27 October 2011 12:27AM
PRESENT DAY SLAVERY
It would seem that:-
1. by means of extensive criminal malpractice, the world's major banks have assumed financial control over nearly all of the world's governments.
2. they have assumed near infinite financial wealth by charging untold interest on loans of virtual money which was created through the stupendous criminal fraud known as "fractional reserve banking".
3. the banks are financing heinous "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment" we all share " by means of criminal industrial piracy.
4. furthermore they are guilty of criminal economic exclusion of lawful organic & sustainable permaculture theory and practice, the general 'excuse' being that it is not financially viable. The financial arguments used are based upon fraudulently created virtual money and lawfully unenforceable contracts to commit "agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment".
5. When combined, points 1 to 4 above clearly constitute "criminal global economic slavery" by the bankers, in other words: "we are in criminal bondage to destroy our planet!"
As in North Dakota, USA, bankers must be public servants, not agents of unlawful free-market enterprise including salvery.
7. The only necessary criteria for a public servant's finances, is that all those finances be open to public scrutiny. Any concealment may constitute a criminal offence punishable in law.
Noblesse Oblige.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/slaveryen.pdf
27 October 2011 1:04AM
Definition of an " Occupier ". rude, obnoxious, insensitive, unaware of reality and history,pretentious, uneducated, chav( in thinking ), intolerant,stupid, self centered,incomplete, pseudo-labour, lazy thinkers, non thinkers, unemployed, rude,rude, rude.
Capitalism has always had its faults but it has helped to make Britain put bread on everyones table. ( and cake ).
Perhaps they should have lived in Russia after the revolution.
Peace be with you.
27 October 2011 11:49AM
"@Nedlly: not being anti semetic myself, (zionists are NOT of the semetic tribe, whereas Palestinians ARE semetic, which makes zionists anti-semetic!), this is quoted from English translation of German MP Martin Hohmann's 'antisemic speech' of October 3 2003:
How many Jews were actually represented in the (Russian) revolutionary assemblies?
4 Jews were part of the 7 men Politibureau. Leo Trotsky, Leo Kamenjew, Gregory Sinowjew and Gregory Sokolnikow.
The none-Jews were Lenin, Stalin and Bubnow (1).
Among the 21 members of the Revolutionary Central Committee in Russia in 1917, 6 had the Jewish nationality, which is 28.6 %.
This overrepresentation of Jews amongst the creators of the Communist Movement was in no way limited to the Soviet Union.
Also Ferdinand LaSalle was Jewish, as were Eduard Bernstein and Rosa Luxemburg.
In Germany in 1924 4 out of 6 leaders of the Communist Party were Jewish, and thereby made up one third.
In Germany in 1924 4 out of 6 leaders of the Communist Party were Jewish, and thereby made up one third.
In Vienna out of 137 leading Austro-Marxists there were 81 Jews, which comprises 60%.
Among the 48 Folk Commissionaires, there were 30 Jews.
Among the 48 Folk Commissionaires, there were 30 Jews.
But also among the Soviet revolutionary secret police the Jewish quota was exceptionally large. While the Jewish quota of the total Russian population in 1939 was about 2 %, the Jewish Cheka (Tcheka) leaders made up no less than 39 %.
"Jewish", to make things clear, was recognized as a separate nationality in the Soviet Union.
The Jewish quota of the Cheka was by 36% higher than the Russian.
In the Ukraine even 75 % of the Cheka were Jews
In the Ukraine even 75 % of the Cheka were Jews
These facts lead onward to a chapter that at that time caused an enormous outrage. The murder of the Russian Tsar family had been planned by the Jew Jacob Swerdlov, and Tsar Nicholas II was murdered by the Jew Chaimowits Jurowski in person.
Furthermore, there is the question if the Jews in the Communist movement were merely followers, or if they had a leading function. The latter was the case. Leo Trotsky in the UUSR, and Bela Kun in Hungary.
According to a statistical study by a professor who was presented by Churchill in 1930, 28 orthodox Bishops, 1.219 orthodox priests, 6.000 professors and teachers, 9.000 doctors, 12.950 landowners, 54.000 officers, 70.000 policemen, 193.000 workers, 260.000 soldiers, 355.000 intellectuals and merchants and 815.000 farmers had fallen as victims of the Soviets until 1924.
An especially revolting chapter was the annihilation of any resistance against the forced collectivization in the Ukraine. Under the examplatory participation of Jewish Chekists far more than 10 million people found their death here.
The outspoken anti-church and anti-Christian objectives of the Bolshevist Revolution shall not be played down, as is the case in most schoolbooks. It is a fact, that Bolshevism, with their militant atheism has carried out the greatest persecutions of Christians, and religion as such.
According to statistics worked out by the Russian authorities, 96,000 orthodox Christians, among them priests, deaconesses, monks, nuns, and other church workers were shot after having been arrested.
Quoted from English translation of German MP Martin Hohmann's 'antisemic speech' of October 3 2003.
http://www.mosaisk.com/revolution/Winston-Churchill-Zionism-Versus-Bolshevism.php
for your information 'Nedlly' it is BAKERS who make cake, NOT BANKSTERS !
Peace be with you.
27 October 2011 9:55PM
@ecotort.
I thank you for your very detailed contribution to this debate. However I am rather confused why you should go to very detailed lengths to refute my very simple statement ( although you may say very simple ).
Not really sure what to say except that you have brought up issues which I was not at all implying but all power to you.
Peace be with you.
27 October 2011 11:42PM
@Nedlly: . . . as an "Occupier" of more than thirty years standing, I am, I hope, simply making the point that I am neither, rude, obnoxious, insensitive, unaware of reality and history, pretentious, uneducated, chav ( in thinking ), intolerant, stupid, self centered, incomplete, pseudo-labour, lazy thinkers, a non thinker, nor am I unemployed, or rude,rude, rude except when sorely provoked . . .
28 October 2011 12:07AM
@ ecotort.
What can i say except that i was rude , which was wrong and I apologize.
27 October 2011 12:07PM
there is much confusion between 'anti semetic' and 'anti zionist'.
anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/comment
anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/comment
. . . - it is alleged that the City of London:
1. is private "CITY STATE" owned by a PRIVATE CORPORATION known as the "CROWN ESTATE".
2. that it is not subject to English Law.
3. it has it's own Government and Police Force.
4. it was responsible for financing the African Slave Trade and the Opium Wars.
5. it financed monsanto in the production of "AGENT ORANGE", otherwise known as "DIOXIN", a defoliant used for killing trees in the Vietnam War to expose the Vietnamese who were hiding in the Trees. . . "AGENT ORANGE" was sprayed indiscriminantly upon Americans and Vietnamese alike, and has produced extraordinarily painful mutations in children for three subsequent generations, both in America and in Vietnam.
6. it is responsible for RECKLESSLY financing continuous attempts to SELL UNTESTED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD ALL OVER THE WORLD.
6. it is currently responsible for financing wholesale AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH, to the extent that the threat of environmental damage and destruction to the Earth is now as serious as a World War.
1. is private "CITY STATE" owned by a PRIVATE CORPORATION known as the "CROWN ESTATE".
2. that it is not subject to English Law.
3. it has it's own Government and Police Force.
4. it was responsible for financing the African Slave Trade and the Opium Wars.
5. it financed monsanto in the production of "AGENT ORANGE", otherwise known as "DIOXIN", a defoliant used for killing trees in the Vietnam War to expose the Vietnamese who were hiding in the Trees. . . "AGENT ORANGE" was sprayed indiscriminantly upon Americans and Vietnamese alike, and has produced extraordinarily painful mutations in children for three subsequent generations, both in America and in Vietnam.
6. it is responsible for RECKLESSLY financing continuous attempts to SELL UNTESTED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD ALL OVER THE WORLD.
6. it is currently responsible for financing wholesale AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH, to the extent that the threat of environmental damage and destruction to the Earth is now as serious as a World War.
It is recorded in History that the territory known as the "City of London" was given to "Jewish" Bankers by Cromwell in exchange for financial support in his invasion of Britain against the Crown.
It is essential at this point, in order not to be labeled as "Anti-Semetic", to be clear that just because we are saying that the the CRIMINAL Bankers in question were "Jewish", does not mean we are saying that all Jews are to be tarred with the same brush as those Criminal Bankers amongst them. There is also some doubt as to whether those CRIMINAL "Jewish" Bankers are Semetic at all, that they are in fact descendants of Esau not Jacob/Israel:
In the time of Jesus, 2000 years ago, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judaea, and their ruler king Herod, were Edomites (sons of Esau not Jacob/Israel), who had stolen the land from the “House of Judah” whilst the House of Judah had been in slavery in Babylon and the Idumeans were pretending to be Israelites when they were really Edomites (Idumeans) - sons of Esau (who had sold his birth-right to his younger brother Jacob in exchange for a bowl of soup).
Jesus condemned them and warned the world against them in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
King of kings’ Bible – Revelation 2:9: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan."
3:9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE (Idumeans); behold, I will make them to come and worship
before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
Jesus condemned them and warned the world against them in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
King of kings’ Bible – Revelation 2:9: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan."
3:9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE (Idumeans); behold, I will make them to come and worship
before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Rothschild-timeline-revised-excerpt.html
1688: A. N. Field, in his book, “All These Things,” published in 1931, explains the situation in England this year, as a result of Cromwell’s decision to ignore the law banning the Jews from entering England, and allowing them back in defiance of the law, only 33 years earlier, as follows,
“Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the Crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived.”
1694: The deceptively named, “Bank of England,” is founded. It is deceptively named as it gives the impression it is controlled by the Government of England when in fact it is a private institution founded by Jews. In his book, “The Breakdown of Money,” published in 1934, Christopher Hollis explains the formation of the Bank of England, as follows,
“In 1694 the Government of William III (who had come in from Holland with the Jews) was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 per cent on the condition that, ‘the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 (that is, double it), lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves.
Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or
1688: A. N. Field, in his book, “All These Things,” published in 1931, explains the situation in England this year, as a result of Cromwell’s decision to ignore the law banning the Jews from entering England, and allowing them back in defiance of the law, only 33 years earlier, as follows,
“Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the Crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived.”
1694: The deceptively named, “Bank of England,” is founded. It is deceptively named as it gives the impression it is controlled by the Government of England when in fact it is a private institution founded by Jews. In his book, “The Breakdown of Money,” published in 1934, Christopher Hollis explains the formation of the Bank of England, as follows,
“In 1694 the Government of William III (who had come in from Holland with the Jews) was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 per cent on the condition that, ‘the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 (that is, double it), lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves.
Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or
27 October 2011 12:13PM
Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or three hundred thousand pounds. By 1696 (ie. within two years) we find them circulating £1,750,000 worth of notes against a cash reserve of £36,000. That is with a, ‘backing,’ of only about 2 percent of what they issued and drew interest on.”
The names of the Jewish controllers of the Bank of England are never revealed, but it is clear, as early as this year, through their control of the Bank of England, Jews had control over the British Royal family. However, whilst their identity is protected, they may have wished they picked a more discreet front man, after William Paterson states,
“The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”
The fact that Paterson chose to let the cat out of the bag in this manner, may explain why he would go on to die a poor man, outcast by his associates, or maybe this, “shabbez goy,” (a non-Jew who chose to clandestinely represent the interests of Jews), had merely outlived his usefulness to the Jews behind the scenes.
1698: Following four years of the Bank of England, the Jewish control of the British money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from its’ initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years, an increase of 1,280%.
Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000, stage one of the plan, and sends that out into the economy through loans etc, then this will naturally reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 that was in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 that was 100% of the economy is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy.
This causes inflation which is simply the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person’s money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan.
Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the people in debt to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the pound. Inflation never affects a central bank, in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more.
The names of the Jewish controllers of the Bank of England are never revealed, but it is clear, as early as this year, through their control of the Bank of England, Jews had control over the British Royal family. However, whilst their identity is protected, they may have wished they picked a more discreet front man, after William Paterson states,
“The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”
The fact that Paterson chose to let the cat out of the bag in this manner, may explain why he would go on to die a poor man, outcast by his associates, or maybe this, “shabbez goy,” (a non-Jew who chose to clandestinely represent the interests of Jews), had merely outlived his usefulness to the Jews behind the scenes.
1698: Following four years of the Bank of England, the Jewish control of the British money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from its’ initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years, an increase of 1,280%.
Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000, stage one of the plan, and sends that out into the economy through loans etc, then this will naturally reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 that was in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 that was 100% of the economy is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy.
This causes inflation which is simply the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person’s money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan.
Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the people in debt to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the pound. Inflation never affects a central bank, in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more.
Almost every national bank in the World is either hosted or represented in the City of London, and almost all of them are guilty of the FRAUD which is otherwise known as "Fractional Reserve Banking".
The FRAUD known as "Fractional Reserve Banking" is one of the primary methods by which the internatioal banking cartel has gained (UNLAWFUL) posession and control (CONVERSION -see below) of the World, it's finance, and it's Governments.
Another primary tool is USURY, which is otherwise known as "the practice of charging rates of interest on loans of that (FRAUDULENTLY CREATED) money".
A third tactic is the practice of manipulating those rates of interest in order to operate the "BOOM AND BUST" cycles in the World's economies . . . when everyone goes BUST, the BANK-ERs buy the BANK-RUPT stock at Pennies on the Pound . . .
The FRAUD known as "Fractional Reserve Banking" is one of the primary methods by which the internatioal banking cartel has gained (UNLAWFUL) posession and control (CONVERSION -see below) of the World, it's finance, and it's Governments.
Another primary tool is USURY, which is otherwise known as "the practice of charging rates of interest on loans of that (FRAUDULENTLY CREATED) money".
A third tactic is the practice of manipulating those rates of interest in order to operate the "BOOM AND BUST" cycles in the World's economies . . . when everyone goes BUST, the BANK-ERs buy the BANK-RUPT stock at Pennies on the Pound . . .
In English Law, the offence of "CONVERSION" covers all aspects of THEFT. It is quite clear that "IF A LEGAL PROCESS IS USED TO GAIN ANOTHER PERSONS' PROPERTY WITHOUT MORAL JUSTIFICATION, THAT WILL CONSTITUTE CONVERSION or THEFT"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29
"an action for conversion lies for every species of personal property which is the subject of private ownership, whether animate or inanimate." [51][52][53][54][55]
"an action for conversion lies for every species of personal property which is the subject of private ownership, whether animate or inanimate." [51][52][53][54][55]
Any unjustified exercise of dominion over property by one (THE BANKERS) who is not the owner, nor entitled to possession, which interferes with the LAWFUL right of possession of another (THE REST OF US), constitutes a conversion. [101][126][127][128][129][130]
IF IT IS TRUE, as alleged, that the "City of London" is an independent State, which is NOT constitutionally subject to English Law, then in the light of the serious crimes against Humanity committed therein, and in the LAWFUL INTEREST of GLOBAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, there is a MORAL AND LAWFUL IMPERATIVE for the People of England to peacefully re-occupy and reclaim that Square Mile of territory and bring it back under English Law.
IF however, the "City of London" IS constitutionally subject to English
27 October 2011 12:13PM
IF however, the "City of London" IS constitutionally subject to English Law, then similarly, there is a MORAL AND LAWFUL IMPERATIVE for the People of England to peacefully make a (?Symbolic!) citizens' arrest upon the senior executives of the City of London, and LAWFULLY insist that they be brought, in full Public View, before the Courts to answer for their crimes.
27 October 2011 11:35PM
FRAUD is a CRIME
under the "Proceeds of Crime Act 2002" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002] all the money created out of nothing (FRAUD) can be CONFISCATED and placed in the PUBLIC PURSE in order to finance such worthy causes as the NHS, Libraries, a decent education for our kids, etc etc
under the "Proceeds of Crime Act 2002" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002] all the money created out of nothing (FRAUD) can be CONFISCATED and placed in the PUBLIC PURSE in order to finance such worthy causes as the NHS, Libraries, a decent education for our kids, etc etc
