19 thoughts on “NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM SEPT 12 2019”

  1. Lord Blackheath is the same chap who came out about a mysterious century old “Foundation X” in 2010 with their offer to save the world, by literally buying England as a base for their commercial operations. Saying also it would involve saving themselves financially in the process!!! It made some waves at the time. The offer wasn’t taken up “officially” by the the british gov, but who knows what happened behind closed doors between the big players with this kind of stupendous offer. Will we ever know?
    Would be interesting to have a follow up to this very intriguing story, if the offer was not a big hoax.

  2. Curious in all these power scrambles that a few have so far remained clear and confident apart from the control file fray – epstein maxwell saville franklin alefantis hastert podesta bronfman……
    Seems the closest these have come to that old banking family is Lady Lynn thru Bronfmans Alefatis and David Brock n Clintons. Besides Trump, who else is not yet stained directly or at least splashed?

  3. (I couldn’t view this video through the site window. HTML5 problem. I had to go to Youtube, download it with Video DownloadHelper, and view it on my computer with VLC.)

    Assuming Lord Blackheath’s statements to the House of Lords were correct, this is astounding news. UK nuclear ballistic missile submarines would be put under direct control (including launch orders) of an unnamed bureaucrat in Brussels? Unthinkable…

    And speaking of an unnamed bureaucrat in Brussels, these unelected officials are ‘appointed’ by shadowy background figures. And speaking of shadowy background figures, note that there is an old banking clan – originally based in Frankfurt – which now has German, French, and English branches. They are rumored to “call the shots” as to whom gets the nod for those Brussels-based unelected officials. So, all UK, French, and German armed forces (including thermonuclear weapons) would be under the indirect command of an old banking clan. If Lord Blackheath’s statements were correct, I could see Why the British crown would favor Brexit…

    As an aside, Joseph gives France a longer striking distance with thermonuclear weapons, but I believe he has underestimated the UK’s sub-launched missiles. From Wikipedia, the UK’s UGM-133 Trident II (D5) missile (UK Vanguard-class subs, American missile, UK warhead) has a 12,000 km maximum range, and the French M51 missile (indigenous Le Triomphant-class subs) has a 10,000 km maximum range. UK has four subs with sixteen missiles per sub for a total of 64 missiles. France has four subs with sixteen missiles per sub for a total of 64 missiles. So in capability, they are almost equal.

  4. Wow Dr Farrell, as you said, this is indeed breathtaking.
    Thanks so much for covering this.
    So, ultimately, seeing how far back this goes, who really won those wars? Not who we think or who we were told (as if we didn’t know already). If all this is true, this is only more confirmation.
    I’m still not in the camp though of a Nazi International. This goes deeper, wider and further back.

  5. I haven’t viewed Joseph’s video yet, but the following commentator over at The Saker raised a point that gave me pause:
    http://thesaker.is/president-macrons-amazing-admission/#comment-693540

    “As for the UK, it’s subjects are being put through the Brexit trauma for a number of reasons:
    (1) The people of the UK have generally disdainful opinions of the heir, Charles, and his pretensions to the throne. The Brexit crisis is Elizabeth II’s parting gift to Charles. The populace is being played so that Elizabeth can hand power to Charles so he can be seen to save the UK.
    (2) France and the UK have a compact to destroy the EU. France will reject any extension of Brexit to foment a crisis in the EU resulting in its devolution into 10 crowns.”

    Point (2), I don’t know about. However, point (1) could explain the Queen throwing the UK into chaos via her ‘question’ about the EU’s benefits during the (in)famous dinner talk before the Brexit vote. I had the impression that Charles was going to be ‘passed over’ and the elder grandson installed. Perhaps, that is not what the Queen truly wanted?

    1. Hmm. So Charles was close to Montbatton and seen alot with Saville. Montbatton was considered by most to be closet gay and suicided, right? Conspiracists may or may not connect Montbatton and his death to Saville. Besides Charles’ Savillities, someone got me to watch a quick bio documentary on him. It was pure boring stuff but the little I saw was horrific. What a knucklehead. He was trying to be a comedian – a serious one – in his school years. It was clear he was uncomfortable to extremes with his mafia level power over people. And more than a little uncomfortable with the danger inherent in celebrity. And then there’s the whole Diana thing. What a mess.

      And now there’s all the Andrew in how many of Epstein’s beds? So these comments feed flames of what I mentioned below. This sounds more and more like a long term carefully executed control file hit on the royals by Evelyn and/or Jacob, yah?

    2. There is also a recent article on how there may be a ‘collusion’ between the Queen and her Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) to force a No Deal Brexit:
      “Did Boris Johnson just Rope-a-Dope his Way into a Hard Brexit?”
      https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/did_boris_johnson_just_ropeadope_his_way_into_a_hard_brexit.html

      “Beautifully orchestrating and executing his stratagem, BoJo will have outwitted his opponents again in this well thought out fight plan by
      1) forcing the opposition to spend the very short time they had to stop a No Deal Brexit mired in creating the extension legislation, then
      2) sifting out the twenty-one traitors within his own Tory Party who voted against him, while at the same time
      3) casually scheduling a meeting with the Queen this weekend in order that
      4) he can quietly advise the Queen not to assent to the bill he has called the ‘surrender’ bill.”

      “His [BoJo’s] arguments to the Queen are strong. First, a group of disingenuous Tory traitors betrayed the government by voting with the non-government opposition. The U.K. system is a parliamentary government, not a system of parliamentary rule. The Queen can reinforce this distinction by refusing assent upon receiving the P.M.’s advice, proving that the government elected by the people ultimately has the power.”

      1. Forgot this important point, from the article:
        “Professor of public law at the University of Glasgow School of Law Adam Tomkins concurs. From his book Public Law : ‘If the monarch were given clear and firm Prime Ministerial advice that she should withhold her royal assent to a Bill which had passed through the Houses of Parliament, it seems to be the case that the monarch should follow that advice’.” (italics in original)

  6. Curiously I have not read any of the other books and only recently purchased one, which is the third way. Yep it’s all right there. Interesting, “I know nothing just give me apple strudel.”….

  7. Accusations against the Crown by the so-called “left” over the prorogation issue could be revealing of such intentions, or at least warnings launched by the “German lobby”. (And whatever the “mind-reading” Scottish judge might say about Johnson’s intentions in connection with the suspension, the Queen could NOT constitutionally refuse to approve the request.)
    Please do not underestimate the scope of interference by Berlin; as we speak I am watching a new government being installed in Italy that publicly responds to Merkel and Von der Leyen.

  8. A further extract from Blackheath’s Sept. 6 speech in Hansard on what could be the real constitutional crisis, going far beyond petty bickering. If there is something in this, then could the power group behind the fanatical “remainer” MPs, to all appearances German-controlled assets, actually be willing or at least planning the setting up of a “British State” similar to Pétain’s “Etat Français”?
    “The first person we need to be concerned about in that respect is Her Majesty because we have the power of government placed in our hands by the coronation oath which she swore never to diminish, but we have diminished it for her. In those circumstances, do the British public realise they are being asked to consider a situation which might create a position in which Her Majesty would consider it was essential for her to abdicate? If that occurred, would it ever be possible to resurrect the monarch because nobody else could swear the same coronation oath? Let us be realistic about this. My whole criticism of the situation of opposition to no-go at the moment is that we simply have not informed the British public of what is at stake.”

Comments are closed.