Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 21st, 2010 #21
Darius Appleby
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: high rainfall coastal strip of the White Continent nation
Posts: 3,597
Arrow nomination for kookiest paranoid on the internets

Quote:
Originally Posted by cicero View Post
Well, anyone can list three random links:
to a picture of the Queen shaking hands outside with a jew (there must be thousands more of these utterly damning pictures),
A discussion of the Scottish royals who became part of the UK,
and a kooky discussion about Rothchild Octopuses.

If you can really concoct some sort of meaning out of these three links then you deserve a nomination for kookiest paranoid on the internets.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #22
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Bev, If you've got access, go through the archives and you'll see the debates raging in the papers, with the Jewish community fighting tooth and nail to prevent action being taken on the grounds that it would lead to pogroms in Britain.

That was their only argument.

I've not looked into it for about 10yrs and have lost all my documents, but if you follow the basic info in that Times report you'll soon discover that Aaron Kosminski was the name in the Press and on everybody's lips.

If memory serves, even Scotland Yard officers became embroiled in direct argument with the Jewish newspapers, as they fought to defend their case.
I haven't got access but I'm going to look into it now - that sounds very interesting. I read a lot about Jack when I was younger and was always convinced that it was either the Prince or his surgeon. But the fact that someone was actually picked out in an ID parade and that it was not pursued is very intriguing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cicero View Post
Link 1. The Queen meeting a jew. The Queen has also met Nelson Mandela, Ghandhi and Obama - is she related to them as well? My, what a rich heritage she has. Shaking hands with someone does not make you a relative, as far as I know.

Link 2 - You presented a review of a book in which the reviewer states that there are "huge contradictions begin to develop between recorded history and the facts he presents". Nevertheless, Bonnie Prince Charlie (and his descendants) are catholic and therefore can't have the throne anyway.


Link 3 - So the word of someone on an internet forum is proof? I thought you had actual evidence. Not being lazy or stupid, let me call on my memory of research done both through the years and every other time this has come up, shall we? This should all be verifiable because it's all commmon knowledge.

Diana's mother was Frances Shand Kydd.

Frances' mother was Ruth Gill (later Roche - Baroness Fermoy. ) Her parents were William and Ruth Smith Gill.

Frances' father was Edmund Roche, son of Baron James Roche. The Roche lineage is without doubt. It can be traced right, right back for generations. Irish, maybe. Jewish, no.

Edmund's mother was Frances Work. She was the daughter of Franklin H Work. Again - can be traced right back through American history without a sniff of judaism to be had.

HOWEVER - after she had had her four children with Edmund Roche - she divorced him for adultery and in 1905 married "Count Batonyi" who wasn't a Count and whose name was actually Arthur Cohen. This man is not related to Diana Spencer. He is, or was, Diana's step-great grandfather with no bearing on her lineage.

All Diana's relatives can be traced further back than the Queen's. Frances Work was friendly with the Vanderbilts and Rothschilds but there is no suggestion that she was related to them, kind of like the photo of the Queen meeting a jew that you thinnk somehow makes her jewish.

edit: One day, I'm going to write all this out, check my memory on some of the lesser and more obscure Royals and on some of the commoners that have sneaked into the family tree, compile it all into an easy to read tree and post it. The amount of times this comes up is amazing.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.

Last edited by Bev; November 21st, 2010 at 04:56 AM.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #23
bob hayne
Junior Member
 
bob hayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 149
bob hayne
Default

According to Eric Thomson prince Charles was circumcised the the head Rabbi of London. I suspect loads of the 'upper' classes are jew, you just have to look at their semitic features. Prince William is probably more jew than Kate.

You have to judge by actions and the money grubbing mixed race antics of the royals shout jew to me. Don't give me any crap about getting married in a Christian church means that they can't be jews. Remember Jemima Goldsmith and Paki boy Kahn? She was jew but raised as a protestant - purely for social reasons so she could mix in with the goys a bit easier than if she had a full jew experience.

The jews don't give a fart about what stupid religion the goys adopt as long as it suits their interests. The jew tribe is blood not religion - never forget that.

The whole nest of them should be driven from our shores and a proper Aryan way of running things instituted.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #24
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Most of the Royal males have been circumcised - I think William and Henry were the first not to be because Diana was horrified by it. Many non-jews are circumcised as well. Circumcision is not evidence of judaism.

Quote:
You have to judge by actions and the money grubbing mixed race antics of the royals
I don't disagree. Look at Sarah Ferguson and the Count and Countess of Wessex, for instance. Greedy, name-dropping, money-obsessed parasites who have sold out their own relations to further themselves. But their behaviour doesn't make them jewish either.
Quote:
Don't give me any crap about getting married in a Christian church means that they can't be jews. Remember Jemima Goldsmith and Paki boy Kahn?
Nowadays, yes. This is true. The Church will marry anyone who has the money to pay for the service. Not then, it wasn't.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #25
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,833
andy
Default

Nevertheless, Bonnie Prince Charlie (and his descendants) are catholic and therefore can't have the throne anyway.
For what it is worth the Catholic Church holds that the Duke of Norfolk would be the King of England in a Catholic England. Norfolk is a direct descendent of Edward 1 the Stuarts are usually held up as the strongest claimants by malcontented sweaties and their allies.It would be absurd for a stuart to claim the throne of England in a Catholic England if a Duke of Norfolk was alive
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #26
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

I read a news story the other day that claimed Clegg was looking at changing the rules so that Royals can marry catholics. It's too late now for William, but if it comes to pass, then William's children could marry catholics and we could have a catholic on the throne. This would make for an interesting time if any descendant of the Duke of Norfolk (or Charlie) was alive.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #27
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,364
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
I haven't got access but I'm going to look into it now - that sounds very interesting. I read a lot about Jack when I was younger and was always convinced that it was either the Prince or his surgeon. But the fact that someone was actually picked out in an ID parade and that it was not pursued is very intriguing.
There are some reports from the Jewish Chronicle on this site here http://www.casebook.org/press_report...c19100311.html

Here's one example but there are more at that site.

Quote:
Jewish Chronicle
Friday, 11 March 1910


The "Jack the Ripper" Theory:

Reply by Sir Robert Anderson.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "JEWISH CHRONICLE."

SIR, - With reference to "Mentor's" comments on my statements about the "Whitechapel murders" of 1888 in this month's Blackwood, will you allow me to express the severe distress I feel that my words should be construed as "an aspersion upon Jews." For much that I have written in my various books gives proof of my sympathy with, and interest in, "the people of the Covenant"; and I am happy in reckoning members of the Jewish community in London among my personal friends.

I recognise that in this matter I said either too much or too little. But the fact is that as my words were merely a repetition of what I published several years ago without exciting comment, they flowed from my pen without any consideration.

We have in London a stratum of the population uninfluenced by religious or even social restraints. And in this stratum Jews are to be found as well as Gentiles. And if I were to describe the condition of the maniac who committed these murders, and the course of loathsome immorality which reduced him to that condition, it would be manifest that in his case every question of nationality and creed is lost in a ghastly study of human nature sunk to the lowest depth of degradation.


Yours obediently,
ROBERT ANDERSON.

We have thought well to send Sir Robert Anderson's letter to our contributor "Mentor" for his perusal of it prior to publication. "Mentor" deals with the letter in the "Communal Armchair" column. - Editor, JEWISH CHRONICLE.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN THE COMMUNAL ARMCHAIR.
THE RIPPER CRIMES AND SIR ROBERT ANDERSON.
By Mentor.

I have read the interview with a representative of the Globe which Sir Robert Anderson accorded that paper in order to reply to my observations upon what he said in Blackwood's Magazine concerning the Jack the Ripper crimes. The editor of the JEWISH CHRONICLE has also been so good as to send for my perusal Sir Robert Anderson's letter to him, which appears in these columns, on the same subject. With great deference to Sir Robert, it appears to me that he misses the whole point of my complaint against what he wrote. I did not so much object to his saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, though so particular a friend of our people would have been well-advised, knowing the peculiar condition in which we are situated, and the prejudice that is constantly simmering against us, had he kept the fact to himself. No good purpose was served by revealing it. It would have sufficed had he said that he was satisfied the murderer was discovered.

As I pointed out, the creature whom Sir Robert believes to have been the author of the heinous crimes was a lunatic - obviously his brain virulently diseased - so that if he was a Jew, however regrettable it may be that our people produced such an abnormality, in that there does not lie the aspersion. What I objected to - and pace Sir Robert Anderson's explanations still do - in his Blackwood article, is that Jews who knew that "Jack the Ripper" had done his foul deeds, shielded him from the police, and guarded him so that he could continue his horrible career, just because he was a Jew. This was the aspersion to which I referred and about which I notice Sir Robert says nothing. Of course, when Sir Robert says that the man he means was "proved" to be the murderer, and that upon that point he spoke facts, he also ignores the somewhat important matter that the man was never put upon his trial. Knowing what I do, I would hesitate to brand even such a creature as Sir Robert describes as the author of the Ripper crimes upon the very strongest evidence short of a conviction after due trial. I wonder whether the circumstance I am about to mention was brought to Sir Robert Anderson's notice.

Before the Ripper crimes took place there came into my hands a book which had been sent to me by the author, whom I had known since he was a little child. The book, if I remember aright, was printed by a provincial printer and was issued anonymously. The young man, whose first effort it was, had always been a strange, weird, dreamy sort of an individual. I confess that when I received it I merely glanced through its pages and wrote the writer something complimentary. I recollect that the story the book told appeared to me then to be mere extravagancies of a highly imaginative character, and seemed to have resulted from the author having dived deeper into the "Gehenna" of modern Babylon than was good for one of his years, especially as the "Gehenna" district he chose to explore was the most sordid and filthy it was possible to find. I put the book aside and though no more of it till the Ripper crimes were setting the town in panic. Then I recollected that its author had prophesied that such crimes would take place and gave details of happenings, in local, in method and in manner, which convinced me could not be accounted to the long arm of coincidence when they actually took place.

The very streets in which the murders took place, the exact class of victim are all set down with weird accuracy. I read the book carefully, I re-read it, and the more I studied it the more did the horrible conviction grow upon me that it was possible the young man who had written it - a young Jew - had become mad and that the author of the book might be the author of the Ripper crimes. I consulted a literary friend of mine of great experience and he said it was "impossible" - I remember his repeating the word three times, each with growing emphasis - "impossible" that anyone, especially a raw youth, should so accurately have forecasted such outrages by someone else. The home of my young acquaintance was in a northern town, and enquiries I set on foot elicited the fact that while the Ripper crimes were in progress he was away from his house - in London. Enquiry at his hotel brought me the news that he invariably went out late at night, and did not return till the small hours. I am afraid I had little doubt that my "theory" about the Whitechapel crimes was correct. I am happy to think I was quite wrong. I communicated to the Scotland Yard authorities all I knew - although I was a Jew and the one I suspected was a Jew too. I sent them the book. I took care to tell them that the youth had always been strange in manner. After some days the authorities assured me there was nothing in my "theory," and that they had convinced themselves that all that was in the book was purely imaginary and coincidental! I was naturally much relieved, though to this day my suspicion, formed I am bound to say upon some apparent substance, is a really painful memory. My only complaint against Scotland Yard in the matter was that they kept the book, and I could never get it from them or - from anyone else! But I believe a copy exists in one of our public libraries.


MENTOR
And how prophetic was this?

Quote:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...responses.html

Responses to the Ripper Murders: Letters to Old Jewry (1888-89)

L. Perry Curtis Jr.



...As for the small anti-Semitic contingent, by far the fiercest bigot was W. J. Smith of Red Lion Passage, Holborn, who blamed the murders on the influx of "foreigners" from Eastern Europe. Not only had the Jews taken jobs away from Englishmen but they were also spouting socialist or communist slogans and trampling on the rights of native-born citizens. If this trend continued, there would soon be no English people left and unless the government kicked these undesirables into the sea, "the City is doomed to destruction." Smith's tirade did not stop there. He called for ethnic cleansing by arson, in short a holocaust, by setting hundreds of fires in the East End, "at a given signal - say the sending up of a Balloon that could be seen all over London" (Oct. 9).
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #28
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
There are some reports from the Jewish Chronicle on this site here http://www.casebook.org/press_report...c19100311.html

Here's one example but there are more at that site.



And how prophetic was this?
That is a fantastic site! It's going to take me some time to read all that but it looks like it will be well worth it. I'm just reading this page about David Cohen - I rather fancy him for Jack, from what I've just read.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #29
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,364
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
That is a fantastic site! It's going to take me some time to read all that but it looks like it will be well worth it. I'm just reading this page about David Cohen - I rather fancy him for Jack, from what I've just read.
Yes, he might have been a Shochet gone mad.
Shechita Shechita


As you can see from this video they are very comfortable handling the sharpest of knives.

Don't worry there's nothing gruesome in the footage.

 
Old November 21st, 2010 #30
Ian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,208
Ian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
Nevertheless, Bonnie Prince Charlie (and his descendants) are catholic and therefore can't have the throne anyway.
For what it is worth the Catholic Church holds that the Duke of Norfolk would be the King of England in a Catholic England. Norfolk is a direct descendent of Edward 1 the Stuarts are usually held up as the strongest claimants by malcontented sweaties and their allies.It would be absurd for a stuart to claim the throne of England in a Catholic England if a Duke of Norfolk was alive
Can you provide a link for this?

The Duke of Norfolk is head of the Howard family, who, to my knowledge, have no less than eight branches with hereditary titles. One branch, the Lords Howard of Effingham, are Protestant.

As for Royal descent, I think Edward Tudor-Pole, one time punk singer Tenpole Tudor, has a claim through the Pole family who were the last Plantagenet survivors of the White faction of the late 1400s Wars of the Roses. The Poles, then De La Pole, had married Plantagenet. Joining the priesthood was a way to survive, and Cardinal Pole was Cardinal of England for Queen Mary. It has been claimed that he remonstrated with her against burning Protestants, without success.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #31
Ian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,208
Ian
Default

In the old days the people comprised of King, Lords, and Commons.

The King, and the Royal Family, were considered in some way Divinely appointed.

The Lords, and their aristocrat families, were profane. Aristocratic pretensions may have tried to hint at something else, but aristocrats were profane, not sacred.

This can be seen most tellingly in Scotland, and also Ireland. The Scottish aristocracy, descended from Dark Age clan chiefs is the oldest in the West. In the Gaelic language, aristocrats are termed 'mor', meaning 'great'. So the premier Scottish aristocrat, the Duke of Argyll, is the Cuillean Mhor - the Great Colin, as the head of the Campbells was called Colin in remote times, perhaps then a title rather than a name. The second in rank, the Duke of Montrose, is the Graeme Mor - the Great Graham, head of Grahams worldwide. The significance of this is that the Kings were called 'ard', meaning 'high'. So in Ireland the High King was Ardrhi, not 'mor'. The use of the different words 'ard' for the King, and 'mor' for the Duke, in my opinion shows how even in a very old culture, aristocracy was not sacred, whereas Kingship was Divinely sponsored.

The point of this is to show that aristocratic titled families, however old, do not have the same status as Royals.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #32
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Yes, he might have been a Shochet gone mad.Shochet


As you can see from this video they are very comfortable handling the sharpest of knives.

Don't worry there's nothing gruesome in the footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drKgw...eature=related
There was a convincing theory in one book I read that he was actually a butcher, rather than the surgeon everyone first thought, and I think Whitechapel had more than its fair share of jewish butchers/shochets didn't it? It would explain the apparent anatomical knowledge in the letters (if they were genuine) but lack of literacy that you'd expect from a surgeon.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #33
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,833
andy
Default By their fruits shall ye know them

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
In the old days the people comprised of King, Lords, and Commons.

The King, and the Royal Family, were considered in some way Divinely appointed.

The Lords, and their aristocrat families, were profane. Aristocratic pretensions may have tried to hint at something else, but aristocrats were profane, not sacred.

This can be seen most tellingly in Scotland, and also Ireland. The Scottish aristocracy, descended from Dark Age clan chiefs is the oldest in the West. In the Gaelic language, aristocrats are termed 'mor', meaning 'great'. So the premier Scottish aristocrat, the Duke of Argyll, is the Cuillean Mhor - the Great Colin, as the head of the Campbells was called Colin in remote times, perhaps then a title rather than a name. The second in rank, the Duke of Montrose, is the Graeme Mor - the Great Graham, head of Grahams worldwide. The significance of this is that the Kings were called 'ard', meaning 'high'. So in Ireland the High King was Ardrhi, not 'mor'. The use of the different words 'ard' for the King, and 'mor' for the Duke, in my opinion shows how even in a very old culture, aristocracy was not sacred, whereas Kingship was Divinely sponsored.

The point of this is to show that aristocratic titled families, however old, do not have the same status as Royals.
PLUS

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...0&postcount=31

equals

Cumbrian Ian who mails state sponsored spam to the email addresses of racial patriots and is a state asset
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #34
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,364
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
There was a convincing theory in one book I read that he was actually a butcher, rather than the surgeon everyone first thought, and I think Whitechapel had more than its fair share of jewish butchers/shochets didn't it? It would explain the apparent anatomical knowledge in the letters (if they were genuine) but lack of literacy that you'd expect from a surgeon.
....and also the throat cutting

There are a number of interesting books which have been republished describing the Jewish problem in London, and elsewhere.

One that I recommended is: The Alien Immigrant (1903) by William Eden Evans-Gordon, who was an MP.

This can be read online or downloaded here http://www.archive.org/details/alienimmigrant00evanuoft

It can also be purchased online:


Another recommended book is: England Under The Jews This was written by Joseph Banister and published in 1907. It is a vicious masterpiece of anti-Semitism which proves that there was a time when people knew perfectly well who the enemy was and didn't mind telling you.

You can ''have a look inside'' on Amazon to see it's for you

 
Old November 21st, 2010 #35
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

I've just read a bit of the Banister book and all I can say is I am amazed it is still on sale.

Amazon.com: England under the Jews (9780543766083): Joseph Banister: Books Amazon.com: England under the Jews (9780543766083): Joseph Banister: Books

Not surprisingly, Amazon recommended several other books on the same subject, but all polar opposites to the tone of this book.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #36
Ian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,208
Ian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
PLUS

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...0&postcount=31

equals

Cumbrian Ian who mails state sponsored spam to the email addresses of racial patriots and is a state asset
So what are these emails?

The comment you made earlier this year about Mike Newland was a bit strange. You said that the reported attack on him by 'anti-fascists' in the 1990s was done by queers he propositioned. The strange bit was you said on here that you made enquiries among the street people in that area.
That's the only time my path crossed with yours then, as I lived in the Borough of Camden and myself went round to attempt to see Newland at that time. He lived in Kentish Town, then a quite harshly respectable lower-middle skilled-working class area with quite a few hardline hard working Mediterranean families. Newland lived quite near Kentish Town Police Station. Street people were a rare sight in Kentish Town, although they were all over Camden Town a mile or so down the road. But the junkies etc. panhandling around the yuppies, students and tourists down there, would be unlikely to know the happenings in hardline respectable Kentish Town up the road. So you saying you made enquiries among the street people seemed a bit strange to me.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #37
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,171
Mike in Denver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post





It's okay--you don't have to show me your manhood.
Yeah! Scarlett Joahansson's mother is a Jew. Gwyneth Paltrow's father was a Jew. However, for a weekend in bed with either one of them, I'd turn traitor, learn Hebrew, and study the Talmud until my sideburns grew past my shoulders..

Mike
__________________
You have to remember I live in Denver and some things are perfectly legal here that aren't where you live.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #38
Ted Maul
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Denver View Post
Yeah! Scarlett Joahansson's mother is a Jew. Gwyneth Paltrow's father was a Jew. However, for a weekend in bed with either one of them, I'd turn traitor, learn Hebrew, and study the Talmud until my sideburns grew past my shoulders..

Mike
I wouldn't. Why are you proud of the Jews' success at turning men into sex-obsessed maniacs?
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #39
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,171
Mike in Denver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Maul View Post
I wouldn't. Why are you proud of the Jews' success at turning men into sex-obsessed maniacs?
I think you should lose your virginity before you comment. Oh! and just some advice: When you lose your virginity, try to make sure it's with a female.

Mike
__________________
You have to remember I live in Denver and some things are perfectly legal here that aren't where you live.
 
Old November 21st, 2010 #40
Ted Maul
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Denver View Post
I think you should lose your virginity before you comment. Oh! and just some advice: When you lose your virginity, try to make sure it's with a female.

Mike
When you've stopped masturbating over pictures of Jewish women, make another comment.

No wonder white nationalism is so unsuccessful. Are you sure you're on the right forum? Perhaps when you marry some hook-nosed sheeny, you can parade all your little Jewlets in front of Alex Linder. Here's a tip though, make sure it's female.

Ted
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 AM.
Page generated in 0.22421 seconds.