|
November 21st, 2010 | #21 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: high rainfall coastal strip of the White Continent nation
Posts: 3,602
|
nomination for kookiest paranoid on the internets
Quote:
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. |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #22 | ||
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 05:56 AM. |
||
November 21st, 2010 | #23 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 149
|
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. |
November 21st, 2010 | #24 | ||
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
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:
Quote:
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote. |
||
November 21st, 2010 | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
|
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 |
November 21st, 2010 | #26 |
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
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. |
November 21st, 2010 | #27 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
|
Quote:
Here's one example but there are more at that site. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
November 21st, 2010 | #28 | |
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
Quote:
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote. |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,237
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,237
|
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. |
November 21st, 2010 | #32 | |
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
Quote:
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote. |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
|
By their fruits shall ye know them
Quote:
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 |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
|
Quote:
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 |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #35 |
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
I've just read a bit of the Banister book and all I can say is I am amazed it is still on sale.
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. |
November 21st, 2010 | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,237
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #37 |
Enkidu
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,297
|
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
__________________
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon" |
November 21st, 2010 | #38 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 630
|
I wouldn't. Why are you proud of the Jews' success at turning men into sex-obsessed maniacs?
|
November 21st, 2010 | #39 | |
Enkidu
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,297
|
Quote:
Mike
__________________
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon" |
|
November 21st, 2010 | #40 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 630
|
Quote:
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 |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|