This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
UK PM David Cameron Proclaims: It’s Not Enough To Follow The Law, You Must Love Big Brother
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
It’s not just those domestic extremists and crazy “conspiracy theory” kooks who took serious issue with UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent overtly fascist language when it comes to freedom of expression in Great Britain. For example, in a post published today, the UK Independent describes the quote below as “the creepiest thing David Cameron has ever said.”
This statement, and others like it, are a huge deal. This isn’t how the leader of a major civilized Western so-called “democracy” speaks to the citizenry. It is how a master talks to his slaves. How a ruler addresses his subjects. I think the following tweet by Glenn Greenwald earlier today sums up David Cameron’s attitude perfectly well:
This is really the mentality of Her Majesty's Government RT @akaSassinak But now it is not enough to obey. You must LOVE BIG BROTHER.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 14, 2015
Those of us who are in disbelief over David Cameron’s recent language, don’t have to just point to the quote above. There’s a lot more to it than a simple quote. For example, the Guardian reports:
The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
A “risk of public disorder,” or a “risk of harassment alarm or distress.” Think about that for a second. Pretty much 90% of all speech could be classified as posing a risk to all of those things. It’s basically banning any criticism the government doesn’t like. Truly remarkable. Now here’s how the magnificent “democracy” of Great Britain plans on dealing with such “extremists.”
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organizations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
Although I’m not a British citizen and have never lived in the UK, I have spent some time writing about the disturbing trends happening across the pond due to the historic, cultural, geopolitical and linguistic ties between the U.S. and Great Britain. I warned all about these dangerous trends last fall in the post, The UK’s Conservative Party Declares War on YouTube, Twitter, Free Speech and Common Sense. Here are a few excerpts:
Teresa May wants to “ban non-violent extremist groups that fall short of the current threshold for being banned as terrorist-related organizations.” Think about that very closely. Essentially, she is saying non-violent groups that are currently not breaking any laws should be criminalized by creating new laws. Once this process begins, it will continue to be expanded and expanded until pretty much every form of expression other than government propaganda will be banned.
Secondly, she notes that the new laws are necessary to combat groups that undertake activities “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy.” Considering that the U.S. government changes the meanings of words at a moment’s notice, such as claiming that “imminent” doesn’t really mean “imminent,” I argue that an official government definition of democracy is necessary. Moreover, what if the UK is like the U.S., a state that claims to be a democracy, but in reality is an oligarchy? What are the rules about calling for the removal of an oligarchy?
Have fun mates.
»
- 125427 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Senator Charles Schumer would agree with Cameron, judging by the House bill he introduced after the Oklahoma City bombing.
---
A blizzard of OKC-inspired "domestic terrorism" bills were rushed into Congress in a matter of days, some of them pre-written and already printed up BEFORE THE BOMBING. These proposed laws cover everything from banning virtually all privately owned firearms to unlimited and court-admissible Federal wiretaps to censorship of the Internet to the suspension of habeas corpus in "terrorism" cases to the grotesque destruction of the First Amendment advocated in Charles Schumer's bill H.R. 2580, which imposes a five-year prison sentence for publicly engaging in "unseemly speculation" and publishing or transmitting by wire or electronic means "baseless conspiracy theories regarding the Federal government of the United States". Who decides what is a "baseless conspiracy theory'? Why, the very same government, of course.
http://www.rense.com/general10/30.htm
The London Banksters must be really frightened to trot out their most senior government mouthpiece.
This is the end goal of Cultural Marxism, created by our self styled Elites, to control what we think and how we feel.
We are not at the tipping point....but well past it in fact. Our perception is seriously lagging reality.
Yes, we are farther down the road of totalitarianism than is commonly understood. Yet, I feel hopeful, since Russia and China have so far stopped further progress of the USSA/Anglo war machine.
CD, when are you going to favor us again with one of your brilliant essay style posts?
Are they sure Cameron isn't the PM for Turkey instead??
"We don't need no thought control.."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_bOh9OIHbY
The Lucies are opening fire in all directions. Prepare accordingly.
The vilification of the term conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Those in power have committed horrible atrocities over the decades and the only protection the citizens have it to look at the situation before them and attempt to guess how the government will react. If it is a reasonable conclusion to assume the government will try to curtail freedom or harm its citizens in any way it is there just to attempt to prepare for it and prevent it if possible. If they want to call this conspiracy theorizing fine, I will call it rational prudence.
http://www.debtcrash.report/entry/what-is-a-conspiracy-theory
Agree Latina - it shows real fear but also the sickness of Cameron and his ilk.
One more sign of the unsustainability of our system and those who run it.
"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle are celebrated with a nice holiday. I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now High Chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot."
his fundamental thinking is faulty, power emanates from we the people up to the representatives, not the other way around. even in a monarchy.
Power comes from the barrel of a gun and the deepness of a pocket.
~"But now it is not enough to obey. You must LOVE BIG BROTHER."~
I guess they should have thought of that before they imported their Muslim problem. This mindset came about because of Islam. Islam forces the PC in western nations to apply controls on all citizens because they do not have the gumption to apply it to the problem which is the Muslim sociopathy.
This problem will persist, and go unabated until the correct malady is identified and eradicated. It really is that simple.
"....they imported their Muslim problem....Islam forces the PC in western nations to apply controls on all citizens "
Think about that for awhile.....
then think about it some more......
"gumption" aint got nothing to do with it...
they don't want your love. they want your soul...
Several years ago in a speech Putin asked why the West was going to where Russia had just come from.
It's because the West is breeding more and more high-function psychopaths and they are drawn to power.
They are what they are but the stupid dupes keep handing their lives and livelihoods over to them.
And destruction is the shortest path to power. They are importing Muslims into their body as a poison to create crisis of which only power that they wield can counter. It is always this threat to the public that is used as an excuse to oppress freedom.
There is a time for everything in life...
A time to live, a time to die...
A time to laugh, a time to cry...
A time to obey, a TIME TO REBEL!
“We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty," Margaret Thatcher
The cons have long (always?) been opposed to free speech.
It's not enough to just love Big Brother.
You must now be willing to put the rat cage on your own head.
Oh FFS Cole, go back to college and see what your beloved Marxist professors have been up to. You want suppression, you'll find it there in spades.
"A season for all things, a time to live, and a time to die -
A time to build...and a time to DESTROY!"
- Andrew Ryan, Bioshock
Adam Freeland - We want your soul ( 2012 video remix )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C09lJQ4Blks
delete
"Think about it.. twice... some more..."
Too late, the British should have thought about it during the election; they knew very well what was going on in their country. And if not they'll learn soon; it doesn't pay to be ignorant.
The British people will get what they deserve. It's time to mature.
What did they think all the cameras were for?
<copy removed>
The most 'harmful' activity that Cameron is concerned about is disucussion about how we got here. That is verboten.
That is a moronic statement.
actually, it isn't. TPTB are doing the exact thing in the US. importing immigrants, dispersing them around the country (with their diseases). they are diluting the western middle class on purpose. bringing in disease, poverty, mutli-culturalism, drugs/crime all in order to roll out their police states. the poster pinning it all on Muslims is a bit narrow focused but it's not wrong.
Our Hispanic immigrants are a parasite that weakens, whereas Muslims are a cancer that kill.
Blaming your social decline on others. No wonder the decay occurs.
Everything would be perfect if it wasn't for the gooks, chinks, wogs, spooks and gypos huh?
Obviously when the U.S., UK, NATO etc. imports it's finest, yet heavily armed, specimens into societies across the planet the recipients experience an enhanced existence. /s
The list of victim countries is virtually endless.
Maybe if the imperial invasion forces didn't turn other peoples' homes into war-torn, destitute hell-holes then they wouldn't 'hate you for your freedom', turn towards extremism and wish for the destruction of your way of life.
Maybe if their societies weren't raped and pillaged for generations then their people wouldn't be desperate and wouldn't be forced to flee their homes in search of a better life elsewhere.
Maybe if the populations of the exploitative first world didn't tolerate the disgusting foreign policies of their governments and military and those same populations resisted their parasitic corporations and banksters bleeding the world dry then the dire straits of the developing world wouldn't exist.
Maybe you should consider the root cause of what causes you so much malaise rather than just bleating about the symptoms.
When criminals & women rule....
Like if you can just smell the fasicist feminism FFS....
https://thefascismoffeminism.wordpress.com/
I thought a chink and a gook is the same thing, and you forgot towelhead.
oldwood is right muslims are a cancer that needs to be removed.
Well said, Dame Ednas, well said!
Our Hispanic immigrants are a parasite that weakens, whereas Muslims are a cancer that kill.
I'd down vote you 100x if I could. I employ nearly 20 of what you so callously call "parasites". Granted, these immigrants may not care to familiarize themselves with the founding principals of this country...but neither do natural born citizens. You think we'd be in this mess if half the population ever cared to read up on the constitution; specifically the Bill of Rights? Hispanics are some of the most hardworking, honest, loyal people I've ever had the pleasure of managing. In terms of work eithic, they beat the hell out of the snot-nosed, silver-spoon-fed brats that our universities are pumping out. I speak from experience, having managed a team of 12 in a large commercial bank before starting my own business.
Re: Muslims...haven't met one that has tried to cut my head off; but I have met politicians that employ intimidation tactics to send a message. Who's the real enemy here? Wake up, ignorant fuck.
War_is_Peace: I am in Europe and can relate to your words. Had to log in to say: thank you! There are still good human beings out there. It creeps me out how easy the TPTB are able to divide and put us all against each other. They must be rubbing their hands and laughing...
Islam is, in fact, a psychopathic megalomania masquerading as a religion.
I do not intend to indict all Muslims as psychopaths. But those who faithfully follow the full teachings of Islam are. It's in the very nature of what Islam teaches, which is complete and total world domination and death to all who oppose this goal.
Damn, one would think that there would be numerous copies of the Koran in the FED.
Or maybe the towel heads need to remove that ban on usury from their teachings.
pods
http://www.islam-watch.org/home/132-alamgir-hussain/1179-islam-and-marxism-soul-buddies.html
The folks that think Jews, excuse me The Tribe©, are the root of all our usury problems need to remember that the money changers were driven out of the temple. They had to go somewhere didn't they? Jonathan Cahn tells how some Jews would "sell" (lease) their land for a year in order to comply with the Shemitah, so that technically they weren't working the land (which was supposed to be left fallow for the poor to glean from). Instead, Gentiles (Goyim to you) would work the land and hey, technically it was all good, right? It is this mindset that illuminated Dick Fuld's Repo 105 and likely Blankfein's ridiculous "God's work" statement. These people are only nominally Jewish, no matter how many trapping they care to surround themselves with, and as Weimar unfortunately taught, are a real Jew's worst enemy for bringing the hatred upon all of them. Jews are like cops imo, they are incapable of speaking the truths needed to clean up their own house. Pity, that.
I only bring this up because usury is an affront to God, not just the Islamic deity.
What, exactly is a "real Jew?"
Can you define that?
~"I do not intend to indict all Muslims as psychopaths. But those who faithfully follow the full teachings of Islam are. It's in the very nature of what Islam teaches, which is complete and total world domination and death to all who oppose this goal."~ q
"I do not intend to indict all Germans as psychopaths. But those who faithfully follow the full teachings of National Socialism are. It's in the very nature of what Nazism teaches, which is complete and total world domination and death to all who oppose this goal."
All too many people give Muslims who are not "radicalized", (and man, do I hate that term), a pass. Islam is the cult of the extortionist, mass-murdering, plagiarist-pedophile pirate. So says the Qur'an, the Sira and the Sunnah. There is NO PEACEFUL ISLAM. Islam IS fascism. And "peaceful" Muslims don't get a freakin' Mulligan because they aren't out chopping heads off for ol' Mohammad.
As a weakened and less poisonous venom is nonetheless still a poison. It is the nature of the concoction that defines it.
"It's in the very nature of what Islam teaches, which is complete and total world domination and death to all who oppose this goal."
So, are the US neocons copying Islam, or are the Muslims copying the neocons? Or is it just a coincidence that the agenda of both the Muslims and the US neocons is complete and total world domination and death to all who oppose their goal?
Then again, does the Bible say? I consulted my Bible, the King James version, and checked it against the New King James version. In the King James Version, "The Fifth Book of Moses, called Deuteronomy", begins:
"These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel..."
Chapter 7 : "When the Lord they God shall bring you into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee....And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them , and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy to them....ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth...."
As Jesus said, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
>>>"God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth...."
Appropriate self-esteeem is healthy, but the world has seen far too much slaughter by those who are Pure, Chosen, and Exceptional.
In comparison to the Nazis, Zionists and Neocons, Machiavelli was a truth-telling saint.
Religion is, in fact, a psychopathic megalomania masquerading as righteousness.
Fixed it for ya
Huh, from spaghetti monster mockery to naked anger and vitriol. Sounds like we could say the same thing about atheists. Your pathology is "progressive".
"The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."
Bernard Lewis - The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years (page 234)
The aristocrats don't perceive the muslims as their problem, they see them as a way
to "divide and rule" their sheeple herd.
They see you as their herd and that allegory was presented by Orwell in Animal Farm.
We see each other as human beings, as people, etc etc, they see us all as Sheeple.
They use the muslims as a Machiavellian maneveur to pit one side against the other,
to distract the people from the Aristocratic Kleptocracy, and pedo ring with royal ties.
Its a politcal Houdini, and they fear when most ppl realize it, and thus the speech
saying that by Brezinski.
Dupe
power emanates from we the people up to the representatives, not the other way around. even in a monarchy.
SO DOES COWARDICE. SO DOES COMPLICITY.
YOU FUCKING MISSED IT. HAVE A FUCKING GOOD LOOK IN THE MIRROR...
How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now High Chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
THAT IS,"WE THE PEOPLE", Four Chan.
Tom, you have got to read this. FUCKING US DEPT OF JUSTICE CAN GO TO HELL.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/15/attorneys-feds-will-give-nc-man-his-seized-107gs-back/
_"...the government offered McLellan 50 percent of his money back and warned him against chasing publicity, even going so far as to suggest it would rile people inside the IRS and could hurt his chances of seeing his cash again, his attorneys said."
The people working for the IRS must be held personally financially accountable. That is the way that this nonsense stops.
I agree. If they don't have any skin in the game, they shouldn't be allowed to play. If they aren't held personally financially accountable, eventually somebody is going to snap, and they'll be held responsible by the barrel of a gun. That is natural politics.
Just listened to a 10 minute 'Point of View' on the BBC, fascinating look at the US President's role. He finishes by saying, I'm paraphrasing, that the US is a Republic hiding a Monarchy (with an 'elected King' called the President for period of time) and the UK is a Monarchy hiding a Republic (the hereditary Monarchy has no real power). Worth a listen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05tq1s3
Snordster's rendition of
Why Are You Telling Me?
The greatest irony of all - even greater than the adoption of a mass produced, copy written, corporately owned face for the "anti corporation" movement - is that Guy Fawkes was a full blown statist.
He was a Roman Catholic intent on blowing up all those horrible protestants who dared not only believe, but indeed act in such a manner as to say that there was a higher authority in the land than Rome, and the Pope as her Master.
Guy Fawkes was going to blow up parliament because it was /too free/.
there are a lot of ironies about Guido "Guy" Fawkes. nevertheless, in his own eyes, he was fighting against oppression
specifically, against the proliferation of laws against Catholicism, fostered in a political environment that depicted all Catholics as potential enemies of the Crown, as blind automata following the orders of the Vatican and of all Catholic priests, in particular Jesuits, as enemy agents fostering rebellion
one central tenet of the Roman Church is that what is said under the Sacrament of Confession to a priest is not his to give further. plenty of priests were tortured for refusing to spill out beans on this kind or reserved, private matters. today, it would be the equivalent of torturing lawyers for not forwarding material that could lead to the verdict of guilty of their clients
your "Guy Fawkes was a statist" is neither here nor there. the big question in that age in Britain was not about statism or not, it was about the right of which sovereign was to rule. further, the King was expropriating a lot of catholic monasteries. besides the fact that it made him immensely wealthy and caused masses of nuns and monks to became derelict, it caused an immense economic upheaveal, which went on for a couple of generations, creating a lot of discontent and riots
it's not just that being Catholic was nearly a crime. not converting to the Church of England was nearly treason
the laws against Catholicism in the UK are nearly all gone. the only ones that are still in place that have some relevancy are those that strictly forbids to have a Catholic Prime Minister, or that restricts the Succession to the throne to pure non-Catholics
so your "Guy... intent on blowing up all those horrible protestants who dared not only believe" is a bit... iffy. Fawkes Conspiracy was about what was done to Catholics, first, and to all those that weren't of the "right" confession
it was, after all, the time where lots of people fled England for the New World, in search of Freedom (of practicing their faith, among other things)
To be completely fair to the fledgling Church of England, the reign of Bloody Mary was still fairly fresh in their minds - oh and the Jesuits had spent the entire reign of Elizabeth I trying their darndest to assasinate her. The Spanish had spent her entire reign trying to invade - on the orders of the pope - in order to kill everyone in England who wasn't a Roman Catholic anymore.
Suffice to say it was a tumultuous time in England, and indeed all of Europe.
But to try and pretend that the Fawks conspiracy was anything more than the attempt to replace one Theocratic Monarchy with another, worse Theocratic Monarchy, is historically delusional.
Christendom was essentially the first European Empire.
Think about that. The armies were led by Kings, but the cities were run by bishops. The courts (of law) were in the hands of The Church (thats what Catholic meant, at that time). Universities? Run by The Church. The very first income tax? The tithe of 10% of all income, that HAD to be paid.
Its your birthday? Pay The Church. Its your funeral? Pay The Church. Baptism? Marriage?
This explains why the Church was more powerful than Kings (until the rise of nationalism, and the Reformation). The King had access to military force, but the Church had influence, steady income, and wealth. Hence why Henry seized the monasteries.
Not to mention why the the ancient writings painted Vikings as demons. One might wonder who wrote those writings lol.
Great point, motasaurus. "Mass produced, copy written, corporately owned face for the 'anti-corporaton movement'..."
Correct.
Most of the denizens of zerohead and other alternative sites can never seem to get their mind around the fact that whoever is powerful enough to pull all these strings and run things behind the scenes would also be powerful enough to avoid being fingered for it.
Let that ferment for a bit you tribe blamers, then try to figure out how the Jesuits always avoid the spotlight.
Thanks for the excuse to watch it again
"The vilification of the term conspiracy theory is ridiculous"
Thank all those people who wrote JFK conspiracy books. Oswald was the person who killed JFK.
The CIA disinformation campaign following JFKs murder (by guess who) invented (!) the term conspiracy theorists to refer to critical skeptics? Who knew?
It does not matter who invented it. David Cameron is on to us! He must be dispatched. Send out killer Tyler with his ice bullets that induce heart attacks.
Ah the ice bullits, such nostalgia....
Polonium is the shit now, if you have a nuclear reactor why not us it.
I am still quite the fan of the CIA heart attack gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSEnurBApdM
If that were even remotely true then why did they seal the records for 75 years?
It''s for the children
Well makes perfect sense in the fact that we have 1984 and more recently "V for Vendetta" coming out of the UK. Next statement will be "We have always been at war with East Asia" or "You chocolate ration has been increased".
It makes perfect sense because the UK people still worship their inbred royalty. These must be the most asleep sheeple on the planet.
They worship a queen and think they live in a democracy, all at the same time. How do you get more cognitive dissonance than that?
How did any monarch become the top dog in ANY society? Simply put, they killed off all the other war lords and took over their territory. The biggest, baddest sociopath gangster of them all. This is something to admire???
The queen doesn't have much in the way of real power. You can get pissed at UK royalty all you want, but that's just a distraction. It's just like the US. A collusion between bankers and other corporate oligarchs and the government is where the real problem lies. Royalty in the UK is nothing more than a celebrity figurehead these days. If the Brits want to support that, then that's their business. but the fucking bankers...
I think this is even more creepy about that zionist POS:
In the 1830s Cameron's first cousin six times removed was compensated with £4,101 for 202 slaves when they were liberated by Parliament.[19] Cameron's paternal forebears also have a long history in finance. His father Ian was senior partner of the stockbrokers Panmure Gordon & Co., in which firm partnerships had long been held by Cameron's ancestors, including David's grandfather and great-grandfather,[13] and was a Director of estate agent John D. Wood. David Cameron's great-great-grandfather Emile Levita was a German Jewish financier and a direct descendant of Renaissance scholar Elia Levita, the author of Bovo-Bukh, the first secular work ever published in Yiddish. Emile Levita obtained British citizenship in 1871 and was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969.[18] Through Levita, Cameron is a descendent of the Levites, who themselves claim to be descended from Moses.[18] His wife, Cameron's great-great-grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family on her father's side.[20][21]
One of Emile's sons, Arthur Francis Levita (died 1910, brother of Sir Cecil Levita),[22] of Panmure Gordon stockbrokers, together with great-great-grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron,[23] London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, played key roles in arranging loans supplied by the Rothschilds to the Japanese Central Banker (later Prime Minister) Takahashi Korekiyo for the financing of the Japanese Government in the Russo-Japanese War.[24]
I think you will find that 99% of all non-Jewish Europeans have atleast some Jewish blood in them and if you look deep enough 3 - 4 - 5 generations deep we are all quite closesly related and that includes the bankers all the way to Royalty - Every single one of us has genes from Gheghis Khan - so your point is ?
I thought Jews are forbidden to marry others? There goes your theory.
Not true, its a maternal line. Meaning that if you are born to a Jewish mother you are Jewish if you are born to another woman well, we really don't know what you are since your farther could really be anyone. Nothing wrong with marring out side, its the ones that wear the Hats with the long side burns that are the purest.
So Obama's Jewish?
Yes ... I thought everyone knew that the original Barry Obama was an Muslim of Jewish ancestry.
Dunno. Not sure about Frank Marshall Davis' ancestry. Not that I care.
[King] George III
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Allan_Ramsay_-_King_G...
Hmmm, adam and eve
I guess we are all motherfuckers then
Blimey , you must be really excersising the grey matter to come up with that nonsense.
@Dumgoy:
Are you serious?
King Solomon of Israel was 0.0098% Semite, 3.125% Caananite, 40.6% Unknown, 50% Gilonite
In addition- "jewish" is a religion, not a bloodline.
Only 5% of "jews" worldwide have any blood of Jacob running through their veins, and they have all very diluted measures after all the interbreeding with goyim through the millenia.
So much for your theory.
Livin' up to your screen name?
"King Solomon of Israel was 0.0098% Semite, 3.125% Caananite, 40.6% Unknown, 50% Gilonite"
How exactly does one calculate that Solomon was 0.0098% Semite? Did he have a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather who copped a feel on a Jewish lady once? By that reckoning you might as well say Solomon was 0.0098% Martian.
It's a calculation of bloodlines that are recorded in the Torah. That's how. Israel began with Jacob. Jacob was 100% Israelite. Jacob married Rachel, daughter of Laban, Abraham's great grand nephew. Jacob and Rachel had a son, Benjamin (and another son, Joseph). Benjamin (and Joseph), then, is 50% Israelite, 50% non-Israelite Semite. Continuing down through the recorded marriages and offspring, one can calculate the percentages of each bloodline through intermarriage.
Clearly they ran a DNA test.
Oh wait, even with ultramodern cluster-analysis DNA testing, it's impossible to produce results like that, because no one knows what Semite, Canaanite, or Gilonite genetic markers (say specific alleles or locus-specific mutations) nor haplogroups look like because, gee, all of these groups disappeared millennia ago and are nothing but convenient shorthand labels based on historical, anthropological, and archaeological reconstruction of the remote past.
All the data used for the calculations is from the Torah.
It's all there, in writing, beginning in the book of Genesis.
PS- Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Once again the uninformed down voters. They know zero about DNA research of today.
One in three have Ghengis Khan genes, not everyone. And very few Western Europeans and Africans.
My family line has, as far back as 1066 (Sadly there's very little that can be learned prior to the Norman Conquest for my family), zero Jewish blood. Somehow I doubt I am the only one.
But, and I can't stress this enough, the point you are making here is actually spot on. Simply having Jewish blood in your family history is meaningless. And further, what your family did in the past is meaningless in regards to what sort of a person you are today. That's entirely on your own head.
With that in mind, be it on Cameron's head that he has clearly used his family connections to further his own career and is now pushing a totalitarian agenda.
Most of your post is correct.
Two corrections.
1-"Jewish" is a religion, not a bloodline. Only 5% of "jews" are descended from Jacob (Israel) through Judah- and that is very diluted.
2- However, having said that- Not one of us can say for certain that we don't have some Israelite blood in our ancestry, because of the original Diaspora of the 10 tribes circa 720 BC.
How come when the Vikings invaded England it was called the "Norman Conquest", but when Goths and Slavs invaded Western Europe, it was called "The Great Migration"?
Semantic sophistry.
And you need to go read your history books again.
It wasn't "Vikings" who conquered England in the Norman conquest.
It was Normans.
Normans were the descendants of Vikings who made a deal with the King of France, to act as defenders of the coast, in return for the land known as Normandy- and intermarried the French women of Normandy.
Norman = Viking/French bloodlines. Not "Viking."
Also, you might note that the Norman conquest resulted in a line of Norman Kings sitting in England, whereas the western migration of germanic, slavic, and other tribes did not result in replacing a sitting monarch with one of their own after any such "conquest."
"whereas the western migration of germanic, slavic, and other tribes did not result in replacing a sitting monarch with one of their own after any such "conquest."
Allegedly. I come from a school of thought that suggests the chronology of said 'great migration' is wrong.
You know they didn't call it 'The Black Death' back in the day, but rather "Writers contemporary to the plague referred to the event as "Great Mortality".
Interesting tidbit, isn't it.
So how do the terms "black death" and "great mortality" signify something different?
What is this school of thought that suggests the chronology of said 'great migration' is wrong?
"New Chronology" principally by Anatoly Fomenko.
I don't believe he is correct about everything, but I think he is right on, about A LOT. History, esp. Chronology prior to the 1600s has been (quite drastically) revised. Primarily to the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church (which was the dominant power in Europe, during this period of historical revision). Joseph Scaliger and Denis Petau, aka Petavius, were the principals. Kepler and Newton, among others, questioned the chronology, but did not have nearly the clout of the Church.
Basically, what we consider to have happened in 'ancient' times, is more likely to have happened circa 1000AD-1300AD. This resulted in the creation (on paper) of the 'Dark Ages'. Anything that called into question the dominance or primacy of the Catholic Church was shunted deep into the past, and Rome was all of a sudden on par with Alexandria and Antioch, and said to be more important than Constantinople/Istanbul, in the Christian hierarchy.
My point, with re: Great Mortality, was that it signifies that not all deaths were necessarily due to disease, but also war, famine (as a result of war).
Could be. There are many things troubling about that period of history known as the "dark ages", for sure.
I have a gut feeling from all the research I have done in my life incidental to the "dark ages" that things were not exactly as they were portrayed, and that they probably weren't as "dark" as commonly believed.
Perhaps someday we'll have a look at the Vatican archives- they've got so much history locked up from prying eyes. There can only be one reason for that- they don't want people to know the truth.
>>>Anything that called into question the dominance or primacy of the Catholic Church was shunted deep into the past, and Rome was all of a sudden on par with Alexandria and Antioch, and said to be more important than Constantinople/Istanbul, in the Christian hierarchy.
I have zero doubt that the Roman Church has vigorously edited history to its own perceived advantage, but the Christian Churches of the East freely acknowleged the Bishop of Rome as "first among equals".
The Schism only became set in stone when Rome unilaterally decided to impose its status of "first", and discarded "among equals".
There you go again. Demanding rigor when it suits you, employing none when it doesn't.
Vikings = seasonal traders of Scandinavian origin. I'll keep it to the western Vikings because the eastern ones don't concern us. Climate change and societal development led to a population boom in Scandinavia. Some of these men became traders. They established or visited seasonal trading posts all over western Europe from Scotland and Ireland to Spain. Now, like virtually all sea-based traders in history, some of them resorted to piracy and/or pillage when times were tough. Eventually the population boom meant their were too many males and not enough for them to do, and their wasn't nearly enough trade opportunity. So they became professional seasonal pirates and raiders. This phase began around the 800s in the northern British Isles, for example, they colonized the Hebrides and raided extensively in Ireland (even founded a kingdom at Dublin), less so in Scotland, and on the coasts of England. They began raiding modern day France and it became so bad that cities had to fortify, the ones that didn't were abandoned, Paris was raided, etc., etc., etc.
Now, some of these Vikings were incredibly successful, and one group invaded the area we now call Normandy, the extremely weak degenerate Carolingian monarchy (in name only, really) was unable to expel them. Normandy became an independent duchy. The French called these invaders men from the North, Normans. For reasons no one has adequately explained, the new Norman elite acculturated extremely rapidly, within a few generations, and intermarried extensively with continental nobility. Pretty soon they were speaking a new dialect of French. In 1066 Duke William set out with an enormous fleet including not just Normans but knights and troops from all over the continent, defeated the English army in one of the most famous battles in history, declared himself successor to King Edward the Confessor, and the rest is history.
I'm glossing over some important points - the King Edward was involved with the Normans and had direct ties to Duke William and had almost certainly promised him the English throne but was unable to deliver on that promise because he was the victim of a de-facto palace coup by a powerful English noble family - the Godwinsons - who, following Edward's death 1066, had their son Harold crowned despite Edward's failure to specifically name a successor on his deathbead. It was Harold who was killed at Hastings, but William ignored him and tried, rather effectively, to erase him from history. Harold's claim and status were questionable, William's even more so, and it took decades of repressions and campaigns and genocide to secure England, which had the momentous effect of ending elective kingship in the English monarchy forever.
I'm not sure what you're referring to by western migration of germanic, slavic, and other tribes. Germanic peoples were migrating throughout, in every direction, Europe right up until the High Middle Ages. Slavic peoples I'm not so sure about, but their "western" migration is entirely prehistoric, after that, they were either pushed east by the Carolingians and early Holy Roman German kings or being annihilated by, well, just about everyone: Huns, Avars, Rus, Magyars, Mongols, and Ottomans. I'm not sure what "sitting monarchs" you are referring to because there really weren't any or they are unknown to history. In the most intense period of westward Germanic migration, there were no monarchies west of the Rhine, south of Hadrian's Wall, and east of the Irish Sea. In the case of slavic migrations, much less documented, the societies in question had nothing worth referring to as monarchies until roughly the start of German colonization (of the Baltic, Poland, central Europe).
"glossing over some important points ", eh?
LOL- No, that's what I did.
My comment was succinct and to the point.
Yours, not so much.
I'm not here to write novels, but rather to comment.
I could add volumes to your above "comment". but I won't.
Put a hyperlink in next time you think it's newsworthy.
PS- It isn't. If someone wants to know all the details about history, they'll go look it up themselves.
There is of course the interesting case of the 'Etruscans'. You'd think their homeland would be called Etruscany or Etruscania, but no, apparently we call it Etruria. Interesting name, what with the Rus, Khan, right there. And then you have the scholars who suggest the alphabet/language has similarities to Slavic (who are shouted down, because apparently its 'chronologically impossible', or the chronology is wrong, which is of course dismissed out of hand).
And of course the 'ancient' Romans said "In legend, Romulus and Remus, founders of Rome, had come from the royal dynasty of Alba Longa." Now, Long White... Is considered to a be a tiny lake outside Rome. Probably it referred to... The Volga. Which is frozen and white, for much of the year, and certainly long.
You cry "semantic sophistry!" and demand terminological rigor from your opponent, but offer none of your own.
@crazytechnician:
You are making stuff up.
Baltic Europeans (lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians), have 0% of Gheghis Khan's ancestry, the rest of Western Europe does have some blood of Gheghis Khan in their ancestry, but not likely your claim that 99% of them do. Probably more like 66%. And that very diluted.
As for "jewish" blood, that's a much more confused subject.
Jewish is a religion.
Hebrew is a language.
Israelite (Sephardim) is a Semitic bloodline originating with Jacob, son of Isaac, Son of Abraham.
Only around 5% of the world's "jewish" population is Sephardic. And that very diluted.
The other 95% are descended from Japheth, a non-semitic bloodline- through Ashkenaz, and these are referred to as Ashkenazim, or Khazarian (for the land they originally lived in).
Sounds like some body has been doing their homework. BTW is Jewish a religion ? I thought Jews were a race or a bloodline ?
Jews are those Israelites who are the bloodline of Judah - the only line to be taken into and return from the babylonian capitivity.
Of course most of the European "Jews" were of the Ashkenazi type, which were a people from the caucasus who were religious converts, and not from the line of Judah at all.
"Jews" are a religion.
Most of them (95%) are not of the bloodline of Judah.
Let's see Judah's genotype so we can compare it to Netanyahu's and settle the issue. Surely you've got some of his DNA intact somewhere?
It is 5 decades of study and research on my part that keeps me up to date on these things ;-)
"Jews" are a religion.
Hebrew is a language.
Israelite is a bloodline.
The term "jew" did not exist until the 18th Century, and came about through an error in translation. Previous to this English translation, the term “Iudaeus, Iudaeun” were used since Roman times (its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD) to denote “a resident of Iudaea” (Judea). This word referred to any resident of Iudaea, regardless of tribe, race or religion.
So the word was mistranslated, and then it was misapplied (its meaning changed). That tradition of attempting to deviously hide the meaning of words for that group of people, is perpetuated daily by Zionists, who do not want laymen to know that information.
the bible is an amalgam of myths and pseudohistory.
Historical Problems with the Hebrew Bible: The Conquest of Canaan
and racism, hate, and the reification/fetishism of "the jew" 'as' divine.
You are so confused about so many things in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.
Baltic is not an ethnicity neither a race neither an ethno-linguistic group (just ask Lithuanians how they feel about Latvians, or listen to Estonians speak). All I need to do is find a single citizen of one of the Baltic states who has even a single-digit percentage of Haplogroup C-M217 yDNA and your statement becomes false. And I would have no trouble doing so, because, in case you didn't know, people have been immigrating to these lands for 1000s of years, particularly in the 20th century under Soviet rule, where I'm 99% sure some partially Mongolian Soviet citizen ended up there and had at least one child.
Jewish is not a religion, Judaism is a religion.
Hebrew is a semitic-family language which died out after the Jewish-Roman Wars, surviving almost exclusively as scripture and in scholarly theological works, a little bit like Latin in the Middle Ages but not really. Hebrew did survive to some extent as a living language in some Diaspora communities (I'll get to those). It was revived in the Ashkenazi community in the 19th century and its modern Israeli form is (obviously) significantly different both from the other surviving variants and from classical Hebrew.
Israelite is a historical term for someone from Israel, which is a historical ethno-linguistic group defined by being of the Jewish faith, it's not applied after the period of the Roman occupation as Israel ceased to be a coherent concept (the Diaspora, etc.). Modern citizens of the state of Israel are referred to as Israelis.
Sephardi Jews are a really complicated and ill-defined group, part cultural, part ethnic, part linguistic, part religious, non-monolithic, from the Iberian peninsula during Roman rule. Probably - no one knows when or how they got there or which ethnic group their founder population(s) immediately descended from. There's also the Mizrahi Jews, the so-called Oriental Jews, from east of Palestine. Sephardi and Mizrahi genotypes are known to have contributions from the populations of Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Italy, Libya, the Balkans, Iran, Iraq, India, and Yemen.
The majority of Jews are Ashkenazi, a group that emerged, probably, from a Jewish diaspora population in Roman Italy. Probably, because we're not sure how long that population was in Italy or where it came from before that. Sometime around 1000 AD, there was a migration event following a population bottleneck - a recent study indicated that this Ashkenazi founder population may have included a mere four women, who were Latin, not descended from Israelites at all. From here they spread north into Europe, eventually moving east toward what we'd call the former-Soviet-bloc area. During this period there was intermarriage, but individual Jewish enclaves were quite separate so the genotype was, obviously, preserved enough to be easily differentiable by modern population-genetic techniques.
There has been exactly one reputable study demonstrating a link between the Khazarians, a Caucasian people living around modern day southeastern Ukraine, and the Ashkenazi. The Khazarians were destroyed by the Rus - progenitors of the modern Russian ethnicity - in Ukraine sometime around 1000 AD.
There's no such thing as ____ish blood. There are genotypes, and statistical constructs like alleles, gene clusters, site-specific mutations, haplotypes, and haplogroups. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any persons mentioned in the Torah ever existed, you're going to need to find a higher standard of evidence because by yours I could say that all Britons are descended from Arthur or all Japanese from Jimmu or all Russians from Rurik.
Do me a favor and read a book with statistics and graphs once in a while.
"The Khazarians were destroyed by the Rus - progenitors of the modern Russian ethnicity - in Ukraine sometime around 1000 AD"
I would contend that this event then became referred to as "the Diaspora". Think about it, your nation is destroyed, your people dispersed. Not enitrely convinced it was in 1000 AD, could have been closer to 1400 AD as well.
You can contend all you want. Produce the evidence.
The diaspora was already attested well before the entirely obscure defeat of the minor empire of the Khazarians by the even more (at the time) irrelevant Rus. Modern consensus puts it just before 1000AD. The Kievan Rus had collapsed by the mid-1200s and in 1240 or so it was invaded and conquered and became a tributary of the Mongol Empire.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html
Let’s see who is, and isn’t confused, shall we?
I said Baltic Europeans. Genetically, they are distinct from other Europeans. I know, because I am descended from them and know many that I grew up with, and I do genetic and ancestral research as a consultant. No such thing as Baltic ethnicity, eh?
#1 WRONG. http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/4166/
No such thing as an ethno-linguistic group, eh?
#2 WRONG. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50949/Baltic-languages
Jewish is not a religion, Judaism is a religion, eh?
#3 WRONG. The term "jew" did not exist until the 18th Century, and came about through an error in translation. Previous to this English translation, the term “Iudaeus, Iudaeun” were used since Roman times (its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD) to denote “a resident of Iudaea” (Judea). This word referred to any resident of Iudaea, regardless of tribe, race or religion. So, the word was mistranslated, and then it was misapplied (its meaning changed). In modern day English, “jew” and “jewish” have the same meaning as “Judaism”, which is a religion. Jewish and Judaism both mean the same thing- “a person whose religion is Judaism. “ Look it up in the dictionary.
#4. You don’t need to school me on Hebrew, I’ve studied it for decades.
Israelite is a historical term for someone from Israel, which is a historical ethno-linguistic group defined by being of the Jewish faith.
#5 WRONG. Israelite has a very specific meaning- someone descended from Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. http://biblehub.com/genesis/35-10.htm It has nothing to do with linguistic groups- that would be “Hebrew” you are thinking of, although ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew. It has nothing to do with “Jewish” faith. Nothing, nada, zilch. The religion of the ancient Israelites was the worship of Yahweh, as handed down by Moses, through the Mosaic Law covenant. Modern day practicers of Judaism are very, very, very far removed from that ancient religion.
I’m not going to argue with your definition of Sephardim again, I’ve studied this for decades. And the Khazarians weren’t destroyed by the Rus- they simply became another Diaspora into Europe and elsewhere.
There certainly is such a thing as ____ish blood, meaning that if records were kept, you’d know what ethnic groups you descended from. I do- back to a time when records cease to be found, as of today.
There are volumes of evidence that the persons in the Torah existed, it is ignoramuses like you who choose to cast aspersion at it- for all too obvious reasons.
Your condescending attitude is trollish- you don’t know my background, my research or much of anything else about me.
So stop creating your weak, ill-informed, outright WRONG, and strawman arguments.
Interesting. Estonia is included in the "Baltic Region", as it should be, being on the Baltic Sea. Estonians have this "Baltic gene". Yet, Estonian is not a Baltic language, it is Uralic. Finnish migration into Estonia, bringing the Uralic language? Did Estonians migrating to Finland add the Baltic gene to the Finnish gene pool?
A religion gives you a big nose and makes you susceptible to specific genetic diseases. Wonders never cease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews
It seems we're disagreeing over terminology. You're playing fast and loose with ambiguous and poorly defined and everyday terms which have no scientific validity whatsoever.
Example: I am pretty certain Jew can mean any of the following in the right context: a person with even 0.5% Jewish heritage (what's Jewish heritage?), a person who practises some variety of the Jewish religion, a person descended from certain hypothetical and poorly attested near-eastern populations, a person who lives in a Jewish culture or locality, and, of course, a person who is cheap and tries to cheat or bilk others for profit.
"Jewish" has many more meanings, including things like "unsophisticated" or "not culturally European" or "base" or even, a personal favorite, "anyone who supports Israel". White people on three continents had a cottage industry of inventing connotations of the term "Jewish" for about a thousand years, and they have no monopoly on it now.
I stand entirely by my assertion that, as any English dictionary will tell you, Judaism is a proper noun and the currently correct common English term for the first Abrahamite religion, the Jewish faith.
If you're studied Jews, Judaism, Jewish subjects, and Hebrew for any period of time, then of course you know that the term Israel is the English rendering of the Hebrew ??????????, IPA transliteration "Yisr?'el", which refers to a ton of different things, from the historical "tribe", it's people, it's state, it's culture, it's ethnicity, to nowadays something like "all Jews everywhere" or "the worldwide Jewish community" or even as shorthand for the state of Israel.
It has everything to do with linguistic groups, ethno-linguistic groups, because prior to about 150 years ago, no one bothered even attempting to rigorously define things "people", "tribe", and "nation" and they historically had vastly different meanings with nuances that make no sense to moderns. I'm sure you know, for example, that the Germanic "tribes" of the Roman era were pure fictions, temporary military coalitions of vastly smaller groups sharing a fairly common material culture of light agriculture, usually temporary housing, hunting and gathering, temporary "kingship", cultish glorification of war and battle, and an economy reliant on pillage and a specific form slavery. Romans, as you of course know, divided the world into Roman/civilized and non-Roman/barbaric. This is roughly how you're treating the term Israelite.
Now, my real issue is that you keep referring to biblical accounts as if these have any correlation to reality and are worth any more than the legend of Al'addin The Prince of Thieves or the Rig Vedas for serious study of history. How exactly do you propose to verify that the people Romans identified as Israelites descended from the Abrahamite partiline? How do propose to verify that the Abrahamite line, actual people like Isaac and Esau and Jacob all the many many others actually existed as real flesh and blood human beings or that the biblical account of said individuals, written down hundreds to thousands of years later by people who had never even seen Palestine/Canaan/Israel (the place)? By your narrative, the biblical narrative, ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew? Well Jacob certainly didn't, he spoke Egyptian, I'm not sure what the proper name for the language of Egypt at that time is, but it doesn't matter anyway because there is not a shred of physical scientific evidence that any of it ever happened. The early Jews, that is, Israelites, were almost certainly recently pagan Bedouins who had transitioned to agricultural civilization and began incorporating neighboring pagan peoples as agriculture societies always do.
You don't need to lecture me about Judaism, I know just a wee bit about it. Nevertheless, I have no idea what "Modern day practicers of Judaism are very, very, very far removed from that ancient religion." is supposed to mean. If you mean that, just like all languages constantly change and modern Arabic is quite different from classical Aramaic, sure. I don't know of any religion that has survived perfectly intact for even one human generation. Judaism is actually pretty exceptional in its continuity, thanks to its seminal use of written scripture, but the clock for that began, obviously, only when that scripture was transcribed, copied, and widely distributed, which was, indeed, far later than the nominal birth of the faith. I don't see the point, because this criticism is valid of all major religions.
Again you're arguing semantics, the Khazarian empire was, I assure you, destroyed by the Rus. You tried to claim that, if I'm reading you right, the familiar completely ridiculous argument that all modern Ashkenazi are really Khazars, but you haven't produced any argument or evidence for this other than pointing out that the Rus did not exterminate every single last Khazarian human, which is no argument at all, because even proponents of this nutty theory don't try to claim that all Khazars were Jewish in any sense of the term whatsoever. I'm not even sure what this claim buys you rhetorically, though you seem confused about the term diaspora - there is, definition, exactly one.
Again, you're using terms so unscientific I have to conclude they are anti-scientific, such as the term "blood" to denote racial heritage, though I guess now that "race" is unpopular and unproductive (and has been debunked), people have resorted to using blood in the context of the much weaker term ethnicity. I assure you you do not have any "Baltic" or "European" or any other geographic blood, and if you need an explanation, you should read about human reproduction and haematopoiesis, suffice it to say, all your blood is yours, produced by one of your stem cell lines (the haematopoietic, in your bone bone marrow) which are genetically unique to you. What you do have is some probabilistic degree of membership in a statistically defined category called a genetic population, or a haplogroup. I looked into mine, and contrary to my family's alleged, ahem, "European blood, I found North African, Balkan, possibly Iberian, and Levantine/Yemeni/Arabian. Most of my ancestors were only in Europe for at most perhaps 75 human generations, half of them probably half that, next to nothing as human genetics goes, as an "ancestral research consultant" such as yourself surely knows. People in half of my family still use the label "eastern European" despite essentially zero genetic contribution from the region and a maximum inhabitance of no more than a mere 1000 years.
So let's see some of these "volumes" of evidence. I hope they are contemporary, first-hand, eyewitness accounts with names and autographs. But they aren't. You're clearly referring to the so-called histories of the ancient near East, the only remotely historical sources which anyone could conceivably try to pass off as evidence of the existence of specific historical personages (because there is literally no conceivable way short of actual time travel to research actual invidual persons or ancient historical accounts of same).
If that is your research and your standard of evidence - this book, compiled 1000 years after the purported death of this alleged person by scribes hundreds or thousands of miles away relying entirely on word of mouth and oral tradition, well, there's really nothing to argue about, because by that standard, I can cite no fewer than HUNDREDS of sources for the existence of dogheaded humans, Hyperborea, Thule, Mu, Shangri-La, King Arthur, Atlantis, unicorns, dragons, a flat Earth, demons, ancient aliens, and just about anything else you care to name. What you trying to prove is not only not proven, but physically impossible to prove. You should really take the intelligent option as most religious people do - it's not a matter of evidence and proof (they admit there isn't any), it's a matter of faith and nothing else.
Sorry to be the one to inform you but if your research is fragments of ancient papyrus scrolls, you are not even in a strong enough position to be argued with. I have no problem condescending to someone who finds it acceptable to cite an unreviewed study about population genetics and cite the bible or whatever curiously unnamed textual sources as evidence of the same standard. That is insulting to anyone's intelligence.
Your lengthy diatribe is filled with so many inaccuracies and strawmen I will not even honor it with a substantial reply.
Suffice it to say that if you had checked a dictionary, for, say the definition of "diaspora' you wouldn't be exposed for the charlatan you clearly are. Your claims of what dates ancient texts date back to are off by 1,000 to 1,500+ years. Your claims of the origin of the English word "jewish" are off by 700 years. Your willingness to participate in deliberately redefining and obscuring the meaning of words does not invite honest, scholarly debate.
Finally- Lots of words obscure meaning, try to be succinct when you "comment", eh? I refuse to write a book length reply to your clearly erroneous protestations.
but then again you know absolutely nothing about genetics and rely on the so-called bible written by Pharisees and a handful of Jewish schismatics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/science/ashkenazi-origins-may-be-with-european-women-study-finds.html?_r=0
you know who gets tay sachs besides "jews"
Gaels [Irish and many Scots, esp. highlanders.]
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/education/NY-community-warned-to-get-tested-for-Irish-curse-of-Tay-Sachs.html
You know why - because like the Jews, they are substantially pre-indoeuropean europeans.
A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages
you're so silly.
You two should become drinking buddies.
you ever get tired of being wrong?
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html
"I think you will find that 99% of all non-Jewish Europeans have atleast some Jewish blood in them"
I think that's probably true but it's Cameron's connection to Jewish *bankers* that is the critical point imo. If he was related to Jewish tailors he probably wouldn't be where he is.
Well my take on it is that the Tories and Cameron are trying to shrink government because it's so bloody cumbersome and expensive to run. The problem we have in the UK are miilions of muzzies which are so-called non-violent activists but they preach violence , the end of the west and total muzlim control of the west , just recently a bunch of militant muzzies were handing out flyers with images of Buckingham Palace as Muzzie HQ and The Houses of Parliament were depicted as a Mosque. These guys are serious and that is why these new laws are coming into force , you tin foil hat nut jobs can say whatever you want but when your country is filling up with crazy Muzzies who want to introduce Sharia Law in your country then you may see things from a different perspective.
Wow, I don't suppose you ever give any thought to the root causes of these issues and a course of action to permanently fix this issue? You really are English aren't you.. I have never met one outside of their hothouse environment. Question for you do you feel safer now that the government is the only ones allowed to bear arms?
Luckily our police force do not carry arms unless it's specifically required or instructed. For that very reason we have a very well trained , professional , dedicated law enforcement which do not go around killing random people. Most people in Britain feel safe with our law enforcement and see the muslim and sharia law as the threat to our way of life. As for hot house , I do not have a clue what you are talking about. Wherever you go in this world you will meet hordes of us english , all friendly , we are like ants , everywhere , under every rock , we just get on with it , and we only bite if you piss us off or restrict our access to alchohol.
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/06/camerons-torah-government/
Soon I hope. Life has been very busy of late and it has been greatly complicated by me being sick for two weeks now. Not sick enough to stay in bed all the time, but sick enough to want to do so. Debilitating and exhausting. Mrs. Cog has been doctoring me, but it has been a slow battle of back and forth, ebb and flow. I have conceded defeat and am visiting a doctor this morning.
Mejórese pronto, mi amigo.
You are a huge part of Zerohedge, Cog Dis. A cornerstone of the comments threads. Get well soon, mate.
Upper respiratory infection? Seems to be a thing dragging on everyone these days.
Exactly. I haven't heard anything about it anywhere, but asking around, a lot of people have had it. If I had to guess, it's something "new". A new mutation perhaps. But it really kicks your ass when you get it.
I call it Kennel Cough for People.
It is round 2. The one that came through last fall was bad and so is this one. Hmmmmmm?
I think it's the same thing. I just caught it twice. First time through I finally broke down, went to the doctor and got antibiotics after suffering for a month (took 6 weeks to get rid of it more or less completely). Second time, last month, I took no antibiotics, symptoms weren't as severe and I kicked it in about 4 weeks.
Yay, immune system!
I got the "kennel cough for people" last fall. Took four months to kick it without antibiotics. It sucked.
yup. two weeks. mine turned into pneumonia (1st Dr said acute Bronchitis)...
get the flu shot people (or the pneumonia one)
Shame on all you. This IS a gold/silver site, verdad? get some colloidal silver immediately. Had newMOANya several years ago but started a daily regimen of CS ands been fine since. No flu shots. AVOID
AND this from a person who still has HepC ( after 6 mo. SOVALDI)
CS is pretty amazing. It has fixed everything I've thrown it at so far: Ear infection (K-9 and human), infection prevention (very deep and nasty cut), an actual infection, a tooth problem... and so on.
.
Hope you're feeling better soon, CD.
Just FYI.... if this involves a lot of chest grumbling noises and coughing, have them do a chest X-ray for pneumonia. I had it twice- October and last month (though it was mis-diagnosed as bronchitis). My son has it now (chest x-ray confirms it's pneumonia). I know 5 other people who have had it and it turned into pneumonia. I've never seen or even heard of so many people getting pneumonia at one time. Likewise, when I had it, it never fully tore me down, but the desire to crawl in bed was nearly overwhelming sometimes. And it lasts half for freaking forever.
Antibiotics help considerably, but the front line stuff like Amoxicillin won't touch it. You need something with a lot more kick.
Pneumonia... is that what they're saying it is now?? God help us all.
You're doing the right thing (actually, the only thing anyone can do) NoDebt - it needs to be treated like 'pneumonia'. I survived = sample of one.
Perhaps the resident microbiologist has some insight on the latest pneumonia 'conspiracy theory' - it's way over my head.
Probably completed unrelated to any geo-engineering attempts/spraying in the sky. Nothing to see here, move along.
I would argue that weather modification is a reaction, not the cause HRC. Nonetheless, the failure of the CDC to disclose publicly what's been happening the last three years is beyond criminal - it's psychopathic. Keep in mind how they've been pushing flu vaccine the last few years. Then look at the CDC's own graphs (below) and tell me nothing has changed with the health of everyone's immune system. Immunologists ('conspiracy theorists') said 2012-13 would be the first year we would see the wide-spread effects of sustained low-level radiation damage in the U.S. population.
Check out the CDC Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report - scroll down a few screens to the section Pneumonia and Influenza (P&I) Mortality Surveillance. WTF? Looks like 20-30% above the epidemic threshold for the last three years, but there was no flu epedemic, was there? 'Pneumonia' didn't suddenly become more lethal - everyone's immune system has become progressively weaker.
Scroll down another screen and check out the graph under Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality. The low-level radiation tin-foil-hat nutters SPECIFICALLY pointed to this as a possibiity from Fukushima. Why? Mostly because immunologists and medical researchers observed the same affect after Chernobyl (before WHO buried those statistics at the behest of the IAEA Nazis). You're looking at double and triple the number of 'Influenza-Associated' pediatric deaths the last three years. Now why would that be? If you threw in the pneumonia and other respiratory- and cardiac-related pediatric deaths, you would see the same troubleing pattern (sorry - you're not allowed to see those graphs). Yet not a peep out of CNN about the stunning rise in mortality besides "Get your flu shot!"
The CDC's weekly flu report isn't nearly as damning as a lot of other research and statistics - I tossed it out there as a simple, clear example of what they're NOT telling you.
Maybe it's like the dissolving starfish and tumor-ridden seals and walruses: It's not Fukushima (less than one banana dose) - it's all just psychological. Starfish and infants are simply worrying themselves to death. They need to relax and trust the government - that's the secret to a healthy immune system. People and other life forms that don't trust the government are always sick. What more proof does anyone need?
Get well friend.
Don't do it!!! I went to school with a bunch of pre-meds so will never trust a doctor again. Bunch of weasels they were.
Hope for your sake its a witch doctor.
All my ailments were mostly caused by modern doctors.
And your alcoholism, Mr Churchill, did not have anything to do with it? Hmmm
Fukushima Flu. Watch your White Blood Cell count over time. If it's going down, well . . . good luck.
It's called Radiogenic Leukopenia, if anyone is interested. This is how it starts.