron Edmond de Rothschild told Dr. Weizmann that it would spread to the Middle East, where things of great significance to Political Zionism would occur.

How did Edmond de Rothschild know right at the beginning of the war that the war would spread to the Middle East where things will work out to the great advantage of Political Zionism? He could only know this if it was planned that way and if he was one of the planners. And, as we will see, this was one of the reasons why World War I was deliberately prolonged.

Prolonging the War

The war was prolonged through several tactics. Firstly, all overtures of peace from the side of the Germans, and later the Ottomans, were defeated by agents of the international bankers. Secondly when Germans ran short of food, the deception named Belgian Relief Commission was set up by the international bankers through their front men, by which food was supplied to Germany and the German army, under guise of food supplies to Belgium, so that the German army could keep on fighting. Thirdly Germans were supplied with vital chemicals, metals, and other war materials by Allied Big Business, to enable them to keep fighting. Finally, wherever the Allied rulers seemed to resist the expansion of the war into the Middle East, they were eliminated politically, and if need be physically. They were then replaced by agents of the international banking cabal.

Sabotage of German Peace Offers of February 1915 and December 1916

A lone French soldier in a wet trench

Early in the war, on November 3, 1914, Britain declared the North Sea a theater of war. It blockaded ports of neutral countries illegally. On February 3, 1915, i.e. three months later, the Germans announced a counter blockade. They announced that with effect from February 18, 1915, the entire English channel along with territorial waters of Britain and Ireland would be considered a war zone. One must appreciate the fact that the Germans waited for three months before announcing a counter blockade. They were within their rights to do so.

However simultaneously, in February 1915, the Germans approached James W. Gerard, the U.S. ambassador in Germany, and expressed their desire to end the war. The German authorities wanted the ambassador to convey their desire for peace to President Wilson. They were however utterly unaware that President Wilson was a captive of the “advisors” installed around him by the international bankers. This German overture for peace is not something that is mentioned in textbooks but it has been mentioned by James W. Gerard in autobiography My First Eighty Three Years in America.

The response from Washington was most astonishing. Instead of commenting on the German proposal for peace, the White House directed the ambassador to communicate with Col. House instead of the President of U.S.A.! Dr. Stanley Montieth quotes from ambassador Gerard’s biography [8]:

In addition to the cable which I had already received informing me that Colonel House was “fully commissioned to act” he himself reminded me of my duty in his February 16 postscript. In his own handwriting these were the words from House. “The President has just repeated to me your cablegram to him and says he has asked you to communicate directly with me in future . . .” All authority, therefore had been vested in Colonel House direct, the President ceased to be even a conduit of communications. . . . He, who had never been appointed to any position, and who had never been passed by the Senate, was “fully instructed and commissioned” to act in the most grave situation. I have never ceased to wonder how he had managed to attain such power and influence.

One may notice that the German counter blockade was to begin on February 18, and the Germans communicated their desire for peace before that date as Colonel House’s handwritten postscript was dated February 16th. So it appears that the Germans expected that since the counter blockade represented an increased and new level of hostility, the Americans would be concerned to defuse the situation. They had no idea that Wilson was a stooge, a puppet in the hands of those who had planned a long war.

And one may recall that although the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated as late as June 28, 1914, Col. House had, a month earlier, on May 29th, communicated to Wilson the arrangement that as soon as England indicated, France and Russia would pounce on Germany. So Colonel House wanted a long war, and destruction of both Germany and Russia, in accordance with the desire of the Zionist international bankers. Therefore, the ambassador never heard anything from Col. House about the peace proposal of February 1915. The peace proposal was sabotaged by Col. House.

Realizing that Col. House was in control of Wilson the Germans made another overture of peace in December 1916. This has been revealed by historian Leon Degrelle [9]. He mentions that on December 12, 1916, German officials expressed a desire for peace and talks with their adversaries. He also writes that Germans expressed the hope that Col. House would persuade the Allies. The freemason Col. House ruled out peace and thus helped sabotage the second peace initiative within the same year. The Germans did not know that Col. House had played an important role in precipitating the First World War by secretly entering into a secret agreement with Britain, well before Wilson’s re-election, that the U.S. would join the war, on the side of the Allies. Degrelle further writes [9]:

On December 18, 1916, U.S. ambassador to Britain, Walter H. Page, relayed a peace offer to the Allies from Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. On January 9, 1917, Prime Minister Lloyd George quickly repudiated the offering and declared that Britain would fight to the victory, which possibly prompted the Germans to re-initiate submarine warfare. Ambassador Page, in touch with President Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing, defended British policies. This was William Jenning Bryan’s resignation, after he described Britain’s collapsing financial situation and the need for America’s neutrality.

If the war had ended in 1916 million of lives could have been saved and destruction and devastation of numerous cities avoided. But the international bankers had planned a long war. It is important to note that, according to writer Juri Lina, who had access to records of numerous important Masonic lodges, Lloyd George was a Freemason, a Masonic Grand Master, and a Jew, whose real name was David Levi-Lowitt [10]. His connections with international bankers are very well known and he was installed in power as a result of an intrigue with the object of promoting the Zionist cause, as will be described later.

The picture of dead men among trees is a censored photo that was banned from publication by the French government. Those are dead Frenchmen mowed down by German guns during the Battle of the Frontiers in August/September 1914.

*

“Belgian Relief”

The next betrayal perpetrated by the international bankers took place in the form of the deception called Belgian Relief Commission. One finds many eulogized discussions about the work of this Commission. On the face of it this Commission was set up to supply food to the Belgian population. We quote below the typical version of the Belgian Relief Commission. It has been taken from an article by Elena S. Danielson that appeared in The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, (edited by Anne Cipriano Venzon) [11]:

Herbert Hoover founded the Commission for Relief in Belgium (CRB) in London in October 1914 as a private organization to provide food for German-occupied Belgium. Belgium’s attempts at resistance to German military demands at the outbreak of the Great War had aroused much popular sympathy in England and the United States. A densely populated, industrialized country, Belgium depended on imports for three-quarters of its normal food supply. When the German Army began to requisition local foodstuffs and the British blockade cut off imported sources, 7 million Belgians faced severe hunger as the winter of 1914-1915 approached. When the American ambassador in London, Walter Hines Page, met with Belgian representatives, they concluded that Herbert Hoover was the best choice to administer some emergency relief action. The comprehensiveness of the program, however, was the result of Hoover’s personal determination to feed the entire nation.

But the real function, to which the Belgian Relief Commission was diverted, was hideous. Once Britain blockaded Germany, and the Germans were starved for food, the Belgian Relief Commission became a cover for sending food supplies to the German Army so that the German Army could keep on fighting. It may be useful to remember that Walter Hines Page was in the pay of Rothschilds. In his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve Eustace Mullins writes [12]:

The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Walter Hines Page, complained that he could not afford the position, and was given twenty-five thousand dollars a year spending money by Cleveland H. Dodge, president of the National City Bank. H.L. Mencken openly accused Page in 1916 of being a British agent, which was unfair. Page was merely a bankers’ agent.

The “City” banks were always owned by the Rothschilds. Mullins writes [13]:

The Belgian Relief Commission was organized by Emile Francqui, director of a large Belgian bank, Societe Generale, and a London mining promoter, an American named Herbert Hoover, who had been associated with Francqui in a number of scandals which had become celebrated court cases, notably the Kaiping Coal Company scandal in China, said to have set off the Boxer Rebellion, which had as its goal the expulsion of all foreign businessmen from China. Hoover had been barred from dealing on the London Stock Exchange because of one judgment against him, and his associate, Stanley Rowe, had been sent to prison for ten years. With this background, Hoover was called an ideal choice for a career in humanitarian work.

Further the truth about Hoover is given in the following words [14]:

Hoover had also carried out a number of mining operations in various parts of the world as a secret agent for the Rothschilds, and had been rewarded with a directorship on one of the principal Rothschild enterprises, the Rio Tinto Mines in Spain and Bolivia.

It may also be useful to remember that [15]:

Wilson’s academic career was financed by gifts from Cleveland H. Dodge, director of National City bank and Moses Taylor Payne, grandson and heir of the founder of the National City Bank. Wilson then signed an agreement not to go to any other college.

Please note that the same Cleveland Dodge was the financier of both, Ambassador Walter Hines Page, and President Wilson. Dodge was working for the Rothschilds. The first person to expose the hideous reality about the Belgian Relief Commission was a British nurse named Edith Cavell who was running a hospital in Belgium at the time. In his book Secrets of the Federal Reserve, first published in 1951, Eustace Mullins wrote about this [16]:

Franqui and Hoover threw themselves into the seemingly impossible task of provisioning Germany during World War I. Their success was noted in Nordeutsche Allegmeine Zeitung, March 13, 1915, which noted that large quantities of food were now arriving from Belgium by rail. Schmoller’s Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and Political Economy for 1916 shows that one billion pounds of meat, one and a half billion pounds of bread, and one hundred and twenty one million pounds of butter had been shipped from Belgium to Germany in that year.

Mullins then narrates the story of Edith Cavell (Ibid pp 72, 73):

A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915, complaining that “Belgian Relief” supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army. The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but the British intelligence service in London was appalled by Miss Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy. Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of Kuhn Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of war was at stake, and secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be executed. The Germans reluctantly arrested her and charged her with aiding prisoners of war to escape. The usual penalty for this offence was three months imprisonment, but the Germans bowed to Sir William Wiseman’s demands, and shot Edith Cavell, thus creating one of the principal martyrs of the First World War.

It is to be noted that after the war Sir William Wiseman settled in the United States and became one of the directors of the Kuhn Loeb & Co. This was his reward for having helped prolong the war. It may be noted that the head of the German secret service was Max Warburg, another international banker, whose brother Paul Warburg had emigrated to the U.S. in 1902 and was instrumental, in 1913, in having the Federal Reserve Act passed. Paul Warburg was a partner in Kuhn Loeb & Co. The deeply hidden international banking connections are fairly obvious to anyone who cares to find out.

Thus the “Belgian Relief” was used to prolong the war. Had the war ended in February 1915 there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution (instigated and bankrolled by the international bankers) and the war would not have been extended to the Middle East. But the plan of the bankers who instigated the war was to prolong the war as long as possible and to fulfill, as far as possible, their targets (as revealed at the outset of the war by Edmond de Rothschild to Weizmann).

Zionists Sabotage a Separate Peace Possibility with the Ottomans

The Zionists defeated another opportunity of securing peace with the Ottoman Empire in May 1917. It was in May 1917 that the U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing received a report that the Ottomans were tired of war and a separate peace with Britain could be secured thereby isolating Germany. But the Zionists did not want to keep the Ottoman Empire intact – they wanted its complete destruction so that they could secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine from the rubble of the Ottoman Empire. The Zionists got wind of the plan when President Wilson assigned Henry J. Morgenthau the duty of contacting the Ottomans. Henry J. Morgenthau had once been the U.S. ambassador in Turkey. Morgenthau was himself Jewish and he therefore decided to take Felix Frankfurter with him.

As Alison Weir writes in her book [17], Felix Frankfurter was a “paid political lobbyist and lieutenant” of Justice Louis Brandeis. Now Justice Brandeis was a highly unscrupulous individual when it came to his political purposes – he could go to any length to achieve these. It is the same Justice Brandeis who had set up the secret society Parushim for promoting Zionism in U.S. clandestinely, as mentioned previously. He was also one of the four men who held President Wilson captive.

If the Ottomans had made a separate peace with Britain, the Ottoman Empire would have survived intact and there would be no room for Israel. Alison Weir states [18]:

Felix Frankfurter became part of the delegation and ultimately persuaded the delegation’s leader, former Ambassador Henry J. Morgenthau, to abandon the effort. U.S. State Department officials considered that Zionists had worked to scuttle this potentially peace-making mission and were unhappy about it. Zionists often construed such displeasure at their actions as evidence of American diplomats’ ‘anti-Semitism’.

Thus the Zionists, controlled by the international bankers, “killed” still another opportunity for peace which could have saved millions of lives.

Two Russian soldiers stand in front of a ruined building in NE Turkey and look at the remains of Armenians killed by the Turks, part of the 1.5 million Armenians killed during WW1 by the Turks.

*

Intrigue in Britain to Open Up a Front in Palestine

In his deep book, Douglas Reed, narrates [19]:

Opposition to Zionism developed from another source. In the highest places still stood men who thought only of national duty and winning the war. They would not condone “hatred” of a military ally or espouse a wasteful “sideshow” in Palestine. These men were Mr. Herbert Asquith (Prime Minister), Lord Kitchener (Secretary for War), Sir Douglas Haig (who became Commander-in-Chief in France), and Sir William Robertson (Chief-of-Staff in France, later of Chief of the Imperial Staff).

How did the Zionists get rid of this highest level opposition to opening up a front in Palestine? They decided to get rid of the Prime Minister and Lord Kitchener. It is almost unknown to the world that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually a Zionist coup in which the funding and support came from international bankers. The Zionist international bankers were mortal enemies of Russia because of the allegiance of the royal family to Christianity. Researchers have dug out this little known aspect of World War I. This aspect reveals the profound, utterly ruthless and absolutely single-minded pursuit of the goal of world domination by the international bankers. Reed describes how the Zionists were able to eliminate Lord Kitchener. He writes [20]:

Lord Kitchener was sent to Russia by Mr. Asquith in June 1916. The cruiser Hampshire, and Lord Kitchener in it, vanished. Good authorities concur that he was one man who might have sustained Russia. A formidable obstacle, both to the world-revolution there and to the Zionist enterprise, disappeared. Probably Zionism could not have been foisted upon the West, had he lived.

The silent and sinister physical elimination of Lord Kitchener has also been consigned to oblivion through controlled history writing. Had Kitchener managed to salvage Russia the Zionist enterprise would have been almost permanently thwarted. That is why he had to be eliminated. In an overall view of things the elimination of Lord Kitchener was vital for the survival of the Zionist enterprise and fits a pattern of intrigue in which assassinations and installation of puppet politicians was crucial. World War I was triggered by an assassination and prolonged by various tactics including the elimination of Lord Kitchener.

The elimination of Prime Minister Asquith has been looked into by Cornelius. He writes [21]:

Herbert Asquith, who had been prime minister since 1908, had begun, reluctantly, to consider a negotiated peace, but negotiations with the Zionists, through Weizmann and Balfour, provided another option for Britain, although not for Asquith. That option was the possibility of a formal, but secret, alliance between the Zionists and the Monarchy, whereby the British Monarchy would undertake to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and the Zionists would undertake to help bring America into the war on the side of the Allies, this assuring an Allied victory. An agreement with a British government would certainly be necessary, but British governments come and go, and a commitment from something less ephemeral than a British government would have been required by the Zionists. It is proposed that such an agreement took place. There seems to be no way to date it accurately but it seems likely to have occurred sometime around in October 1916.

Cornelius writes further:

In early December 1916, a political crisis, probably engineered, occurred in Britain, and Herbert Asquith, was forced to resign. The denouement came on Dec. 6, 1916. That afternoon King George V summoned several prominent political figures, including Balfour and Lloyd David, to a conference at Buckingham Palace. Later that same evening, Balfour received a small political delegation, which proposed that the difficult situation could be resolved with Lloyd George as prime minister, provided Balfour would agree to accept the position of foreign minister, which he did.

The Zionists thus eliminated Asquith, who did not wish to open a front in the Middle East for furtherance of the Zionist ambitions there. In his place they installed Lloyd David George, a Zionist, a Freemason and a man who worked for the international bankers. This was an odd situation – Balfour, who had been a Prime Minister from 1902 – 1905, had agreed to work as Foreign Minister of a far junior politician.

What concerns were so pressing that made Lord Balfour accept a junior position? Lord Balfour had long been inducted in the larger Secret Elite circle and was simply carrying out what the Secret Elite wanted him to do as part of their plans. It could only be the pressure of the Zionist international bankers with reference to the opening up of a military front in the Middle East and establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Lest anyone has any doubts about who steered the policy when Lloyd David George became Prime Minister, it would be sufficient to look at the following statement in A.N. Field’s 1936 book, All These Things, in which he quotes a passage from the French book La Mystification des Peuples Allies authored by Andre Cheradame [22]:

For some years a group of financiers whose families, for the most part, are of German-Jewish origin, has assumed control of political power and exerts a predominant influence over Mr. Lloyd George. The Monds, the Sassoons, Rufus Isaacs those known as the representatives of the international banking interests, dominate Old England, own its newspapers, and control its elections. The close solidarity existing between Mr. Lloyd George and Jewish high finance is easily shown by the brief biographical sketches of some of the influential personages by whom he is surrounded . . . Each of the names represents not only an individual, but also a veritable tribe and head of immense financial interests.

So the international bankers assumed control of the British government at the highest level by eliminating Prime Minister Asquith and Lord Kitchener, the former politically and the latter physically. Docherty and Macgregor have pointed out that the Secret Elite “identified and nurtured malleable politicians” across Europe and at home. They write (p 170, ref. [1]):

Lloyd George’s love of good life and his insatiable sexual appetite rendered him vulnerable. His career could have ended several times over had the Secret Elite chosen to destroy him. Instead, they protected his reputation, defending him against damaging allegations and saved his career.”

Since 1910 Lloyd George had been in the “pocket of the Secret Elite.” What happened when Lloyd George became Prime Minister? This is best described by Douglas Reed who has rendered an invaluable service to mankind by writing his last book. He writes [23]:

The simultaneous triumph of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events. The identity of the original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: “Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations”; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West.

Reed further narrates that after the assumption of power by Lloyd David George the cabinet began pressing the army for opening up a front in the Middle East. The armed forces resisted this strategically senseless pressure. But the change of government had been wrought by the international bankers, the Rothschilds, only for one purpose, the purpose of promoting the cause of political Zionism, as revealed at the outset of war by Edmond de Rothschild to Weizmann. John Reed quotes Sir William Robertson (emphasis in original) [24]:

Up to December 1916, operations beyond the Suez Canal were purely defensive in principle, the government and General Staff alike . . . recognizing the paramount importance of the struggle in Europe in need of give the armies there the utmost support. This unanimity between ministers and the soldiers did not obtain after the premiership changed hands . . . The fundamental difference of opinion was particularly obtrusive in the case of Palestine . . . The General Staff put the requirements at three additional divisions and these could only be obtained from the armies on the Western Front . . . The General Staff said the project would prove a great source of embarrassment and injure our prospects of success in France . . . These conclusions were disappointing to Ministers, who wished to see Palestine occupied at once, but they could not be refuted . . .

This clearly shows that there was a difference of opinion between the government and the General Staff regarding the issue of sending British troops to occupy Palestine. Sir William Robertson was one of the four men, mentioned previously by Reed, who held British interests supreme and stood in the way of the expansion of war into Palestine.

Shipment of War- and Food-materials to Germany Despite Blockade

The international bankers, who also controlled Big Business, were able to prolong the war by supplying much needed materials, such as chemicals, copper, zinc, etc., as well as food to Germany through neutral countries, thereby helping Germany to fight longer. The major neutral countries were Denmark, Norway Sweden, and Netherlands. Finland was also part of the chain of nations supplying materials to the Germans. This is another little known aspect of World War I (and also World War II). This policy of trading with the enemy to make profits and to prolong the war was also utilized in the Second World War.

It is not that sentient and patriotic journalists and analysts were unable to fathom the international-bankers’ intrigue at that time – rather it was the overall control of media, and of book publishing, that has made it possible for the international bankers to deceive generations with controlled information and sanitized history which omits their hideous role. The story was brought out by journalists and analysts in England during the course of World War I, and subsequently by Admiral M.W.W.P. Consett, who was posted as naval attaché in Denmark during the war. Scandinavia was, of course, a traditional “listening post for warring nations.” In the year 1923 Consett wrote a book with a very interesting title, The Triumph of Unarmed Forces (1914-1918). Consett writes [25]:

Our trade with Scandinavia was conducted and justified on the accepted security of guarantees that Germany should not benefit by it: here it is sufficient to say that the security was worthless.

As he writes in a previous paragraph (p x):

But from the very beginning goods poured into Germany from Scandinavia, and for over two years Scandinavia received from the British Empire and the Allied countries, stocks which, together with those from neutral countries, exceeded all previous quantities and literally saved Germany from starvation.

Consett has given several tables that indicate that the amount of various items that were imported into Germany during the period 1913-1917. Please note that war broke out in August 1914. The total food imported into Germany from Sweden in the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 was, respectively (in metric tons): 252 128, 262376, 561,234, 620,756, and 315,205 (Appendix VI, p 298). Please note that food imports from Sweden in 1917 were more than food imports from that country in 1913. The food items covered in these figures are “meat of all sorts, fish, dairy produce, eggs, lard, margarine.” The food items do not include “vegetable oils, beer, fish, oil, bone fat, coffee, tea, cocoa, horses, syrup and glucose, fruit, vegetables.” This was despite the naval blockade imposed by Britain. The corresponding figures for Denmark follow a similar pattern. No wonder a Danish naval officer wrote (p 295 of Consett’s book) to his British counterparts:

I cannot help saying to you how much we Danish naval officers sympathize with you in having to live as you do amongst these people who are making fortunes in supplying your enemies with food when the officers and men of the Navy to which you belong are risking their lives in trying to blockade your enemies.

The story of Germany acquiring other items – much needed coal, vital lubricants, metals such as zinc, copper, nickel, etc. arrived at German ports through Scandinavian countries. The details have been provided by Consett in various chapters of his book. For instance on p 180 of his book, Consett quotes the U.S. ambassador James W. Gerard as having recorded the following his diary [26]:

Probably the greatest need of Germany is lubricating oil for machines.”

And yet lubricating oil did reach Germany from Scandinavian countries, as described by Consett. In fact Consett mentions that Ludendorff admitted:

Lubricants provided us with some of our greatest problems . . .

Similarly, other materials needed for explosives also arrived in Germany from Denmark and Holland despite the blockade. That the laxity in the blockade was intentional will become evident shortly. Consett states [27]:

These oils and fats, both vegetable and animal, are used in normal times principally for food, soap, candles, lubricants and fuel; but in war time their importance is much enhanced on account of the glycerin which they contain.

Glycerin is used in explosives and in 1915 Germany had discovered a process for extracting glycerin from sugar. This secret process was revealed only after the war. So important is glycerin that during the war the British Army collected all scraps of meat carefully in the British war zone, so that the fat could be used for extraction of glycerin.

That the British government was complicit in allowing vital materials to be shipped to Germany is evident from the following, which was revealed by Arnold White, a British journalist. In a packed meeting held at the Queen’s Hall London on March 4, 1917, Arnold White was speaker. According to A.N. Field, Arnold White [28]:

. . . referred at length to the mysterious way in which Britain had allowed an extension of Norwegian territorial waters from the customary three miles accepted internationally to a four-mile limit. This extra mile allowed great American ships to slip through immune Norwegian waters with 10,000-ton cargoes of ore to Germany. He had enquired into this matter and he found that the political heads understood nothing of significance of the extension of Norwegian territorial waters to which Britain had consented. Those who instigated it, in Mr. White’s opinion, knew exactly what it meant. But for that extension he added, “it would have been impossible for the great American ships to have carried 100,000 tons of ores last year into Germany.

What is difficult to understand about such matters that the politicians could not understand? One is reminded of the famous line by Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to make a man understand when his salary depends upon not understanding it.

It is quite clear that the British government allowed the extension of Norwegian territorial waters deliberately. The politicians were working for the international bankers, led by the Rothschilds. The government of David Lloyd George had been installed in power by them through intrigue, and possibly murder of Lord Kitchener that may have been made to look like drowning or disappearance of the cruiser Hampshire, to further their own Zionist interests. According to A.N. Field:

. . . Mr. Lloyd George had been among other things solicitor to the Zionist organization in England. In December 1916, Mr. Lloyd George succeeded Mr. Asquith as Prime Minister, holding office until October 1922. Throughout the greater part of his career Mr. Lloyd George had close Jewish associations, and the pronounced Jewish complexion of the Lloyd George Ministries was more than once subject of Press comment in Britain.

Nine days later, on March 13, 1917, questions were asked in the House of Commons regarding the extension of territorial waters of Norway. The answer was that the government would do nothing about it.

The March 4, 1917 meeting had been organized by Dr. Ellis Powell, editor of the London Financial News. In this meeting Dr. Powell pointed out to the mysterious continuation of the activities of international bankers in Britain. This meeting was one of a series of meetings addressed by Dr. Powell and others, who had been agitating for exposing the “Hidden Hand” that was in control of Britain, and was betraying British interests. In fact, in 1917, Arnold White had written a book with title The Hidden Hand. The “Hidden Hand” was none other than the international bankers. The banks being run by bankers of German-Jewish origin in Britain were involved in activities that needed investigation. A resolution was passed at the March 4, 1917 meeting by all those present, numbering several thousand. They unanimously demanded closure of German banks in London. Field writes further [29]:

In seconding the resolution Dr. Ellis Powell, while seconding the resolution declared that German banks in the city were part of a vast organization of betrayal. The great outstanding fact of the war-time Hidden Hand agitation is that whenever it came to mention names and specific instances the names were mainly Jewish.

The Russian revolution is relevant to WW1 – this 1919 poster was printed by the White Russians and depicts Trotsky as an evil Jew. Bottom right are Asiatic soldiers of the Red army executing a European Russian

In his speeches Dr. Powell had attacked Jacob Schiff by name as being behind activities that went against British interests. Schiff was the owner of the Kuhn Loeb & Co, who had also bankrolled the Bolshevik movement. Jacob Schiff was born in the same house where the founder of the Rothschild family was born. Dr. Powell also mentioned Schroder, a naturalized British citizen, a banker of German-Jewish extraction, as well as others.

It is therefore quite clear that the international bankers were behind all major attempts at prolonging the war. They not only surrounded the British Prime Minister and the U.S. President, but all surrounded the German Chancellor. They were all Zionists and Freemasons.

It is important to keep track of the dates because this enables a better overall comprehension of what was going on. The German peace proposals of February 1915 and December 1916 were sabotaged.

It was in December 1916 that Asquith was toppled, it was in February 1917 that the Russian Czar abdicated, it was in April 1917 that the U.S.A. entered the war, it was during, and soon after May 1917, that the Ottoman peace possibility was destroyed by the Zionists, it was in October 1917, that the agents of the international bankers, the Bolsheviks, took over Russia and it was in November 1917, that the Balfour Declaration, addressed to Baron Rothschild, was formally issued.

All these events were manipulated by Zionist international bankers and their Illuminati controlled freemasonic brethren who had planned and intrigued on a global scale for a very long time. These epochal victories of the Illuminati Zionist international bankers have since dictated the course of history right up to today.

The global turmoil is a continuation of the Zionist thrust for seizing world power and they have come very close to their target with the destruction of U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the ongoing destruction of Syria, and with clouds over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan. “Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations”! The United States of America and the United Kingdom are the biggest tools in the hands of international bankers. Despite their profound strengths these two countries have, on account of their control by Zionist and Illuminati international bankers, become the greatest threat to the very survival of the human species at this point in time.

Henry Makow Ph.D., himself Jewish, and full of anger at the anti-mankind policies of the Zionist international bankers, sums up World War I [30]:

As mysteriously as it began, the war ended. In Dec. 1918, the German Empire suddenly “collapsed.” You can guess what happened. The banksters had achieved their aims and shut off the spigot. (Hence, the natural sense of betrayal felt in Germany, exacerbated by the onerous reparations dictated by the banksters at Versailles.)

What were the banksters’ aims? The Old Order was destroyed. Four empires (Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman) lay in ruins.

The banksters had set up their Bolshevik go-fers in Russia. (They sponsor many “revolutionary” movements as a way to eventually control all property themselves.) They ensured that Palestine would become a “Jewish” state under their control. Israel would be a perennial source of new conflict.

But more important, thanks to bloodbaths such as Verdun (800,000 dead), the optimistic spirit of Christian Western Civilization, Faith in Man and God, were dealt a mortal blow. The flower of the new generation was slaughtered. (See “The Testament of Youth” by Vera Brittain for a moving first-hand account.)”

Almost forty million humans died in World War I [31].

REFERENCES and NOTES

[1] Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor: Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War; Mainstream Publishers, 2013

[2] Carol White: The New Dark Ages Conspiracy: Britain’s Plot to Destroy Civilization; The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Co, 1980

[3] Guido G. Preparata: Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich, Pluto Press 2005, p 24.

[4] Gary Allen: None Dare Call It Conspiracy, first published 1971; 2013 edition published by Dauphin Publications Inc., p 52.

[5] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, Bridger House Publishers Inc. 2012, p 242; emphasis added.

The story of Douglas Reed illustrates how the international bankers and their agents suppress truth and promote a sanitized history. In a book Far and Wide, Douglas Reed had dared to put the American History in its true European context. Ivor Benson writes in the Preface to The Controversy of Zion:

In Europe during the war years immediately before and after World War II the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone’s lips; his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of readers and admirers. Former London Times correspondent in Central Europe, he won great fame with books like Insanity Fair, Disgrace Abounding, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide, and several others, each amplifying a hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the world’s leading foreign correspondents.

The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of the times found some confirmation after what happened to him at the height of his powers.

After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers’ doors closed to him, and those books already published liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and “lost”, never to be replaced.”

This is how knowledge of history is controlled, distorted and even fabricated by the One World cabal of international bankers.

[6] Sarah SchmidtThe Parushim: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History;

American Jewish Historical Quarterly, Sep 1975-Jun 1976; 65. l – 4; AJHS Journal pg. 121.

[7] Douglas Reed: Far and Wide; first printed 1951; Angriff Pr June 1, 1981; part 2, chapter 2.

[8] Dr. Stanley Montieth: Brotherhood of Darkness, Bible Belt Publishing, Oklahoma City, U.S.A., 2000, p 65.

[9] Leon Degrelle: Hitler: Born at Versailles, Vol I, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, California, 1992, p 255 – 259; cited by Deanna Spingola: The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power, Trafford Publishing 2012, pp 622, 923

[10] Juri Lina: Architects of Deception, Referent Publishing 2004, chapter 7.

[11] See http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=commission-for-relief-in-belgium-1914-1930-cr.xml

[12] Eustace Mullins: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection; first published 1951; the 1991 edition by Bridger House publishing, p 83.

[13] Ibid, pp 69, 70.

[14] Ibid p 72.

[15] Eustace Mullins: The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism, published by Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, 1985

[16] Ref 11, p 72

[17] Alison Weir: Against Our Better Judgment: the hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel; 2014, p 9.

[18] Ibid p 22.

[19] Ref. 5, p 247.

[20] Ibid p 248.

[21] John Cornelius: The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration; Washington Report on Middle East Affairs;

http://www.wrmea.org/2005-november/special-report-the-hidden-history-of-the-balfour-declaration.html

[22] A.N. Field: All These Things, 1936, p 82.

[23] Ref 5, p 272

[24] Ref 5, p 252

[25] M.W.W.P. Consett: Triumph of Unarmed Forces (1914-1918), Williams and Norgate, London, 1923; p xi.

[26] Ibid p 180.

[27] Ibid p 167.

[28] Ref. 22, p 42.

[29] Ref. 22, p 42.

[30] Henry Makow : Bankers Extended WWI By Three Years; revised and reposted December 1, 2007, http://www.henrymakow.com/001583.html

[31] Ref. 15.

*

Related Posts:



 
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

 
Posted by on August 1, 2017, With 1863 Reads Filed under Of Interest, World War I (1914-1918). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
 

 
 

FaceBook Comments

8 Responses to "How and Why WWI Was Planned and Prolonged

AUGUST 1-2017

H.F.1269

 

 

Is Donald Trump too scared to name George Bush Sr. and P2 Freemasons as Kennedy assassins?

U.S. Corporation President Donald Trump last week announced he would release all records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, “other than the names and addresses of any mentioned person who is still living.”  In other words, it appears he is too scared to mention the involvement of George Bush (Scherf, Pecce) Sr. and the Vatican P2 Freemason lodge fascist New World Order faction.

Pentagon officials, however, say, “Trump muscled the CIA, Mossad, the FBI, and the Bush cabal to release ALL JFK files, since [then Israeli Prime Minister] Ben Gurion wanted JFK dead, and the same perps also did 9/11.”

These are the people who aim to create a world fascist government controlled by members of European royal families who claim descent from the Caesars and from King David, as revealed by forensic research over a period of many years.  This research, including meetings with many members of this family group, has led us to the conclusion that these are the real “elders of Zion.”

Thanks to the confessions of Benjamin Freedman…
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

and others, John F. Kennedy became aware of a plot to start World War III, wipe out 90% of humanity, and turn the rest into slaves.  The Zionists very nearly succeeded in accomplishing this by triggering all-out nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.  That is why Kennedy decided to take away their main source of power—the ability to create money out of thin air.

George Bush Sr. (whose real family name goes back through Sherf and Pearce to the Roman aristocratic Pecce name) and the Zionists had Kennedy assassinated in order to prevent the nationalization of the Federal Reserve Board.

These people are still in control of the creation of U.S. dollars, Euros, and Japanese yen out of thin air.  Their main instrument of power in the U.S. these days is still the Bush/Clinton/Rockefeller Zionist Federal Reserve Board, truth researchers agree.

A very interesting example of how these gangsters distribute their fiat money can be seen in the article at the link below that shows how the rise in Amazon share prices matches the rise in central bank money printing and moves in the opposite direction of actual Amazon results.  There can be little doubt that Jeff Bezos is now “the world’s richest man,” because he has been selected as a premier distributor of fiat money.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-27/amazon

Forensic research has shown that most (if not all) major listed corporations are controlled, via hedge funds like Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, Fidelity, etc., by this family group, known now to many as the Khazarian mafia.

In Japan, this writer has identified the quislings used by the Khazarian mafia, thanks to testimony by assassins formerly in their employ here.  These people are now vanishing one by one as their former hitmen turn on them, the assassins say.

The quisling politician Seiji Maehara played a key role in the recent theft of the Japanese election by Khazarian mobsters led by Rothschild agent Michael Greenberg and Barbara Bush cousin Richard Armitage.  Maehara is the son of the North Korean agent Son Tae Chuk, also known as Daisaku Ikeda.  Ikeda for years was the absolute ruler of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist lay group and controller of the Komeito political party, whose duped members are crucial to maintaining Khazarian control of Japan.  Ikeda has been in a vegetative state (probably dead) for several years, so Maehara is effectively in charge now, even though he ostensibly belongs to a different political grouping.  White Dragon Society (WDS) sources in Japan say Maehara regularly walks into the U.S. embassy in Tokyo and is never asked to show any ID.

The Khazarians stole the Japanese election because the Party of Hope led by Koike Yuriko was planning to nationalize the Bank of Japan, say sources close to the Japanese emperor.

With U.S. President Donald Trump scheduled to visit Japan November 5-7, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS, the employer of Greenberg and Armitage) had big meetings this past weekend in Tokyo to discuss what agenda they were going to present to Trump.

Prior to this gathering, the CSIS sent a top agent to meet with a representative of the White Dragon Society.  At this meeting, the CSIS official, who personally does not approve of Armitage, said that he was sent by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to…
 

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

 

Emergency Alert

Murderer and drug dealer Richard Armitage and criminal Michael Green (berg) will be at the Teikoku Hotel in Tokyo, Japan between 8:30 and 13:15 on Friday, October 27th, 2017.
http://www.nikkei-events.jp/csis/

Richard Armitage has been responsible for the murder and torture of Japanese prime ministers, according to my sources.  He has also been named by CIA and other sources as a drug dealer and a traitor who contributed greatly to the U.S. loss in the Vietnam War.  He will be wearing a bulletproof vest at the event because he has created many enemies with his crimes.

Michael Green told Japanese gangsters that I was a woman-beating amphetamine addict and paid them to kill me, according to these gangsters.  He employs Japanese gangsters to terrorize the Japanese political and financial establishment.

These men engineered the theft of the Japanese election that took place on October 22, 2017, and now their puppets like Shinzo Abe are calling for war with North Korea according to the agenda of their Zionist masters.

Message to Admiral Harry Harris:  If you do not order military police to arrest these traitors and criminals, you yourself will ultimately face court martial and imprisonment for neglect of duty.

These men must be arrested, and if they resist arrest, all necessary force must be used.  Arresting these men could be the game-changer that finally liberates humanity from Khazarian mob terror.

We will offer a bounty of 1 ton of gold deliverable in Hong Kong for the arrest of these criminals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

緊急報告:
リチャード・アーミタジとミカエル・グリーンは2017年10月27日の8時30分から13時15分の間に帝国ホテルで登場する予定です。
多くの情報源によるとアーミタジは殺人犯や麻薬犯である。またアーミタジは多くの日本の総理大臣の殺戮に加担したと情報源らが言う。彼の逮捕は急務である。
ミカエル・グリーンは日本の多くの暴力団と関係を持っている。彼が日本のとても危険な連中に僕は女に暴力を振るう覚せい剤中毒者だと言う嘘を付いて僕の殺人を依頼した。彼の逮捕も急務である。
彼らが10月22日の総選挙泥簿をして、今家来安部政権に北朝鮮との戦争を始めさせようとしている。この二人を束縛すれば日本は再び独立国家になれる。
皆さん27日に帝国ホテルで集合してください。勝負をつけましょう。

Another Letter to the Editor About the Jews

Hello, Benjamin,

It is funny reading how the JEWS do not like being criticized for being JEWS.

No, it’s not the Khazarians, it’s the F-ing JEWS that are destroying the world.

I don’t buy into the “good Jews” and “bad Jews” argument.  Those that do not wish to go along with the JEWISH SH#T SCUM in the world should act accordingly and stop calling themselves JEWISH.

Of course you will not have the guts to print this because you are part of the system.

JEWS are a cancer upon this world.  Any group that has been shunned from every country on Earth for over 2,000 years should by now realise that they are doing something wrong.

We need to call it like it is:  IT IS THE JEWS THAT ARE HELL-BENT ON DESTROYING THE WORLD.  HELL-BENT IS A VERY GOOD PHRASE TO USE BECAUSE IT IS SATAN WHO IS THEIR GOD AND IS WHO THEY SERVE. That is the truth.  The JEWS do not want the truth to be known.

What are you going to do, Benjamin?  Are you going to tell the truth, or are you going to continue to hide behind this Khazarian lie?

Even if you do not print this, I would like you to reply.  What I have said is the truth!  Are you going to run and hide, or are you going to tell the truth?

Regards

 

Hello,

First of all, I do not consider myself to be Jewish.  I am a human being from the planet earth—that is all.  I simply point out that according to their definition, I am one of them.

I think the Jews are like the matador’s red cape used in bullfights.  They distract us from the real enemy who is, as you point out, the Satanists.  A lot of Satanists pretend to be Jews, but most Jews are not Satanists.

I have and continue to risk my life to fight against the Satanists, but at the same time, so as not to become like them, I refuse to attack innocent people, whatever ethnic group they identify with.

However, the Jews do need to join the fight against the Satanists.  They also need to renounce many of the horrific things written in the Talmud such as this:  “Even the best of the ‘goyim’ should all be killed.”  (Soferim 15)

Benjamin Fulford

Past Presidents of Bankrupt U.S. Corporation Go on “Beg-athon” for Godfather Bush

The dragnet is slowly but inexorably closing in on the Bush/Clinton (Scherf/ Rockefeller) Khazarian mafia clan and their Federal Reserve Board printing press.  Multiple legal investigations, mass arrests of junior Khazarian mobsters, and public disclosure are now part of regular public discourse, and not just on blogs formerly maligned as “conspiracy” sites.

An interesting sign of the Khazarians’ desperation was the spectacle of George Bush Senior posing with four other former presidents (minus Donald Trump) of the United States Corporation as part of a “beg-athon.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/356605-photo-of-lady-gaga-and-five-former-presidents-goes-viral

First, we must note that with computer graphics and body doubles it is hard to know if this event really took place.  For example, multiple sources have told this writer that Bill Clinton (Rockefeller) died of AIDS early this year.

Nonetheless, assuming this event did really take place, this is what a senior CIA source in Texas had to say about it:

“The ‘beg-athon’ in Texas is pure BS.  Notice that the money goes through the George H.W. Bush (Scherf) Foundation.  They are scamming money any way they can get it.  The Khazarian mafia cabal must be really desperate.”

The causes of their desperation have been snowballing in recent weeks.  Perhaps most deadly have been the ongoing disclosures about Khazarian genocides.  This has started with the release of documents showing that the U.S. government was involved in the murder of over 500,000 Indonesians in the mid-1960s.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/18/documents-reveal-active-us-support-indonesian-mass-killings-1960s

The Texas-based CIA source admits, “We removed [Indonesian President] Soekarno from power, and we put Soeharto into power.”  He regrets that he was a part of the operation back them.  His excuse:  just doing what he was ordered to do by his boss at Langley.

President Donald Trump promised more disclosure in the following tweet, saying, “Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK files to be opened.”

Three separate sources—one NSA, one Pentagon, and one CIA—all said they did not believe Trump would release the real truth about the Kennedy assassination.

However, one senior Pentagon source who has been consistently reliable in the past said that “The Trump release of JFK files may implicate Bush Senior, Mossad, the CIA, and the deep state, and may be a prelude to an intel dump on 9/11, suppressed technology, the secret space program, and other disclosures prior to mass arrests.”

Long-term readers of this blog already know that JFK was assassinated because he was trying, using gold provided by Soekarno, to take control of the issuance of U.S. dollars away from the privately-owned Federal Reserve Board (FRB).

Pentagon sources are saying that in any case, “Khazarian control of the FRB is kaput, as Fed Governor Jerome (Jay) Powell may be chosen as the next FRB, beating the three Jews Gary Cohn, Janet Yellen, and Kevin Warsh, who is son-in-law of billionaire 9/11 conspirator and Israeli asset Ron Lauder….  Stanford PhD economist John Taylor may also be named to the FRB as Vice Chairman or Governor.”

The source continues by noting, “When the global currency reset happens, the FRB may be folded into [the U.S.] Treasury [Department] and issue gold-backed United States Notes (USN).

The Texas CIA source, who claims to hate Bush Senior but appears to be closely connected to him, says the Khazarian mafia was ready to retaliate by taking drastic action, warning that “The entire Internet has a back door installed and the Khazarian mafia can and will
 

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

 

Letter to the Editor – A Note on “Jewishness” and Zionism

Hello Ben,

I read the complaint of the individual objecting to your use of the term “Jewish” in your description of events last week.  There is, I think, reason to differentiate carefully between the term “Jewish mafia” and the Italian Mafia.  They are not necessarily correct analogs.

In the case of Jewish people, one awful risk they face, which apparently is largely unseen by many of them, is the Zionists.  The Zionists are the Jewish mafia, and it is apparent to me that they are hiding behind the Jewish religion as a front for their activities.

This places Jewish people in a terrible position of “shield.”  And in order for an entire people to serve as that shield, they often express strong belief in support of the Zionists, apparently not understanding that in no way does Zionism serve the Jewish religion.  I don’t think Italians have anywhere near this level of identification with their captors.

Just a thought.  As a friend to all people, I find this situation very aggravating, as any negative criticism of Zionism very often incites attacks decrying “anti-Semitism.”  (As you pointed out, a misnomer.)  Actually, most people identifying with Judaism today have nothing to do with Semites.  They’re effectively Khazarians filtered through European bloodlines.

 

Letter to the Editor – A Note on “Jewishness” and Zionism

Hello Ben,

I read the complaint of the individual objecting to your use of the term “Jewish” in your description of events last week.  There is, I think, reason to differentiate carefully between the term “Jewish mafia” and the Italian Mafia.  They are not necessarily correct analogs.

In the case of Jewish people, one awful risk they face, which apparently is largely unseen by many of them, is the Zionists.  The Zionists are the Jewish mafia, and it is apparent to me that they are hiding behind the Jewish religion as a front for their activities.

This places Jewish people in a terrible position of “shield.”  And in order for an entire people to serve as that shield, they often express strong belief in support of the Zionists, apparently not understanding that in no way does Zionism serve the Jewish religion.  I don’t think Italians have anywhere near this level of identification with their captors.

Just a thought.  As a friend to all people, I find this situation very aggravating, as any negative criticism of Zionism very often incites attacks decrying “anti-Semitism.”  (As you pointed out, a misnomer.)  Actually, most people identifying with Judaism today have nothing to do with Semites.  They’re effectively Khazarians filtered through European bloodlines.

Possible Upcoming False Flags, Crisis Actor Recruitment

Information contributed by readers:

The pizzagate investigators at Voat found something really suspicious on Twitter:
Recruitment for crisis actors for a disaster event scheduled for 10/31-11/2 in Oklahoma City.
http://work4hds.com/apply/

Also, a suspicious Craigslist ad related to the planned action by Antifa on 11/4.  Orangeburg area:
https://columbia.craigslist.org/gov/d/need-people-for-role-players/6351154067.html

Letters to the Editor

Hello Benjamin:

I am a subscriber and appreciate your contribution to current events.  However, I am disturbed that today for the second time in a short period you have seen fit to include quotes from sources that use the term “Jewish” in a way that seems inaccurate and incendiary.  I know there is indeed a Jewish mafia.  But there is also an Italian mafia, and their behavior doesn’t get tied to their religion.

I appreciate your use of the term Khazarian, for example.

Yes, I am Jewish… a truth seeker… and very unhappy with Zionism, the situation in Israel, the treatment of Palestinians, and rationalization of such treatment.  I agree the cabal and all of its engines need to be eliminated.

I am very happy to see the pedophile and sexual predator nightmare getting unveiled.

But just because so-called Jewish names are so easily identifiable, it is important to resist the superficial conclusion that having a Jewish name is part of the true problem.  Let’s resolve to find the true roots of all of this sickness and change our world to leave that sickness behind.

I appreciate your use of the term “pseudo-Jewish” as well.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

Hello:

First of all, please understand that my mother’s mother was Jewish and my father’s mother is Jewish, so technically that makes me Jewish, too, although I do not like the word Jew, which was created in the 17th century.  My family was never ruled by the Torah or Talmud, but were atheists and thus forced to live within the ghettos in order to survive.

In any case, the reason “Jewish” appeared in that context in my report was because it was in a quote, and I felt it important to convey to readers the thinking of this source.

I have repeatedly explained to would-be anti-Semites (“Semite” is also a problematic term since it includes Arabs) that just because most members of the Mafia are Italian, it does not mean most Italians are Mafiosi.  In the same way, while Jewish gangsters are all Jewish, most Jews are not gangsters.

Trust me, there is no way we will allow for innocent people to be hurt because of the actions of a few high-level criminals.

Sincerely yours,
Benjamin Fulford

 

Hi Ben,

Do you still insist there is a coalition between Russia and the USA fighting against ISIS in Syria?  Every serious news talks about the war crimes the USA has been committing in Syria.  Just take the recent bombing of Rakka and murdering of many innocent civilians.  Or news claiming the Americans are saving senior ISIS leaders and taking them away from Deir es Zor at night together with their families.  Or killing Russian General Asapov by the American spetsnaz.  There has been no such thing as Russian-American coalition in the Middle East, unless you accept the fact the American army is badly split into the good guys and the bad guys, which is extremely dangerous.  What do you say?

Sincerely,
Vlad

 

Hello Vlad,

It is a sad truth that Western mercenary armies working for oil companies and the Zionists have been doing very bad things in Syria and the region.  The fact is the U.S. is bankrupt and needs to keep stealing oil in order to survive.

However, the people at the top of the U.S. military are now trying to do the right thing in my view, and at the very least they are determined not to let the Khazarians start World War 3.

The U.S. military did tell me they had a deal that Russia’s zone of influence was supposed to be to the west of the Euphrates and the American zone to the east of the Euphrates.  I guess they felt the Russians broke that deal when they crossed east of the river.  However, it is also a fact that the Americans are breaking international law by being in Syria in the first place.

I think a big meeting will be needed to determine once and for all how to divide up the oil and gas in the region.  Also, of course, the rogue state of Israel needs to be forced to give up their plans for creating a greater Israel and instead do what international society has been asking them to do since 1967, and that is to reach a permanent peace deal with the Palestinians.

Sincerely yours,
Benjamin Fulford

Summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un Being Negotiated as Khazarian Mafia Attempts to Start War Fail

 

The Khazarian mafia’s rule by murder, blackmail, bribery, and propaganda is being systematically dismantled in ways that can no longer be denied.  These fanatics, who wish to force human history down a path to destruction based on ancient books, have failed yet again in recent efforts to start World War 3.  This was seen in North Korea, in Kurdistan, and in Iran as their increasingly desperate gambits are checked at every corner.

In the case of Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump was threatened and blackmailed into renouncing the nuclear deal with Iran, but facing opposition from the military as well as top allies, all that Trump could do was to appease the Khazarians with bellicose rhetoric.  Even Trump’s rhetoric was met with a statement by the leaders of top U.S. allies the UK, Germany, and France contradicting Trump’s claims that Iran was breaking the nuclear deal.

The statement read in part that the deal “was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231.  The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly confirmed Iran’s compliance with the JCPoA through its long-term verification and monitoring programme.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/declaration-by-the-heads-of-state-and-government-of-france-germany-and-the-united-kingdom

In other words, they were telling Trump not to start a war based on lies.  This is something I have never seen the like of in many years of watching diplomatic statements.

In fact, the only country to support Trump’s bellicose rhetoric was the rogue Khazarian slave state of Saudi Arabia.  In any case, Saudi Arabia’s satanic rulers are about to lose their main protector, as Israeli police close in on satanic pseudo-Jewish Israeli leader Benyamin Netanyahu.

The attempts by the Khazarians to use North Korea to start World War 3 are also failing.  Last week two senior Japanese politicians made a secret visit to North Korea to negotiate a summit meeting between Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un when Trump visits Asia in November, according to a source close to the Japanese imperial family.

This meeting, if it takes place (a final decision is pending), would probably pave the way for a peace deal as well as reunification of the Korean Peninsula.  However, an even bigger announcement than that may also be in the works.  According to senior Pentagon and Asian Secret Society sources a decision to

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

Cryptocurrency State of Play – Special Report from the WDS

(Some sections translated from Chinese)

The purpose of this article is to summarize the financial and economic state of the world and the potential for cryptocurrency technologies to replace existing financial systems.  We delve into some of the many interesting new cryptocurrency startup projects that are springing up, and also explore the more esoteric and nefarious side of the growing cryptocurrency world.

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

H.F.1355

 
LITTLEJOHN

 

Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail |

 

 

We can't let Brexit

 get lost intransition

 

 

 

We can't let Brexit get lost in transition: RICHARD LITTLEJOHN says leaving the EU has now become all about the politicians

 

Stephen Crabb? Remember him? No, he wasn’t that famous frogman who went missing, presumed dead, while spying on a Russian warship in Portsmouth harbour in 1956.

That was Buster Crabb. Nor was he the copper-turned-chef played by the late Richard Griffiths in the BBC show Pie In The Sky. That was Henry Crabbe, with an ‘e’.

Anybody? I’m sorry, we’re out of time. Stephen Crabb was, in fact, the Conservative Party’s great white hope as recently as last year.

Stephen Crabb was once the Tory Party's great white hope after the resignation of David Cameron last year

Following Call Me Dave’s resignation, Crabb put himself forward as leader and, by extension, Prime Minister. For about five minutes, after the Brexit referendum, he was the future.

The Boys In The Bubble got terribly excited. Young-ish, born in Scotland, brought up by a single mum on benefits in a council house in Pembrokeshire, MP for a Welsh constituency, fashionable beard. What’s not to like?

Crabb was the polar opposite of the privileged, metrosexual, public-school Cameroons — just the chap to drag the Tories screaming and kicking into the 21st century. OK, so Crabb was a Remainer and the country had just voted conclusively to Leave the EU. But you can’t have everything. It was even claimed absurdly that because he’d been on the losing side he would be a perfect ‘unity’ candidate.

He actually managed to attract the support of 34 MPs — that’s more than former chairman Grant Shapps could muster for his abortive coup against Theresa May last week.

Sadly, it wasn’t enough to make the cut. After the first round, Crabb withdrew from the race.

Just as well, as it turned out. A few days later it was revealed he had sent a series of sexually explicit texts to a young woman not his wife — which rather flew in the face of his carefully-cultivated image as a devout Christian believer in family values.

 

Following David Cameron's resignation, Crabb put himself forward as leader and, by extension, Prime Minister, only to be pipped by Theresa May

Crabb resigned as Work and Pensions Secretary — a job very few people outside Westminster knew he had — and that was the last anyone heard of him.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Everybody back on the battle bus.

I’m only disinterring his body to illustrate the ephemeral nature of politics and the warped priorities of the self-obsessed political class.

In the wake of the biggest popular vote for anything in history, the story quickly ceased to be about Brexit and became all about the politicians themselves.

The people had spoken, but the political class seized possession of the result. Even though most of them had been on the losing side, they decided the will of the 17.4 million who voted Leave was at best a secondary consideration.

Fifteen months on, it’s still all about them. Sack Boris. Sack Spreadsheet Phil. How long can Mother Theresa cling on? Who is going to take over? Is Amber Rudd positioning herself for a challenge? Will it be Ruth Davidson, the kick-boxing lesbian?

Who bloody cares? Enough of the political psychodrama.

Don’t they realise that the 17.4 million weren’t just voting against the EU, they were passing a vote of no confidence in the whole rotten lot of them?

The only thing that matters now is getting Britain the hell out of the EU as quickly as possible. While the Tory Party is playing silly buggers, the Eurocrats and the embittered Remoaner saboteurs are making hay.

Those determined to derail Brexit can smell weakness.

Even before Mother Theresa had formally issued her feeble ‘the ball is in your court’ warning to the EU yesterday, Brussels had lobbed it back over the net. Pick the bones out of that, pet.

Why wouldn’t they? Members of the Cabinet appear more worried about their own futures than the future of the country. Project Fear is still in full swing.

Over the weekend, professional Establishment stooge Howard Davies — formerly of the Europhile CBI and the man who brought you Gordon Brown’s disastrous banking reforms — was wheeled out everywhere, warning that tens of thousands of jobs in the City were about to migrate to Europe.

No, they’re not.

 

Why does anyone pay attention to Nick Clegg, who is pushing the idea that Brexit can still be stopped?

What you have to remember is that Davies is part of the same lying crowd who warned that if we voted Leave, there’d be an emergency Budget the next day, millions of jobs would be lost and World War III would break out.

Then up popped Nick Clegg, all channels, all day, pushing a book on how Brexit can still be stopped. Why does anyone give him houseroom?

After losing the referendum, he fought the last election on an anti-Brexit ticket and lost his seat. How many more goes does he get?

If you take any notice of most of the self-interested merchants of doom, we are at the mercy of the EU and must be grateful for whatever scraps they throw us.

Not that Brussels is in the mood to give us anything. We’ve been walking up a one-way street so far. We offer concessions, which they swallow and then refuse to budge an inch. Pathetic.

Sorry to sound so negative, but just because you’re paranoid and all that. The Great Brexit Betrayal began the moment the result of the referendum was announced. The grave danger now is that it all gets Lost In Transition.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Faced with EU intransigence, the only sensible option, as I’ve maintained all along, is Just Walk Away, Mrs May. They’ve got more to lose than we have. But that’s not going to happen.

It’ll all come down to Angela Merkel, we’re told. Why? She’s just had an even worse general election than Mother Theresa.

Why the hell should a woman who could only poll 33 per cent in Germany dictate Brexit terms to a woman who won 42 per cent of the vote in Britain?

Yet all the parochial Boys In The Bubble are bothered about is who Theresa should sack. For what it’s worth, I’d have shot Spreadsheet Phil back in the spring after his disastrous, hubristic Budget — and said so at the time.

They’d rather she sacked Box Office Boris, the one man who has consistently put forward a positive vision of Britain’s future outside the EU and about the only proven match winner the Tories currently possess. Dumping Boris would be like Portugal dropping Cristiano Ronaldo because he’s not a ‘team player’.

 

'It’ll all come down to Angela Merkel, we’re told. Why? She’s just had an even worse general election than Mother Theresa,' write Littlejohn

Boris should have got the job when Cameron fell on his sword, but the petty jealousy and resentment of so-called colleagues stopped him in his tracks. He might have screwed up spectacularly eventually, but he had earned the right to give it his best shot.

Ah, but he’s driven by personal ambition, his critics say. And the others aren’t? Grow up. They are all driven by ambition. They’re politicians.

What was the unnecessary and calamitous ‘Vote Theresa May’ vanity project general election all about otherwise?

Why has the appalling, sour-faced Look Back In Amber just hired an expensive pollster, if not out of ‘personal ambition’?

Are you seriously going to tell me that life under Boris would have been any worse than we’ve had to endure over the past 15 months?

It wasn’t Boris who dillied and dallied for months over invoking Article 50, or who called an unwanted election, blew a 23-point opinion poll lead, lost the Tories’ parliamentary majority, and condemned us to the prospect of the Marxist menace Corbyn next time round.

If it had gone pear-shaped, at least — like Arnold Bennett’s Card — he’d have cheered us all up, not tried to scare us to death or filled us with gloom every five minutes.

If not Boris next, then who? Ruth Davidson, young-ish, Scottish, etc, is the bookies’ favourite. The name on everyone’s lips, we’re told.

Well, I was in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago — Old Firm game, Horseshoe Bar, usual haunts — and unless I’ve gone completely mutton, no one, but no one, was talking about her.

At best she’s small-time, the Tories’ version of Wee Burney. She’s not even a Westminster MP — and, anyway, is a fervent Remainer who would keep us locked in to the Single Market, free movement and the European Court of Justice.

I wonder what Stephen Crabb’s up to these days.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4964676/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Brexit-politicians.html#ixzz4v7E7OeQm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

[* PARASITES NOT PATRIOTS!]

[MAKE NO MISTAKE! IT IS GERMANY OUR ENEMY OF TWO WORLD WARS  WHICH IS GLOATING AT THE PALTRY-PUSILLANIMOUS AND NUGATORYATTEMPTS OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO EXIT HITLER'S PLANNED EUROPEAN UNION.  AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED ONLY A FIRM HAND AND A FIRM EXIT DATE IN MONTHS NOT YEARS WILL SEE OUR COUNTRY FREE FROM EU CONTROL .ANY FURTHER DELAY IS A DERELICTION OF THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO HONOUR THE PEOPLE'S VOICE ON JUNE 23,2016 FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR FREE COUNTRY WHICH WAS LOST ON JANUARY 1, 1972 BY

FRAUD

AND

TREASON

OF THE GOVERNMENT AND MONARCHY.

WE HAVE SEEN ON OUR SCREENS THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE OF THE PROVINCE OF CATALONIA ON THE STREETS FIGHTING FOR THEIR FREEDOM AND FREE COUNTRY WHEREAS, IN SCOTLAND, THEIR LEADERSHIP WISHES TO REMAIN IN THE EU YET PARADOXICALLY WISHES TO BE AN INDEPENDENT NATION STATE. HOW ABSURD AND DANGEROUS ARE MANY OF OUR UNPATRIOTIC POLITICIANS IN OUR ISLAND HOME.

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

OCTOBER 10,2017

 

H.F.1340-BREXIT IS BEING BLOCKED BY LYING POLITICIANS AND TRAITORS.

 

 

UK banks 'haven't paid for crash'

 

 UK watchdogs have fined the banks that sparked the financial crisis just £3.6 billion-compared with more than £115 billion in penalties handed out by tough US regulators.

AS the UK approaches the tenth anniversary of the credit crisis in 2007, critics claim not enough has been done to change the culture that led to the selling of toxic mortgage bundles and interest rigging.

Since then, the US Department of Justice has hit banks with more than $150 billion in fines(£115 billion)

At the same time, analysis by the Mail has found banks in the UK, including RBS, Barclays and HSBC, have been fined ONLY £3.6billion by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and its predecessor, the Financial Services Authority. The biggest fine in the US was a record £12bilion paid by the Bank of America, while the largest fine in Britain was £284million for Barclays.

Justin Modray, of consumer group Candid Financial Advice, said:

'The fines have not been high enough. They have certainly not stopped the actions regulators want them to stop-the mis-selling of products that are not in the customer's interests.'

However the FCA yesterday pointed to the different regulatory regime in the US and said lenders have been forced to pay £27.4billion to customers for mis-selling PPI since 2011.

ABANDONED BY THE BANK YOU SAVED

 

News for DAILY MAIL-ABANDONED BY THE BANK YOU SAVED BY JAMES BURTON

 

 

*  *  *

[Complete List of BANKS Owned or Controlled by the Rothschild ...]

AUGUST 8-2017

H.F.1276

 

How US Corporations Financed Nazi Germany & USSR
    by ANTONY C. SUTTON



Antony C. Sutton gave an interview in 1980 discussing his research on the funding of World War II, when American and European financiers were funding both the Nazi party and the communists.

Sutton was an economics professor at California State University, Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973.

In 1973, Sutton published a popularized, condensed version of the three volumes called National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union and was thereby forced out of the Hoover Institution.

His conclusion from his research on the issue was that the conflicts of the Cold War were "not fought to restrain communism", since the United States, through financing the Soviet Union "directly or indirectly armed both sides in at least Korea and Vietnam"; rather, these wars were organised in order "to generate multibillion-dollar armaments contracts"

For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Anthony C.


Other Top Stories

Greece Is a Tragi-Comedy by TAKI THEODORACOPULOS (DAILY MAIL)
Mind Control Victim Paul Bonacci Awarded $1Million by URI DOWBENKO
HSBC Bank: Secret Origins of a Drug Money Laundry by GREAT GAME INDIA
Mars Rover Finds Aztec Style Statue on Mars by JIM STONE
How US Corporations Financed Nazi Germany & USSR by ANTONY C. SUTTON
Iron Curtain Over America:Russia, Khazars & Talmud by JOHN BEATY
 

 

 

 

JULY-2015

H F 508

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

A MAN of VISION-A LEARNED PATRIOT for whom LONDON DOCKERS MARCHED on WESTMINSTER in his SUPPORT-HISTORY has VALIDATED his FEARS.

*

 

Words

Enoch would never have uttered

 

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail- Friday, November 9, 2007]

 

 

THERE is a long standing form of moral evasion popular among politicians - and some journalists too - which has always intrigued me , if only for its

IMPUDENCE

It involves Enoch Powell's so called 'river of blood' speech in 1968, whose recollection has forced the resignation of the Tory candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis. The speech itself, incidentally, was notable for understating the prospective immigrant population.

 

'Ah, yes, you see,' the cry of the political elite has long run (I read it again last week),

'It was that speech , that phrase, which made rational discussion of immigration impossible.'

Note the implication that these people had been indulging in a rational debate on immigration only to be thrown off course by Powell's hand-grenade.

Let me assure you with every fibre of my being that a rational discussion was just what leading politicians were avoiding.

THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

by both front benches

-which drove Powell to fury.

Far from making thoughtful debate impossible, his speech and reaction made it

VERY URGENT

As an admirer and friend of Powell I was myself dismayed by that sanguinary phrase. But the real shock lay in the public reaction.

Dockers from the East End marched on Westminster demanding  to protest at

TED HEATH

sacking Powell from the Shadow Cabinet.

Opinion polls showed massive backing for Powell, to say nothing of the largest politician's postbag on record, in which the overwhelming majority supported him.

THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

sprang from the fact that the problem had become so daunting. Effective action would have to be on a major scale , admit to previous failures and would risk, indeed ensure, denunciation from every pulpit in the land (lay and clerical)

It was easier for politicians and commentators, all secure in their leafy suburbs, to assure the public that the problem would be solved by

INTEGRATION

NOW, however, the genie was out of the bottle. So in the 1970 Tory manifesto Heath promised

'No further large scale permanent immigration'.

BUT

of course, there was.

 

The 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act

 

TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE

had allowed those already here or able to secure work vouchers to bring in their families and 'dependant relatives'.

THEY CAME IN SWARMS

 

PARENTS

GRANDPARENTS

UNCLES

and

SISTERS

and their

COUSINS

and their AUNTS.

They came from the sub-continent where birth certificates were far form common and anyone could claim a blood relationship. Money readily changed hands. So that Tories changed the law to say that only

Spouses

Fiances

and

Fiancees

would be allowed.

 

But by 1976, the level of intercontinental match-making had reached such a level the Foreign Office dispatched a senior official to the sub-continent to assess the

PROBLEM.

He observed that allowing in married and affianced partners would open up a whole new group of applicants -'subsequently entitling

PARENTS

GRANDPARENTS

and allegedly distressed

RELATIVES

to seek entry.

IT WOULD BE LIKE BAILING OUT THE OCEAN.

 

SO AN EFFORT was made to tighten up the rules but it was -how did you guess?

TOO LITTLE-TOO LATE

Since Heath's promise

TO CLOSE THE DOOR

more than

3,000,000

non-British immigrants have arrived

IN THIS COUNTRY

And traffic in spouses between such places such as

BRADFORD and BANGALORE

HAS CONTINUED APACE

 

Two other factors have long overhung any rational debate on

IMMIGRATION

Most obvious, in an echo of the Salem witchcraft trials, has been the tactic of pointing at someone and shrieking

'RACIST'

-the sin against the Holy Ghost - and even calling for

POLICE ACTION

Believe me , this accusation has long scared the wits out of

FLEET STREET EDITORS

-their legal departments

media commentators generally and politicians of every shade.

IT HAS BEEN CENSORSHIP BY ANOTHER NAME

-the public has been duly cowed.

A technical problem has added to this because the word

RACE

is SHORT -and EASY to FIT into a HEADLINE -while IMMIGRATION isn't. So arguments about IMMIGRATION were labelled in innumerable headlines as being about

'RACE'

The other problem which hindered meaningful debate was that immigrants had come to form a grouping of such

SIZE and IDENTITY

that politicians on all sides thought well worth wooing, indeed crawling to.

NOW

David Cameron has woken up, in intervals between sacking Tory front benchers and Tory candidates for 'racism' to the Government's vulnerability on

IMMIGRATION.

Ministers have trebled the number of work vouchers available to foreign workers over ten years to a level running at

150,000 a year

 

Cameron has no serious solution to

IMMIGRATION

but as the saying is, every bit helps.

 

The supreme irony of this week's fuss around Powell's 1968 speech is that recently had our supposedly internationalist Prime Minister promising

'BRITISH JOBS for BRITISH WORKERS.

Enoch would not have touched such a phrase with a bargepole.

*

 

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

*

[Under PR- Proportional Representation the Immigration levels would have been curtailed because the Government of the Day would feel obliged to take a stronger line in order to gather up the votes and back to power. But as we all know it has been this single-minded attitude of the tripartite in your

HOUSE OF COMMONS

to keep power within their grasp and to hell to any outsiders.

Most of the problems in our society over the past 40 years have occurred because of the determination of the party in power to take what they consider a more lenient line on policy whether it is

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

ABORTION

IMMIGRATION

and no doubt dozens of other matters which has resulted in absolute chaos in the above areas.

If they are able to claw in another small section of the community which will be ready voters they will change anything what ever the consequences to the people and the country.

We have been calling for the introduction of

PR in our PARLIAMENT

for many years as a number of bulletins on our website can testify but the very organisations that could achieve this necessary alteration -the numerous political organisations in our country appear not to be interested. And that is the PROBLEM

and until we change the system we shall see the constant over-regulation by the Government and the hair-brained schemes adopted by the so-called OPPOSITION which lays a path of problems in the future.

Of course if PR had been in place over the last four decades there would not have been the

WAR in IRAQ

or even

Mission Impossible in Afghanistan.

 

The Abortion Bill would only have passed if much greater safeguards had been put in place.

 

Immigration would have been freely discussed and sensible measures adopted to allow controlled entry ONLY and those who were prepared to INTEGRATE and NOT THREATEN the very existence of the COUNTRY that they were adopting.

 

Abolition of Capital Punishment Bill failed to honour the feelings in the country that if the Death Sentence was abolished that MURDER would mean a LIFE SENTENCE where the circumstances warrant it. Even before the abolition of the penalty over 50 per cent of murderers had their sentence commuted to life imprisonment and that didn't mean twelve or even three years or less today. The liberal establishment have much to answer for ,whether in believing that prisons should be five star hotels or that a fine that is never paid is the answer to the increased

MURDERS- GUN /KNIFE CRIME- BURGLARY- ROBBERY-THEFT-ASSAULT and whatever.

 

 

Our so-called Criminal Justice system would have been unable to treat prisoners as visitors and victims as criminals and there would have been Bobbies of the Beat- more prisons, and punishment to fit the crime.

Over the past 40 years the majority of your politicians in

YOUR HOUSE of COMMONS

 have been feathering their own nests to the point today in November 2007 there are many of them on a comfortable

£250,000 [at least] a year.

They fiddle their expenses-They lie about their expenditure-They lie about the true facts of the EU. In fact many of them lie about almost everything. They only work for a little over half a year .They have gold-plated pensions and they will be comfortable for the rest of their lives. As for what happens to their country as far as many of them are concerned our country had never existed.

Of course in such a bedlam there are a small group of men and women of

Honour and Integrity

who alas are ignored by their colleagues -some say they even detest them. Guilty secrets no doubt.

 

As for Europe the lies could not have been hidden if there had been eurosceptic parties at Westminster.  And the CONSPIRACY that has taken place since 1972 would not have been in place and our NATIONHOOD and COUNTRY threatened with extinction as will be the case in your Parliament in the early months of 2008.

*

THE ENEMY WITHIN IS YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH INTENDS TO SELL YOUR COUNTRY TO FOREIGN POWERS.

November-2007.

*

H.F.1594

 

 

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

A.N. WILSON on the new dark age of intolerance: You must believe in gay marriage, you can't question abortion and as for transgender rights...

The great French writer Voltaire famously said: 'I disapprove of what you say and would defend to the death your right to say it'. In this way, he encapsulated what it meant to be an enlightened human being — someone prepared to consider all points of view.

But in recent years the principle of freedom of speech, sacred since Voltaire's 18th century, has been lost, and this is surely one of the most sinister features of our times. It is as if we are entering a new Dark Age of Intolerance.

The irony is that this intolerance has come about as a result of what were initially good intentions. One of the things which makes me happy as I grow older is the thought that during my lifetime we have all tried to become a kinder society.

When I was a boy and a young man, for example, racist jokes were the norm on radio and TV. Now they would be unthinkable. Mockery of homosexuals, and the equation of being gay with being limp-wristed and camp, were absolute norms of comedy when I was growing up. Now no longer.

Such jokes have gone the way of boarding-houses which used to put 'NO BLACKS. NO DOGS. NO IRISH in the window'. Obviously, all civilised people feel pleased by this.

But somehow those initial good intentions — to be kinder to and more tolerant of others — have morphed into a political correctness that has had the very opposite effect.

Two notorious recent examples of this concerned the treatment of a Christian baker in Northern Ireland, and some Christian bed and breakfast owners in Berkshire. The baker had not wanted to make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The B&B owners had refused to let a gay couple share the same room in their establishment. In each case they were successfully sued for unlawful discrimination.

Now, a gay activist would no doubt say this was a good thing, arguing that the baker and bed and breakfast owners' behaviour was comparable to the racism of the past. Yet this is surely getting things wholly out of proportion.

The baker was not persecuting homosexuals, as Hitler did. He was not saying they should be put in prison, as all Home Secretaries in Britain did until the Sixties. He was merely saying that, as a Christian, he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that two chaps tying the knot were doing something rather different, which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching.

Whatever you think about this matter, the Northern Irish baker and the B&B couple were merely holding on to Christian beliefs.

I don't happen to share their views myself, and think that if two people are rash enough to promise to live together for the rest of their lives, good luck to them, whether they are gay, straight, trans or anything else. But surely you can understand both sides of this dilemma, can't you?

Well, the answer, more and more in our intolerant society, is 'No'. My concern here is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, transgender rights, our colonial history, or any of the other emotive issues that are subject to endless debate in the modern age.

It is about freedom of thought and speech; freedom to disagree in a liberal society; freedom to have thoughts which are different from the current orthodoxy.

What began as our very decent desire not to be nasty to those of a different ethnicity, or sexual proclivity, from ourselves, has turned into a world as intolerant as monkish Christianity in the days of the Dark Ages, when any freedom of thought is questioned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems during the General Election, was asked repeatedly about his views on gay marriage. As a fairly old-fashioned Christian, he did not believe it was possible — marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As the leader of a modern political party, he knew that it would be political death to admit this. He was finally forced to resign.

This was a signal to the world that if you want to succeed in modern politics, it is simply not allowed to hold views which, until a very short time ago, were the consensus among the great majority of people in the Western world.

I use the words 'not allowed' advisedly. What is sinister about living in the new Dark Ages, however, is that it is by no means clear who is doing the allowing and not allowing. In Mao's China, it was obvious: thought crimes were ideas which contradicted the supreme leader.

In Britain today, however, it seems an army of self-appointed censors — from internet trolls to angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials, craven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures, as well as a host of other sanctimonious and often bilious busy-bodies — have taken it upon themselves to police what we can and cannot think or say.

Not believing in abortion, like not believing in gay marriage, is now, unquestionably, a thought crime. It was hardly surprising that the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said he did not believe in abortion, because he is a man of conviction as well as a Roman Catholic, and this is the teaching of his Church. Yet his view was treated with incredulity and disdain by everyone from trolls and women's groups to the higher echelons of the political Establishment.

As in the case of abortion, debate is no longer allowed on transgender issues. There was a BBC2 Horizon Programme last Tuesday night called Being Transgender. The close-up shots of transgender surgery in a Californian hospital will not easily leave the mind.

We met a number of nice people who had decided for one reason or another that they were not the gender which they had once supposed. They were all undergoing some form of transformative medical treatment, either taking hormones or having surgery.

What made the programme strange as a piece of journalism was the fact that it did not contain one dissenting voice. Not one psychiatrist or doctor who said they doubted the wisdom of some of these procedures, especially in the very young.

Still less was there anyone like the redoubtable feminist and academic Dr Germaine Greer who once expressed her view that a man did not become a woman just because he had undergone transgender surgery — and was, as a result, decried from the rooftops with everything from petitions launched to stop her from speaking at university campuses to death threats.

Dr Greer had also been bold enough to say 'a great many women' shared her view, which is obviously true — a great many women do not think that transgender people have really changed sex. What has changed is that it is no longer permitted to say so.

A friend of mine who likes bathing in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath in London says that at least one person now uses the female changing rooms who is obviously in a stage of transition from man to woman, and is simply a hairy man wearing lipstick.

However uncomfortable this makes the women feel, they know that they cannot say anything.

There was an ugly incident lately at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, which used to be the place where anyone could go and stand on a soap-box and hold any opinion they liked.

Speakers' Corner was a symbol of British Freedom of Speech. As a schoolboy, I had a Jewish friend whose grandfather used to take us there to listen to people proclaiming that the earth was flat, preachers praising Hitler, Stalin, and others saying whatever they liked. It was the freedom to do so, said the old man who had escaped Hitler's Germany, which made the very air of Britain so refreshing to him.

What would he have thought had he witnessed the scene earlier this month at Speakers' Corner when a 60-year-old woman called Maria was smacked in the face, allegedly by a transgender fanatic, while listening to a talk on planned reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Reforms which would allow men to 'self-identify' as female, and enter women's changing rooms or refuges unchallenged.

For Maria, as for the intimidated women of Hampstead swimming pool, and for Germaine Greer, it is by no means clear that transgender people have changed their sex.

Transgender activists have labelled women like Maria TERFS — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. When news of the assault on her reached the internet — ie instantaneously — the trolls began baying, like the bloodthirsty mob during the guillotine-executions of the French Revolution. 'Burn in a fire, TERF'. 'I want to f*** some TERFS up, they are no better than fascists'.

The use of the word 'fascist' is commonplace in our new Dark Age for anyone with whom you happen to disagree. You hear it all the time in the Brexit arguments which rage all around us and which I dread. As it happens, I voted Remain. But I do not regard Brexiteers as 'fascists', and many of their arguments — wanting to reclaim the power to make our own laws and control our own borders — are evidently sensible.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Remainers say that Brexiteers are fascists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the keenest supporters of a united European superstate were actual fascists.

The only British politician who campaigned on the ticket of Europe A Nation during the Fifties was Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of the British Union of Fascists. But then, today's PC censors don't let facts get in their way of bigotry.

Branding anyone you disagree with a fascist; hitting people in the face; tweeting and blogging abuse behind the cowardly anonymity of the internet — these are the ugly weapons used to stifle any sort of debate. And it is often in the very places where ideas should be exchanged and examined that the bigotry is at its worst: our universities.

This week on the Radio 4's Today programme, we heard James Caspian, a quietly-spoken, kindly psychotherapist, describing what has become a cause celebre at Bath Spa University.

He has been working for some years with people who for one reason or another have begun the process of gender-transition, and then come to regret it.

Caspian is evidently not a judgmental man. He wanted to write a thesis on this subject from a sympathetic and dispassionate point of view.

What makes people feel so uncomfortable with their own apparent gender that they wish to undergo painful and invasive surgery to change it? What makes people then come to reassess their first idea? These are surely legitimate questions about a subject many of us can't quite comprehend.

I have two friends who started out as men, and decided in mid-life that they were really women, or wanted to become women, which is what they have done. I do not really understand what has happened to them, even though they have tried to explain it to me.

Surely a man like James Caspian, who has worked with transgender men and women, should be encouraged by a university to explain this area of medicine or psychology?

But no. The university, having initially approved of his idea for a thesis, then turned down his application. 'The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media, and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university,' he told Radio 4 listeners. 'They also added it's better not to offend people.'

This is all of a piece with students at Oxford wanting to pull down the statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes from his old college, Oriel, on the grounds that he was racist.

Rather than having a reasoned debate weighing the evils of racist colonialism against Rhodes's benevolence, the student at the forefront of the movement — who had actually accepted a £40,000 Rhodes scholarship funded by the fortune the colonialist gave to Oxford — wanted to pull down the statue.

This is the same attitude of mind as that which led monks in the Dark Ages to destroy the statues of pagan gods and goddesses, or the Taliban to do the same to age-old Buddhist artefacts.

Reason, debate, seeing more than one side to an argument, surely these are the foundations of all that has fashioned the great values of the West since the Enlightenment started in the 18th century with an explosion of new ideas in science, philosophy, literature, and modern rational thought that ushered in the Age of Reason.

Realising that human actions and ideas are often mixtures of good and bad — isn't this what it means to have a grown-up mind? Surely we should be allowed to discuss matters without being accused of thought crime?

In universities, as at Speakers' Corner and in the public at large, there used to be the robust sense that sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us. Now, the 'hurt-feelings' card is regularly played to stifle any debate.

Little by little, we are allowing the Dark Ages of intolerance to come again. We should not be letting this happen.

We should be able to say: 'We disapprove of your views — on Europe, on Transgender Issues, on Islam, on absolutely anything, but we defend to the death your right to express them'.


 

Full article

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4935418/A-N-WILSON-new-dark-age-intolerance.html#ixzz4uAFieZ6T
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

 

 
 
 

A REMINDER!

WHAT YOU ARE ESCAPING FROM SINCE TRAITORS IN YOUR PARLIAMENT SIGNED YOUR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND

AWAY IN

1972

AND IN LATER TREATIES UNTIL YOU SPOKE YOUR MIND ON

 JUNE 23-2016

 A DATE IN HISTORY WHICH WILL BE ALWAYS REMEMBERED

BY ALL TRUE ENGLISHMEN.

 

*  *  *

HOW IT CAME ABOUT!

Mr Macmillan and 1961

Mr Heath and 1970

Mrs Thatcher and 1985

From Major to Blair, Maastricht to Nice

The Price We Have PAid

 

*  *  *

 

H.F.1100 FREEDOM AWAITS

 
NEW SERIES

*

WHY WE VOTED TO LEAVE

THE

UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-WASTEFUL-GODLESS

SO-CALLED

EUROPEAN UNION

[WE WILL SELECT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AUTHORITIVE SOURCES CONCERNING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE EU TREATIES AND THOSE WHO LIED FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND POWER AND OTHER SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION COLLECTED OVER THE 20 YEARS SINCE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE AFTER STANDING FOR ELECTION IN THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION AND THE 1999 EUROPEAN ELECTION. MANY WHO VOTED TO REMAIN IN THE EU WOULD SURELY HAVE RECONSIDERED IF THEY HAD BEEN DISINTERESTED OBSERVERS-DECIDING ON THE FACTS AND PUTTING NATIONAL INTERESTS  OF FREEDOM  and NATIONHOOD OUTLINED IN MAGNA CARTA AND OTHER PRIZED DOCUMENTS HELD IN TRUST-SACRED HEIRLOOMS - FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, BEFORE THEIR OWN COMFORT ZONE.  FORTUNATELY, THE GODS, WERE WITH ENGLAND-AND THE SOON RETURN OF

 A FREE LAND AND FREE PEOPLE.

OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN 1972 INTO HITLER'S PLAN FOR GERMAN EXPANSION AND POWER IN PEACE-TIME EUROPE WILL SOON BE AT AN END. AS A UNITED PEOPLE IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER. LET US WORK TOGETHER AS  AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER ONCE FREE PEOPLES WITHIN THE CAPTIVE EU WHO WILL SURELY FOLLOW. IF THE SHIP IS NOT ON AN EVEN KEEL IT CANNOT HELP OTHERS WHO WILL NEED OUR STURDY STEADY HAND.

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

William Pitt.

 [Speech, 9th Nov, after Nelson's VICTORY at THE Battle of Trafalgar-with the destruction of the French and Spanish Fleets-Oct 21-1805]

MARCH 1-2017

 
A FAMILIAR WARNING FROM HISTORY - WE MUST NOT IGNORE!

'It is quite true that, in my opinion the waters which we have to navigate are likely to be stormy, and that the anti-social ferments within the nation are unusually malignant. But just a a healthy body generates anti-toxins to combat any virulent infection, so our nation

ENGLAND

 may be vigorous enough to neutralize the poisons which now threaten our civilization with death. Nothing but good can be done by calling attention to perils which really exist, and which may easily escape due attention amid the bottomless insincerity of modern politics and political journalism.

DANGERS OF PREDICTION

However , the dangers of prediction have been so often illustrated that those who are naturally disposed to optimism may be excused for rejecting the anticipations of coming CALAMITY, which  are now  [as in 2016/7] widely felt, though not so often expressed.

In the Victorian age we had  our profits of woe [and doom], who vociferated warnings about "shooting Niagara" when the country was more prosperous than it had ever been before. [As yet again in 2016/7].

Even on the morrow of our victory in 1815, " as soon as Waterloo was fought," says Sir Walter Besant, "the continental professors, historians, and others began with one accord to prophesy the approaching downfall of Great Britain," which they liked to compare with Carthage.

They emphasised the condition of Ireland, the decay of trade, our huge debt, our wasteful expenditure, our corrupting poor laws, the ignorance and drunkenness of the masses. Nor was this pessimistic forecast confined to our jealous neighbours.  In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent as follows:

" Distress and misery are no longer limited to one portion of the Empire, and under their irresistible pressure the commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests are rapidly sinking.   We can ,Sir no longer support out of our dilapidated resources the overwhelming load of taxation.  Our grievances are the natural result of rash and ruinous wars, unjustly commenced and pertinaciously persisted in, where no rational object was to be attained; of immense subsidies to foreign Powers to defend their own territories  or to commit aggressions on those of our neighbours;  of a delusive paper currency; of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force in time of peace;   of the unexampled and increasing magnitude of the Civil List ;  of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pensions and sinecures;   and of a long course of the most lavish and improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every branch of Government."

In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent with the above statement.

Sounds familiar in 2017-Don't you think?

 

[EPILOGUE-William Ralph Inge -Dean of St Pauls ENGLAND-1938] -(1860-1954)

 

We endorse the final paragraph which states:

 

" I have laid bare my hopes and fears for the country I love.  This much I can avow, that never, even when the storm clouds appear blackest, have I been tempted to wish that I was other than an Englishman."

*

[We appear to have learned NOTHING! since this speech  in 1816 as the multiple evils are still with us today August 6, 2011. The reason is OBVIOUS! because the SAME! once invisible GLOBAL CONSPIRATORS are  STILL in CHARGE! and  are now in the OPEN!

If the ECONOMY has a DISEASE and FAILS to take the CORRECT MEDICINE then the END RESULT is OBVIOUS.

TOTAL CHAOS!

*

WHY DO WE TRUST THESES DISCREDITED DOOM-MONGERS?

By Alex Brummer - City Editor-Daily Mail-Monday, August 8,2011

 

 [EXTRACT]

...and the answer is that the CREDIT RATING AGENCIES are now seen as the ONLY arbiters prepared to spell out just how SERIOUS the GLOBAL DEBT CRISIS really IS.... After all, the very same AGENCIES were still providing the US. energy company ENRON with TOP RATING up to THREE DAYS before IT COLLAPSED in the world's BIGGEST INDUSTRIAL BANKRUPTCY...  They also gave a CLEAN BILL of HEALTH to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC -semi-official, but privately owned U. S bodies set up to expand the HOME OWNERSHIP and the availability of MORTGAGES-despite WARNINGS from the LEGENDARY American investor -WARREN BUFFETT -THAT they were BROKE... S&P's downgrade may look like a poke in the eye for the UNITED STATES. But with luck, it could in the end DAMAGE the FUTURE CREDIBILITY of the CREDIT-RATING AGENCIES - they are in MORE URGENT NEED of REFORM than AMERICA.

 

 

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS OVER!

 

h

 

 

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***AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED.

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

*

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

HITLER'S+PLAN+FOR+A+

GERMAN+CONTROLLED

+EUROPEAN+UNION

***

TREASON

***

 

 

 

ENGLAND

 

 Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****.OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****   WHY OUR ENGLISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUE IN EUROPE AND THE WORLD****.ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY****  THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? **** ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ONSHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****NAZI SPY RING REVEALED BY THE MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE IN 1938 . IT INCLUDED THE LATE EX PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH AND MINISTERS GEOFFREY RIPPON AND ROY JENKINS.* * * *AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****   EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

 

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY
****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****
New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAME  PARTS 1-5****

 

 

H.F.1099 FREEDOM AWAITS

 
A MEETING PLACE  - THERE ARE HUNDREDS  OF ALTERNATIVE WEBSITES ON OUR wEBSITE- SINCE 2003CLICK HERE
realzionistnews. TruetorahJews CONSPIRACYPLANET

.COM/

Fagan-Sounded-Alarm-of -the ILLUMINATI-in-1967  DAVID ICKE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP

 

YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH
BENJAMIN FULFORD.NET

 

THE WORLD OF TRUTH NEWWORLDORDER

INFO.COM

 

SITSSHOW.BLOGSPOT.COM
(Jeff )RENCE.COM  TRUTHCONTROL.COM/  

WHATDOESIT MEAN.COM

 

 

HUMANS ARE FREE

CLIMATE CHANGE A HOAX-TRUMP KNOWS IT-NOW YOU KNOW IT!

The Rothschilds.
 

LANDDESTROYER.

BLOGSPOT

.COM

HENRY MAKOW  CORBETTREPORT) LIFE IN THE MIX 2

 

UK COLUMN.ORG. JEW WATCH

ACTIVISTPOST.

COM

TARPLEY.NET

 

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

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 

 

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2018

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

NOVEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018